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.

At a very simplistic level, what I think I'm reading from some posters is this:

Universities: Entry is based on aptitude, as demonstrated through A-level results (except Oxbridge, who do their own thing).

Parents of means: Ok then, we will do everything we can to secure top A-level grades for our children (plus knowledgeable assistance with the Oxbridge process, if relevant).

• People go to university as expected for many years, parents of means and their DC are happy. -

Universities: Actually, having thought about it and met a few non-traditional applicants, we see that; 1) A-levels are not such an excellent indicator of aptitude for degree-level study and 2) there are some pupils with great aptitude but less good A-level results because of their particular circumstances and/or poor educational opportunities. So we're going to use some other methods to assess aptitude and, in those rare cases where we're able to find suitable aptitude in applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may have lower A-level scores through not fault of their own (rare because only the rare few think about applying), we might accept them with lower grades.

Parents of means: 1) Ok, we'll pay people to prepare our DC for every possible type of test and 2) Waaahhhh! How dare you shift the goalposts! You told us it was all about top A-level grades and now you're changing your minds. That's cheating!

A few thoughts that come to mind include:

1. Societal and individual betterment is not a game. It's more important than that.

2. The advantage created for their DC by parents of means becomes a vested interest. It is in the interests of those parents and their DC that education for the masses does not improve to the extent that the playing field is levelled, so much that all those DC with aptitude but without parents of means may rise to the top and compete on an equal basis for places.

3. Upset at contextual offers is but a tiny battle in a war in defence of vested interests.

And, back to my earlier point, that at the bottom of this lies fear that ones own DC are not in fact the very brightest and best and might be the ones who lose out.

That’s what did for the grammar school system in most counties. Interested parents discovering that their DC were not in the top few % so withdrawing support for a system that benefited only those who were.

I feel sorry for everyone who has been unfairly and unkindly treated. I think it’s clear a lot has changed over 40 years. Most of it for the better, too.

The situation we have in front of us is this:
-private school children account for 25% of the As and A*s (pre-COVID star, according to an FT article, sorry paywall)
-driving to align the percentage of private school graduates at universities to mirror the percentage of 6th formers in private schools,18% according to poster on this thread, by logic requires reducing offers to private school children by 28%
-the proportion of state school children at Oxbridge and other elite universities has been increasingly rapidly over the past 3 years

The questions are:
-is the final destination a strict 72/18 split despite differences in the two populations due to differing levels of selection?
-are extra places going to deprived children and diamonds in the rough? Or is it a blunt instrument where other sharp elbowed middle class parents have found an angle?

There have always been contextual offers. There always should have been. No sane person would argue with them. In the past they were never enough contextual offers to move the ratios so decisively and quickly.

Have school admissions found a new way to carefully study each application, get through them all and make sound, nuanced judgements, or are they scrambling to meet targets and make things look right?

@TiredButDancing I know, I'm sorry! I just keep trying to say the same thing in different ways as I honestly can't believe that reasonable people would think like this. It seems so small-minded and begrudging to want to stamp on genuine talent and promise just to protect entrenched privilege. If the non-contextualised DC are genuinely strong candidates, they will make the cut anyway.

I had a several University interviews in the early nineties and my experience was very different.

Yes, I sounded very different to the other candidates and the academic staff but everyone was very pleasant and helpful.
Accommodation was arranged, interviews planned around travel arrangements etc.

The interviews were largely based around the subject I was applying to, which I was passionate about and could talk for hours on.

I was asked if I wanted to read the subject due to a popular movie franchise but where I grew up had no cinemas, which I explained. I have no particular reason to suppose the question was class based.

I got the strong sense they were just looking for bright people with a strong subject interest and the ability to talk. None of these things are class or socio economic specific.

[quote opoponax]@TiredButDancing I know, I'm sorry! I just keep trying to say the same thing in different ways as I honestly can't believe that reasonable people would think like this. It seems so small-minded and begrudging to want to stamp on genuine talent and promise just to protect entrenched privilege. If the non-contextualised DC are genuinely strong candidates, they will make the cut anyway.[/quote]
I know what you mean. That's the point isn't it - the world is split into people who see privilege and those who don't - and never the two shall meet. Sigh.

