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?

Welsh- probably a good idea to look at the situation as it is now, rather than as it was when you were at school, yes?

It should be on ability and merit not social status

Replying to a few other messages, I agree with nicename that it's not cut and dried, but this is about universities trying to do their best with limited information. It is absolutely not about penalising applicants because they are rich or went to a good school; it is about trying to work out the life advantages some applicants may have over others, which may mean their potential is over-stated, on the information available. Which is why I think an interview is a much better means of selection than using the form and grades alone - the more information you have, the better.

Hakluyt, nothing's changed at my old school, or at my husband's. My anecdotal evidence is no better and no worse than yours!

Surely children who went to a state school in special measures should get priority over a child whose mummy and daddy could afford the premium on the house next to an excellent state school?

candy

Judging by this thread, yes.

Reality is, the excellent state schools have quotas to fill and often the child in the school in special measures could have gone there too.

of course there are poor children at private schools, Hakluyt.

My local private school publishes a list of fees to be paid according to income and with a household income of £19,000pa the fees would be £201 per year. I'm sure it is not unique amongst private schools.

YANBU - from the point of view of the universities, if you're looking at a state school educated and privately educated kid, both with same A level results, the state school one's probably brighter/had to work harder and is therefore more able to benefit from a university education.

"My local private school publishes a list of fees to be paid according to income and with a household income of £19,000pa the fees would be £201 per year. I'm sure it is not unique amongst private schools."

I think it might well be!

If schools and socioeconomic backgrounds are taken into consideration, then it's not acceptable to lower the eligibility criteria to all state schools. After all, a child at a grammar school has a huge advantage over a child at a school in special measures. I would support that but not a general rule that implies that all state educated children need an extra boost. Those at a super selective grammar school should have no problems competing against their privately educated peers.

"It should be on ability and merit not social status"

That's exactly the point. This new research has found that students coming to university from state schools as a group perform better than students with similar A level grades from private schools. This suggests that A level results are not as reliable an indicator of ability and potential as might be hoped, because they are influenced by education spend at secondary and primary.

candy - the research compared children coming from comprehensives with children coming from academically selective (including grammar) and private schools.

"The single most accurate indicator of academic achievement is parental income. There are no children from poor backgrounds at private schools."

No it's not.

It's the academic achievement of the mother, and the level of involvement by the parents.

Haklutyt is telling the truth.

At the school I went to, there were pupils who were looked after children (that is Scottish speak for pupils in care) and we also took on a large proportion of pupils who had been expelled. A pal of mine was a talented art student. She missed her Standard Grade art exam because her mother, a heroin addict, was having a bad day and said she would slit her wrists if my pal wasn't there to sit with her. She balanced those things and decided not to sit the exam.

For kids who have to worry about stuff like that, wouldn't it be important to take it into account?

It's the academic achievement of the mother, and the level of involvement by the parents.

OP My mother's academic achievement was low, because when she reached 17 (in 1942) she was being brought up by rellies who saw no value in girls' education; I'm not having a go at them, they were people of their own time, born in the 1880s.

My father's academic achievement was multiple degrees, including an external doctorate earned after he lost his sight; and the sort of linguistic ability (and corkscrew mind) which made him one of the crackers of the Enigma.

My academic achievement was not in that class but it was high and higher than my mother's. They were both heavily involved in my education.

So I take exception to your formulation which is sexist. I suggest that it's the academic achievement of the higher-achieving parent, if both are around, and of the one who is if one is not, and the level of involvement of whichever parent or parents is or are around.

If we know that A Levels are not a reliable indicator of ability, then we need to look at the admissions criteria for university; not further unlevelling the playing field.

Hmmm. Maybe we shouldn't lower expectations for state schooled applications but raise the bar for private and grammar schooled applications?

Candcoatedwaterdrops Forgive me if I have trouble seeing the difference.

Does anyone else think that asking applicants about their parents' educational and work background is impertinent and a breach of their privacy?

candycoatedwaterdrops Forgive me also for the typo in your nickname.

So I take exception to your formulation which is sexist

That isn't gimmer's personal formulation. It is a statistic produced by research.

Obviously no statistic holds up against individual anecdotes.

I've not read all the thread but was incensed by a post which said state school children were more likely to be stacking shelves in Tesco on a weekend rather than go on a D of E trek! Surely the fact that they are holding down a job and getting continuous work experience is just as important as D of E? And in my daughter's case she has managed to do both ...she has bronze and silver Dof E plus works in Argos at weekends. The sad fact is,we can't afford to give her money so she has to work. Can't see why she will be at any disadvantage for that when applying to Uni...doesn't it show initiative and perseverence?

Andrew To gain an overall higher caliber of students.

jam it is true though. State school kids might be doing D of E but they're likely to have Saturday jobs in a shop or supermarket too.

I was relatively recently one of those kids.

And neither a Saturday job or DofE makes a blind bit of difference to university applications.

candycoatedwaterdrops In that case they should prefer the children of highly educated people, but I don't think that's why those questions are asked.

As a matter of principle it is wrong. The questions should be about the applicants and nobody else.