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.

@RandomLondoner

(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.)

The most significant factor in accessing private schooling is whether parents can afford fees or not.

If you pay for private schooling, you literally are buying a place at the school.

So in this one instance, I'd be losing out

I'm appalled to have to say this words OP, but you are looking at this from a place of privilege indeed. If your and your family's lives depended on this job you really wouldn't be ok for it to be unfairly awarded to someone just because they or their group had been discriminated in the past.

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

Are these also considered for the contextual offers Skinny?

@mustlovegin

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

Are these also considered for the contextual offers Skinny?

Probably not, given that money hides a lot of problems. The uni isn't going to ask for the full medical history of both parents so if a parent is a drug addict/alcoholic etc how would they know? OTOH they would know if someone was a young carer or raised in the foster care system. Or a deprived postcode.

The only one which may be taken into consideration is single parenthood.

@mustlovegin

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

Are these also considered for the contextual offers Skinny?

I suspect you are leading up to a 'gotcha' moment here by trying to trip me up but I'll bite.......

There is no 'one size fits all' approach to contextual admissions and we've never said that it picks up on all forms of disadvantage. Each university will approach this differently too which needs to be remembered. Universities can only work with the data and information we are presented with, which means that some of the things on this list just wouldn't be picked up. I mean, why would a university know that an applicants parents argue? That they live with an alcoholic?

Nobody is denying that there are children from wealthy families that suffer abuse or issues. However, contextual admissions is about addressing trends not individual circumstances - however tragic they might be.

Just to add though. If there are specific issues which impact a young people these can be included in the reference.

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

This is illegal in the UK OP

I am not looking for a gotcha moment at all. I am pretty much on the fence but very concerned that if parents like many local immigrant parents (very common in my mostly non white London borough) put 4 full time wages into one school place at a fee paying school the child isn't then damned by the parents' doing the right thing by their child.

I just want us to be on the look out for unfairness eg child on full bursary at fee paying school who is then discriminated against for Oxbridge is pretty poor form and a lesson to the child that if you work very hard indeed to pass for a school that is then held against you.

@Xenia

I am not looking for a gotcha moment at all. I am pretty much on the fence but very concerned that if parents like many local immigrant parents (very common in my mostly non white London borough) put 4 full time wages into one school place at a fee paying school the child isn't then damned by the parents' doing the right thing by their child.

I just want us to be on the look out for unfairness eg child on full bursary at fee paying school who is then discriminated against for Oxbridge is pretty poor form and a lesson to the child that if you work very hard indeed to pass for a school that is then held against you.

They won't be disadvantaged though so you don't need to worry. The 'gotcha' comment wasn't aimed at you.

@mustlovegin

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

This is illegal in the UK OP

All other things being equal, no, I don't think it is. Any more than hiring the white candidate because the "fit" is better is illegal.

You can bury your head in the sand all you like, but institutionalised bias exists. As @SkinnyMirror has explained, none of these programmes are designed to solve for every situation, but rather to slow or reverse an overall trend. I for one am tired beyond belief of seeing white men be consistently hired/promoted over women and/or people of colour with the endless comments of, "oh, you wouldn't want to give someone the job just based on their skin colour/gender".

Children at private schools are not being discriminated against. In a very small number of cases, their excellent marks may not automatically guarantee them a place because entrance processes are attempting to look behind this one metric. And if the private school family thinks this is bias and discrimination well, it's clear from this thread that it's not going to be possible to change their minds.

No, they are not being disadvantaged by going to private school. However, some of the advantages they used to receive as a result of paying for a private education are being removed. And that is a good thing for social mobility, fairness, and ensuring that those who are likely to benefit most receive the places.

(tutor involved in Oxbridge admissions).

@Xenia

I am not looking for a gotcha moment at all. I am pretty much on the fence but very concerned that if parents like many local immigrant parents (very common in my mostly non white London borough) put 4 full time wages into one school place at a fee paying school the child isn't then damned by the parents' doing the right thing by their child.

I just want us to be on the look out for unfairness eg child on full bursary at fee paying school who is then discriminated against for Oxbridge is pretty poor form and a lesson to the child that if you work very hard indeed to pass for a school that is then held against you.

