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.

lottie you are implying that for some inexplicable reason, universities are convinced that privately educated students are inferior and will perform worse

But Skinny has explained this:

Universities are judged on social mobility. Social mobility metrics form part of university league tables. Universities also have to produce an access and participation plan to be able to charge 9k fees. These are monitored by the Office for Students

So, the issue appears to come down to funding?

What I would like to know is whether requirements set out by the Office for Students are implemented in the way they are meant to be and who is monitoring that. i.e. if they are trying to address underrepresentation from certain sectors, who is checking that certain cohorts are not all of a sudden overrepresented or that admission criteria are not inappropriately lowered in order to meet these quotas?

So much for the 'contextual offers are not discrimination' mantra and theoretical impartiality

Nice

Don't judge all universities on the poor practice of one single academic.

I am not implying any such thing mustlovegin

I offered my thoughts on what outcomes I'd expect, for a bright pupil, from different types of schools, yesterday. What I think about good, supportive, academic private schools (recognising that that does not describe all private schools) is that a bright pupil should be expected to achieve their potential at A-level.

That makes them much more of an open book, at that stage, than pupils educated at the less good state schools (which are themselves a different kettle of fish from the selective and very good mixed-ability state schools).

@Tulipomania

Interesting point about personal statements.

Every parent I know 'helped' their DC with their statements - and as parents who could afford private school they tended to be generally well educated, professionals themselves, so were able to give good advice.

The school also would offer advice - but didn't write statements for the kids as some people seem to think.

However there are far worse examples than that:

One friend sent her daughter's PS to a former Oxbridge admissions tutor friend for advice (she rewrote it).
Another parent paid for a professionally written statement for her DS who was applying for medical school.

Any attempts to even up the playing field for students from less privileged backgrounds can only be a good thing.

I think you’re right. You can never make things totally fair to everyone, as it’s human nature to help your dc as much as possible to achieve their end goal.

Some/most parents will do everything within their power to help their dc succeed. Some parents have more resources at their disposal, whether financial or useful contacts.

SkinnyMirror I value the time you are taking to explain your points of view on this thread and I can sense that you believe you are doing what's best for your institution and for the students.

However, I will never be convinced that a method of selection that appears to be arbitrary, non-transparent and disadvantages applicants just because they attended a private school, are believed to be 'privileged' or any of the nasty stereotyping often mentioned here is fair.

My DF managed to secure a place at a top university which was awarded based on his IQ and hard work. He came from a very disadvantaged background with no resources or family who could help. There were no 'contextual offers' 60 years ago and nobody was trying to artificially 'level the playing field'.

The ideological and political poisoning that appears to be permeating into universities will only cause damage and devalue the brand IMO, as a PP said

What I would like to know is whether requirements set out by the Office for Students are implemented in the way they are meant to be and who is monitoring that. i.e. if they are trying to address underrepresentation from certain sectors, who is checking that certain cohorts are not all of a sudden overrepresented or that admission criteria are not inappropriately lowered in order to meet these quotas?

Why don't you go the the Office for Students website and find out for yourself. It's very transparent.

Every university will different priorities due to the demographics of their particular cohort. Students who are underrepresented at my university won't be underrepresented at another university. Access and Participation plans are monitored by the OfS..... the HE sector is highly regulated.
There are no quotas
There are targets to increase percentages of underrepresented groups but there are no quotas per se.
Access and participation plans are updated every year.

With regards entry requirements. They are way a university can position themselves in a market place. Universities can make what ever offer they like - just look at the high number of unconditional offers in recent years. People are getting unnecessarily hung up entry requirements..... there are many ways to spot potential and A level are grades are just one.

Now you are cutting to the heart of it @mustlovegin. The mission of Universities has been subtly changed by politicians wanting to cover their own arses.

Good intentions can have unintended second order effects. A blanket new criteria can have many stupid, unfair consequences (many examples upthread.). On the other hand, the more nuanced the entrance judgments become (nuanced effectively means subjective) the more debate and discontent there will be.

I think we are living through a time of great social change. No one knows how this will play out. People who made big investments and sacrifices based on the old paradigm have now been wrong footed and are understandably unhappy.

All this will shake out. People will recognise the new environment and adjust to it, making different choices.

I do believe it will have a profound affect on academically elite private schools.

I do believe that our attitude to university (parents, employers, students) will also shift. We now have a far higher percentage of young people attending university. It costs students much more. And employers and the public will be less clear about what it means to gain a place at them.