It seems so small-minded and begrudging to want to stamp on genuine talent and promise just to protect entrenched privilege. But you would have that blinkered view, wouldn't you, if suddenly you found money couldn't buy you the privilege that you believed was yours for the taking?

@AlexaShutUp

I have an idea for parents who are concerned about "discrimination" against their privately educated children. If you genuinely feel that they are at a disadvantage because of their schooling, then why not take them out and send them to state schools instead?

Presumably, you don't do this because you're pretty confident that the privileges that you have purchased for your child will continue to far outweigh the effects of contextual offers for the most disadvantaged children in our society. The issue is not that your children are at a disadvantage in comparison to others, but rather that they are not getting the full extent of the privilege to which you evidently believe that they are entitled.

My dd goes to a state comprehensive. She won't benefit from contextual offers because she is not disadvantaged and she doesn't need them. She is on a level playing field with the kids from independent schools and I'm entirely confident of her ability to compete with them. The vast majority of state educated children do not need and will not get any kind of special treatment. This is not just a stick with which to beat the privately educated. It is about doing something to address the enormous disadvantages faced by a minority of children against whom the odds are so heavily stacked from birth. I honestly can't for the life of me understand why anyone would resent those kids being given the tiniest crumb of support in a system which is so overwhelmingly against them. I just don't get it. Your kids, and mine, will be just fine.

Yes!!!!!! 👏👏👏👏 I don’t understand why people don’t get this

@lottiegarbanzo

At a very simplistic level, what I think I'm reading from some posters is this:

Universities: Entry is based on aptitude, as demonstrated through A-level results (except Oxbridge, who do their own thing).

Parents of means: Ok then, we will do everything we can to secure top A-level grades for our children (plus knowledgeable assistance with the Oxbridge process, if relevant).

• People go to university as expected for many years, parents of means and their DC are happy. -

Universities: Actually, having thought about it and met a few non-traditional applicants, we see that; 1) A-levels are not such an excellent indicator of aptitude for degree-level study and 2) there are some pupils with great aptitude but less good A-level results because of their particular circumstances and/or poor educational opportunities. So we're going to use some other methods to assess aptitude and, in those rare cases where we're able to find suitable aptitude in applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may have lower A-level scores through not fault of their own (rare because only the rare few think about applying), we might accept them with lower grades.

Parents of means: 1) Ok, we'll pay people to prepare our DC for every possible type of test and 2) Waaahhhh! How dare you shift the goalposts! You told us it was all about top A-level grades and now you're changing your minds. That's cheating!

A few thoughts that come to mind include:

1. Societal and individual betterment is not a game. It's more important than that.

2. The advantage created for their DC by parents of means becomes a vested interest. It is in the interests of those parents and their DC that education for the masses does not improve to the extent that the playing field is levelled, so much that all those DC with aptitude but without parents of means may rise to the top and compete on an equal basis for places.

3. Upset at contextual offers is but a tiny battle in a war in defence of vested interests.

And, back to my earlier point, that at the bottom of this lies fear that ones own DC are not in fact the very brightest and best and might be the ones who lose out.

That’s what did for the grammar school system in most counties. Interested parents discovering that their DC were not in the top few % so withdrawing support for a system that benefited only those who were.

Interesting post. I think you have it spot on.

Add to the fear that their child is not the brightest and best and might lose out the fact that, for once, they may not be able to pay for coaching etc to make it happen, which is possibly what they’ve been used to doing to get their own way in the past.

Because like a lot of posters have implied, some have the sense of entitlement, that this is what they have paid for and invested in, so it is somehow deserved more.

@Xenia It belittles the efforts of the parents of state grammar school pupils who found a good school for them or worked hard to pay school fees or the child for got a bursary.

Well. What does this imply about the parents who didn't? that they are inferior and deserve the "not good school" , perhaps? Or that they just "didn't work hard enough" . Do you have any awareness of how most people live and what they earn? You sound like certain politicians suggesting the £20 UC cut won't make a difference because people can just work a bit harder. Are you saying these are "proper" or "good" parents and the rest of us are not?

