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.

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

In other words, let's replace an allegedly previously biased entry system with a different biased system that works in our favour

...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

It would be really interesting to know exactly how this 'great aptitude' is determined and what these 'other methods to assess aptitude' are

@mustlovegin that doesn't mean that at all, 'a more balanced demographic' means one where public school pupils are not disproportionally represented in universities, in particular, Oxbridge and redbrick institutions.

@mustlovegin

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

In other words, let's replace an allegedly previously biased entry system with a different biased system that works in our favour

Nope. This isn't what is happening for the many, many reasons already explained to you.

@mustlovegin what's your take on it then? You seem concerned on behalf of public school pupils that the oiks state school pupils are going to take premium HE places?

It would be really interesting to know exactly how this 'great aptitude' is determined and what these 'other methods to assess aptitude' are

Again, this is really easy to find out.
Universities are required to be transparent about their admissions processes. If you are looking at course information online it will outline the specific process for that course. Admissions tutors will also be very honest about what they are looking for if you contact them. It's not a secret 🤷🏼‍♀️

It can include interviews, portfolios, getting involved in an access programme or summer school, EPQ, work experience........

State school kids who apply for Oxbridge and other top ranked universities have to get the same triple A* or triple A as private school students.
No one gets into the top 5 or the 20 Russell Group universities with compromised grades or sob stories.
Tbh, I've never even heard a whisper that private school students were disadvantaged. But maybe that's because I don't know anyone who works in one or who sends their kids to one. No idea where this perceived "threat" to the cultural supremacy of the rich comes from.

[quote RumblyMumbly]@mustlovegin that doesn't mean that at all, 'a more balanced demographic' means one where public school pupils are not disproportionally represented in universities, in particular, Oxbridge and redbrick institutions.[/quote]
Exactly. People seem under the misapprehension that poor state school kids are going to be taking all the places at elite universities. In fact, there is zero evidence that will even even come close to happening.

The reality is that non traditional students are far less likely to even apply to elite universities never mind take all the places!

Twelve million people have arrived in the UK since 2000, and many of them will have married and had children, who are now at school. A lot will have pushed water uphill to do their best for their children, and in having the courage and the luck to arrive here, their children are likely to be blessed with intelligence, courage and determination via their genetic inheritance. Like the Ugandan Asians, who arrived at school with me in 1971, who had corner shops and worked every hour they could, whose children are now prominent and successful in the media, finance, politics, medicine and the law.

There is, as someone said to me once, only one place where success comes before work.... in a dictionary.

@mustlovegin

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

In other words, let's replace an allegedly previously biased entry system with a different biased system that works in our favour

It’s always going to be biased towards those with the money, privilege and social capital to afford their kids the opportunities private schools bring, because those kids have the odds stacked in their favour in so many ways. It’s just trying to level the playing field. Do we really want all the people in the UK who make decisions on our behalf to have only been to University via a handful of fee paying schools? Can we have a little bit more representation in power? It feels to me like you’re complaining because you’ve paid for schooling for years and now you may not get ‘your due’ so easily….

Typical twisting of my words really? You’d be very surprised.

Now that would get me recognised so sorry can’t divulge.

As usual the independent vs state divide hides so much nuance in the situation. I have worked in both. The difference between a public school and a small London day school is enormous. People thinking all independent schools are like Eton really know nothing about it. Such a diverse range and yes we take Looked After Children, children on 100% bursaries and children whose parents aren't poor but also aren't rich - they just put their money into school fees rather than a house in the right catchment. The grammar I attended may have been a state school but had more in common with independents than with the inner city academies I have worked in.

Having attended Oxbridge from a poor background (lucky to get into that grammar school!) I am glad that contextual offers (that still require all students to reach the same minimum standard) will help more people like me to attend. Does that mean I don't want my current private school pupils to get in. I would love some of them to get in but am hopeful that this will help only the truly exceptional private school pupils to get in, rather than those who are fairly mediocre but have been extensively prepped.

