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.

@mustlovegin

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 was responding to a specific point about maintaining academic standards.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

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'?

That is primarily for data collection. Nobody is being made an offer (or otherwise) based on whether they've ticked they box. You are also asked to tick if you have a disability.

UCAS doesn't set entry requirements. That's down to individual universities. The same goes for their contextual offers . Some universities may have 'first generation student' as a specific criteria but it will be considered alongside other , more measurable factors such as POLAR data, school attended etc.

Thanks for that @SkinnyMirror! It totally makes sense.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

Thanks for that *@SkinnyMirror*! It totally makes sense.

No worries! Whether or not your parents went to university is the biggest predictor as to whether you will go, so the number of FGS is monitored and reported on.

The number of FGS has risen considerably over the last 10-15 years but they are still significantly less likely to attend an elite university. FGS are also more likely to live in low participation areas, be from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and attend schools with a lower than average gcse score - not exclusively of course!

I think someone from a deprived background from a state school who gets to Oxbridge must be exceptional; I wonder how common it is though? My DD is at primary KS1 and I already have an idea which families care about education and which roll their eyes at having to listen to their child read. In fact this gap is probably there at birth as I’ve heard comments such as “X is gonna be thick like me” in the park. And you know what, maybe X isn’t academic - intelligence is said to be highly heritable - but that doesn’t mean X won’t do well at something else (and university is not necessarily the right path for everyone, I’d fully support DD in a vocational qualification if that was her interest).

Family member works in this area and some parents are actively obstructive to their kids succeeding - “who does he think he is” type attitude.

@Siameasy

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.

No, if the middle class Catford family want to scrimp and save so that their child can go to private school, then that's their choice. The point is, their children are not really going to be disadvantaged either way.

It is not about disdain, it's about prioritising support for those who need it. My concern is not for the kids in the middle. As someone who falls into that category myself, I appreciate that those families will naturally have their own stresses and challenges, but they also have a huge amount of privilege that goes alongside that - whether they recognise this or not.

Nobody is accusing anyone of cheating or letting the side down, they are merely pointing out that it is not a level playing field and that some adjustments are required in order to give the most disadvantaged kids an equal chance. I am still struggling to see what's so controversial about that.

It depends on the programme used. I have met Bristol contextual students (some) who seem identical to us other than the parents didn't shell out hugely for school fees and one has a more expensive house than I do etc - they seem to have gamed the system. However there may be large numbers on FSM etc.

I have no problem at all with a more individual contextual process universities had in the 70s and 80s that someone who got really good results in the context of their school which gets really bad results being considered for the very good universities in a special way.

I also want universities to keep an eye on whether they get to choosing someone for Oxbridge - both children did well at interview - equally well and they are about to reject one of the two. If they choose the state school one even though it went to grammar school or has rich parents because then they can tick a box saying Oxbridge is now up to 71% state school that would be wrong. They should pick the best candidate or if they cannot tell then toss a coin.

How on earth do you know who is and isn't a 'contextual student' as a parent, Xenia?

No university students are on FSM.

Universities put a lot of thought into their Admission Processes. They do offer places to the candidates who, all things considered, at that point in time, they consider to be the best.

What you appear to think is 'wrong' is any attempt to address the current and historical disadvantages that some social groups experience within the UK education system.

Observation only, but giving contextual offers is one thing. Universities then need to step up and support those students. Weaker grades, may not suggest less ability but they do suggest less knowledge, and perhaps less developed, study skills.

There is a lot on MN about private school pupils being ill prepared to mix with others from different backgrounds. But this can also be true of students from non traditional backgrounds for whom the dominance white middle class culture is both unfamiliar and potentially perceived as hostile. In the case DC observed the student was struggling but unwilling to take up clear offers of help and support from their peers. (Who genuinely admired someone who had overcome a number of obstacles and gone back to college to get the qualifications to gain the place.) Unfortunately students on the course did not have personal tutors and the administration did not pick up on the increasingly poor attendance. Its not just about offering the places, but about ensuring such pupils are equipped to follow the course.

The course also offers a foundation year, which seems a better approach. (Or perhaps even a pre-sessional summer school to ensure those admitted with lower grades are up to speed on key essay writing or maths skills.) DD believes that some of the very best in her year came through foundation.

