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.

@mustlovegin

I've worked with schools where over 50 languages were spoken and many children could barely speak English

We allow inequality to develop in this country through inadequate policies and then we are forced to have to 'address the inequality' at a later stage. This shouldn't be happening in the first place

We do need to address inequality earlier, you're right. For many, university is too late. However, I'm still a huge advocate of contextual admissions. They have an important role to play in addressing social mobility. We could and should do more but this one stage.

They are correct, actually, in some cases at least.. I worked with admissions at a top Scottish university for many years. They were quite open about the fact that, in the case of two students with equal grades - say 6 As at higher - the state school student would be prioritised.

I’m not going to comment on whether this was right or wrong, but it happened all the time. We regularly saw kids from Edinburgh Academy, Stewart’s Melville, Glasgow Academy etc, failing to secure a place despite having the grades.

The idea behind the 'reverse discrimination' is obviously that a child who got 3 A* A levels while coming from a deprived background, receiving a subpar education etc is often going to be brighter and more motivated than a child who got the same having had the best education handed to them by privilege of wealth. Schooling isn't about intelligence - it's about hoop jumping, and private education better teaches how to jump through the hoops. I went to a university with a large number of privately educated people and my observation on the whole was that the truly intelligent students were generally those with state school backgrounds, and among those from wealthy backgrounds there really were many people who objectively weren't smart enough to be there. But of course as the saying goes, when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. It would be one thing if private education genuinely produced more intelligent and better educated pupils, but it doesn't, it produces pupils better able to game the system and pass exams, and it's not the same thing and it's not what university really requires.

"Except that doing it by those who get the top marks immediately makes it more likely for private school kids to get in because a) they often get better teaching/facilities b) they are coming from wealthier backgrounds with all the additional benefits that come from that whether that's "polish" in terms of doing well in interviews etc or whether that's just not having to care for 3 younger siblings while both parents work, limiting time for study (and of course, everything in between)."

But isn't life like that? I mean, once students hit the workforce, after leaving University, employers as a whole, aren't going to give you a "contextualized job offer". Look at someone like Alan Sugar...he got where he is through sheer hard work and determination, not from people giving him any extra help by virtue of him coming from a humble background.

I still think the fairest way is to pick the top scorers regardless of which school the kids went to.

But isn't life like that? I mean, once students hit the workforce, after leaving University, employers as a whole, aren't going to give you a "contextualized job offer". Look at someone like Alan Sugar...he got where he is through sheer hard work and determination, not from people giving him any extra help by virtue of him coming from a humble background.

People always use people like Alan Sugar as an example in these scenarios but you need to remember that people like that are exceptions rather than the rule.

University is a great leveller. Research shows us that students who come to university through contextualised admissions perform as well ( and sometimes better) than the rest of the student population.
The idea is that if you can get into university and especially to an elite university then this will offer you an advantage- although there is a whole other debate around this.

Also, many sectors and companies do apply some affirmative action if they know that they lack diversity in their workforce.

I still think the fairest way is to pick the top scorers regardless of which school the kids went to.

Thankfully those that know about this sort of stuff disagree!

@Saladovercrispsanyday

If they were “complaint about their privilege waning”

They’d be saying

“Boo boo my privately educated child isn’t being prioritised over state educated children”

You see the difference?

Sorry, but they ARE saying "boo hoo my privately educated child isn't being prioritised over state educated children" they just THINK they're saying "my child is being disadvantaged due to their privilege".

Which is my point. They are complaining because their children aren't automatically at the top of the queue any more. (well, they mostly are, but in some cases perhaps not). They don't understand or agree that's what their issue is, but .....

It's like the man who complains that his terrible female boss only got the job because she's a woman. It doesn't occur to him that the exact same thing could have happened to the 10 terrible male bosses he's had previously.

@Saladovercrispsanyday

* I do have an issue with highly privileged people being outraged if their privilege starts to wane.*

But op
They’re not complaining their privilege is waning
They’re complaining their child is being disadvantaged due to their privilege

That is very very different
And indeed they are justified in complaining

They're children aren't being disadvantaged though.

