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.

I don’t think we can pretend that state schools will ever be able to compete on a level playing field with schools that can raise so much money in fees from wealthy parents

@Nesbo That's quite a generalisation. In my city, one of the state schools has excellent sporting facilities, better exam results and better pastoral support than the closest two private schools

Ha my dad and his mates are trying to redress the balance - retired senior teachers who voluntarily help prep the kids at the local comp for Oxbridge. Every little helps I guess.

@Nesbo

I think people people have to be honest about what they are paying for.

I think a lot of parents paying for private schooling do so because they want to give their child the best advantage in life, which in reality means an advantage over their peers who they will be competing with for the best jobs.

I don’t think we can pretend that state schools will ever be able to compete on a level playing field with schools that can raise so much money in fees from wealthy parents.

So then all the kids apply for university and we say that, whilst it wasn’t possible for a state school education to compete with a private education, we don’t think the privately educated kids should have (so much) of an advantage.

The reaction from the parents of privately educated kids is “but that was what I was paying for over all those years dammit!”

There will always be an inherent tension between embracing the existence of private education on the one hand, whilst trying to undermine one of the main reasons that some people are willing to pay for private education in the first place - which is to use money to buy advantage over people with less money.

This is 100% it.

People need to be honest about what they were paying for - they thought they were paying so that their (quite possibly mediocre) kid could have a leg up against all the poorer kids out there (many of whom will be very bright). When they realise that they can't buy their kids success because universities will adjust for the effect of their financial input, they feel it's unfair.

Its not unfair in the slightest. It's just a step towards removing some of the causes of educational inequality, although by no means all of them.

Yes, I think realistically you’d need to get rid of private schools if you didn’t want a disproportionate amount of private school pupils to get into top universities. That is literally the point of them! I agree that this is unfair, but then I think the alternative is to get rid of them rather than allow people to pay all that money…for nothing!

YANBU

Shout it louder! It's so annoying.

I worked with someone who said this once. And the argument that a B at a private school is worth the same as a B in state school.

Jesus Christ.

If you don't think it's better then why do you pay for it?!?!

And it obviously confers academic advantage because the parents spouting this nonsense are clearly thick as pigshit if they believe it, and this is what the schools are working with!

@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.

I agree with this.

My child is at state school and the contextual offers thing seems to be very unfair to me as it’s such a blunt instrument. I can be rich living in a deprived postcode and qualify or I can be poor living in a rich postcode and not qualify. Some of the most disadvantaged edu action ally are those with SEN but that doesn’t figure at all. Replacing one unfair system with another unfair system isn’t progress. Academically I’m not convinced that many independents are superior to state schools, the intake is different

There's nothing wrong with a bit more competition and a more level playing field. Let's be honest, the long-term advantages of private schools often go far beyond simply university choice - in terms of soft skills, connections, cultural opportunities etc.

If I were one of your friends, I'd only be seriously concerned that private school would be a waste of money if my child were lazy, a dummy or otherwise mediocre. I met several such people who had come from top fee-paying schools at my 'Oxbridge reject' university years ago and would imagine that the state school kids who 'nabbed their rightful spots' deserved them in comparison.

@notanothertakeaway
That's quite a generalisation. In my city, one of the state schools has excellent sporting facilities, better exam results and better pastoral support than the closest two private schools

Well, just change it to “the majority of state schools will never be able to compete”, then.

The average state school kid has about £5k spent on him/her a year. The average private school kid - a day pupil - about 13k a year. So 2.5x
A private boarder about 30k a year.

So 2.5x the money is invested in their education than a state school child’s education. Add on the amounts spent on (overwhelmingly) state school kids with behavioural problems, learning disabilities, English as a second language etc. Add on the fact that the private school intake will be academically stringer to begin with (wealthier, more academic, more motivated parents).

I’m not against private schools per se. But I AM against Tory politicians (in the main) pretending that every state school has the potential to get 80% A grades at A- Level like Eton (or the country top state school for that matter), if only they’d X,Y and Z (more discipline! more Bibles! More Ofsetd! more marking bureaucracy!）It is disingenuous bollocks.

@HarrietsChariot

It's one of those situations where trying to "level the playing field" makes things unfair. Like usual, there's a straightforward and fair solution - give the university offers and places to the students who get the best results, regardless of whether they were at a private or state school.

I faced this discrimination myself as it happens, when I was applying to six universities for offers I got five fair offers back and a rejection. The rejection was from the uni that I'd been warned not to bother with because they didn't like taking people from my type of school. (Won't say the university's name but I think the town it was in used to be called Snottingham.)

My belief has always been "equality through equality" - you don't get equality through discrimination.

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).

While my DC attend state schools, I'm not massively anti private schools. But I do get annoyed at this attitude of "oh, but my child worked hard and deserves their A* grade so much more" when the other child may well be as competent but without the same opportunities.

