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.

@christinarossetti19 - no he probably won’t get in again and he is fine with this. When he didn’t get in last year, he took 10 mins to ponder it and said, ‘If I do this again, I’ll just have to come back stronger.’

So now he has AAAA plus an A* in his EPQ. He has worked bloody hard. On top of this he now has an essay published in an academic journal (nothing whatsoever to do with his school - he wrote it in lockdown). He has a prize in an international essay competition (nothing to do with his school - he found out about this via googling). He got the school prize in his subject. He has other independent research going on and feels his head is more in the game this time last year. He is taking a gap year as he won a scholarship (nothing whatsoever to do with his school) for a programme relevant to his degree and he thought he should take it.

You are right, he probably won’t get in to Oxbridge again. But that’s fine. He’ll do well wherever and a gap year is will hopefully give him perspectives he wouldn’t otherwise have.

Quite, if he doesn't get in again, he can apply elsewhere.

That's exactly the same situation as everyone else trying to get into an top university.

@TractorAndHeadphones

it makes a huge difference as to whether the contextual offers are for competitive courses. Reduced offers for subjects like Medicine make no sense, but there's nothing wrong with making one for Marketing and Management...

Contextual offers are made for Medicine and of course they make sense for all the reasons we have now been through a zillion times - a DC with grades achieved in a more challenging learning environment may be just as or even more clever as someone with an A star from within another learning environment. They are part of widening out what has traditionally been a very middle class profession and in my view it enriches it. Also grades is just one part of the selection process for Medicine as it takes a lot more than strong academic performance to be a good doctor.

Sol5, if he goes to London he will find plenty of bright, motivated, like-minded people from all over the world, both fellow students and academics.

Very few of the Oxbridge narrow misses we knew, and there were plenty, regretted what happened. Indeed several them, including DS, seem to have been offered Oxbridge places at post grad level.

A lot of the discussion seems to assume Oxbridge is somehow better. Both DC, at LSE and Imperial respectively, took courses which were not available at Oxbridge (econometrics and biomedical engineering) but almost certainly ranked No 1 in Europe, and with strong research and employment potential. Children in this country are very lucky to have such a strong education provision on their doorstep. Yet we get het up over who gets in to Oxbridge.

Where did I say he was different to other people?

He already has applied last year. He got LSE, UCL, Bristol and Durham anyway in the last cycle. He was going to ask for a deferral, but has decided to keep his options open, that all. He wasn’t sure if he wanted to stay in London or not.

I just wanted confirmation of whether what his school told him was actually true and an admissions tutor was on the thread.

Needmoresleep - I totally agree with you 100%.

@opoponax Given that a medical degree involves at least half a decade of exams (up to 10 years for certain specialty training) excellent academic ability is essential. Not all people with good academic skills make good doctors. But all doctors must have excellent academic skills.

Having said that I have looked up the entry criteria for Medicine and realised that they do interviews. I stand corrected - in that case they can probably pick out the bright ones. Even so a contextual offer would probably be something like AA*A to AAB. BBC wold be pushing it

Sol5, mine are London children as well, but LSE suited. I don't thing DS was remotely interested in dreaming spires, May Balls or punts. He loved being surrounded by others who were as passionately interested in the same subject as him, regardless of where they came from or what sort of school they went to. It was also a bigger contrast to school than Oxbridge would have been. He is now studying for a PhD in the US and the LSE cohort is pretty bonded despite coming from at least three continents and other friends seems to have wound up in just about every other major University across the US.

DS went to one of the big name private schools, where there is a level of acceptance that straight A*s are far from a guarantee of an Oxbridge place. Still plenty went. What DC have noticed is that the Oxbridge cohort seems to have largely retained their old school friendships, through University and beyond, whilst the ones who went elsewhere formed new, more socially diverse, friendship groups. (The exceptions are, well the exceptional, who found like minded very clever people.) The Oxbridge group also seem to believe that Oxbridge is automatically better, not something readily accepted by those who went to London.

It feels that MN, even in our technological age, seems to have also bought into the myth that Oxbridge is somehow superior.

My view is that bright motivated and hard working kids find like minded people wherever they go, and that there are plenty of good alternatives to Oxbridge. And some real advantages in more specialised courses, longer terms, more international cohorts, easy access to a world city, that come from studying in London.

