To scream, "Your Private School Children Are Not Being Discriminated Against at Uni"

[Triffid1]

Between work and social I seem to have a pretty diverse group of people who I engage with regularly but as my DC are at an age where we're thinking about high schools, there have been quite a few conversations around this recently. I have now had not one but THREE separate conversations with parents who are planning to send their children to private schools who have expressed concern that it might "disadvantage" them because the universities are prioritising state school children.

Clearly, every time someone says this, I immediately move them further down the pile of people I want to hang out with. But why is this so prevalent? Yesterday, talking with a client on Zoom, where he was ringing from his lovely home office in his leafy suburb of London I didn't actually know what to even say but I wanted to yell, "FFS, if there's a small shift so that the small number of private school children don't get the majority of places at the top universities, you'll have to live with it." Instead I simply changed the subject politely. Argh.

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

@HeddaGarbled

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

Indeed!

@BungleandGeorge

Whilst some children are disadvantaged, I honestly don’t believe they would all suddenly get better grades if they changed school. The teachers at state schools are mostly pretty good and the rest is down to student motivation and the environment provided by parents. I’d say the most crucial thing is the parents and the really deprived are those without support and resource at home.

My dc got all 9’s apart from one 8 in a very mixed ability state school.

To me this is an excellent achievement, especially in view of the fact that in some classes, especially the ones that weren’t set on ability, there could often be a fair bit of disruption and behaviour issues.

In fact, in one, apparently very few wanted to be there and it was not cool to be clever or hardworking.

To be able to overcome this and still achieve, in my opinion, is worth more than if we’d paid for a private education. Yes the grades may have been the same.

@Lollipop444 absolutely and a good system should recognise such examples of exceptional performance and character strength.

When people talk about ‘buying privilege’ it’s as if they imagine a family saying, “oh look, we’ve got the money so let’s just send him to St Paul’s.”

I mean, I’d people have any idea?

There is no such think as buying a place at a top school any more than you can rock up at Cambridge and buy a place there. No amount of money will make these schools take your child if they don’t get into the top x% of applicants. Doesn’t matter what you do. Yes there are tutors and a whole money-making racket out there, but you can only do so much with an 11 year old. You can’t ‘buy’ underlying ability. Many of the schools use CAT tests now because they want to assess underlying ability, rather than learned ability.

So yes, they are privileged to have the opportunity in the first place, of course. But 90% will be rejected at 11 (or 7 or 13). You can only ‘buy privilege’ if they let your child in!

Su when schools can literally cherry pick their students, they don’t actually have to be educational wizards to get the results they do. The students largely do it on their own. It’s no magic formula that state schools are missing. Nor is it any surprise that students with IQs of 130 plus are more likely to apply to university. No shit Sherlock. These students are in every school, but in some schools they are the entire cohort.

Less (or even non) selective independents tend to be extremely hit and miss. You are at the mercy of the governing body so be careful. Some schools hold in to teachers who aren’t fit to teach because they’re all friends and support each other’s weird ways. Sometimes the class sizes aren’t that much smaller than in state schools. Other times they are too small so that it limits options (eg if only two students want to take psychology they just won’t run that course).

Independents schools vary massively - between sleepy preps v superselectives or urban schools v traditional ‘big names.’ Not to mention that some schools are boarding! Whole other ball game. I would say, independent schools vary more than state, so to lump all those students together as “they are this” or “they do that” is beyond ridiculous. Imagine doing that to any other group in society.

@bogoffmda

Sorry some of the loathing of children just because they go to a private school on here is pathetic.

I have one in state and one in private - for different reasons and it suits each one for what they are.

"I would take a state school educated over a private school educated child in a heart beat" - really how about looking at the individual rather than relaying your inherent hatred of something which at the end of the day they had no control over.

My state school child will get better grades than my private school child - because they are more intelligent. Private child will do better than they would have in a state school - smaller classes, more focus etc.

I was not educated in this country and the hatred of the private sector in this country is beyond my comprehension. We all want the best for our kids - different mechanisms.

At the end of the day I want my doctor to make the grade and not have an excuse that they did not go to the right school and were thus disadvantaged and that is why they screwed up my diagnosis.

I agree with you 100%. I'm not from the UK, but am shocked at how resentful (and dare I say jealous) the Brits are with people who are successful.

Do what's best for your child and family. There's no need to begrudge people for having more money than you.

I'm from a poor family in Asia but I have worked very hard to move to this country to give my child a good private education. I hold the British education system in such high regard but have always been puzzled by the general laziness and lack of drive and motivation in this country - could this be the reason why the poorer kids are not inclined to push themselves?

