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.

Grades and aptitude is not context.

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

Seriously, read this. It will help clear things up for you.
www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/bf84aeda-21c6-4b55-b9f8-3386b21b7b3b/insight-3-contextual-admissions.pdf

“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.”

Thankyou for being honest @missmoon.

My DC is in a selective independent. This is exactly what they were told in a uni admissions talk. They said that if applying from an independent, a string of A* will mean very little. You will have to have done things well above the curriculum to even get a look in.

They also said (in the case of Cambridge) that independent candidates who are pooled have effectively zero chance of being pulled out because colleges use the pool to top up their contextual admissions targets.

Would you say this is accurate?

School qualifications are not achieved under equal conditions. Educational gaps are evident from the age of five, and by age
15 students from disadvantaged backgrounds are on average
nearly three school years behind their more advantaged peers.

Research has shown that family background, with its impact on
school qualifications, remains the strongest marker of whether a
student will go to university or not
The grades achieved by a top student in a state school in a deprived community will usually be lower than those of an averageperformer in a selective or fee-paying school, but they can be considered at least as great an achievement. Indeed, studies have shown that such students have greater potential to succeed in and beyond higher education. The lived experience of students from disadvantagedgroups also contributes to a diverse and vibrant cohort of students who learn from one another.*

And if you can't be bothered then at least read this bit......

and for those of you who are worried about disadvantaged kids stealing your children's university places - fear not!

However, the disparity in entry rates between the most advantagedand the least advantaged has stayed stubbornly high:* in 2018, 18-yearolds from the most advantaged areas were 2.4 times more likely
to enter higher education and 5.7 times more likely to enter higher-tariff providers than those from the least advantaged areas

I think that some people on this thread really just haven't got a clue about how some children are penalised by the simple nature of where they come from. 2 of DS' friends come from families that are substantially less well off. There is zero doubt in my mind that both families are extremely loving, committed to their children etc etc. But there are still battles they are facing that we just don't. Just a few that I can think of off the top of my head:

• Both boys share their bedrooms with sibling/s and live in small flats, with no private/quiet place for study/reading/homework. Ditto, limited space for letting off steam and/or getting away from siblings/parents when needed.
• devices for doing homework/school work are limited. One boy does have his own tablet, but it's not as convenient for school work as an actual computer. He is not allowed to use his mum's computer.
• One boy's dad lives far away. Weekends are often spent travelling to and from his dads. Once there, their routine is massively upset. There is also no homework or educational stuff being done while at their dad's.
• The same boy has a sibling with some additional needs. This takes a disproportionate amount of their mother's time (single mum), leaving DC's friend and other sibling with less parental involvement.
• "Enriching activities" are in short supply for both families as a result of a combination of finances, time and logistics. One boy does take part in the local soccer team, but that is his only extra curricular. Holiday clubs and activities are v limited. One family will allow the child to go with other families, but don't have the resources to organise and pay themselves. The other family mostly doesn't allow the boy to attend things with other families as a result of not trusting others with their child. Opportunities for travel, locally or internationally, have been significantly lower than for our DC or other children we know at the school.
• Neither boy has parents who are engaged with the school. How this plays out varies but, for example, neither family turns up for year group meetings. One family consistently sends child to school with the wrong kit. One family is struggling with behaviour but refuses to discuss it with the school (in part because they feel judged - which is a whole different issue that is also important).

Either of these boys could actually be a brilliant scientist or writer or artist.... but whether that will ever be known is unlikely.

Similarly, my Dad most likely suffered from dyslexia but it was never dealt with or identified. As a result, his school year memories are mostly of being beaten and put in detention etc. But he is clearly an extremely intelligent man who, in another time and place, could have done even more with his life than he did (and he did plenty - I'm very proud of him).

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*

And how would you be able to assess aptitude objectively then? As some posters are saying that context is only taken into consideration once all other parameters have been assessed and applicants are equally deserving?

But that's the point - its why the overall application needs to be looked at, including such issues as family background and schooling? It's why grades can't be the only criteria.