Then perhaps the immigrant parents will decide it's a poor use of their cash and send their children to the nearest state school, thereby removing the rationale for buying educational privilege in the private sector, and allowing their children to find their own intellectual level?

parents will decide it's a poor use of their cash and send their children to the nearest state school, thereby removing the rationale for buying educational privilege in the private sector

It would have reflected very badly on my parents and negatively tainted my opinion of them if they had prioritised their ideological beliefs over my wellbeing and education (which they didn't do BTW)

Also OP, can you imagine your DC are hungry and ask what's for dinner. You tell them they will have to go without food today as you didn't get the job, but it's ok as someone whose group was historically disadvantaged or whatever was unfairly selected over you.

Some of these responses are ridiculous

@Xenia

I am not looking for a gotcha moment at all. I am pretty much on the fence but very concerned that if parents like many local immigrant parents (very common in my mostly non white London borough) put 4 full time wages into one school place at a fee paying school the child isn't then damned by the parents' doing the right thing by their child.

I just want us to be on the look out for unfairness eg child on full bursary at fee paying school who is then discriminated against for Oxbridge is pretty poor form and a lesson to the child that if you work very hard indeed to pass for a school that is then held against you.

If a child is from foster care, or a deprived background (e.g. low income) then this will also form part of their background despite them getting a bursary to study in a private school.

If you are a parent and willing to pay over the odds for private school - surely you must be doing it for the overall good of your child. The better teaching, extracurriculars or whatever will help your child get the stellar grades needed. Remember that Oxbridge do not lower admission offers. So presumably if the child did not go to private school they wouldn't even be able to get the grades needed in the first place. You're still getting what you paid for which is academic and personal excellence, not a ticket to Oxbridge (which has hitherto been the case).

If however your child is naturally intelligent - why would you send them to private school? As hardworking immigrant parents (and again immigrant is disingenuous here as plenty who are highly paid professionals, especially given the U.K's current stringent visa requirements) giving kids the appropriate home atmosphere etc to study is enough. And pay for extracurricular activities yourself. You can even pay for extra tutoring if needed.

Also OP, can you imagine your DC are hungry and ask what's for dinner. You tell them they will have to go without food today as you didn't get the job, but it's ok as someone whose group was historically disadvantaged or whatever was unfairly selected over you.

Again, please don't be ridiculous. In the unlikely event that I was at that level of desperation then yes, of course I'd be upset. I'd be upset for any reason I didn't get the job whether that was that a much more qualified candidate got it, I couldn't afford the commute, the recruiter just took a dislike to me.....

.... but that doesn't change the fact that traditionally, white people get more opportunities.

And just like there aren't swathes of private school kids who are being done out of their places at university, there are not swathes of white woman who can't afford to feed their family who are being done out of jobs because those jobs are going to people of colour.

And we haven't even got into the issue of whether when the white man is, technically, more qualified, whether that is in fact true or is just the result of the way that experience is perceived. Because this isn't the thread for that.

Also OP, can you imagine your DC are hungry and ask what's for dinner. You tell them they will have to go without food today as you didn't get the job, but it's ok as someone whose group was historically disadvantaged or whatever was unfairly selected over you.

Some of these responses are ridiculous

Yep - you said it!! What you have written is the absolute height of ridiculousness.

@SkinnyMirror

Also OP, can you imagine your DC are hungry and ask what's for dinner. You tell them they will have to go without food today as you didn't get the job, but it's ok as someone whose group was historically disadvantaged or whatever was unfairly selected over you.

Some of these responses are ridiculous

Yep - you said it!! What you have written is the absolute height of ridiculousness.

Yes Yes!

There are ridiculous responses because people are talking across each other on adjacent topics which are not the same.

I personally think it’s clear that no one disagrees with the principle of contextual offers. They have always existed. Some on this thread are questioning the more recent application of them. I don’t have enough facts around this to have an opinion. I wouldn’t necessarily trust the universities to do this well, though. After all, listening to posters’ stories about their past experiences is proof enough that they don’t always get it right. If not then, why now? That’s not to say are doing a bad job. I simply don’t know.

Others on this thread are worried that less qualified state applicants are being favoured over private school applicants just to hit targets. Again, I don’t have the facts to know if that’s true. I only know that before COVID 25% if the A and A* A-level grades came from private school 6th formers. Without knowing the composition of recent intakes I can’t say. It sounds like there may be no prima facie unfairness at all. Again, I like the supporting facts to have an opinion.

It’d be good to know how it is going for grammars too. Nice control group so to speak.