@StinkingCold

Well, I do think there's something in this OP.

My DH and I thought about selling our house and moving to a small flat to send our 2 boys to private school on sports scholarships and bursaries. However, after much thought we decided that the assumptions made about them and expectations would not be what we want for them...

If they get good grades from a state school -"oh they worked hard, well done".

If they get good grades from private - "well, of course, their parents paid for that".

If they get to a good uni from state school - "well done for all the grafting"

If they get to a good uni from private - "boys club, always the same, everything handed to them..."

If in the future they decide not to be academic, from state that's acceptable, less so from private ...

If in the future they want to go into politics, senior leadership etc... Companies might be more inclined to take from state. If they did take from private it would be "oh always from private schools..."

The list goes on ....

I think if you are ultra rich (I'm talking royal, celeb, etc..) then private school.is worth it as there is expectation on you already, and you can be protected to some extent being around others in privileged positions. For normal people, I just think nowadays private education is more of a disadvantage.

I want my children to feel and be seen as working for where they have got, grafters, deserving.

If they went private, even if this was all true (ie. They worked bloody hard, grafted, deserved what they got) to many they would just be seen as privileged with everything handed to them on a plate.

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)

I think this is largely thinking that your own assumptions about privilege are reflected in the views of those in power. Unfortunately as a large percentage of those in power are privately educated they do tend to select people most like themselves.

@opoponax

Of course if two students get the same grades they mean more if they are achieved in a much more challenging school environment. How blinkered would you need to be not to recognise this.

Unfortunately there are a number of people who don't see this.

@lottiegarbanzo

At a very simplistic level, what I think I'm reading from some posters is this:

Universities: Entry is based on aptitude, as demonstrated through A-level results (except Oxbridge, who do their own thing).

Parents of means: Ok then, we will do everything we can to secure top A-level grades for our children (plus knowledgeable assistance with the Oxbridge process, if relevant).

• People go to university as expected for many years, parents of means and their DC are happy. -

Universities: Actually, having thought about it and met a few non-traditional applicants, we see that; 1) A-levels are not such an excellent indicator of aptitude for degree-level study and 2) there are some pupils with great aptitude but less good A-level results because of their particular circumstances and/or poor educational opportunities. So we're going to use some other methods to assess aptitude and, in those rare cases where we're able to find suitable aptitude in applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may have lower A-level scores through not fault of their own (rare because only the rare few think about applying), we might accept them with lower grades.

Parents of means: 1) Ok, we'll pay people to prepare our DC for every possible type of test and 2) Waaahhhh! How dare you shift the goalposts! You told us it was all about top A-level grades and now you're changing your minds. That's cheating!

A few thoughts that come to mind include:

1. Societal and individual betterment is not a game. It's more important than that.

2. The advantage created for their DC by parents of means becomes a vested interest. It is in the interests of those parents and their DC that education for the masses does not improve to the extent that the playing field is levelled, so much that all those DC with aptitude but without parents of means may rise to the top and compete on an equal basis for places.

3. Upset at contextual offers is but a tiny battle in a war in defence of vested interests.

And, back to my earlier point, that at the bottom of this lies fear that ones own DC are not in fact the very brightest and best and might be the ones who lose out.

That’s what did for the grammar school system in most counties. Interested parents discovering that their DC were not in the top few % so withdrawing support for a system that benefited only those who were.

Yes, great post.

“AlexaShutUp
I have an idea for parents who are concerned about "discrimination" against their privately educated children. If you genuinely feel that they are at a disadvantage because of their schooling, then why not take them out and send them to state schools instead?“

This is interesting and I wonder genuinely what people’s thoughts are on this if your dc are at private school?

Would you be confident enough in their own ability and self-motivation/determination that they would achieve the same in a state environment, and if not why not?

It’s a genuine interest not a goady one as I asked myself the same question when we looked at schools for our dcs.