But then, I'm very comfortable with the idea that if there are two candidates for a role who are largely the same in terms of skills, experience etc, then go ahead and give that role to a woman or a person of colour rather than the white man. And if that's me vs a black woman and therefore she gets the role over me on that basis, I'm genuinely fine with it. Because there will be 50 other roles where as the white candidate, I'm going to be seen as better. And 100 other roles where if there is a white man in the mix, he'll get it.

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

Alexa two things that spring to mind from your post

a) Have you considered that it could be possible that if the system is increasingly skewed in favour of contextual offers, your DD may not be able to provide the same level of education as she got for her own DC? She may not get as good a job as you got going to Cambridge, etc? Would you still find this acceptable?

b) We are not our DM/DF or our DC. My DF may have been hugely disadvantaged, but neither me or my DC are. In the same way, your context may have been unfavourable, but your DD's isn't. Often I get the impression that posters are anchored in the past and advocate for changes as if they were going to be impacted by them, and in reality, they are going to affect their DC and DGC instead (most likely in a way that they will not have envisaged or desired)

therefore she gets the role over me on that basis, I'm genuinely fine with it

Even if feeding your family depended on that role for which you would have been unfairly discriminated against?

Tired, I think we do know (and by the way in my very middle class house my sons shared a room to age 18 so I don't think that is really on its own a deprivation issue but having a quite place to study is including a school or local library).

There are also similar problems in rich homes too - child sent away to board at age 7, parents beating the children, parents rowing, father rich but gives mother no money for the children , alcoholic or drug addicted parents, single mothers (as I am) etc

However I think as long as we keep an eye on a system to ensure that we do not punish parents who work very hard and do good things for their children then it will be fine with some of these contextual things. My children certainly felt it not worth bothering applying to Oxbridge have have done fine elsewhere.

We must never get like communist china in the cultural revolution however where the children of the ruling class and doctors were sent to the country as street sweepers to try to even everyone out. That is damning the children with the sins of the parents as they do in North Korea for three generations.

@mustlovegin

therefore she gets the role over me on that basis, I'm genuinely fine with it

Even if feeding your family depended on that role for which you would have been unfairly discriminated against?

But I wouldn't have been unfairly discriminated against. Instead, over the last however many y ears, SHE would have been unfairly discriminated against. So in this one instance, I'd be losing out. But that's after the many many many times I've benefited because I'm white.

I think if you can't see that, you're never going to understand any of what we're talking about here. I have benefited, repeatedly, because of the colour of my skin, the opportunities I had growing up, the financial resources of my parents that impacted where we lived etc, so if ONE time, that isn't the case, I don't have any reason to complain.

And the point is that in my imaginary scenario above, it happens SOOOO seldom. The reality is that right now, doing what I do and where I do it, the chance of me even being up against a woman of colour is almost laughable. Which is similar to what we're talking about with universities. There are very few children from private schools who might have got a place but didn't because of someone from a more disadvantaged background got it instead.

@sol5

“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.”

Thankyou for being honest @missmoon.

My DC is in a selective independent. This is exactly what they were told in a uni admissions talk. They said that if applying from an independent, a string of A* will mean very little. You will have to have done things well above the curriculum to even get a look in.

They also said (in the case of Cambridge) that independent candidates who are pooled have effectively zero chance of being pulled out because colleges use the pool to top up their contextual admissions targets.

Would you say this is accurate?

sol5 your posts sound as though you feel that, through dint of your investment in their private education, your dc are somehow more entitled to a place at a 'top' university than other candidates.

I do appreciate that this is how things have panned out for decades and it must be galling to realise that the advantage that you thought you were paying for may not pan out exactly as you hoped in terms of applying to 'top' universities as a marginal or 'average' type of candidate rather than an 'outstanding' one, but your dc have had and will continue to have more life advantages than the very, very vast majority of other children in the UK, let alone the world.

Although I guess it's also easier to claim that universities 'topping up their contextual admissions targets' is the reason that a particular candidate wasn't admitted, rather than there were ones that, at that particular time for that particular course, the university considered were more suitable.

Only on MN could a discussion about contextual offers include 'punishing parents who work very hard', the cultural revolution in Communist China and North Korean politics.