‘I am not prejudiced against private schools, but I don’t read the personal statements....some poor kid from South London at a school that Gavin Williams thinks needs 3 grades knocking off will not have an oxbridge tutor to polish up their letter’

Sorry, but the arrogance here is appalling and (if this is actually genuine ), you are unfit for the job.

Also ‘letter’ . It’s called a reference last time I looked.

If you’re not going to read them, don’t ask teachers to write them fgs. Do you not think they’re got enough on? How very rude.

I might forward your post to Cambridge admissions. I’m think applicants on forums like The Student Room would be interested to see this as well. I’m sure they will be delighted that their ‘tutors’ are openly biased and making a mockery of their admissions process on a public forum.

SkinnyMirror I value the time you are taking to explain your points of view on this thread and I can sense that you believe you are doing what's best for your institution and for the students.
How very patronising. I'm researcher in this topic. It's not about what I believe. It's about what the evidence tells us.

However, I will never be convinced that a method of selection that appears to be arbitrary, non-transparent and disadvantages applicants just because they attended a private school, are believed to be 'privileged' or any of the nasty stereotyping often mentioned here is fair.

It's not arbitrary.
It's very transparent- universities are very clear abs transparent about how they recruit students a d how they implement contextual offers.

My DF managed to secure a place at a top university which was awarded based on his IQ and hard work. He came from a very disadvantaged background with no resources or family who could help. There were no 'contextual offers' 60 years ago and nobody was trying to artificially 'level the playing field'.

60 years ago you were very, very fortunate to go to university if you were from a working class background. Your DF was most definitely the exception rather than the rule.
I don't think we should be aspiring to move back to an elite HE system do you?

The ideological and political poisoning that appears to be permeating into universities will only cause damage and devalue the brand IMO, as a PP said

You're wrong. This is nothing new! I've been working on widening participation projects for over 20 years! Contextual admissions have been around for a long time. This 'damage' people talk about is yet to happen.

@Empressofthemundane

Now you are cutting to the heart of it *@mustlovegin*. The mission of Universities has been subtly changed by politicians wanting to cover their own arses.

Good intentions can have unintended second order effects. A blanket new criteria can have many stupid, unfair consequences (many examples upthread.). On the other hand, the more nuanced the entrance judgments become (nuanced effectively means subjective) the more debate and discontent there will be.

I think we are living through a time of great social change. No one knows how this will play out. People who made big investments and sacrifices based on the old paradigm have now been wrong footed and are understandably unhappy.

All this will shake out. People will recognise the new environment and adjust to it, making different choices.

I do believe it will have a profound affect on academically elite private schools.

I do believe that our attitude to university (parents, employers, students) will also shift. We now have a far higher percentage of young people attending university. It costs students much more. And employers and the public will be less clear about what it means to gain a place at them.

Why are people talking about this like it's something new! Widening participation had been a key priority for universities for years. People need to give their head a wobble 🙄

You see I see nuance as recognising and demonstrating competence at analysing complexity, as opposed to expecting and seeing only simplicity.

The widening of university participation generally is a broader issue. Of course the less challenging degrees and lower degree grades may turn out not to have been worth the investment. That is quite a different discussion from this one, which is largely concerned with competition for elite places.

It surprises me that people would expect employers to focus on the entry criteria for degrees, rather than the attainment demonstrated by the degree itself. If employers want to recruit at eighteen, based on attainment at that stage, they are free to do so.

@DrWhoNowww

Thing is, on a population level we absolutely should be prioritising equal and fair access to further education regardless off your parental and secondary education background.

But, if you happen to be the poor sod whose been slogging their guts out at private school for an oxbridge place and you lose out to someone with worse grades but they went to a worse school…it feels quite personal.

So I can also see why some parents feel for their “precious darlings”.

Really the solution is making sure primary and secondary education access is more fair and equitable - so all children have the same opportunities.

The educational disadvantage starts early, fixing it at university entrance punishes the wrong people.

This. Absolutely this. Great post.

I think the issue is the lack of awareness that the entitled moaners display when banging on to anybody polite enough to listen to their ‘predicament’. They’re either just showing off or they have no clue how most people live - neither of these things being desirable qualities in an adult.

It really makes me cringe when I have to listen to stuff like that. I remember years ago a friend of mine, while we sat on the floor of a train, banging on about a 30 grand pendant that her dad was having made for her mum and it was late arriving for their anniversary or something, it was like the worst thing to befall a human in her lifetime - really made me zone out/question our friendship for a bit.

