To think - yes, universities should take state school applicants with lower grades

[Lemiserableoldgimmer]

.. than applicants from private and grammar schools, on the basis that this new research suggests that as a group, state school pupils appear to be more able than private school applicants with identical A level and GCSE grades. More likely to get a good degree, less likely to drop out.

here

What do you think?

The article I posted says that all but 5 RG unis (of which there are more than 20) haven't met government 'benchmarks' on widening participation. This suggests most of them don't have this as a priority, compared with increasing income etc.

One of the biggest problems of widening participation is not just the grades, it is that private school pupils are much better advised on what subjects to take to secure places at top unis, state school pupils are often allowed to take choices which effectively rule them out of many courses and institutions. Private schools know which the 'acceptable' subjects are say for medicine, engineering, and the sciences and don't let their students scupper themselves before they start (e.g. by dropping Further Maths).

" 150 places in his subject and 80 have to be given to State school pupils perhaps? Is that really not feasible?"

No. Because he categorically stated that he had a quota he had to fill, rather than a target he had to aim at. Very different things indeed

He talked about 'targets' specifically not quotas but I take your point.

"Private schools know which the 'acceptable' subjects are say for medicine, engineering, and the sciences and don't let their students scupper themselves before they start (e.g. by dropping Further Maths)."

Surely the question should be why state schools don't do this as well? It can't be an issue of they don't know, so why are they misadvising their pupils?

I really hate the idea of social engineering on this level. I'd much prefer to go back to grammar schools and the eleven plus, though that had its flaws of course. I hate the idea that high-achieving poor children might fall by the wayside in state education, because their parents can't afford a private school (and thus secure superior teaching and opportunities). I can see why people think that messing around with the grades is the answer, but it really isn't. As do that, why not simply bump up the grades of all state students... you get an extra 10% added to your mark if your state school is average, an extra 20% if it's struggling, an extra 30% if it's in a really bad area etc. No-one would think that was fair, but it's essential the same thing. It's just a sticking plaster on all that's wrong with our education system.

Disclaimer: After being an overachiever at my tiny state primary school, I went to an excellent private school, on a government assisted place (we were very poor). I got excellent results at GCSE and A Level. I went to an excellent university after receiving six offers in my final year at school. I then messed around and got a 2.1 degree because I no longer had anyone pushing me to do my best, and I suddenly had freedom from a high-pressure environment. I was a little mortified by my 2.1, and went on to get a distinction at MA then a PhD, before moved into publishing.

My brother, meanwhile, equally intelligent but completely without motivation of any sort, went to state school, messed up his GCSEs and A Levels, couldn't be arsed with university so worked in a factory for several years. He then managed to get an office job, moved into IT, became a consultant and earned about twice as much as I do, working from home and choosing his hours.

What lesson to take from this, I don't know...

Who cares. Places will be given to Chinese who pay inflated rates even if they can barely speak English.

Really do not love 11 Plus as a solution. My mum passed her 11 Plus (in England) and went to the local girls' grammar school. It was a route to her being the first person in her family to go to university. However my dad failed his (in Scotland) went to a school where all he can remember is people shouting at him. He left school at 14 to start work and while he worked his way up, he still bears a grudge that he was essentially written off at 11. I don't think it's going to improve social mobility while we have large underlying issues.

Tuscon I never cease to be both amazed and furious at the misinformation or lack of information provided by many state schools.

The insistence that all qualifcations have equivalence is alive and well...

Gosh. How interesting. I had no idea anybody would think this was a bad idea!

I teach in a VERY deprived inner London comp. We have, this year, got our first ever child into Cambridge. He is also, to my knowledge, our first ever child to apply.

We have another eight students with offers from RG universities. All of them are either lower offers or, the kids have been given an offer without any extra curricular activites.

Two years ago we had a child who'd been through the care system accepted by kings to do medicine. He definitely did not have three As.

All of those kids will excell. They've managed to get to that stage with inconsistent teaching, class sizes of 32, lots of disruption due to behavioural problems. They also wob't have a parent who's been to university, will have EAL and probably exist on benefits. They have already got to this stage against the odds. I'd say they're a gift to the universities!

shockingly the writing off of people at 11 is the huge issue with the 11 plus... I completely agree. One option to try to remedy is to offer repeated opportunities for people to move into the grammar school system at 13,14 and 16. But that only works if the non-grammar school education is good enough for kids who bloom later to be able to catch up

I certainly don't think secondary moderns were a good thing, but state schools are meant to be considerably better than that. In theory, anyway. In fact, I kind of feel that at the moment, practically everyone who goes to state schools get written off at 11 anyway, with the exception of the few really good schools, usually in great areas and filled with middle class kids. Is that any better?

curious contextualised offers have been an agree part of university life for a long time.