The removal of (some) privilege is, as far as I'm concerned, a good thing. And I am tired of private school families who don't see it as privilege (for the record, I know lots of private school families who DO see it as such and appreciate it as such. It's just this recent spate of parents who seem to think they're hard done by).

This was the reason I didn’t get into university. I did five a-levels and was predicted As across the board, was rejected by all five universities I applied to. I sought feedback from my top two choices and was told it was because my grades counted for less because I had gone to a private school.

Did I feel hard done by? Hugely. I had worked hard and done many extra-curriculars and was sitting five a-levels. I really felt I deserved a place.

Was I actually hard done by? Not really. My grades - achieved in a school where my largest class size was 6 pupils (in two subjects I was the only pupil so essentially had private tuition) and where the school had money and resources to spend on visiting lecturers, setting up mock interviews with university professors, relevant school trips, private tuition etc - were more easily won than those of a kid from a shitty school who might have been the first in their family to go to university, might have been young carers, might have faced any amount of deprivation that I never had to give a thought to.

So I agree with you. While it may feel really harsh for the individual private school kids who are affected, if universities do prioritise state school kids it could only go a tiny way to rebalancing the enormous privilege afforded by a private education.

(I should say I reapplied later and did get in, so my hardship was short lived)

I used to work in a university working closely with both former students and the widening participation department. It had a heavily private school demographic and there was a lot of concern about such “discrimination”.

The line we took was to say that the University’s numbers expanded so much in the noughties that there are now more kids from private schools going to that university than before, if you look at sheer, simple numbers.

There has been a greater increase in the number of kids from state schools going to that university. So overall the proportions have shifted, but still more kids from private school are going to the university than in their parents day.

What is also often true too is that there are more kids in private school now, so often the real competition they face in securing a good place is with one another.

I have had some concerns that I am disadvantaging my dc at Uni application time by sending them to a private school.

But they are getting so much more music and SEN support amongst other things that I tamp down these internal thoughts.

I came from a regional sink school and went to rarefied Uni. However that has its own issues and my dc wouldn't be in that type of school regardless.

So I'm giving my dc the best education I can in the here and now, they may not want to go to Uni anyway.

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.

Where does that leave the third of children who receive some sort of financial assistance with their fees then, through bursaries and/or scholarships? At DC's school, they offer a number of fully funded, sixth form places to local children, where family income is either under £40k p.a. or if they qualify for pupil premium. Should they be 'penalised' for going to private school?

YANBU. I am listening this more and more and it is pathetic. My daughter is brown and extremely good in academic terms. She got a scholarship and a place at a prestigious private boarding school in year 12... It has been hinted to me in so many ways this is because she is a 'poster child'...you know? Brown, girl, secondary non-selective school.

How could it be because her school was actually great for her and provided with lots of opportunities that she made the most of (music/sport/good academic support)?

I think the reality is far more nuanced than you want to believe OP.

It’s true that pre-16, only 7% of children are privately educated. However, at 16-18, this rises to about 18%.

At Oxbridge now, the proportions of applicants from the state sector is roughly 80%. And the offer rate is proportional to that.

But look more closely. Unis all want the headline figures of “widening participation - state school offers rise by 10% to 80%!’ What they are less keen to shout about is that about half of this state school cohort are from grammar schools or other selective state schools. And there are only about 160 grammars in the country! (clustered in certain local authorities). Is this really ‘widening participation?’

And that’s before you get into the issue if schools that select by faith criteria. Or the postcode lottery that excludes people from certain catchment areas because the house prices are too high.

What happens these days is that your GCSEs and A-levels are contextualised against the average in your school. So a student applying from say, Westminster, with ten grade 8s (ie ten A*s) would actually receive a negative score for GCSE which would indeed disadvantage them in terms of admissions. This is because the average score in that school would probably be closer to a clean slate of 9s. The exact same student, applying with the same grade 8s from a comprehensive, would be considered stellar and given a very positive GCSE score because the average GCSE score in that school might be 6s and 7s.

The question is, would the Westminster student have achieved the same GCSEs at the state school? In most cases, the answer would be a resounding ‘yes’ because you don’t get into Westminster unless you are in the top 1% of ability (at least). Most of these students, could do GCSEs off their own bat at home. In fact, getting into certain schools at 11 plus is definitely more competitive than getting into Oxbridge!

Students in independents are now being advised not to mention any relevant school trips or conferences etc on their personal statements as this might mark them out as ‘privileged.’ It’s all a bit of a mockery, to be honest.

You are told very bluntly at the uni advice days that if you are applying from a selective school, a string of top grades mean not much at all. Nada! If you don’t do something well beyond the curriculum, you will not have a chance against students with similar grades from non-selective state schools (especially those in under-represented areas like the NE or Wales). It understandable as to why this situation now exists, but nevertheless it does create an uneven playing field. If you were 18 and rejected from a uni with four A*, in favour of someone who gets a contextual offer of ABB, you might feel a bit miffed. This is also understandable.