It's getting embarrassing for you now. It's clear you still don't understand contextual admissions. Again, you clearly can't be bothered to look. I even provided you with a link

This link provides no reassurance regarding transparency or objectivity regarding contextual admissions, quite the opposite in fact

There is currently no clearly understood approach to making contextual offers

The guidance universities offer to prospective students varies widely

Despite the widespread use of such offers, the majority of English universities make no reference in their admissions information to how they use contextual data or whether they make contextual offers

Greater transparency is needed across the sector to ensure that students understand this aspect of the admissions process and how it works for them

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

[quote mustlovegin]It's getting embarrassing for you now. It's clear you still don't understand contextual admissions. Again, you clearly can't be bothered to look. I even provided you with a link

This link provides no reassurance regarding transparency or objectivity regarding contextual admissions, quite the opposite in fact

There is currently no clearly understood approach to making contextual offers

The guidance universities offer to prospective students varies widely

Despite the widespread use of such offers, the majority of English universities make no reference in their admissions information to how they use contextual data or whether they make contextual offers

Greater transparency is needed across the sector to ensure that students understand this aspect of the admissions process and how it works for them

www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/bf84aeda-21c6-4b55-b9f8-3386b21b7b3b/insight-3-contextual-admissions.pdf[/quote]
I provided that link as a resource to understand what contextual admissions are and see the research behind the rationale.... because despite having them explained to you by numerous people you still don't get it.

I explained that you will find more information about an individual universities admissions policy via their website.

I really don't know what you want us to say. It's like you're trying to catch us out to prove we're all in cahoots and trying ensure privileged young people are discriminated against.

Apart from that fact that that doesn't happen- and it really doesn't! You'll actually find that I have absolutely nothing against private school. My DH was privately educated ( through the assisted places scheme) and we will consider sending DS to his old school when the time comes.

I have nothing against privilege but I do get annoyed at people with privilege being outraged when less privileged people are given access to the same opportunities. Quite frankly, it's disgusting.

You're either a troll or dead set against any kind of equality. I'm not sure which is worse tbh.

@TractorAndHeadphones

it makes a huge difference as to whether the contextual offers are for competitive courses. Reduced offers for subjects like Medicine make no sense, but there's nothing wrong with making one for Marketing and Management...

Why don't reduced offers make sense for competitive courses? Those are exactly the type of courses that should be using contextual admissions.

Bit of a tangent but when I were a lass, in the '90s, the standard offer for medicine was BBB. Many of the London schools offered lower but relied heavily upon interviews, by, often large, panels.

I sense that grade inflation and perhaps greater competition (not that it was ever lacking) has sent things, or parents anyway, a bit crazy.

Honestly, the people I knew who went to medical school were not academically excellent. They were academically solid, motivated and personable. Good doctor material. It's a generalist, vocational degree, not an academically specialised, research-orientated one. (Of course medics can veer off into research but most have always seemed to be all-round types to me; practical, well-balanced, hard-working and sociable, rather than intellectual).

Interesting how things change, or are perceived as changing.

Oxbridge has not always been regarded as superior. When I applied for universities from Cornwall, in 1973 for PPE and similar (with an eye on journalism as a career), I quite DELIBERATELY didn't apply for either, although I probably would have been accepted. Because the colleges that offered those course were still single sex male (Balliol etc), which didn't accept women until after 1974. So I chose my applications carefully (Bristol, York (was interviewed for both), Leeds, Cardiff and another RG, maybe Warwick. I was accepted for all five with offers from BBB to EE. So I took the highest and lowest offers, and went to Bristol which was then academically possibly the most selective university in the UK. With apologies to Scottish universities, they were too far north. I did consider Trinity in Dublin.

But I still think that contextual grades make sense if university education is going to be more than finishing school for investment banking. We need the best brains, whatever colour body and social background they arrive housed in, to make our collective future.

And I'd agree with lottiegarbanzo that most of the medics I met at Bristol in the 1970s were not brighter than, for example, the lawyers several of whom are now on the senior bench or the aeronautical engineers, and let's face it they could have killed us all by the planeload, but they were whittled out by termly competitive examinations in those days. The bottom 5% were dropped every term, from the university so only about 10% of each year group graduated.

@irregularegular, thanks for the link. This Cambridge one is even better.

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/ug_admissions_statistics_2020_cycle.pdf

I don’t see anything untoward. A quick scan tells me you are most likely to get an offer coming from a grammar school, you are most likely to make your offer coming from a private school. It’s hardest to find the students they are looking for in comprehensives, no surprise there. Of course it’s easier to find academic high fliers when they are all clumped together.

I suspect more students are coming out of comprehensives because universities are putting more effort into finding them now, when in the past it was just easier to go to the obvious places.

35% of the undergraduate spaces are taken by foreign students. Could this be where all the slots have gone?

There is plenty more data available on Oxford admissions, broken down in all sorts of ways. I was trying to highlight the progress made recently by socioeconomic group. Not just a simple state v private distinction.

www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students

It's definitely far more competitive for UK private school pupils than a generation ago. The number of places has hardly changed. The number of international applicants has grown significantly. As has the number of UK schools that consistently enter applicants. As a result the standard is significantly higher.

