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.

@lottiegarbanzo

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.

Absolutely this. It has alarming similarities to the furore not so very long ago about women entering the workplace, and 'taking away men's jobs'.

@TractorAndHeadphones I completely appreciate the points you are making and of course if a child went to our local comp and managed to achieve outstanding grades, that would be a wonderful achievement and their access to a top university should be the same as anyone else’s. Should they be prioritised over DC at private school? I think that might be right in some cases but it should be done on individual merit taking into account each child’s circumstances. Not a blanket ‘state school child should be prioritised over private’ as others have stated. As I have said, there are many ways of gaming the system in the state sector and many parents do that all the time in a very duplicitous way. Their DC should most definitely not be prioritised for a place over mine. I don’t mean to be defensive but other posters have said that private schools should be abolished, that the DC from there will be set up for life financially by their parents and so need no other help. We are essentially middle class like many state schools parents, not particularly wealthy at all. I understand of course we do have a certain level of privilege in that we can afford private education at all but we have both worked very hard all our lives for what we had. Both come from crappy beginnings, borderline neglectful parents and DH’s dad was in jail most of his early life. I hated my state school and refuse to feel guilty for trying to do something different for my DC. Many of you would be horrified by our lack of savings, pension provision etc. We put all our income towards school fees and to be told that our DC have privilege and therefore should, on the face of it, be afforded less chances than state school educated children, is very galling and makes me defensive. I have numerous friends who have DC in state school and are in much better financial positions than us as a result. That’s our choice but when people make incorrect assumptions about privately educated DC and their families it does rankle.

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

It really is.

I teach a subject at university where social mobility is a key topic. This tread has inspired me to use the topic of contextual admissions as one of their class debates this term!

Without wanting to out you @SkinnyMirror, can you tell us your subject? (Please don’t answer if you feel it will take away your anonymity.)

I understand of course we do have a certain level of privilege in that we can afford private education at all but we have both worked very hard all our lives for what we had. Both come from crappy beginnings, borderline neglectful parents and DH’s dad was in jail most of his early life. I hated my state school and refuse to feel guilty for trying to do something different for my DC. Many of you would be horrified by our lack of savings, pension provision etc. We put all our income towards school fees and to be told that our DC have privilege and therefore should, on the face of it, be afforded less chances than state school educated children, is very galling and makes me defensive. I have numerous friends who have DC in state school and are in much better financial positions than us as a result. That’s our choice but when people make incorrect assumptions about privately educated DC and their families it does rankle.

But you're just saying that you've paid out and are suffering in other ways because of your decision to choose to buy privilege for your children, therefore your children should get the privilege you're paying for.

Your understandable desire to do the best for your children doesn't trump the broader good of society, and the private/state school issue is one of the things keeping the UK such a class-divided and inegalitarian society.

this discussion and those surrounding mediocre men being denied the opportunity of comfortable careers

Are you prejudging private school students and saying they are mediocre? Why?

Unfortunately it would be very outing as my course is only offered at 6 universities in the UK and mine is the only one that has a specific higher education & social mobility focus!!

My main areas of research are fair access to higher education and the focus of my PhD was on access to elite universities.
I'm also interested in women's career development which, as someone has already pointed out, does offer some parallels!

This tread has inspired me to use the topic of contextual admissions as one of their class debates this term

Well, of course most of your students will be in favour of contextual admissions:

a) if they got in through this route
b) if they decided to study a subject that focuses on social mobility

It all depends of the audience you are asking and their bias, surely? Same as most research nowadays

This tread has inspired me to use the topic of contextual admissions as one of their class debates this term

Well, of course most of your students will be in favour of contextual admissions:

a) if they got in through this route
b) if they decided to study a subject that focuses on social mobility

It all depends of the audience you are asking and their bias, surely? Same as most research nowadays

I know you are really looking to pick at everything I say but this is getting a little bit ridiculous now. Are you now moving on to question my teaching methods??

One of my jobs as a lecturer is to encourage debate and critical thinking. Our termly debates are one way of doing this..... the group will be split into 'for' and 'against' and will be expected to put forward a robust argument. The outcome of this debate will not impact social or government policy in anyway - so you don't need to worry!!!

Oh, and suggesting most research is biased is not only demonstrating a lack of understanding of how academic research works, it's also pretty insulting to those of us that do it!

I agree it is a wonderful topic for debate. Divide the class into two and make one side argue for private schools and against positive discrimination however otherwise woke left peer pressure will mean students who don't agree with left wing academics will not dare to speak out.

Am I not supposed to get my students to discuss and debate the very subject they've signed up to study?

What debate topics should I be setting??

I agree it is a wonderful topic for debate. Divide the class into two and make one side argue for private schools and against positive discrimination however otherwise woke left peer pressure will mean students who don't agree with left wing academics will not dare to speak out.

That's different debate entirely. It's not about being for or against private schools and as positive discrimination is illegal we won't be setting up a debate around that subject- we cover equality and diversity quite heavily anyway and that includes the legalities and related policy.

