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.

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.

Exactly. You have to trust that universities are offering places to the students that they feel are best suited to their courses. These are not arbitrary decisions and they are not based on political correctness.

Academics do not want people on their courses who won't perform well. We are judged on things like performance, retentions and graduate outcomes. We really can't risk recruiting students who are below par academically.

It just means that the university application process is now marginally more competitive. Universities are not rejecting applicants simply because they attended a private school. It just means that these applicants are now competing against a larger, more diverse pool. If they get rejected it is because an admissions tutor has decided that another applicant is more suited to that course.

A case that this discussion has brought to mind was that of a very able girl, championed by, I think, Gordon Brown, in the mid 2000s. She was from a humble background, had gained four As or similar but had been rejected by whichever part of Oxbridge she'd applied to. GB was holding her up as an example of class inequality and unfairness. She went to, I think, Harvard in the end.

She may have been the perfect, overlooked candidate. But, at the time, I remember thinking that grades alone are not what an elite institution is looking for and that he and/or the press, had either fundamentally misunderstood and was misrepresenting that. They want curiosity, potential, ability to grow and to gain from the education they offer. I felt very sorry for that girl, apparently being held up publicly as an example of 'capable but dull'.

Or maybe he was right, Oxbridge was wrong and she'd have done wonderfully. I've no idea but the widespread misunderstanding that 'anyone who can achieve four As should be allowed into Oxbridge' was interesting to observe.

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)

People are not rejected because they are not disadvantaged enough. They are rejected because other people are better than them and there is not an infinite number of places. Disappointing but understandable.

So I'd have to be okay with it

Would you be though? Interesting choice of words

They want curiosity, potential, ability to grow and to gain from the education they offer

Why would an applicant from a private school not offer that?

@mustlovegin

They want curiosity, potential, ability to grow and to gain from the education they offer

Why would an applicant from a private school not offer that?

Nobody is saying they don't.

@mustlovegin

So I'd have to be okay with it

Would you be though? Interesting choice of words

Or just a choice of words where I was trying to make the point that it's a no brainer even if I was disappointed my children didn't get in?

Disappointment if other children are better than mine is normal. Disappointment if my children tried their best and did well but someone tried harder and therefore got in ahead of them, is also normal.

But this discussion is pointless because you truly believe that children who are not academically talented enough etc are getting places over children who are. And it doesn't matter how many people tell you that's not the case, you're not interested in listening.

The difficulty for Oxbridge colleges (and I would guess most other highly competitive institutions and courses) is that we receive many more excellent applications than we have places for. So, for instance, in my own college and subject, we usually get 7-8 applications per place, and usually 3-4 outstanding applications per place. The difficulty lies in choosing between these outstanding applicants, all of which have predicted grades of 3 A or AAA, sometimes up to 5 A A-levels (and equivalent for the IB etc.).

One way of differentiating between them is by looking at the contextual information, trying to understand who might have worked harder, overcome more challenges, engage more with the course, etc.

We are also under enormous pressure to improve access statistics (which we are keen to do anyway on a personal level), so if there are two otherwise identical candidates, but one has overcome greater disadvantage (personal or due to their school) we would usually make an offer to that candidate.

This doesn't apply to the truly outstanding candidates, who will get in regardless of their school or background. The issue is with the remaining or more marginal places.

There is unfortunately no perfect system, and I would be in favour of of a lottery, but again there are difficulties in dealing with contextual information in that case.

I went to a fairly average comprehensive school by the way, as have many (but not the majority) of my colleagues.

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 .

Unfortunately that seems to be the case.

@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?

I would accept that dd has no inherent right to a place at a top institution because it has always been the case that bright, well qualified candidates may fail to get in. I always assumed that everyone knew this, but perhaps it was only those of us in the state sector to whom this was blindingly obvious, while the private sector is only just beginning to catch up.