@SkinnyMirror because a certain academic standard needs to be maintained - how are you going to tell people apart if all you have are grades and a personal statement?
Again the nuance lies in how much the grades are dropped (Bristol goes up to 2 grades) , how the contextual offers are decided.
Bristol's contextual offer has a list of the top 40's schools - one of which my DP attended!
58% of students secured A*-B grades. List of unis the students sent to include Imperial College, LSE, UCL.
DP's family certainly not from a deprived postcode but it's a farming area. Plenty of people doing industry specific qualifications and not interested in university. Not that they haven't been advised but they've grown up with family farms and are continuing.
And this school: a grammar school with plenty of help and support including higher education advisors, a university week with 'university talks' etc.
www.magnusacademy.co.uk/sixth-form/destinations/

I'm beginning to change my mind actually and somewhat agreeing with Xenia...

Re doctors, I think our perceptions of intelligence and, more significantly, how well it is put to use are coloured by our own experiences. For my part, I've never been anywhere near as impressed by the many capable lawyers I have met in my professional life as I was by the neurosurgeon that saved the life of a close family member.

[quote TractorAndHeadphones]@SkinnyMirror because a certain academic standard needs to be maintained - how are you going to tell people apart if all you have are grades and a personal statement?
Again the nuance lies in how much the grades are dropped (Bristol goes up to 2 grades) , how the contextual offers are decided.
Bristol's contextual offer has a list of the top 40's schools - one of which my DP attended!
58% of students secured A*-B grades. List of unis the students sent to include Imperial College, LSE, UCL.
DP's family certainly not from a deprived postcode but it's a farming area. Plenty of people doing industry specific qualifications and not interested in university. Not that they haven't been advised but they've grown up with family farms and are continuing.
And this school: a grammar school with plenty of help and support including higher education advisors, a university week with 'university talks' etc.
www.magnusacademy.co.uk/sixth-form/destinations/

I'm beginning to change my mind actually and somewhat agreeing with Xenia...[/quote]
There is no evidence that contextual admissions mean a drop in academic standards.
Quite the opposite in fact.

Elite universities and competitive courses are where we see the biggest gap between disadvantaged young people and non disadvantaged.
Disadvantaged students are over 5x less likely to attend an elite university than someone who was privately educated. This is where we need contextual admissions the most .....

I haven't really said I was against the system entirely but think the old days of spotting the AAB person in a comp with mostly Ds was better than this more formalised potentially positive discrimination basis. We just need to watch it carefully. If it fails then employers will soon cotton on and recruit from those universities still churning out good potential employees. If it succeeds then that's fine and parents will make school choices accordingly.

As least my vandriver son's children if he has any will be in with a chance at KPMG now with their new class policy - as they are giving preference to those with parents in manual jobs - perhaps his career choice was wise after all.

I am very supportive of contextual admissions but I must admit that I had a look at the Bristol list of schools and it struck me as quite bizarre. I know a few of the schools on that list (friends' DC students there). One in particular is in leafy stockbroker belt with a very tight catchment area where a three bed semi would cost around £1 million. I don't really get how schools like that make the list.

Xenia contextual offers aren't positive discrimination, potentially or otherwise.

Students who are awarded places via contextual offers do at least as well if not better than other students, so no need to worry about any sort of drop in academic standards.

Yes, some of the schools categorised as in 'deprived' areas are problematic. There's a very well regarded state school near me whose sixth form now fills up with previously privately educated pupils so that they can qualify for a contextual offer.

Although clearly a move in the right direction, it does seem that the systems around contextual offers need tightening up in many places so that the places go to the candidates they are intended for.

Students who are awarded places via contextual offers do at least as well if not better than other students

What we are trying to ascertain here is transparency of selection at the point of entry, not if they do well afterwards. Although the latter is important, obviously, it's a different discussion altogether

I went to a private school under the assisted places scheme in the 80s and was the first in my family to go to university. The scheme was abolished by the Blair government.

When posters are annoyed at the “elite” or “the establishment” who do you mean because to me “elite” means hooray Henries/Boris Johnson/Etonians/old boys’ network etc not some stressed middle class family in Catford scrimping to send their kid private?

I sense more distain on MN for the “squeezed middle” than for the upper classes. Is it because the Catford family are cheating? Letting the side down? Trying to transcend their social class?

Yet no one expects the filthy rich to abandon their posh schools-perhaps because secretly we admire money.

As for Oxbridge, anyone even applying is likely to be the creme de la creme anyway..I think maybe 3 in my year got in. And it’s not the only decent uni and may not necessarily be the best courses for what people are after.

I don't know if anyone has noticed that on the UCAS form there's a box to tick if you come from a family where your parents haven't been to university. Does that 'trigger' some type of 'contextual offer' alert, does anyone know? I've always thought it's ripe for 'mugging the system'?