@Xenia

Triffid, I accept that point but it still is unfair positive discrimination if you have two candidates with the same grades and you automatically give a place to someone from a worse school. It belittles the efforts of the parents of state grammar school pupils who found a good school for them or worked hard to pay school fees or the child for got a bursary.

I didn't even try Oxbridge (from a private school) and until my younger sibling got in no one had ever been from our private schools. most girls did not even go to university. I was also very shy at 17 when I did go to a Norther university - we are from NE England. My sons' private school is mostly BAME and my son's B was the highest grade of any one in his year in one subject but no one is ever going to contextualise that result as they are blinkered thinking private school equals the B even though we have local children at leading state schools like Henrietta Barnett and Watford grammar never mind the local comps which tend to get at least one person with over a B grade!

The contextual offers I've looked at don't seem to just focus on the school. They also include things like if a child has been in care or lives in a very deprived area or are BAME.

Do you think a child who has a disturbed background and has been in care for some of their childhood have the same chance to get that B as your son at his private school?

If your son has been in care or lives in a deprived area or whatever the particular university considers then he would be able to apply for a contextual offer wouldn't he? Or am I not understanding what I'm reading i.e. If one of the following applies.

I understand the frustration, my DDs school suggested she applied for a place on a Sutton Trust course. My husband, her father, was disabled and had been on benefits since she was 2, I was his carer. She was first generation to go to university, I left school at 15 my husband at 18. She is mixed race. She couldn't as she went to a grammar school. The person I spoke to at the trust agreed she was exactly the sort of person they were looking at but the grammar school ruled her out. She did go to one of the top 3 universities for her course and got a first class degree so she did OK anyway.

Children with bursaries, children with scholarships go to private schools too. They're not ALL born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

They may not be born with a silver spoon but they do have an educational advantage, however rich their parents are. And that unfair advantage is what universities are trying to manage.

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.

1. It's not arbitrary
2. It's transparent
3. Private school applicants are not disadvantaged
4. Correctly identifying private school applicants as privileged is not nasty stereotyping

Other than that, 100% correct, well done.

Would you be confident enough in their own ability and self-motivation/determination that they would achieve the same in a state environment, and if not why not?

@Lollipop444

My dc are at an international school overseas so they can remain in UK education system so it wouldn't be straightforward swap.

They did go to a state school in the UK but we were thinking about going back to the UK we did consider a range of questions on this thread when considering if we should factor in school fees.

It is obvious to me that my dc do not have the determination and drive that I did at their age. But I had worked out that if I wanted more than a dead job and an early pregnancy the only way out was education. I picked a subject I loved and did a lot of local free extra circular activity from middle school onwards.

My dc have no idea what such limited life experiences look like. They have all their needs met and a significant number of their wants. They talk about the whole world when discussing study and work, as do their friends.
It is fantastic that they have such a broad outlook on life.
They aren't lazy but they aren't driven either. I was pushed to escape which is a stronger driver than being exited to keep on exploring.
They are early teens so may feel more drive as they get older but I'm okay if they don't.
I had struggled with them not embracing every opportunity for a while but they can't react like I would have done because they aren't where I was. State or private schools that will be the case.

It's all obviously a lot more nuanced than simply state vs private. My children go/went to state schools but they wouldn't and most definitely shouldn't qualify for any contextual offers. They aren't privileged to the same degree as the public school kids who poked fun at my clothes at my interviews nearly 40 years ago, but they are privileged. Their school may be technically a non selective comprehensive just as mine was but I'd say it has more in common with a lot of grammars and independents than with schools like the one I attended - it's location and the type of families who choose it see to that.
Having 2 University educated parents in fairly well paid professional jobs has given my children childhoods that I could only have dreamed of, and if a kid from some dire inner city comp who had managed decent grades got prioritised over them I really don't think we could complain.
I do think it's true that those who have always been privileged often don't see it. It's an issue that I have with my privately educated DH, lovely as he is in most respects! He does seem to struggle to understand that being one of the least affluent families at private school, "only" living in a semi detached house and having to self cater on your annual family holiday abroad doesn't make you under privileged, and nor does the fact that your parents had to "make sacrifices" to pay the school fees. If you have enough slack in your family budget to pay independent school fees at all then you are privileged compared to the majority. My parents couldn't have done that unless they gave up things like eating, and I considered myself lucky to be quite affluent compared to many of my school mates. I was never hungry, or smelly, there was always at least one warm room in the house and my clothes might have been homemade or off the market but they fitted and were clean. We didn't have much by the way of extracurricular activities or holidays but we had a house full of books and education was valued. So many kids didn't, and still don't, even have those things and if some of them somehow manage to get reasonable grades despite that and get a helping hand into a University over one of my kids then so be it.

