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.

Our kids have us parents for the pastoral care / upbringing / culture/ sport. We have moved and walked away from city jobs to ensure we both around to do this. School for us does education only weaker subjects we supplement with tutors. If you want more than that yes you pay for it. The other model for more career focused parents is outsource all the extras to the school but yes pay for it.

I know. The language is so telling of the underlying belief that Oxbridge places 'belong' to privately educated children and more state school children applying means that they're somehow being done out of something that is rightfully theirs.

This is the crux of it really. It's incredibly depressing.
Nobody is 'taking away' university places from privately educated young people. They are still able to apply for these places and they still more likely to get them. It's just that it's marginally more competitive now.

Tractor but most universities do not have interviews and Bristol has the grade difference thing for contextual applications (and a few other things like where you live and FSM). So the issue about shining at interviews if you are intrinsically very bright despite your background (which will be the case at oxbridge) does not then apply. We used to have more interviews than now. I think the academic sector thought they were too time consuming and also too likely to favour those who are forced to give public talks and presentations at schools - grammars and privates and required to speak a lot to adults at home.

@SkinnyMirror

I know. The language is so telling of the underlying belief that Oxbridge places 'belong' to privately educated children and more state school children applying means that they're somehow being done out of something that is rightfully theirs.

This is the crux of it really. It's incredibly depressing.
Nobody is 'taking away' university places from privately educated young people. They are still able to apply for these places and they still more likely to get them. It's just that it's marginally more competitive now.

People are also forgetting there's also a large proportion of international students! The figure for Oxford is 21% - about 1 in every 5. All this private vs state debate seems silly when the competition is global. If Oxbridge assessed every applicant purely on their own merits the place would be filled with international students.

The REAL issue is that competition is intense/cutthroat on some courses (history and medicine for example) and not so much in others (Classics, Theology & Ancient Religion).

International students and pupils vying for contextual offers are often competing for the 'popular' courses along with private school pupils. Having routes to funnel those from deprived backgrounds directly onto courses thus has a drastic effect on private school admissions in those courses
For example - courses eligible for Oxford's proposed Foundation year:
www.lmh.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/foundation-year/lmh-foundation-year-students/studying-foundation-year-0

I'd be very surprised if the intake on Oxbridge's more popular courses are not already very diverse.

The proportion of private school students as a whole however will remain high because those from privileged backgrounds will be the ones applying for obscure courses which form the majority of the undergrad intake as a whole. What state school student would apply for the Classics 3 year course when you have to have taken a Latin A-level for your application to have even been considered?

@Xenia

Tractor but most universities do not have interviews and Bristol has the grade difference thing for contextual applications (and a few other things like where you live and FSM). So the issue about shining at interviews if you are intrinsically very bright despite your background (which will be the case at oxbridge) does not then apply. We used to have more interviews than now. I think the academic sector thought they were too time consuming and also too likely to favour those who are forced to give public talks and presentations at schools - grammars and privates and required to speak a lot to adults at home.

One of my GC is at the local comp. He does just as much presenting things at school, school council, debating etc as his brother at a grammar. He also speaks to adults at home. Did you really think that parents stop speaking to children if they don't go to a grammar or private school? How bizarre.

@Xenia

Tractor but most universities do not have interviews and Bristol has the grade difference thing for contextual applications (and a few other things like where you live and FSM). So the issue about shining at interviews if you are intrinsically very bright despite your background (which will be the case at oxbridge) does not then apply. We used to have more interviews than now. I think the academic sector thought they were too time consuming and also too likely to favour those who are forced to give public talks and presentations at schools - grammars and privates and required to speak a lot to adults at home.

I'm only talking about Oxbridge. I don't know about the admission process for other RG's but there's a wide range from the LSE to Cardiff.

FWIW I got into the LSE less than 10 years ago . Was a foreign student, both parents professionals but I went to a shitty 'less developed' (no idea what the PC term is) country state school and had no outside tutoring. I was on track for A*'s, wasn't even going to bother applying to UK unis but my A-levels college (a Christian run organisation which had given me a full scholarship) insisted that I did.

To this day I have no clue as to how I got into the LSE as I met so many applicants from international schools etc with the same grades as me (in 'better' subjects) who were rejected. And upon landing in the U.K and going to the international students gathering realised how I was among the few people who had attended a state school and had not been prepped from birth for studying abroad.

I say all this but Oxbridge is a thousands times harder...