Also to the supposed Cambridge Admusdions tutor in here - on The Student Room there are genuine Cambridge admissions tutors (one from Peterhouse I think, I’m sure you know her) who respond to applicant’s queries. If they see that from a ‘colleague’ there will be a problem.

If you post was not genuine, I would strongly suggest you ask MN to take it down ASAP.

I thin it would be extremely bad form to "report" or snitch on someone posting on an anonymous forum and is symptomatic of the left wing only one view is permitted on campus current state of the universities in this McCarthyist era when one wrong word and you are out.

They are large numbers of academics and parents who are against the current positive discrimination thinking it has gone too far. However at the end of the day I trust to free market and the good whether from state comps, posh grammars or private schools will out and will do well on the whole so if someone got a leg up who did not deserve it within a year or two of their first job they will be out on their ear and that will not be an example of employers' discrimination against the working class or against white or against anyone - it will be because they were not actually very good at the job.

However I remember Gladwell's book which said there might actually be 1000 people good enough for each place at Harvard (or indeed here at Oxbridge) and perhaps 5000 who aren't so as long as you are not letting in any of the not good enough 5000 just because of their class or disability or whatever perhaps picking from the 1000 out of a hat is as fair as anything else. The other very good 900 then go to almost as good universities and get just as good jobs.

I think a lot of people at university are wasting their time however and starting work even at 14 for some is a better course than getting student loans. We should probably return to when i went when 15% of the UK went to university only.

I think the issue is the lack of awareness that the entitled moaners display when banging on to anybody polite enough to listen to their ‘predicament’. They’re either just showing off or they have no clue how most people live - neither of these things being desirable qualities in an adult.

I completely agree.
The level of ignorance is astounding.

Contextual admissions have been around a while. On the whole, it's not disadvantaging privately educated young people - they are still more likely to attend the top universities. It's just giving opportunities to some high achieving, less advantaged young people.
Why is that a bad thing?

Here it is again, for anyone who missed it last night and particularly, anyone with a child writing their Oxbridge PS right now -

“Was one of the non private school kids at Cambridge. Now an admissions tutor myself.

I am not prejudiced against private schools, but I don’t read the personal statements. Schools that send a lot of students to our university write a slick letter for the student, some poor kid from South London at a school that Gavin Williams thinks needs 3 grades knocking off will not have an oxbridge tutor to polish up their letter.”

Sounds fair enough to me. The outrage is proving the ops point!

The old rules aren’t working any more. Good thing too.

@notanymore2

If it opens up a previously biased playing field then it can only be a good thing. Time to blow open the old boys' network and embrace a more balanced demographic

👍

So there are thousands of young people right now, writing their PS and all that malarkey - only to hear they are not even going to be read?

So when Cambridge then take their extra step of requesting the SAQ, should they just not bother responding then?

If there’s any essays requested, they could presumably just copy / paste something from the internet. It’s not going to be read after all is it? Oh no, they probably hired someone to write it for them - ‘they all do.’

We should probably return to when i went when 15% of the UK went to university only.

And guess which social classes those 15% will come from??

Moving back to an elite system would be going backwards.

It's the Xenia Standard though! The Golden Age of Xenia. This is MN, so you have to recognise its worth, (whatever you then choose to do with that recognition). Classic.

@Xenia

I thin it would be extremely bad form to "report" or snitch on someone posting on an anonymous forum and is symptomatic of the left wing only one view is permitted on campus current state of the universities in this McCarthyist era when one wrong word and you are out.

They are large numbers of academics and parents who are against the current positive discrimination thinking it has gone too far. However at the end of the day I trust to free market and the good whether from state comps, posh grammars or private schools will out and will do well on the whole so if someone got a leg up who did not deserve it within a year or two of their first job they will be out on their ear and that will not be an example of employers' discrimination against the working class or against white or against anyone - it will be because they were not actually very good at the job.

However I remember Gladwell's book which said there might actually be 1000 people good enough for each place at Harvard (or indeed here at Oxbridge) and perhaps 5000 who aren't so as long as you are not letting in any of the not good enough 5000 just because of their class or disability or whatever perhaps picking from the 1000 out of a hat is as fair as anything else. The other very good 900 then go to almost as good universities and get just as good jobs.

I think a lot of people at university are wasting their time however and starting work even at 14 for some is a better course than getting student loans. We should probably return to when i went when 15% of the UK went to university only.

Absolutely 👍

The outrage is proving the ops point!

Indeed it is @MsTSwift.