I do think it's true that those who have always been privileged often don't see it. It's an issue that I have with my privately educated DH, lovely as he is in most respects! He does seem to struggle to understand that being one of the least affluent families at private school, "only" living in a semi detached house and having to self cater on your annual family holiday abroad doesn't make you under privileged, and nor does the fact that your parents had to "make sacrifices" to pay the school fees. If you have enough slack in your family budget to pay independent school fees at all then you are privileged compared to the majority.

Absolutely, and I think this is one of the biggest downsides of private education - it completely skews your perspective of what's "normal". The lack of awareness on this thread really highlights that.

My dd is very privileged and she knows it. Yes, she goes to a fairly ordinary state comprehensive school, but she has highly educated and supportive parents, access to a great range of extracurricular activities, opportunities to travel and try new things, resources at home like books, laptops and good broadband etc. We are not rich but financially comfortable and she has never had to worry about stuff. She has seen for herself that not everyone is lucky enough to have those advantages and she doesn't take them for granted.

That's how I feel @MrsAvocet. It's absolutely not about whether people choose to educate their children privately or not. That's absolutely their choice and different circumstances can make it a complex one. It's more about just being able to recognise your own privilege, whatever that may be, and having the grace to concede that others may be more deserving through their accomplishments in a very challenging learning environment. I have had this discussion with my own DC who readily see that they have been very lucky to benefit from their selective state education and that their paths are much easier than some others. They can see that someone may not have the same stellar academic grades but be absolutely exceptional in their achievements. I would feel I had failed as a parent if they couldn't appreciate this. I agree that if they were to 'miss out' to someone more deserving, then the system is working.

It’s annoying when state schools kids are picked above public school kids because of politically correctness and not intelligence which is definitely happening because I work for one.

@AlexaShutUp absolutely. My dc are similar in that we can't afford private but they are fully aware that their swimming/gymnastics/karate/theatre/basketball etc puts them ahead of their peers in terms of what they have and their privilege. DS' best friend was supposed to come with him on a holiday camp and on the day he was "ill" and couldn't attend. DS said to me, " I don't think his mum booked him on at all but she didn't want to admit to us it was too expensive.'

Similarly, DS will go to local state school but he has the option to choose which of two excellent schools he attends, both of which are in in the Sunday Times top 500 list. I have banged into him how lucky he is to have this option. He is quite good at a particular sport, offered by his new high school, but he will probably continue to attend a county club. If he gets to perform in this sport at a relatively high level, it will be because we have been able to afford for him to get private coaching at a high level. Again, he knows this.

But my niece and nephew, fabulous though they are, are completely oblivious. They attend private schools and honestly don't understand that other people don't have what they have. In their defence, as they get older, they appear to be learning - my brother and SIL are teaching them and/or their schools are discussing this stuff. But it's not the same.

@threatmatrix

It’s annoying when state schools kids are picked above public school kids because of politically correctness and not intelligence which is definitely happening because I work for one.

You work for one what? Sorry your grammar wasn’t very clear. No decent University worth its salt would ever offer a space to a ‘state school kid’ who was not considered able and worth the place over a ‘more intelligent’ public school kid. It just doesn’t work in that simplistic way, and I’m surprised to hear that’s your supposed view ‘from the inside’.

@threatmatrix do you mean your work in HE admissions? Or are you a lecturer who can distinguish state school students inferior intelligence to your public school students?

@threatmatrix

It’s annoying when state schools kids are picked above public school kids because of politically correctness and not intelligence which is definitely happening because I work for one.

Do you work in university admissions?