And actually they are saying that their privately educated child isn't being being prioritised over state educated children.

They currently are prioritised (for all the reasons outlined in this thread) and initiatives like contextual offers may reduce their privilege a little. That's exactly what they're complaining about.

x-post Triffid1

@christinarossetti19

SkinnyMirror yes indeed. It's not so much the day-to-day blindness to the reality of deprivation and disadvantage that I don't understand, but the refusal to accept your experiences and perspectives aren't the only ones in the world.

The inequalities, deprivation and disadvantage even within the UK are appalling, all the more so for the fact that they could be much reduced if there was any sort of political will to do so.

My children's primary was very like the one you describe. A girl in my dd's class was exceptionally talented at art - like genuinely, mind-blowingly astounding. She was from a Roma family and seemed to move between various relatives homes, so I'm not sure how much opportunity she had to be accessing 'enter such and such international art competition' or access to materials.

She was taken out of school at 12, sent to Romania and gave birth to twins at 13.

That's what disadvantage is, not possibly having a slightly lower chance of your superb private education getting you into a top notch university.

yes yes to this and @SkinnyMirror's points. It's the mindset of "they can pull themselves up by the bootstrap if they have grit and determination". Which simply doesn't take into account the reality of a lot of children's lives. I do agree that things need to change long before university though although I don't really know how. I live in a leafy relatively affluent area but our local state primary is very much split down the middle with naice middle class families and working class families. And the difference is stark and in our case we're certainly not talking about real depravation. So many things that are not important on the surface but that inevitably break down according to the socio-economic lines - the children who are consistently late, the children who seem to have less good nutrition, the children who are often wearing the wrong uniform or don't have their book bags etc on the right day, the children who attend the various extra curricular activities locally.... the divide is REAL and that's in my relatively affluent part of Surrey.

Universities are not the same thing as employers.

Employers typically want the person who can do the job straight away. If that person then develops in the role, company or career that's great but not usually the employer's primary interest (unless for a training scheme).

Universities are interested in who stands to benefit most from the education they are offering. That is about the potential to develop and grow, more than it is about prior achievements.

If you've peaked at A-level, achievement-wise, with all the support your parents could possibly pay for, you may not have the critical thinking and independent learning skills, the same objective intelligence, or the hunger for learning, so the ability to grow your aptitude into something bigger and better, that other students, still on an upward trajectory, have.

Of course you might have all those things and be on your own upward trajectory. That's what university entrance systems need to be able to distinguish between. Those who will plateau or bomb, versus those who will grow.

OOps! Their not they're obviously!

camaleon - I’m not arguing children from independent schools are being discriminated against. That was the scenario set out in the OP, but it’s not my view.

I just get irked when people make sweeping statements about private school children - “they are all obnoxious ... “ (as one poster on here put it). Imagine saying, “they are all ..., “ about any other demographic .

I have no experience of boarding schools or big name out in the country schools such as Eton or Marlborough. What I do have experience of is the London Day Schools. The education is outstanding yes. I don’t believe it’s necessarily because the teachers are better than in state schools. Most have worked in both sectors anyway. It’s more that, if you can select the top x% of local children, you can obviously move at a faster pace in the classroom. Teachers are not having to support the child who might scrape a 4 on a good day, while giving extension work to another child who is capable of a 9.

The other thing, as pp have rightly said, is cultural capital. These schools are very international. I would say most of the children have at least one parent who is non-British or is British but of a different ethnicity. This makes for a more international outlook and a positive, ‘can do’ perspective. Very few of the parents in London schools are the ‘family money’ or aristocratic types. In fact, I can’t think of any. There are Russians, Americans, lots of Europeans. British children with at least one Indian, Chinese, Korean or European parent are probably in the majority. I can’t think of any children in my DDs class who have two white British parents, for instance. If the parents themselves are high-achievers and self-made, they tend to instill these values in their children and expect nothing less from the schools. They value education massively, yes.