And there is no 'woke left' peer pressure so that's not a problem 🙄

I’m 99% if recruitment we do not care where you little darlings went to university, we do not really care on what classification they were given as we all know but know one says firsts and upper seconds have increased 3 fold I. the last 15 years that also coincides with massive competition hmmmm go figure? And finally for the vast amount of jobs we really don’t care what subjects the degree was in. I really couldn’t care less if a interviewee has got a degree from Cambridge or Derby University, to be honest I’d actually think the person from Derby is likely to have overcome more adversity and is often more practical

Well SkinnyMirror, I hope that your students have a better grasp of the concept of contextual offers and a greater ability to stick to the point than many of the posters on this thread!

I’m 99% if recruitment we do not care where you little darlings went to university

I really couldn’t care less if a interviewee has got a degree from Cambridge or Derby University

Clearly you are not recruiting for critical enough positions

But soon there will not be much difference between these two universities anyway

@christinarossetti19

Well SkinnyMirror, I hope that your students have a better grasp of the concept of contextual offers and a greater ability to stick to the point than many of the posters on this thread!

Me too! 😂

Well, of course most of your students will be in favour of contextual admissions
a) if they got in through this route
b) if they decided to study a subject that focuses on social mobility

Jesus Christ this thread. You don't have to benefit from contextual admissions to believe that trying to provide equal opportunities for the most disadvantaged in society is a good thing. You just have to be a normal human with some empathy, some concept of your own privilege and be invested in improving society for everyone.

@SkinnyMirror

I agree it is a wonderful topic for debate. Divide the class into two and make one side argue for private schools and against positive discrimination however otherwise woke left peer pressure will mean students who don't agree with left wing academics will not dare to speak out.

That's different debate entirely. It's not about being for or against private schools and as positive discrimination is illegal we won't be setting up a debate around that subject- we cover equality and diversity quite heavily anyway and that includes the legalities and related policy.

And there is no 'woke left' peer pressure so that's not a problem 🙄

Someone's privilege is feeling threatened, wouldn't you say!
@SkinnyMirror unbelievable after all of your efforts on this thread (and @AlexaShutUp ) that some poster are still determined to see "positive discrimination" and feel upset that "underprivileged and diverse " people are muscling in on their world .

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?

@mustlovegin
You should read the thread. As has been explained multiple times, this is now how it works. The universities admit the people they think are best.

@hangonamo

*Well, of course most of your students will be in favour of contextual admissions a) if they got in through this route b) if they decided to study a subject that focuses on social mobility*

Jesus Christ this thread. You don't have to benefit from contextual admissions to believe that trying to provide equal opportunities for the most disadvantaged in society is a good thing. You just have to be a normal human with some empathy, some concept of your own privilege and be invested in improving society for everyone.

Hear, hear.

You should read the thread

I've asked the question to the posters who seem to be more adamantly vouching for these contextual admissions. I would like to know how they would feel if their DC were displaced (there is a chance they may be)

@mustlovegin

You should read the thread

I've asked the question to the posters who seem to be more adamantly vouching for these contextual admissions. I would like to know how they would feel if their DC were displaced (there is a chance they may be)

You’re making all kinds of assumptions here.

@mustlovegin

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?

Well, if my children have the same grades as the person from a more disadvantaged background, I would feel that the other person would have got much better grades had he/she had the opportunities that my child has had. So I'd have to be okay with it.

I think the misconception is that children from more disadvantaged background are getting in without the skills/ability/grades required. And that is not what we are talking about or, in fact, what is happening as people like @SkinnyMirror have stated and explained repeatedly. Of course . If, for example, my child wants to study English literature, and the child who gets the place instead is barely literate, that's not okay. But if the child who has only had the opportunity to read 2/3 of the books my child has read, and for those books she's read she's been able to do the same level of analysis and insight as my DC, then no, I wouldn't consider the second child less qualified, even if she's not read as many books.

My siblings and I were the first people in our family to go to university. But both parents had professional jobs (if not university level type roles) and while money was tight, we lived in a very nice area with excellent state schools. The level of state school provision I had, should be the type of education ANY child at state school should get. But we all just know it's not the case. As a reader, I ransacked the school library for books, was given recommendations from my teachers and the librarian etc etc. And my parents encouraged this level of reading. But none of those books were in our home already and without that support structure at school and home, I would not have read them.

It's quite normal not to get offers from all the universities one applies to (if applying before taking A-levels) isn't it? So how would I know why my child had not been offered a place, or where they came in that university's ranking of candidates?

If offered a place, it will be for certain grades, which they'd have to achieve. If they don't, they'd know why they didn't get in.

Oh and if they were made an offer, accepted it, then achieved those grades, they'd be in, no question. They cannot be rejected, with an accepted offer and the right grades.

So the 'how would you feel if they had the grades but weren't accepted' question doesn't make sense. Unless they were to take a year off and apply after securing their grades. Even then, having the grades does not guarantee you an offer. It never has!

Thousands of DC gain the grades required for Oxbridge, medicine etc but were not and will not ever be offered places by those institutions or courses.

Universities advertise what their offer is likely to be in those cases where they choose to make an offer.

I cannot and have never been able to admit myself to a university, based on my grades alone. That notion is both ridiculous and hilarious!