@threatmatrix

Typical twisting of my words really? You’d be very surprised.

@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

So you make a completely unsubstantiated comment and expect it to go unchallenged?

There are literally thousands of parents, school workers, University admissions and lecturers so revealing which perspective you purport to be speaking from is not going to 'out' you!

@XingMing

Twelve million people have arrived in the UK since 2000, and many of them will have married and had children, who are now at school. A lot will have pushed water uphill to do their best for their children, and in having the courage and the luck to arrive here, their children are likely to be blessed with intelligence, courage and determination via their genetic inheritance. Like the Ugandan Asians, who arrived at school with me in 1971, who had corner shops and worked every hour they could, whose children are now prominent and successful in the media, finance, politics, medicine and the law.

There is, as someone said to me once, only one place where success comes before work.... in a dictionary.

It is a nice idea. But it is wrong I'm afraid.

There are the haves and the have nots and it is a constant battle to try and keep that divide from expanding (we are losing that battle at the moment).

I went to university with people who were destined to be "successful" by our modern standard, not because of any significant work on their part, but because of who their parents' were. One guy I knew spent most of his time at uni in his PJ's in front of a games console. He got a 2:2 and walked straight into a plum job at a hedge fund probably earning more than I do now as an experienced and highly qualified professional. Why? Because his dad was a very wealth financier and he clicked his fingers and son (who went to the right school of course) got a great job. One example amongst many that I know of personally. It still happens it this day. This is the real world, not some flawed idea that success can only come from hard work. Privileged people do really get handed it on a plate.

Mary "No one gets into the top 5 or the 20 Russell Group universities with compromised grades or sob stories." Bristol where 3 of mine go let those in the bottom 40% of schools get in with about 2 grades lower so whilst what you say may be true of Oxbridge(same grades but choosing the FSM candidate over Eton) is not the case for places like Bristol.

Most of my children's private school friends are not handed jobs on plate as Eleg implies. I don't even know how you give a child a job in law or accountancy. I know loads of lawyers but the firms have complicated application processes. You cannot bypass them.

Do Bristol 'let those in the bottom 40% of schools get in with about 2 grades lower' or do they contextualise their offers to take account of socioeconomic deprivation and the well-known and well-researched effects that has on educational attainment (as well as health outcomes, potential salary expectations etc)?

They do this, to quote from their website "At Bristol we want to attract students from all backgrounds because we believe a student community that reflects our society will benefit everyone."

Applicants from less well-performing schools, poorer socioeconomic areas, who have spent time in the care system etc are doing the traditionally 'posh' students at Bristol a favour.

I had an incredibly cringeworthy conversation at my magic circle law firm interview - I was at school in Bristol as was the senior partner but he was puzzled as he “had not heard” of my school - he had been at Clifton college obviously 😁 mine was a rural comp. Got the job though!

It would be really interesting to know exactly how this 'great aptitude' is determined and what these 'other methods to assess aptitude' are Isn't that why a lot of the subjects for Oxbridge entry require an exam?

I always tell the story of someone in my school who was a solid second setter. They got 8 GCSEs (not all As) and I can't really remember what their A Level results were (possibly AAB or ABB) who got into Oxford. Yes, there were pupils in the school who were brighter 'on paper' but the person in question was extremely widely read and knowledgeable about all kinds of stuff. And clearly did well in the entrance exam that used to exist.

The reality is that non traditional students are far less likely to even apply to elite universities never mind take all the places! There is a lot of truth in that. Many are more likely to do their university education local to their family ties.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

The reality is that non traditional students are far less likely to even apply to elite universities never mind take all the places! There is a lot of truth in that. Many are more likely to do their university education local to their family ties.

I'm in the process of doing some research on this exact topic but also looking at what impact covid has had on university choices. Early indications show that first generation students in particular and those from low participation groups ( often the same ) are still more likely to choose a local university rather than an elite university even when they are likely to achieve the grades required to study at a top university.