So I would never argue that these children are not privileged. Increasingly, there are children on bursaries in the school and it’s no doubt a life-changing experience for them. But also, I know that they work very hard and that these schools can be very intense environments. Some children do better being a big fish in the small pond, than the small fish in the big pond. What matters more than anything, I think, is the support from home. Having a parent who notices if a child seems anxious about anything or is struggling academically at a point t in time. If you can support your child through the ‘bumps’ I think this is the most important thing. It’s no good being super-academic if you have no resilience, or just give up at the first hurdle. There will always be someone ahead of you and that’s just life.

@Xenia

It will always be a blunt instrument. My son knew someone at Bristol Uliving in a £3m house (I know because I had to take something round to the house near us) !!!!! They had a contextualised offer due to their state school.

Someone asked surely people who pay fees do so because they think it is better. Yes I agree - I paid fees happily for 5 children from age 3 - 18 and indeed through to age 22 as I also funded university and post grad without their having student loans. So I have been paying for 35 years without a break and it's fine. The reason will be as different as anyone else and none of my 5 tried Oxbridge as it is hard to get in and even at the most academic grammars and private schools only a quarter would get in and mine did not think they would have a chance so did not try. I was certainly not paying fees for an Oxbridge place.

Eg we are very keen on classical and church music so our then primary aged children singing latin aged 7 in concerts at school was a priority - not something most parents want so for each parent it will be some particular reason that matters to them.

Why is it relevant that they live in a £3m house??? If they went to the particular state school, then that's the standard of education that they got and they should be treated on the same basis as anyone else from that school regardless of the price of their house - what a ridiculous thing to say.

It's comments like these that confirm my feelings that most of the comments on this thread are motivated by envy of those with more money (& I'm speaking as someone who isn't even in that category!)

Also if we're trying to level the playing field, should people have to disclose if they were tutored during state school?

Do you all agree that if someone comes from a home where the parents don't speak English, then their child should be selected over yours if they get the same grades?

I find it weird how many people tie themselves in knots defending their private schooling. ”Oh we scrimped and saved” - that does not magic up the money for most people! I wish people were honest and said that they want the best for their child/ren. We all do! If I had the money, I’d definitely consider a private school or I’d buy the overpriced house directly opposite the best outstanding state school. It’s ok to want the best for your children and if you can afford it, why not?! Just accept that your choices have implications and be fortunate you have those choices.
I went to a private primary school. My parents openly say they could afford it and they wanted the very small classes, nice building and loads of land, access to all the clubs and activities etc. I was very privileged and I know it. Family circumstances changed due to health reasons and my parents divorced, so I went to a state school afterwards. I know I was advantaged by my time in a private school environment. I fully acknowledge this. I can’t see why some people just struggle to admit things like this.

Universities are interested in who stands to benefit most from the education they are offering. That is about the potential to develop and grow, more than it is about prior achievements.

Yes to this.
Ultimately entry requirements are a way of a university/course positioning itself in the market.
Higher entry requirements suggest better quality and therefore will attract the better applicants. They are also a way of filtering applicants.

However, universities can ( and always have be able to do this) change these requirements when making an offer to a student. This can be done formally through contextual admissions or can be at the whim of an admissions tutor- although the tutor must be able to justify this and it's not great practice with regards transparency.

For example, I run a masters course and we ask for a first degree. Every year I take at least one person who hasn't got a degree but has demonstrated to me that they will thrive and develop on the course and become an excellent practitioner.

@fiveinfulham then I do not disagree with you at all. I was disagreeing with the statement that all kids had the same opportunities as I understood the first of the post I answered to.

Saying children from private schools are prioiritsed over others is not actually the same as saying they have got better grades because their education was of a better standard and thus it’s easier to gain a place because they genuinely achieve higher grades and are better at interviews.
Which is it you’re saying?

@BungleandGeorge

Saying children from private schools are prioiritsed over others is not actually the same as saying they have got better grades because their education was of a better standard and thus it’s easier to gain a place because they genuinely achieve higher grades and are better at interviews. Which is it you’re saying?

It's a combination of the two.

YANBU

Stinks of privilege and ignorance. Anyone who thinks their kid is disadvantaged going to a private school needs to give their head a wobble.

