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?

Truegent is that your only reason for thinking teachers are better in private schools, that the salaries can be altered?

Were

"97% of DC attend state schools and the vast majoirty are not living without a clean quiet space to revise or without access to internet or without parents who can read and write."

Which is why targeting pupil premium kids has to be the way forward.

As a forces child I would have been a pp kid,I had a sah former primary teacher mother.

As has been pointed out several times focusing on pp kids just penalises those just above and in the middle.There are only so many places,where do you think the places allocated to pp will come from?I'm pretty sure it won't be from the Eton educated kids at the top but those just on the threshold at the bottom of the list which going by your logic would be the poorer state educated kids.

A policy like this lets the gov off the hook,does little to help,perhaps also drives down standards.Unis have to compete in a global market now.

"97% of DC attend state schools"

This is NOT true. In fact it is only 82% when considering the 16+ age group, and it's not 97% for any age (although it is in certain areas of the country).

www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-rejecting-oxbridge-isnt-clever--its-a-mistake-6292041.html

I just assumed it was a typo for the usually accepted 93% and didn't think it was worth making an issue of.

93% is true across age 5-18 (16?) but the are more at private school at senior level than junior, and more at A Level than junior. Also there will be more in England than Britain as a whole.

So 93% is the correct figure for children state educated in the UK. Glad we agree.

Would these students also need support during their course?

I think saying 'state schools' does cover a wide variation in quality of schools/teaching/schievements. A 'failing' school one year could well be 'good' or 'outstanding' a few years down the line.

Relatives in teaching have told me that they feel that the better teachers are actually in the state sector. Now, the facilies and behaviour/class sizes are genetally better in private (although the state school my godson attends is fantastic - science labs, swimming pool, gym, library...).

"So 93% is the correct figure for children state educated in the UK. Glad we agree."

No don't agree at all, because a significantly higher proportion that that are in fact educated private school. If you go to state primary school than off to £20k/year private school before moving on to Oxbridge, you are fundamentally a private school pupil.

93% of all children being educated at any school at any single point in time, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Having taught in both state (quite rough ones at that) and indie schools I can see why kids from tough backgrounds who do well at their state school will prosper more at uni where learning has to be more independent and the playing round is levelled a tad.

Having been one of those students from a really deprived background I fought hard to be able to stay to 6th form and complete my a levels. My father wanted me to bring board into the home so I was working part time throughout my studies. Studying wasn't made easy for me due to some honestly terrible teachers, poor facilities including no library and an anti education ethos at home.

I would say regardless of what changes are made to schools to help pupils from deprived backgrounds nothing will level things for students. The government can throw thousands at schools to help poorer kids but the real changes have to be in the home. I don't know what the answer is but to go back to the original question about lowering entry requirements for poorer students going into the top unis I can see why this might be fairer but it's incredibly patronising.

The answers are:

Allow all schools to set their own entrance criteria (including selection by ability if they wish);
Give all parents a 'voucher' to the value of £XXXX (whatever the average spend per pupil is) and allow them to 'top up' with their own money to buy a place;
Revert to normal distribution marking - top 10% of a cohort get an A, next 10% a B and so on.

Sit back and watch the market drive up standards.

Aga you're right.

It's about 80% state educated post 16.

However, does that figure include all those students taking vocational courses which probably won't lead on to tertiary education?

I don't know. It says here 14% of A Level students are at private school. www.independentschoolparent.com/choosing-a-school/why-choose-an-independent-school No source though.

"The answers are:

Allow all schools to set their own entrance criteria (including selection by ability if they wish);
Give all parents a 'voucher' to the value of £XXXX (whatever the average spend per pupil is) and allow them to 'top up' with their own money to buy a place;
Revert to normal distribution marking - top 10% of a cohort get an A, next 10% a B and so on.

Sit back and watch the market drive up standards."

And the kids whose parents don't care and who nobody wants? What are they, collateral damage?

Because I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country with an increasingly disaffected underclass. Pure unenlightened self interest should make us do everything we can to help underprivileged kids achieve.

If all schools set their own education criteria, wouldn't that leave about a third of the population of children wandering the streets? Who is going to choose to be the school which takes children with difficulties?

But kids with parents that don't care are in all classes.

"But kids with parents that don't care are in all classes."

Absolutely. Did I say otherwise? But half my sentence was missing.

"The kids whose parents don't care, and those whose parents don't understand the system and don't know how to engage with it and the kids that nobody wants."

Again across all classes including those just over pp who miss out on the benefits pp can give.

Maybe- but disproportionately among those who attract pupil premium. However hard the "I'm all right Jack" brigade would try to convince us otherwise.

What about odd situations like mine? Single parent family, no help from father; neither parents went to university; grandfather on one sides coal miner and on the other a farm labourer. I got a scholarship to a private school and my mum worked her butt off to keep me there.

I had no choice in going to the school (I begged and cried not to go) but my mum insisted it would give me the best start in life. It did give me a great start, with excellent grades, but I wouldn't have chosen it for myself. Should I be punished for the determined efforts of my mother, who meant well but was poorly educated and had a horrible experience of the state system herself - and so fervently believed she was doing the right thing?

It's not about punishing you, it's about accepting that you had more help to get those grades than some other students who are also applying

Hakluyt - I admire your honest reference to self-interest there.

What about those children whose parents don't care? What about them indeed?

Why should a system be designed for the benefit of those at the bottom (of interest levels, income, intelligence, ambition - take your pick) from themselves? Why can't it be designed in the interests of those in the middle? (Because those at the top will always be okay).

Igggi - if money follows the pupil, some will have to take pupils to remain viable. If they don't, they go to the wall and their pupils would be taken by nearby schools keen to gain the extra funding.

The whole point if tertiary education is that it is (was?) for those at the top. This is the top of ability, though. It does not necessarily correspond to best results to date. Of course the process does have to be transparent and fair but universities have every right to select someone they believe to have true ability in a subject over someone who has had an amazing education and has managed good grades but with little demonstration of genuine intuition or interest. How they do that is up to them. I think interviews can work well, personally.