to not get the whole "children from comprehensives work harder to get the grades"

[Ohjustshootmenow]

An exam is an exam, right?

violet- it's just not that simple though is it? Of course they want ability but they also need people who have learned something in the previous 17 years. Whether that comes as a product of a child's environment (attentive parenting, good school etc) or because the young person is so superlative that they have essentially done it on their own (eg Margaret Forster or my university friend) is largely irrelevant at the interview stage. You can't catch up 13 years of frank educational neglect in 3 or 4 years of university. So it follows that the young people who make to Oxbridge from challenged environments are almost certainly superlative- way better than most of the young people with plenty of support- as they are largely self-taught.

And ime only 2-3 per years have the qualities to make them superlative, yes. Many others have the unexploited ability. These superlative ones will be alongside many others at Oxbridge who are merely or partly a product of their environment. You can't blame them for it- that's what most parents do- deploy their resources to further their childrens' chances. Having said that there are superlative ones at private schools as well. My experience is that generally there are only 2-3 per year as well, and they don't do much or any better than the superlative state school ones. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are very few superlative children able to make it alone. Most need at least a nudge in the right direction. And that's where parenting and school come in.

And no, top sets do not exclusively contain top grade motivated pupils- they contain the top set in that particular school. And I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that their ability is very different from school to school depending on what the average expectation of pupils in that school is. Most bright children are happy just to be a bit better than what they see around them. Only very few mind standing out to the extent that they fulfill their potential regardless (my category A above).

Absolutely they need at least a nudge in the right direction. My point is simply that the vast majority of state schools are not the dire pits that some people like to paint them as. Yes, they have larger classes and often fewer resources than private schools, and yes, there is less spoon feeding and more emphasis on self motivation- which is why the intention is to level things up so that universities are using more accurate measures for entry. At the end of the day, if a pupil from a state school with a B grade has greater innate intelligence and capacity to learn than a private school counterpart with an A grade, then surely it makes sense for the university to recognise that? This is about ensuring the right students get onto the right courses. In the wider world of university and beyond, its intelligence, ability to learn independently, plus a whole host of other qualities which really matter anyway

Fwiw I don't agree with the title of this thread either- because I don't think its about pupils from comprehensives working harder.

But I do think the principle of universities acknowledging that GCSE and A level grades in themselves are not necessarily true indicators of a persons ability to gain a high degree and be successful in the wider world,is absolutely right.

I guess for parents who have spent a huge chunk of their income for years on school fees, they perhaps feel a bit pissed off about this though.

'Sorry, by the time A levels are being studied those not interested in the subject have opted put. You're left with a self-selecting cohort who've chosen to be there. Why, if teachers are as good as they are in the independent sector, as we are told they are, can't this children be expected to do well'

Ahahahahahaha.

Not really, no. In my sixth form college, this is absolutely not the case. For a start, many turn up simply to receive their EMA and have little or no interest in the subject. Also, there is the question of calibre of students. Some sixth forms insist you have a B or even an A at GCSE to continue the subject to A level. Others, such as the one I work at, only ask for a C. Obviously, someone who got an A at GCSE is going to (generally) do better than someone who, in reality, only achieved the national benchmark in the subject.

Then there are the whole host of socio-economic reasons outlined above by many others.