I would also add that it is not only contextual students who can benefit from access to additional support. All will have strengths and weaknesses. DD is dyslexic and though she breezed through the maths, has always struggled with essays. Imperial's essay club, tailored for engineers including those with English as a second language, was brilliant and the first time, despite an expensive education, that she actually "got it".

In the past Oxbridge has been able to rely on recruiting students who are the full package. If they are slanting their focus towards potential, they need to consider how to realise that potential.

@Siameasy

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 feel the same disdain when I hear comments like 'I don't mind the private sector but I am really against selective state schools'. I can understand why someone would be against a two-tier system but why is it okay to have one type of elite school and not another? Yes they are state-funded but get very much reduced budgets because of their intake. Not all students are tutored to get in (mine wasn't at all and was right at the top of the marks, CAT score well over 135). Why is it acceptable to have selective education for rich, clever kids but not for just clever kids?

they are merely pointing out that it is not a level playing field and that some adjustments are required in order to give the most disadvantaged kids an equal chance. I am still struggling to see what's so controversial about that

The world has never and will never be a 'level playing field'. The minute you are making adjustments, concessions, etc you are favouring one person over another and those left out (whoever they are) will regard it as unfair.

Also of course the ones left out (in this case private school children and their parents) will complain and ultimately take some form of action. There seems to be a naïve b that belief that hey will quietly surrender their place to the 'more deserving' groups. Why?

I went to private school in the 90s under the last year of the assisted places scheme. Going there while living on a council estate was quite eye opening but I did end up being the first member of my family to get not only GCSEs but also A-levels and a degree.

I met the local Labour MP Tony McNulty (later enmeshed in the expenses scandal) when I was around 11 and asked why Labour were abolishing the scheme and he said Labour will make all schools equal.

Never happened obviously. Tony Blair's son went the London Oratory which is technically a state school I guess.

I am opposed to selective state schools @opoponax.

I guess I'm kind of resigned to the inequality that is wrapped up in private education. Ideally, I'd like all children to go to state but I wouldn't go so far as banning private schools, and I would prefer instead to invest in state education to the extent that parents don't feel that private education is worthwhile.

However, I cannot support state funded schools perpetuating inequality. As far as I can see, there is no way of reliably assessing ability/potential that doesn't disadvantage kids at the lower end of the socio economic spectrum. And also, what happens to the kids who don't pass, they just get left in some sort of secondary modern where their chances of success are much more limited? What about the late bloomers? Or the ones who had a bad day when they took the 11+?

I would much prefer to see fully comprehensive state schools with setting by subject from year 7 but flexibility to move between the sets as appropriate.

@mustlovegin

they are merely pointing out that it is not a level playing field and that some adjustments are required in order to give the most disadvantaged kids an equal chance. I am still struggling to see what's so controversial about that

The world has never and will never be a 'level playing field'. The minute you are making adjustments, concessions, etc you are favouring one person over another and those left out (whoever they are) will regard it as unfair.

Also of course the ones left out (in this case private school children and their parents) will complain and ultimately take some form of action. There seems to be a naïve b that belief that hey will quietly surrender their place to the 'more deserving' groups. Why?

You just don't get it, do you? It's astonishing.

You're right, the world will never be a level playing field. Those disadvantaged kids will never get an equal chance no matter how many contextual offers they get. The privileged kids will always have a massive head start. Your solution to this seems to be to do nothing because the wealthy will never be willing to surrender even the tiniest bit of their enormous privilege in order to make things fairer.

I despair.

There is distain for MC - just now there’s a comment about dominant white middle class culture when surely the culture we are seeking to infiltrate and dismantle is the stagnant upper class/old money/Tory boys. The “toffs” who were always going to do well anyway-even with limited brain cells. It’s very hard to gain admittance to this group unless you marry in.

The middle class on the other hand is a wider, more fluid group and one which can be infiltrated and this is where social change takes place.

How do you think many of us became middle class? In my case the assisted places scheme allowed me to “move up a few rungs”.

Once the deprived white working class student makes it to Oxbridge he or she (and any offspring) may well become a member of this dreaded white middle class, you know.

The world has never and will never be a 'level playing field'. The minute you are making adjustments, concessions, etc you are favouring one person over another and those left out (whoever they are) will regard it as unfair.

Apart from the fact that nobody is being left out in this case but disadvantaged young people have been left out for decades -.....are you actually saying that, as a society, we shouldn't be striving for equality? Do you feel that those with less privilege should just deal with it?