I find this all very strange as in Asia poor families motivate and advise our children to aspire to be like the doctors, lawyers etc who are earning more and providing well for their family. Maybe encourage your state educated child to work very hard, get a good job so that someday he can provide his family with the best opportunities- essentially break the cycle of poverty in order to elevate the socio economic status of the next generation. That's what we do and it works.

Wealth is not a sin. Laziness is.

@fiveinfulham

When people talk about ‘buying privilege’ it’s as if they imagine a family saying, “oh look, we’ve got the money so let’s just send him to St Paul’s.”

I mean, I’d people have any idea?

There is no such think as buying a place at a top school any more than you can rock up at Cambridge and buy a place there. No amount of money will make these schools take your child if they don’t get into the top x% of applicants. Doesn’t matter what you do. Yes there are tutors and a whole money-making racket out there, but you can only do so much with an 11 year old. You can’t ‘buy’ underlying ability. Many of the schools use CAT tests now because they want to assess underlying ability, rather than learned ability.

So yes, they are privileged to have the opportunity in the first place, of course. But 90% will be rejected at 11 (or 7 or 13). You can only ‘buy privilege’ if they let your child in!

Su when schools can literally cherry pick their students, they don’t actually have to be educational wizards to get the results they do. The students largely do it on their own. It’s no magic formula that state schools are missing. Nor is it any surprise that students with IQs of 130 plus are more likely to apply to university. No shit Sherlock. These students are in every school, but in some schools they are the entire cohort.

Less (or even non) selective independents tend to be extremely hit and miss. You are at the mercy of the governing body so be careful. Some schools hold in to teachers who aren’t fit to teach because they’re all friends and support each other’s weird ways. Sometimes the class sizes aren’t that much smaller than in state schools. Other times they are too small so that it limits options (eg if only two students want to take psychology they just won’t run that course).

Independents schools vary massively - between sleepy preps v superselectives or urban schools v traditional ‘big names.’ Not to mention that some schools are boarding! Whole other ball game. I would say, independent schools vary more than state, so to lump all those students together as “they are this” or “they do that” is beyond ridiculous. Imagine doing that to any other group in society.

Of course they are buying privilege. You sound very naive. Why on earth do you think parents part with enormous sums of cash if they don't believe that they are buying advantages for their children?

Yes, some of the schools are selective and the kids need to be smart to get in. So what? If the kids are that smart, they'll do just as well in a decent state school anyway, so why waste all that money if you don't think that it will somehow give them additional advantages?

Of course, private school parents aren't the only ones who do this. Parents who buy expensive houses in the catchments of good state schools are doing exactly the same thing. Same with parents who tutor for grammar school entry. They are using their financial resources to buy privilege for their children.

Some families don't have those options, though, no matter how intelligent or talented their kids might be. Why the fuck shouldn't the playing field be levelled a bit for those kids?

One of my children does an elite sport (swimming) and I have already noticed that most of the elite sportspeople in his field are from private school. Even I am feeling "bloody hell it's not fair, of course they will be more likely to get to the Olympics if they went to millfield, had their own pool etc..." The people I most respect are the adam.peatys, who were successful despite everything. As much as I'd love DS to have the advantages that private schools bring (professional swim.coaching on top of being a regular club, access to excellent facilities, acces to great eduction etc. Etc...) I don't want him to be viewed as only making it because if that. I want him to be viewed as making it despite lack of that .... (I know which is better for self esteem and expectation too)

Do you not see the privilege your DS has in having a parent that will support his swimming? Presumably taking him to early training sessions, various competitions? Another child will say “bloody hell, it’s not fair”, my mum/dad is working three jobs to make ends meet and is too exhausted to take me to the pool at 6am or could never afford swimming lessons for me.

Pretty much the child of everyone on this thread will have some form of privilege by virtue of the fact you care enough to enter a discussion about education, so no point sneering at those who use private schools (I am stated educated).

To have a chance at a good education in this country you need to have parents who care and either have money or find god.