We are so far off poor working class students 'taking over' elite universities..... there really is no need to get so wound up about it 🙄

Although you might want to question why you have such an issue with disadvantaged young people being given a shot at the same opportunities typically afforded to the more privileged young people in society 🤷🏼‍♀️

The only reason I mentioned Bristol's scheme was to point out the impression given above that ALL contextual schemes require the applicant to have as high grades as those from free paying schools was not correct for all universities although may well be from Oxbridge.

We also have a problem with the huge rise of A and A*. Hardly anyone got an A in my day (A stars did not exist). I suppose that is why universities have moved to their own tests for some subjects such as medicine and law to distinguish people.

I agree with Skinny that those with not much money might well go to their local university - Northumbria, Sunderland etc (areas where I am from although my uncle and father both read medicine in those days at Durham University and were from Bishop Auckland up there so it was local. I checked their school which was a state grammar which was founded i the 1600s in their day and is not grammar today and I don't think any children now compared with the 1930s and 40s went to Durham now. That might just reflect poverty levels I suppose. My great grandparents moved up to NE England in the 1870s because it was rich and booming and there were jobs from the thriving coal fields. By 1929 there was dire poverty and people were trying to leave. 3 of my grandfather's brothers emigrated to Canada and one sister moved to London to work as a nurse for 30 years. A bit like my siblings and I all moving in the 1980s to get work.

@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 seem to be confusing intelligence and exam grades, so I’m pretty sure that you DON’T work in university admissions ( thank goodness ).

I have some knowledge of the widening participation scheme used by a group of top universities ( not Oxford or Cambridge) which aims to recruit 17% students on high demand courses from non traditional backgrounds.

Despite years of outreach, they are still at less than 10%, for all the reasons that others have mentioned upthread.

The students who get in through such programmes have their progress monitored throughout the course and despite getting in with lower than average grades, they are significantly more successful than average on the course.

So the medical/dental/vet med/ law schools don’t want these applicants because of “ political correctness “. They want them because they are brighter, work harder and do better.

So you are completely wrong @threatmatrix - they are in fact more “intelligent “ , not less.

Well I don’t know, isn’t the whole point of sending your children to private school is to get them into a better university and then a better job?

Not in our case. We looked round a private school recently (not decided yet if we’re going to send our kids private yet), and the thing we liked most was the range of different opportunities, outside academia, that are kids are able to access. The benefit of that in my eyes isn’t to ‘create a well rounded individual who can put a perfect uni application in’ - it’s to hopefully increase their chances of finding things outside of academia that they love doing- purely for the sake that enjoying what you’re doing is a great way to spend your time. I’ve no agenda about whether they go to uni or not, or if they do - which one, I want them to pursue whatever it is they enjoy for the sake of their own happiness. Of course they (at some point) need to consider the job prospects of whatever it is they enjoy doing, but it’s ultimately their life and up to them when they do.

I do completely appreciate (and dislike) the unfairness of these schools being available only to people who can afford them, I wish all schools offered those opportunities. It’s one of the reasons I can’t decide whether to go down the private route or not, it’s something I’ve always felt was unfair and it’s very recently that we’re in a position to be able to afford it. I completely agree with the idea of a ‘A’ from some schools being worth more than a ‘A’ from some private schools.

I sent my sons to private school on waitressing money. I never had a holiday, and worked six days a week while also studying to better myself. It can be done, but only if you are prepared to put your children before yourself. At the moment there is a drive to get state educated children into higher universities so it actually has been a bit biased and I have witnessed this first hand. You can call me a liar all you want, it doesn’t really affect me in any way. I was a firm believer in Grammar schools as they worked very well. I love children who get into high up universities coming from lower class backgrounds and yes I agree that of course some of these kids are more intelligent and deserve it but at the moment you stand more chance if you are ethnic or diverse.