Also of course the ones left out (in this case private school children and their parents) will complain and ultimately take some form of action. There seems to be a naïve b that belief that hey will quietly surrender their place to the 'more deserving' groups. Why?

Can you provide any evidence that this actually happening?
And it's about being equally deserving not more deserving.....although it's clear you don't feel that those from disadvantaged groups do deserve an equal chance at university. They should all know their place eh?

You just don't get it, do you? It's astonishing

I get it, but I don't agree with it

@mustlovegin

they are merely pointing out that it is not a level playing field and that some adjustments are required in order to give the most disadvantaged kids an equal chance. I am still struggling to see what's so controversial about that

The world has never and will never be a 'level playing field'. The minute you are making adjustments, concessions, etc you are favouring one person over another and those left out (whoever they are) will regard it as unfair.

Also of course the ones left out (in this case private school children and their parents) will complain and ultimately take some form of action. There seems to be a naïve b that belief that hey will quietly surrender their place to the 'more deserving' groups. Why?

This is it, the underlying ideology - the belief that places at elite universities rightfully belong to the privately educated and that somehow they're being asked to surrender them.

I know Oxford and Cambridge (and no doubt other unis) offer a 4-year Classics degree now - specifically aimed at students in the state sector who would not have studied Latin. They read the texts in English instead.

The definition of FGS has changed since the 1970s. I was the first of my family to go to university, but my 1930-born parents were a career naval officer/pilot and a SRCN; my grandfather who left school at 14 ended his career as Chief Standards Officer at what is now BAe, and my great-grandfather was a headmaster... Not a degree among them, but not exactly intellectual inadequates either.

@MsTSwift

Family member works in this area and some parents are actively obstructive to their kids succeeding - “who does he think he is” type attitude.

Yes! I’ve seen this so much. Said family member teased for being a “brain box/geek”. Even now I get negative comments because I went to a private school (I’d never say “oh that’s a shit school you went to”). Reverse snobbery holds people back and with our class system, society doesn’t in actuality truly approve of people trying to “better themselves”-we just like the fantasy of it.

I think theres also justified fear of not fitting in because everyone at my school knew who the less well-off kids were, whose dad worked for London Transport (how terrible!), who lived in a flat, who didn’t have a dad etc…and we were treated accordingly

People like people like them!

@Siameasy

There is distain for MC - just now there’s a comment about dominant white middle class culture when surely the culture we are seeking to infiltrate and dismantle is the stagnant upper class/old money/Tory boys. The “toffs” who were always going to do well anyway-even with limited brain cells. It’s very hard to gain admittance to this group unless you marry in.

The middle class on the other hand is a wider, more fluid group and one which can be infiltrated and this is where social change takes place.

How do you think many of us became middle class? In my case the assisted places scheme allowed me to “move up a few rungs”.

Once the deprived white working class student makes it to Oxbridge he or she (and any offspring) may well become a member of this dreaded white middle class, you know.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. My own parents came from very working class roots. I can only hope that, when that deprived white working class student graduates from Oxbridge and joins that white middle class, that he or she (like my parents) will retain some empathy and compassion for the many people in our society who are still struggling through no fault of their own.

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.

Complete bollocks. KPMG, and other firms, are attempting to increase social diversity, yes. But they're not going to be ditching all the hoorah henrys. These schemes aren't even about recruitment, they're about promotion. So if in a graduate cohort of 50, 10 are first generation professionals, traditionally, those 10 will be promoted slower. The reasons for this are difficult to nail down but at least part of it is that they don't "fit in" as much etc etc. Processes are being put in place to make the promotion process less likely to penalise this people by focusing rather on skills and outcomes and less on "polish".

Similarly, other firms have schemes to make sure that women's performance reviews are not negatively impacted by entrenched misogyny. The old "aggressive" vs "assertive" issue. This isn't about promoting less competent people, but rather about removing the intrinsic bias that was preventing their promotion before.

And, as people have repeatedly pointed out, that's all that's happening with universities. There is an attempt to make it so that the privilege that exists for some students is at least partially removed. No one wants to miss the brilliant student just because she went to private school. But similarly, no one wants to miss the brilliant student who perhaps is starting from much further back.

I know Oxford and Cambridge (and no doubt other unis) offer a 4-year Classics degree now - specifically aimed at students in the state sector who would not have studied Latin. They read the texts in English instead.

All classics degrees at Oxford are four years. Those learning ab initio are still expected to get to the same place in their final year.