There are whole layers of privilege which disadvantage those at the bottom not those in private schools and the WP and contextual data renders a whole subsection invisible. I am in a grammar/secondary modern county. The secondary modern is in a leafy suburb (with children being bussed in from all over, nothing to do with catchment) so scores well on the POLAR index. So no contextual flag, no WP opportunities. A child who attends this school though will have limited A level choices and ergo career opportunities - you can't do science A levels for example and there isn't anyone who can coach you for an Oxbridge application. Most teachers will tell you that they "are teaching to grade C" at GCSE. I tutor a girl in the school (who is bright) and in her English GCSE they are only being taught one section of each unit, so they have no choice of answering a different question. The WP only covers the worst sink schools, where behaviour management is the primary goal and there is very little aspiration to go to university anyway. I don't want to say WP is 'wasted' here, but I'd hazard a guess that very few of the potential WP candidates even apply.

The contextual data needs to be changed in order not to disadvantage certain pupils. You can have a wealthy child at a school that is doing well receiving a contextual offer as they share the same postcode with a deprived area. In threads I have read this happens frequently in Bristol. Equally, you can have a child on FSM who is in a privately rented, damp, falling apart house who doesn't receive an offer, because their "grade C" school is located in a nice area.

If you’re used to being privileged equality feels like a disadvantage.
It’s understandable really.

I find this all very strange as in Asia poor families motivate and advise our children to aspire to be like the doctors, lawyers etc who are earning more and providing well for their family. Maybe encourage your state educated child to work very hard, get a good job so that someday he can provide his family with the best opportunities- essentially break the cycle of poverty in order to elevate the socio economic status of the next generation. That's what we do and it works.

Except that it doesn't work for the vast majority of poor children who remain stuck in the same cycle of poverty no matter how hard they work. The children of the illiterate subsistence farmers going to the local village school are exceedingly unlikely to become doctors or lawyers, no matter how hard they work. There might be odd examples of people who break out of that but they are the exception rather than the rule.

My DH is from that kind of background in a country which is famed for its focus on education and its aspirational culture. He has done pretty well for himself, but he still feels the impact of that early disadvantage every day, and probably always will. Hard work is important, but hard work alone does not enable the most disadvantaged kids to compete.

As I read Kiko18’s post it highlighted to me how the philosophical differences are fascinating.

Some people see structural inequality and the want to change it. Why should so much of a child’s life chances be determined by something random that they have no control over, like the wealth of their parents? They see it as part of the job of society to ensure that all children are given the best chance to reach their potential and hope to avoid some of the worst effects of wealth and privilege being accumulated by families across generations, to the exclusion of all others.

Others see structural inequality and think, that looks great, that it something I want to aim for and for my kids to benefit from. If I work hard enough to gain entry I’ll deserve it, and so will they. If other people want to join and enjoy the benefits they will have to work hard too.

I think when world views are so different it’s quite a challenge to find common ground on topics like this.

@fiveinfulham state schools vary widely as well.

Some are selective. Some, whether they are selective or not, are in wealthy areas with parents who can afford to pay for extra-curricula activities. Others are in not wealthy areas but have a reasonable sized cohort of children whose parents prioritise education due to their own educational and/or cultural background.

@Kiko18 and @bogoffmda if you look at where the most judges, doctors, senior civil servants and journalists were educated in the UK you will see the vast majority of them were educated in the private sector.

Most children in the UK are not educated in the private sector and as universities rely partially on government funding, and government is voted in by tax payers, then why are they filling their courses with people educated in the private sector?

It doesn't make sense particularly when children/young people who went to state schools and achieved the same/similar A-level grades get better degree results. Oh and hidden in that is the fact that instead they fill their courses up with stated educated students who come from selective schools, wealthy areas and/or parents who prioritise education.

At the end of the day I want my doctor to make the grade and not have an excuse that they did not go to the right school and were thus disadvantaged and that is why they screwed up my diagnosis

^This, a 100 times

Positive discrimination can be dangerous

@kinzarose isn't this a disadvantage on where the girl lives e.g. geographical location?

This is why when you look at the reports on university admission it points out that students from the London and the SE are more likely to go to university, including Oxbridge/Russell group universities, as they have more choice of state schools/6th form colleges they can attend.

In fact the reports mention that universities should target specific geographical areas with no or low numbers of students coming from them.

I agree that this thread is riddled with prejudice and vengefulness

I would understand it if every child's IQ (or any other measure truly independent from socio-economic background) was assessed again at the point of admission. But assuming that a disadvantaged child is automatically more apt than a private school educated one getting the same grades is wrong

@AlexaShutUp The use of farmers as an example of the illiterate is ridiculous. It’s not the 1800s any more, every single farmer I work for (as a farm agent) has a degree, farming has come on since the horse pulled plough.