@spicedappledonuts

I have had some concerns that I am disadvantaging my dc at Uni application time by sending them to a private school.

But they are getting so much more music and SEN support amongst other things that I tamp down these internal thoughts.

I came from a regional sink school and went to rarefied Uni. However that has its own issues and my dc wouldn't be in that type of school regardless.

So I'm giving my dc the best education I can in the here and now, they may not want to go to Uni anyway.

What data are you basing your concerns on?

@BungleandGeorge
Academically I’m not convinced that many independents are superior to state schools, the intake is different

There was an interesting study I read a while back that basically found that teachers (“good” or “bad”) hardly make a jot of difference to academic outcomes. The harsh reality is that what really matters is:
Genes/DNA
Home environment/Parents
(books/resources, money, motivation)
Peers

Private schools basically sweep up 90% of their pupils from a demographic which excels at all/most the above. The swanky classrooms, small class sizes, and big salaried teachers at private schools are just the final icing on the cake, but not the main ingredient at all.

People have funny ideas when it comes to their children's education. Those that I know in recent times have gone to good universities from state schools but they were generally grammar schools with high academic standards.

Just look around and find schools that suit your children, where they will blossom, and ignore everybody else.

@Plumtree391

People have funny ideas when it comes to their children's education. Those that I know in recent times have gone to good universities from state schools but they were generally grammar schools with high academic standards.

Just look around and find schools that suit your children, where they will blossom, and ignore everybody else.

Exactly this.

Sometimes I just have to take a deep breath, hold it for a second and then say “Rich people problems” and move on with my life.

@moch11
An interesting post. I guess if your kid is bright, and you are of reasonably decent, but not unlimited, financial means, you’d perhaps be better off focusing your money on getting a house in the catchment area of a very, very good state school (selective or not) rather than throwing 15-20k a year at a slightly better private school?

@moch11

I think the reality is far more nuanced than you want to believe OP.

It’s true that pre-16, only 7% of children are privately educated. However, at 16-18, this rises to about 18%.

At Oxbridge now, the proportions of applicants from the state sector is roughly 80%. And the offer rate is proportional to that.

But look more closely. Unis all want the headline figures of “widening participation - state school offers rise by 10% to 80%!’ What they are less keen to shout about is that about half of this state school cohort are from grammar schools or other selective state schools. And there are only about 160 grammars in the country! (clustered in certain local authorities). Is this really ‘widening participation?’

And that’s before you get into the issue if schools that select by faith criteria. Or the postcode lottery that excludes people from certain catchment areas because the house prices are too high.

What happens these days is that your GCSEs and A-levels are contextualised against the average in your school. So a student applying from say, Westminster, with ten grade 8s (ie ten A*s) would actually receive a negative score for GCSE which would indeed disadvantage them in terms of admissions. This is because the average score in that school would probably be closer to a clean slate of 9s. The exact same student, applying with the same grade 8s from a comprehensive, would be considered stellar and given a very positive GCSE score because the average GCSE score in that school might be 6s and 7s.

The question is, would the Westminster student have achieved the same GCSEs at the state school? In most cases, the answer would be a resounding ‘yes’ because you don’t get into Westminster unless you are in the top 1% of ability (at least). Most of these students, could do GCSEs off their own bat at home. In fact, getting into certain schools at 11 plus is definitely more competitive than getting into Oxbridge!

Students in independents are now being advised not to mention any relevant school trips or conferences etc on their personal statements as this might mark them out as ‘privileged.’ It’s all a bit of a mockery, to be honest.

You are told very bluntly at the uni advice days that if you are applying from a selective school, a string of top grades mean not much at all. Nada! If you don’t do something well beyond the curriculum, you will not have a chance against students with similar grades from non-selective state schools (especially those in under-represented areas like the NE or Wales). It understandable as to why this situation now exists, but nevertheless it does create an uneven playing field. If you were 18 and rejected from a uni with four A*, in favour of someone who gets a contextual offer of ABB, you might feel a bit miffed. This is also understandable.

Yes, this. I'm an Oxbridge lecturer who has taken part in the admissions cycle for several years. I am Oxbridge-educated myself and came from a state school in a deprived area which nevertheless got extremely good grades (not selective, but an academy). I am the first person in my family to have gone to university, but now I realise, having seen the system from all sorts of angles and ends, that my raft of As at GCSE would definitely have counted for less on my application rightly than if I'd got 12 As at a poor school that wasn't the top state school in its area. A student coming from a crap private school that gets generally crap grades, who gets all excellent GCSEs, would be prioritised contextually over someone in the position I was in. Of course, that raises the further question of why on earth parents pay to send their children to crap private schools, but hey-ho...

It's all relative.