Has anyone else actually read the actual research that SkinnyMirror not only links to but kindly extrapolates the pertinent bits from?

@Xenia

Tired, I think we do know (and by the way in my very middle class house my sons shared a room to age 18 so I don't think that is really on its own a deprivation issue but having a quite place to study is including a school or local library).

There are also similar problems in rich homes too - child sent away to board at age 7, parents beating the children, parents rowing, father rich but gives mother no money for the children , alcoholic or drug addicted parents, single mothers (as I am) etc

However I think as long as we keep an eye on a system to ensure that we do not punish parents who work very hard and do good things for their children then it will be fine with some of these contextual things. My children certainly felt it not worth bothering applying to Oxbridge have have done fine elsewhere.

We must never get like communist china in the cultural revolution however where the children of the ruling class and doctors were sent to the country as street sweepers to try to even everyone out. That is damning the children with the sins of the parents as they do in North Korea for three generations.

These were just examples, and of course just because someone has financial benefits doesn't mean they aren't living difficult lives.
But it doesn't change the fact that, for example, a rich family that neglects their child emotionally is still providing opportunities for that child that a poor child might not get simply by virtue of the schools they can access etc.

Your point re libraries etc is a small example but again, using those same two families vs our family I can say that, for example, right now, they don't use the library nearly as much as we do. And, at year 6, if either of their children wanted to go to the library alone, they would not be allowed because those parents worry far more about the safety of their children than I do. But arguably, that's because they are at higher risk - they live in less nice parts of our town and in the more built up areas where traffic etc is far more significant. If DS announced he wanted to go to the library, for example, I'd wave him off at the door because it's a short walk through a relatively safe area with low traffic/lots of safety for pedestrians. Both of his friends live significantly further from the library and would need to navigate a much more dangerous journey.....

@mustlovegin

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

When you look at it all of this furore comes to naught. Except for a select number of 'elite' jobs (think the civil service, investment banking) @mustlovegin is right. And even those are all into 'diversity' initiatives. @mustlovegin is right. Tech/finance recruiting for a multinational firm. We don't care what uni they came from. For certain roles there's a preference but even those are for a large group of unis whose programs have some necessary elements. Being Oxbridge makes zero difference.

Even if feeding your family depended on that role for which you would have been unfairly discriminated against?

Who is being unfairly discriminated against?

@Triffid1

But that's the point - its why the overall application needs to be looked at, including such issues as family background and schooling? It's why grades can't be the only criteria.

But then, I'm very comfortable with the idea that if there are two candidates for a role who are largely the same in terms of skills, experience etc, then go ahead and give that role to a woman or a person of colour rather than the white man. And if that's me vs a black woman and therefore she gets the role over me on that basis, I'm genuinely fine with it. Because there will be 50 other roles where as the white candidate, I'm going to be seen as better. And 100 other roles where if there is a white man in the mix, he'll get it.

This is ridiculous. So if there were two identical white women - or an Asian and a Black woman - what would you do? Why can't you do the same when it's an ethnic minority vs a white person then? It is never acceptable to make recruitment choices based on demographic factors. Widening participation etc are all entry-level talent programs which provide extra training etc to bridge the gap, or women returning to work but none of these every involve recruitment for a specific role. Rather they are to increase the talent pipeline.

Also I'm mixed brown/black FWIW and the idea that someone would hire me because of my heritage is ridiculous. I'm also very good at my job...

@TractorAndHeadphones and it is the same with Medicine. Being Oxbridge makes zero difference to your medical career. Oxbridge medical degrees follow a specific course structure that some DC are attracted to and others aren't. And once you are qualified as a doctor, no one cares where you studied anyway. But that doesn't mean that measures should not be put in place to ensure that Oxbridge are getting the very best candidates from the pool of DC who do want to study there and outreach programmes can only be a good thing in that respect.

@TractorAndHeadphones

Also I'm mixed brown/black FWIW and the idea that someone would hire me because of my heritage is ridiculous. I'm also very good at my job...

