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?

I'm part of the widening access scheme for Oxbridge and my colleagues feel very strongly that contextualised offers should be made on a case by case basis. And those contextualised offers should still expect a high level of achievement. It is the responsibility of state schools to improve, not the responsibilty of universites to bridge the gap.

YANBU
I taught in a standard comprehensive; my 3 DCs are at selective secondaries. The experience they're getting is completely different. It's not so much that the teachers are better, but being educated in small classes of peers who all feel doing homework is cool and want to go to university, who's parents all value education.
I'm certain that my dcs would be getting completely different grades if they were at state schools.

It can often be worth a Uni student planning their year in industry, normally year 3, being in a company where they can apply for work there after graduating.

My company offers lots of industrial placements to students, which gets them front of the queue for graduate scheme placements. And believe me, I have seen a mixed bag of industrial placement students, they aren't all AGraders! If you have an outgoing confident personality, it really helps, it's as much about fitting in as it is about academic qualifications.

Too many students don't demonstrate sufficient initiative, or think about "what can I personally contribute, how am I unique and can fill a gap that they would find difficult to fill elsewhere". But the ones who shine, I think, wow you're going places. And they arent necessarily private school educated either!

"peers who all feel doing homework is cool"

You know, this one always amuses me. Really? Teenagers? Homework? Cool???
Teenagers who mostly get on with it, of course. But I think that even in selective schools you have the normal amount of moaning and groaning. And a lot of the working hard but pretending not to ethos as well.

Help our local selectives have classes of over 30 due to funding cuts.

Also re supportive peers kids are streamed in comps so the brightest often will be working with kids who also think homework is cool.That said two of my dc would never think homework was cool even if they went to Eton.

Not sure it's only selectives which have parents who value education.

Hak- YY to the 'omg I've done no revision', but more texts flying between them asking for clarification about hw.

retro of course not. But if every child in a school is there because their parents have jumped through hoops and chosen it, then the parents as a group are more vocal about demanding continuity and adequate resources.
Remember, I'm supporting lower grade requirements for state school pupils as ime a child who gets As and A* from a state school is almost certainly brighter and more of a self starter than my spoon fed little darlings in their classes of under 20 for most subjects and as low as 7 in others.

All it will mean is more pupils from de facto private schools like Holland Park will be able to go to university even with mediocre A-levels. It won't do a think for pupils from schools in really poor areas. The dumbing down of education has to come to an end becuase it is doing tremendous harm to us as a country already.

Tucson there isn't an admissions officer in the country that hasn't heard of Holland Park!

I think they were talking about discriminating against all high achieving comps too- thus destroying any point re schools working hard to get good results.

And calmet?

Perhaps my year were just brighter than your class 30 years before?

I thought the top state schools were included which is why the whole thing is ridiculous.

Surely it would be better to pump money,resources and good career advice into the lower state schools in order to make them as good.

Otherwise a few kids who have had fsm in the last 6 years or parents in the forces coupled with rich kids in private or those who have bought places to the top comps via property will push out those equally as deserving in the middle.

Thought this was an interesting piece of research. It shows that those who go to medical school from non-selective schools outperform those from selective schools in first year exams.

careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20015863

Along with the other research already mentioned, it does seem to indicate that it would be unfair to look only at the A-level exam grades of those wishing to study medicine and not the context in which those grades were achieved.

There are disadvantaged children in all sections of society.

Don't they have a quota? I have seen admissions tutors mentioning that they can only take so many from the private sector, they also have a quota for international students and state school applicants. Many have to take more from the state sector already I think regardless of grades.

"Don't they have a quota? I have seen admissions tutors mentioning that they can only take so many from the private sector,"

I would be amazed if this is true.

But disadvantaging others more for a few in order to make a gov look better and let them off the hook re making things better for more is madness.

"But disadvantaging others more for a few in order to make a gov look better and let them off the hook re making things better for more is madness."

I don't think it's either/or. You seem to be expecting schools to counteract the handicap a disadvantaged background imposes on some children- when much of the damage has been done before a child gets to primary school, rather than secondary.

A child from a disadvantaged background who gets to within spitting distance of a university place needs all the help and encouragement they can possible get. And that chiild's AAB show much more commitment and motivation than my child's 3 As.

There is no quota set from outside, though some universities set targets for themselves. Obviously Oxbrige come under a lot of scrutiny, however, their ratios of state/private are better than LSE, Imperial, UCL, Bristol...

Comment from the BBC article: A Point of View the case for not leaving education to the teachers.

As an admissions tutor for a Russell group University, I have 150 or so undergraduate places on offer each academic year. Of those 150, 80 are reserved for state schools under current government targets, 10 are reserved for independent schools, while 60 places are available for overseas students. To make my targets for state schools, I have to reduce the offer for those candidates. Insofar as overseas candidates are concerned, I reject about 100 candidates who on paper far exceed the qualifications of the state school candidates. So I am obliged to admit students on the basis of government targets rather than ability. The above might be fine, save the fact that overseas students pay £18,500 per annum and work hard. My experience of many UK students is that they complain about the fees that they pay and don't work as hard nor do they have the same level of knowledge. The above problem has much to do with attitudes as the obstacle rather than government, businessmen and/or teachers. One attitude to change, which the above article fails to acknowledge - is that we in the UK are no longer world leaders. Perhaps we should now look over our shoulder at those successful nations and observe how their governments, teachers and parents deliver education.

Langley, London

I have heard this elsewhere, is Langley being untruthful here about quotas/targets do we think? Honest question, I am no expert.

But children with AABs in the middle or just over or even from the top schools may show much more achievement,commitment and motivation for a whole host of reasons.Shit happens to all regardless of what you have and making it harder for those just over pp or in the middle etc (which it will if there are less places to apply for) doesn't make anything better for those facing a difficult time.

A child just over pp or even in the middle with unsupportive parents or those going through a divorce,illness,at a shite school,being bullied etc will be just as deserving imvho as those under.

The best schools will just raise the bar regardless so you are just shuffling the places around for those not in them.

And the Tories can then crow- "we're getting more disadvantaged children into uni"

No you just shuffled places.