Yes to contextual offers always having existed. I don't know if they still do it but in my day, Oxford regularly handed out offers of two Es at A-level to their favourite candidates, after entry exams and interviews, whereas the stated entry criteria and most offers were 3 As. Their context appeared to be 'we can see that you are bright, curious, teachable, tenacious, just what we're looking for and we don't really care how your state exams go'.

Of course you still had to prepare and get through the application, entry exam and interview.

They’re complaining their child is being disadvantaged due to their privilege

It is telling that you cannot see the irony in that statement, @Saladovercrispsanyday.

The sense of entitlement that some people have is astonishing. Such ignorance and so little awareness.

I find it weird how many people tie themselves in knots defending their private schooling.”Oh we scrimped and saved”- that does not magic up the money for most people!

Yes indeed, @Mickarooni. For many people in this country, scrimping and saving is about choosing between eating and heating their homes. They are struggling to afford basic necessities, and thanks to the removal of the UC uplift and the hike in food prices, it's about to get a whole lot worse. Those who talk about scrimping and saving to pay private school fees clearly don't have a clue.

My dd goes to a state comprehensive. She is incredibly privileged and I'm glad that her education to date has given her enough insight to realise that. So many kids don't have the same life chances, and the fact that people think it's simply about hard work is absolutely mind boggling.

@BoredZelda

So grammar school was a leveller unless you had misogynist parents.

Except my father had a similar problem with his schooling. He left aged 12 because his parents needed him to work. He never got the opportunity of grammar school.

He must have been bloody old then because school leaving age was raised to 14 in 1918.

purple, my £3m house point was just an example of someone clearly gaming the system (for lots of other reasons too) which everyone will do if they can. It is probably love more than poor morals to do this - it is why state school parents may try to feign an interest in God or move to a better area or get their children into Henrietta Barnett state school which gives them a privilege much higher than most private schools and comprehensives.

Even back when I went to university (I graduated in 1982) I had no problem then (nor now) that some with all As from a sink comprehensive has always been regarded as the diamond in the rough and been given extra consideration by universities. It is the institutionalised contextual offer system which can be abused. I have no skin in the game as my day school private school children did not even try Oxbridge.

We just generally need to make sure we do not damn children for the sins of the parents in choosing to put them in for a private school with a bursary. Oxbridge is 70% state schoolers and as 80% of those going to university at sixth form went to state schools that is not really out of kilter.

Someone said above employers then will not contextualise. that is not really correct now as bigger firms need to show a spread of diversity. KPMG eg have a new social class plan which would mean my son (van driver)'s children would be considered above those of anyone on here who has a professional job. Plenty of City firms have schemes to help the disadvantaged when taking on new graduates eg Leigh Day had a scheme for potential solicitors open only to people who are black. Many firms try to recruit "institution blind".

It is very hard to play the who is most privileged game eg i was back at work full time when the babies were 2 weeks (yes not months but weeks) old. Is that such a bad thing for a baby that they should get credit at university entrance level? I am a single mother from NE England - should that get them credit? etc etc Any policy is always a bit of a blunt instrument.I am certianly not against any f these schemes but we constantly need to look at them to see if illegal positive discrimination has gone ahead and to check they are working as planned. Eg there are more BAME lawyers than is represented in the population and second over 60% of junior lawyers are female so there might be a problem for white men and similarly mre generally at university start - do we need to start letting more boys in as girls do so much better just as in the old days they ensured 50% girls and boys at 11+ stage by marking the girls down (girls are ahead of boys at that age as they reach puberty earlier and tend to work harder at that age).

It’s more complex than which type of school - So much hinges on family values. When I helped out at dds state primary there were girls just as bright as dd2. However their parents were cleaners / hospital porters and even by 10 they had a “not for the likes of us” mindset. Our girls have 2 tertiary educated professionals as parents who love the arts theatre conversation round the dinner table time to focus on them etc encouraging promoting getting tutors where needed taking them to the Globe etc. All these kids although at the same state schools are simply a world apart in outlook and opportunity.

My dad as head of 6th in a state school spent a lot of time persuading bright kids to do A levels as they just didn’t see that in their future.