I am not suggesting for one second that someone should hire you because of your heritage. Don't be ridiculous. I'm suggesting that if you and another candidate are identical in all other ways then yes, you should be hired over the white candidate or the male candidate. It should not be necessary. But until we stop mindlessly mostly hiring and promoting white men over all others, then yes, in this situation the white person may suffer.

I'm also not surprised to hear you are good at your job. Why wouldn't you be? Working in the City, pretty much every person of colour I've worked with has been dazzlingly good at their job. Speaking to a few of them over the years, i've come to realise it's because if they're not dazzling, they don't get the same opportunities.

[quote opoponax]@TractorAndHeadphones and it is the same with Medicine. Being Oxbridge makes zero difference to your medical career. Oxbridge medical degrees follow a specific course structure that some DC are attracted to and others aren't. And once you are qualified as a doctor, no one cares where you studied anyway. But that doesn't mean that measures should not be put in place to ensure that Oxbridge are getting the very best candidates from the pool of DC who do want to study there and outreach programmes can only be a good thing in that respect.[/quote]
I agree with outreach programs - however there's a distinction between Oxbridge and 'top unis'.Oxbridge are top unis, not all top unis are Oxbridge.
Oxbridge 'contextual offers' relate to giving an offer to the 'deprived' candidate in cases where candidates are identical. So they have already met the minimum criteria and will do as well academically. There are also interviews in which the candidate can be assessed.

However in the case of other Russell Group unis contextual offers can include a difference in offers. This involves for example making an offer of ABB when the normal would have been at least 3 A's.

It's ridiculous to complain about Oxbridge when there are so many talented people that getting in if you're 'average' is a rum thing anyway. A Physics applicant who won an international competition - outstanding. A Physics applicant who has gone to talks, predicted all A*'s , listened to podcasts - everyone would have done that anyway. So average.
It also doesn't make sense to complain about the second because other than Oxbridge there are many other unis so not getting into your first choice isn't going to make a huge difference. The exception is perhaps a specialist course but those aren't going to be inundated with applications anyway.

(This was with regard to whether you can buy a place at a top private school.)

I don't disagree that entry is highly competitive, but it is contingent on parents being able to buy a place through fees.

If the schools are turning away 10 pupils whose parents are able and willing to pay the fees for everyone they let in, the more significant factor is the quality of the pupil, not the ability to pay fees.

The children of parents who can pay the fees will be above-average (as a group) to start with (greater wealth is correlated with greater intelligence) then the school selection process is selecting may the top 10% of from this above-average group. If you have a below-average, or even average child, no amount of money is going to buy you a place. (Tutoring will not help in that scenario.)

I would have liked DD to go the nearest private, but the first sentence of the first paragraph of the admissions page on their web site said they were looking for applicants who were at the top of their primary school class in every subject. I didn't bother applying.

(This same school was somewhere in the vicinity of 10th in the UK for Oxbridge admissions, at the time I first checked them out.)

@sol5

“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.”

Thankyou for being honest @missmoon.

My DC is in a selective independent. This is exactly what they were told in a uni admissions talk. They said that if applying from an independent, a string of A* will mean very little. You will have to have done things well above the curriculum to even get a look in.

They also said (in the case of Cambridge) that independent candidates who are pooled have effectively zero chance of being pulled out because colleges use the pool to top up their contextual admissions targets.

Would you say this is accurate?

Completely accurate. Sometimes we have really excellent independent school candidates who have just missed out (as we have run out of places), and I feel awful for them as I know they have close to zero chance of being picked out of the pool. The only exceptions are if women-only colleges or mature-student colleges are under-subscribed (the candidates might get a deferred offer for the latter).

@mustlovegin

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

When I said a lottery, I meant a lottery that accounts for disadvantage which would contextualise the grades, not a random pick out of all candidates with the same grades (which would be massively weighted in favour of wealthier / independent and grammar school applicants).

So, for instance, candidates from deprived backgrounds or poorly performing schools would be entered into the lottery with an increased "weight" provided they had a minimum threshold of grades.

Oh. I read to the end of the thread hoping to find out how to send children to private school on a waitressing wage!

Just out of interest are there statistics on the number of students at individual universities from grammar schools? I've seen stats for private schools before.