Regarding different cultures "breaking through" barriers (whether they are successful or not), the difference is parental aspiration. In many developing countries there is great emphasis on education being the launch pad out of poverty. In the UK this really isn't the case. You have families actively discouraging their children from higher education, as "it's not for people like us".
Also our admissions system means that grades alone don't cut the mark (whereas in many poor Asian countries they do). Take medicine for example: if you are in a grammar county and didn't pass the 11+ then you might not be able to even do science A levels. You might do GCSE sciences, but the majority of the class are entering at foundation level, so the teaching doesn't exceed grade C. You don't have any doctor friends/family, so no one to help you get work experience (which is essential for medicine, dentistry, vet med).
If your family are on means tested benefits you can't get a job at 16 as it will impact their entitlement, so nothing to put on your personal statement there.
In many countries money is the only barrier to higher education, but in the UK it is multifactorial. I went to a secondary modern, where I was bullied for being a geek because I wanted to do well. I really wanted to do medicine, but I remember my science teacher looking horrified and saying that physiotherapy would be a better option. The reality was that the school were not in a position to produce medical applicants. I transferred to the grammar at A level to do 3 sciences but my confidence had really been knocked by that stage.

Yesterday, talking with a client on Zoom, where he was ringing from his lovely home office in his leafy suburb of London I didn't actually know what to even say but I wanted to yell, "FFS, if there's a small shift so that the small number of private school children don't get the majority of places at the top universities, you'll have to live with it." Instead I simply changed the subject politely

OP, I would tread carefully with clients going forwards if I were you. They may sense your envy and disdain and may decide to take their business elsewhere. I know I would.

Yup, it’s bullshit. State kids are not being prioritised…
My white, male Upper MC colleague was bemoaning the fact that publishers aren’t interested in white, male MC writers anymore and only want to publish books by gay women of colour - except we work in publishing and know for a fact that that is absolutely NOT the case. The odd publisher running a scheme to allow I underrepresented writers send in manuscripts once a year rather than go through literary ( almost all white and MC) agents hasn’t changed the fact that BAME, working class and LGBTQ + writers are largely ignored and will NEVER get published.

Kiko18, I went to state school, my kids go to state school, I'm successful , who exactly am I jealous of?

I think it’s naive to think inequality would end if private schools are abolished tomorrow. Clearly it would not. Those families who could afford to live in certain postcodes will continue to do so. Schools reflect their catchment areas. There is no equality in state school provision right now. It’s a postcode lottery. This is the issue and why some families (who can) opt out. Especially in London where the pressure on state places is so intense and variations between schools are so wide. Where I live, it’s a vicious circle because there are simply not enough state places for the number of children year to year so those who can, tend to pay and they just accept they have to do this. But god knows what would happen round here if all the independents closed tomorrow. The state system would collapse. There’s never enough places as it is and the system is at breaking point.

The lengths people go to to get a state place that’s reasonably ok and not a ridiculous journey are staggering. They buy flats in certain catchments and make that their permanent time address for a few key years. All this kind of thing. At least in the independent sector, it’s just an exam - yes your child is in; no your child is rejected. End of. Not years of stalking Rightmove or elaborate plots to switch houses with grandparents.

As for the uni thing - the thing that bright working class kids offer lack ( in the eyes of the top universities) is a ‘rounded’ CV to make them stand out. E’g. They don't play tennis or cricket in a club, they don't have grade whatever in music, they’ve not travelled or volunteered abroad as much, they haven’t got Dyke of Edinburgh, etc because their parents didn’t have the resources for them to do all this. I know because I was the bright WC kid from an estate who got to go to Uni ‘despite’ my lack of extra curricular stuff. In my Oxbridge interviews they were deffo NOT impressed that My spare time out of school was spent as young carer and working in a takeaway evenings and weekends to supplement my family income. They keep asking ‘what else’ I did - apparently one can do all sorts of ‘free’things like join an astronomy club if one is determined enough…

@mustlovegin

At the end of the day I want my doctor to make the grade and not have an excuse that they did not go to the right school and were thus disadvantaged and that is why they screwed up my diagnosis

^This, a 100 times

Positive discrimination can be dangerous

Well, yes, BUT.... I also want my doctor to understand me and not write me off because I'm a woman/I'm poor/I'm brown/I speak differently. Diversity in professions like law and medicine produce better outcomes. What we're talking about here is that the candidate with excellent marks but less polish and opportunities ideally shouldn't be excluded from the opportunity to study medicine at a top university for that reason. And arguably, those students are desperately needed.

I’m not sure where the f’ck they thought I was fitting in orienteering in my 12-15 hr days of school, study, caring, working…