This move is clearly benefiting the middle class state school children over middle class private school students. You can gloat all you want and dismiss the valid concerns of parents who have worked very hard and gone without to pay for private schooling without taking anything out of the system. The rich will find other way to give their children a leg up. This won't make a big difference to the poor families till something is done to improve the overall state schooling system. The only ones to have any measurable benefit are the middle class state school families here.

@mustlovegin

parents will decide it's a poor use of their cash and send their children to the nearest state school, thereby removing the rationale for buying educational privilege in the private sector

It would have reflected very badly on my parents and negatively tainted my opinion of them if they had prioritised their ideological beliefs over my wellbeing and education (which they didn't do BTW)

Also OP, can you imagine your DC are hungry and ask what's for dinner. You tell them they will have to go without food today as you didn't get the job, but it's ok as someone whose group was historically disadvantaged or whatever was unfairly selected over you.

Some of these responses are ridiculous

Having a child doesn’t legitimise buying unfair privilege and perpetuating inequality, which is just a different, and unpleasant, kind of ideology.

I wouldn’t necessarily trust the universities to do this well, though. After all, listening to posters’ stories about their past experiences is proof enough that they don’t always get it right. If not then, why now? That’s not to say are doing a bad job. I simply don’t know.

You can't really compare people's experiences of university admissions which took place in the 80's and 90's to now. It's a completely different process now. It's so heavily regulated that while there might be the odd bit of poor practice from an individual academic it's certainly not happening on a huge scale. Universities have a clear duty around transparent admissions - Every university has a policy which is published on their website which tend to be based on the Schwartz Report and the recommendations produced by SPA(Supporting Professional Admissions)

Others on this thread are worried that less qualified state applicants are being favoured over private school applicants just to hit targets. Again, I don’t have the facts to know if that’s true. I only know that before COVID 25% if the A and A A-level grades came from private school 6th formers. Without knowing the composition of recent intakes I can’t say. It sounds like there may be no prima facie unfairness at all. Again, I like the supporting facts to have an opinion.*

This should reassure you.

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

@mustlovegin

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)

In answer to your first point (a), no, I am not worried about dd's future in the slightest, because despite what you may choose to believe, the system is still stacked overwhelmingly in favour of middle class kids like her and there is zero danger of her being significantly disadvantaged any time soon. Yes, it's true that she may not get into Cambridge, but that's just the way it goes. She isn't entitled to a place just because I happened to study there, and I have always been careful to manage her expectations around that because it was never an assumption that I wanted her to make. Am I concerned that all universities are suddenly going to be invaded by an army of deprived but unqualified kids, leaving my extremely bright dd without a university to go to at all? No, I'm not, because I live in the real world. Do I think that my incredibly talented and capable dd is going to be unemployable in the future because of some form of left wing wokery that makes all skills and qualifications irrelevant so that the poor can take all the jobs? Of course I don't, because I am not a scaremongering idiot. Do I accept that a move towards greater equality will potentially make university and job applications slightly more competitive in the future because they will be open to a broader cross section of the public? Yes I do, because I am a reasonable person who actually believes in equality of opportunity as a fundamental principle.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point (b). In some ways, my circumstances probably were somewhat less favourable than those of my dd, but not significantly so. I certainly do not regard myself as having been disadvantaged and I would not have qualified for a contextual offer even if they had been a thing back in the day, so I am not arguing for this as something that would have benefited me personally. Funnily enough, this is not actually about what would have helped me or what might help my family now. It's about our wider society and what I think is right and just.

Some people seem to struggle with the idea of people acting in a way that isn't motivated by self interest. For many of us, however, it really doesn't have anything to do with what advantages might or might not arise for ourselves or for our dc, it's about the value that we place on fairness and recognising that we might need to give up some of our privileges in order to address some of the current imbalances in our society. It seems that this is a difficult concept for some to grasp.

@Halfling

This move is clearly benefiting the middle class state school children over middle class private school students. You can gloat all you want and dismiss the valid concerns of parents who have worked very hard and gone without to pay for private schooling without taking anything out of the system. The rich will find other way to give their children a leg up. This won't make a big difference to the poor families till something is done to improve the overall state schooling system. The only ones to have any measurable benefit are the middle class state school families here.

How exactly does it benefit middle class state educated children? Contextual offers are not given to all state educated kids, they are for the most disadvantaged. I fail to see how this will benefit those who don't qualify?

@SkinnyMirror, that’s all about contextual admissions. There seems to have been a significant shift of intake composition from private to state school educated students. Are you saying this shift is made up entirely of contextual offers?