@ancientgran it's not 'state schools' though it's pupils from #deprived backgrounds.
State school in leafy suburbia which only takes people from the surrounding rich person catchment doesn't count.

[quote TractorAndHeadphones]@ancientgran it's not 'state schools' though it's pupils from #deprived backgrounds.
State school in leafy suburbia which only takes people from the surrounding rich person catchment doesn't count.[/quote]
My GS is at a comp in a deprived area, above average FSM, "clever" children siphoned off to grammar in neighbouring town. They still do things like school council, chess club, debating etc. Not a leafy suburb.

70% of students at LSE are from overseas. I don’t know what the figure would be for UCL and KCL, but it will be very high.

State school or independent in the U.K., this is what students are up against.

Also, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say, “interviews give bright state school children their chance to shine.” What interviews? Unless you’re applying for Oxbridge or Medicine, there are no interviews (except for a very small minority of courses in some cases).

@sol5

70% of students at LSE are from overseas. I don’t know what the figure would be for UCL and KCL, but it will be very high.

State school or independent in the U.K., this is what students are up against.

Also, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say, “interviews give bright state school children their chance to shine.” What interviews? Unless you’re applying for Oxbridge or Medicine, there are no interviews (except for a very small minority of courses in some cases).

Exactly - there's no point in quibbling over 'state vs private' when the competition is global. Apart from a select few universities there is NO state school problem: thetab.com/uk/2019/09/19/uk-private-school-universities-125931

I have now realised why I was going on about Oxbridge - because those two are the ones which produce the highest number of people in elite government roles and at which people were bemoaning a lack of diversity. Not 'top UK unis' in general.

And again for 'top UK unis' in general as measured by Russell Group the issue is not state vs private but disadvantage of background. Being a young carer , or in the foster care system for example. State schools aren't all filled with 100% 'deprived' students. This is a completely different issue to the Oxbridge (and similar institutions) private school hegemony,

@Mumof4DC you are being very defensive which I don't understand. People have been at pains to (mostly) say they don't have an issue with private schools. But surely you see that you are making choices for your children based on financial opportunities that others don't have. You refer to the crime and gangs in the local state schools where you live. But how many children don't have the option to escape that? I'm not suggesting you don't have the right to send your children to private school, but I do think it's perfectly reasonable to say that private school families surely must be able to see how this privileges those children. And absolutely yes, that's often true for families who can get their children into grammar schools as well.

I do think for all my irritation with the complacency and whinging of private school parents, more than anything this thread has really driven home to me how important providing better support for children earlier is important. I tended to pooh pooh the Duchess of Cambridge's early years campaigning, thinking that KS1 and KS2 were more important, but I'm really starting to see the value in breaking patterns very early.

Also to add - feel free to correct me anyone.
The main point IMO is the distinction between the lack of state students at the 'very elite' institutions (deprived or not) and the inability of bright students from deprived backgrounds to enter 'top universities' which aren't necessarily elite. Again the distinction will come in at course level - certain subjects may have a high proportion of private school students due to its nature (Art History anyone), and again others as PP have pointed out have more international students so the private/public debate is irrelevant.

Much, much more complex than simply saying 'less places for private school students' or 'need more state schools'.

Also as an aside Surely international students count in the BAME stats but as the majority are rich and privileged they don't count as 'deprived'. While Oxbridge measure their stats of BAME students it includes these which is misleading.

The reason interviews are regarded as unfair for those from difficult circumstances (and why most universities do not do them) is because they allow more bias than pure exam results. It is not that I am suggesting children from FSM homes are not articulate and bright and cannot express themselves in interviews - it is just what surveys of this kind of thing found out
(I am not writing about Oxbridge here)
Largely ignoring the personal statement and not having an interview is one of the things have has helped many students get places compared with the old days.

[quote Triffid1]@Mumof4DC you are being very defensive which I don't understand. People have been at pains to (mostly) say they don't have an issue with private schools. But surely you see that you are making choices for your children based on financial opportunities that others don't have. You refer to the crime and gangs in the local state schools where you live. But how many children don't have the option to escape that? I'm not suggesting you don't have the right to send your children to private school, but I do think it's perfectly reasonable to say that private school families surely must be able to see how this privileges those children. And absolutely yes, that's often true for families who can get their children into grammar schools as well.