The applicants you are talking about received such offers and should and will continue to do so.

But what is being suggested on this thread is a system whereby an applicant from state school (no matter how good the school and how advanataged the applicant) recieve blanket lower offers.

This can't be good!

Basically, I don't know what the answer is... I just don't think that offering lower grades to state school students is the answer.

"I really hate the idea of social engineering on this level. I'd much prefer to go back to grammar schools and the eleven plus"

How on earth would that help!

"Basically, I don't know what the answer is... I just don't think that offering lower grades to state school students is the answer."

Obviously not. But offering lower grades to pupil premium pupils might well be a bit of an answer.

I think this is a ridiculous idea.The students are not 10 year olds they are 17 and 18
.They are old enough to hunt down books,revision guides, online resources, past papers, mark schemes.All these things are cheap or free
They should not expect to be spoonfed by their school.

Grammar schools were fantastic, the problem was with the secondary moderns. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater was the problem. We need Grammar schools and other schools teaching vocational subjects, not vainly trying to force academic subjects onto kids who have absolutely no interest or aptitude in it.

"I think this is a ridiculous idea.The students are not 10 year olds they are 17 and 18
.They are old enough to hunt down books,revision guides, online resources, past papers, mark schemes.All these things are cheap or free
They should not expect to be spoonfed by their school."

OK- so then we have to make sure that pupils in private schools and grammar schools have to do it by themselves too. No help from parents, uncles and aunts, older cousins and siblings at university, teachers...........if one group should not expect to be spoonfed then neither should any other.

TheWordFactory- who has suggested that though? I don't agree with that, I agree with the contextualised offer system already in place, but which some people are surprised exists. The research didn't suggest it either. The only place that it could be suggested is that the government require unis to show what they are doing to widen participation and increase access but they don't suggest which measure to use, for example, you might use free school meals or postcodes as measures of disadvantage. I very much doubt most unis think all state school pupils are disadvantaged- I know mine has an internal ranking system that would offend many but is based loosely on average GCSE/A level scores.

Surely the question should be why state schools don't do this as well? It can't be an issue of they don't know, so why are they misadvising their pupils? The reason is partly league tables, so state schools 'look better' if their pupils get say an A in tourism whereas that pupil may not have got an A in a subject like maths or physics. Secondly, they may not know about this, just as they don't in general put on Oxbridge classes and use their knowledge of the system to make sure students are on an equal footing with those in the private system. They tend to allow students to choose what subjects they want, ending up in strange combinations which then mean they can't do certain subjects at uni, whereas private schools are prepared to be more prescriptive as they know their RG/Oxbridge entrance figures (which is what a lot of private school parents look at, not general A level scores) would be scuppered by this free for all.

Yabu, this whole idea is just rotten imo. There are so many variables within both sectors. I went to a state school, or 'school', as we called it. It was totally normal, hard work was rewarded, brighter kids went to uni etc.

Thats what schools do, isnt it? I'm already massively advantaged by having educated, engaged parents. No survey required, we all know how key that is. Should my grades from my school have been lowered because it wasn't private?

It's a crazy idea.

We have grammar schools where I live.

A local stand up comedian brought the house down by saying "if your kids have friends at the grammar school, make sure you have sat nav and snow tyres"

The implication being that very many grammar school pupils live in big houses in the country.............

The biggest advantage kids can have is to have parents who are supportive of their education. And that isn;t something that the government can overcome.

We all know that education is not a level playing field.

Currently those with resources (in different forms) get a significant advantage. This is a form of social engineering, one in which privilege can be reserved for an elite.

The question is, for me, how to try and reduce the inequalities. What saddens me is that so many people argue that trying to address inequality is taking social engineering too far

Tucson girl, you are right, but in the absence of supportive parents, smaller class sizes, better extra curricular provision and homework support clubs offered by schools for free would go some way to bridging the gap.

can someone explain why grammar school pupils should be discriminated against for being naturally clever?

So if you have 2 towns .Town G has a GS and takes (say) 10% of the cohort, Area C has a comprehensive system.So assuming that everything else in our hypothetical towns is equal, why should the top 10% of pupils in C school not have to achieve the same grades as the pupils in town Gs grammar school?

Agree Lemiserableoldgimmer but all that can be done without cheating another applicant of a place. It just costs money.

By contrast downgrading another applicant's efforts is free and therefore popular with Governments. Please don't encourage them.