My dd wants to apply to Cambridge for medicine. In my view, she has as good a chance as anyone - straight 9s at GCSE and very likely to get straight A*s at A-level. Tons of relevant work experience and other stuff that demonstrates her interest in the subject. The kind of confidence and ability to think on her feet that will serve her extremely well in any interview process. And a mum who went to Cambridge who can help her to navigate her way through the peculiarities of the application process. I think she would be a great candidate for medicine as she is perfectly suited to it in many ways, but both she and I know that there are never any guarantees, that there is always an element of luck involved and that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of brilliant candidates every year who get rejected. That's just how it is and how it always has been. And if she is rejected in favour of a candidate who has overcome significant disadvantages that dd has not had to face, then fair play to them - they obviously deserve it at least as much as my dd and I am happy for them to have the opportunity.

I guess I don't see it as the be all and end all. If she gets in, great. If she doesn't, then other universities are available. I'm confident that she has had a good enough start to her education to bounce back from any setbacks.

Frankly, in my generation, well qualified state school candidates regularly lost out to the privately educated. If they are now losing out to the most deprived pupils instead, that's progress in my view. It's a competitive process. Nobody has a right to a place.

It's a competitive process. Nobody has a right to a place.

This is a key point, but a point many seem to be missing.

They want curiosity, potential, ability to grow and to gain from the education they offer

Why would an applicant from a private school not offer that?

I've no idea. Would they not? Why not? You tell me.

I don't think those qualities have anything to do with the school one attends, they're personal qualities. I suppose they can be encouraged and developed but they're basically innate.

I would be in favour of of a lottery

I would be too

What purpose would a lottery serve?

Genuine question - I honestly can't see the benefit.

What purpose would a lottery serve?

Every candidate with the required grades would be given an equal chance of admission. Bias would be removed

Grades? Not aptitude?

I think we've covered this! Is it not what the very thread is about?

@mustlovegin

What purpose would a lottery serve?

Every candidate with the required grades would be given an equal chance of admission. Bias would be removed

Why do you keep talking about bias? You seem convinced that the HE admissions system is now biased towards disadvantaged young people when there is zero evidence that this is the case.

Grades. There are many, many, many people with the required grades to enter medical school, who I would hope would never be allowed access to patients (and many who wouldn't want it, of course).

Exactly. It is widely acknowledged that grades are not the only ( and often not the best) indicator of ability, aptitude and potential.

Admissions tutors are human. When human beings are involved, there will always be bias, one way or the other.

You seem convinced that the HE admissions system is now biased towards disadvantaged young people when there is zero evidence that this is the case

Let me rephrase my view. I think all other parameters should be assessed (grades, aptitude, etc), but when it comes to taking the 'context' into account, that should be replaced with a lottery (including all equal applicants) to make it fairer for everyone

Let me rephrase my view. I think all other parameters should be assessed (grades, aptitude, etc), but when it comes to taking the 'context' into account, that should be replaced with a lottery (including all equal applicants) to make it fairer for everyone

Grades, aptitude, school attended and so on is the context!!!! That's the point!!!!

@starray

Admissions tutors are human. When human beings are involved, there will always be bias, one way or the other.

Which we why we undergo unconscious bias training .....

Grades, aptitude, school attended and so on is the context

Grades and aptitude is not context.

School attended is context and this should be replaced with a lottery for instance

But aptitude surely requires context? I mean, the child who has an aptitude for history is not just the one who got an A* at exam, but one who, given the opportunity, is taught about the value of multiple sources, understanding historical bias, devours different books and stories, visits museums and other historical sites. But without those opportunities, the most incredible potential historian could be missed?

The other issue it seems to me with a lottery is if we're basing it on results only, it's still going to be in favour of private (and, arguably, grammar) schools because if there are 10 candidates left in the pool after the top 3 have taken their places, and the 4th place is the only one left, 7 of those are likely to be children from private (or grammar) schools. So while each CHILD has the same opportunity to win in a lottery, the overall effort to ensure that private school children aren't "over benefiting" will fall flat?