I do think for all my irritation with the complacency and whinging of private school parents, more than anything this thread has really driven home to me how important providing better support for children earlier is important. I tended to pooh pooh the Duchess of Cambridge's early years campaigning, thinking that KS1 and KS2 were more important, but I'm really starting to see the value in breaking patterns very early.[/quote]
Exactly!
I ma happy to pay higher taxes if all children regardless of financial background get to play a musical instrument. Take part in drama, theatre arts. Visit world class museums. Have their minds opened and their curiosity cultivated. Take my money I say.

As it stands even the parents who send kids to state school and have money will pay for all these outside activities. I'm sure 'some' state schools manage to do all of it without parental contribution but from what I've seen it's not a lot

Comps in ‘better’ areas with less children on FSM actually get a lot less funding so the provision of clubs, pastoral care, SEN support etc is actually often a lot better in the deprived areas.
This thread has prompted me to have a look at some of the university criteria. It seems to vary hugely, but some appear to be prioritising 40% of state schools plus deprived postcode, difficult circumstances, being in care etc. Others just being in care and deprivation. The former must apply to over 50% of state school pupils, are we really saying that many are receiving an education so poor that they need grades reducing? If we are that’s a pretty poor reflection on the state of education in this country!

At the university I work at we don't specifically ask for higher grades from private school students we just drop one grade for students who either live in a bottom POLAR area quintile OR live in the second lowest POLAR quintile and also attend one of the schools in the bottom 40% for GCSE results.

So if you went to an average comp and lived in a fairly average area you'd get the same offer as someone living a in a multi million pound house and attending an elite private school.

Do some universities have different requirements for private and non private school students?

@Manteo

At the university I work at we don't specifically ask for higher grades from private school students we just drop one grade for students who either live in a bottom POLAR area quintile OR live in the second lowest POLAR quintile and also attend one of the schools in the bottom 40% for GCSE results.

So if you went to an average comp and lived in a fairly average area you'd get the same offer as someone living a in a multi million pound house and attending an elite private school.

Do some universities have different requirements for private and non private school students?

No they don't. They just use contextual admissions like your university does - which is the right thing to do!

The main point IMO is the distinction between the lack of state students at the 'very elite' institutions (deprived or not) and the inability of bright students from deprived backgrounds to enter 'top universities' which aren't necessarily elite. Again the distinction will come in at course level - certain subjects may have a high proportion of private school students due to its nature (Art History anyone), and again others as PP have pointed out have more international students so the private/public debate is irrelevant.

Exactly, there two similar yet different issues here.

how I got into the LSE

I don't know what it was like 10 years ago, but ATM, judging by prospectuses, rhetoric and overall vibe, LSE appears to be the kind of institution that favours anyone as long as they are not British non-disadvantaged applicants.

It seems very political and ideologically biased.

If I may ask a question to the OP and Alexa for example, as I gather your DC have not applied to university yet.

How would you feel if your children were rejected (in spite of having the required grades and having attended a state school) because they were not disadvantaged or diverse enough in the eyes of these institutions and had to resort to studying at less desirable places?

Skinny I would be interested to know the % of places awarded through contextual admissions nowadays vs prior to 2018 (as this is when the Office for Students was founded?

How would you feel if your children were rejected (in spite of having the required grades and having attended a state school) because they were not disadvantaged or diverse enough in the eyes of these institutions and had to resort to studying at less desirable places?

Nobody gets rejected for these reasons. You are looking at it all wrong.

@Manteo
That’s more or less what I would have expected and sounds completely reasonable.

I’m interested in what happens when there are more equally qualified applicants for places than places available. So candidates with identical predicted grades and who also perform equally well at interview and are this fairly indistinguishable apart from type of school attended.
Are places then offered in such a way as to fulfil suggested quotas regarding desired percentage of state v private school pupils?

I don’t work in university admissions but I do interview as part of my current role and I know how subjective the interviewing process can be. Presumably much greater care is taken in evaluating interview performance than in the past?

@mustlovegin

Skinny I would be interested to know the % of places awarded through contextual admissions nowadays vs prior to 2018 (as this is when the Office for Students was founded?

Before the OfS we had HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England). The OfS replaced HECFE. Why do you think this will have made a difference?

This is a really good resource for understanding contextual admissions.

www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/bf84aeda-21c6-4b55-b9f8-3386b21b7b3b/insight-3-contextual-admissions.pdf

The parallels between this discussion and those surrounding mediocre men being denied the opportunity of comfortable careers (to the limited extent that that is slowly, painfully happening), as a result of more, different people entering the workforce at all ability levels, is fascinating.