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.

@Siameasy

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).

This is the huge point that so many ignore & explains why lots of kids of Asian families with similar household income to certain white working class parents do significantly better at school. This is because these Asian parents place huge importance on education.

A massive part of outcome is how much your parents support your education and are motivated. No amount of funding or contextualisation can change that, which is why having no selective system (whether grammar schools or sets) in the state system is harmful, as it increases the potential divide between private school kids v. clever state school students who are held back by less academic kids (who may excel in other things!)

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

His second son went to City of London Buys....private.

I have met Bristol contextual students (some) who seem identical to us

OH MY GOD REALLY?

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

But not if it clearly disadvantages their own DC or DGC. I've never heard my DF who came from a very poor background say 'hey mustlove move over as you need to give up your place to accommodate others that are perceived to be equally deserving (through no transparent assessment)'. That's madness.

Can you provide any evidence that this actually happening?

It will start to happen soon enough as middle classes (who are bearing the brunt of the taxes to pay for all of this) realise what's going on IMO. They are already complaining as per the OP

@mustlovegin

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

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

If you genuinely believe that privately educated are being asked to surrender their places at elite universities then you clearly don't get it. This is underpinning your feelings towards it - but it's simply not true.

You are still more than 5x more likely to go to an elite university if you are privately educated compared to those from the most disadvantaged groups.

All it means is that it is slightly more competitive - and given that it is hugely competitive to begin with it's barely negligible.

Should disadvantaged young people not apply to elite universities?

@mustlovegin

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

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

You don't agree with trying to address the inequalities in our society?

You don't agree with kids from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds being helped to fulfil their potential?

You don't agree with the most privileged in our society having to accept that they don't have a god-given entitlement to that privilege?

What is it exactly that you don't agree with?

There seems to be an idea on these threads that 'middle classes' are like some kind of placid inert mass everyone can walk over without any future consequences and that they will give up what they have worked hard to achieve. It's weird

It will start to happen soon enough as middle classes (who are bearing the brunt of the taxes to pay for all of this) realise what's going on IMO. They are already complaining as per the OP

Hahaha but they are complaining about issues that don't exist and a system they no nothing about. That's not evidence.

Where is your evidence that privately educated young people are being asked to surrender their places at elite universities? You keep saying this is happening and this is why you disagree with contextual admissions but you haven't provided a scrap of evidence that this is the case and you wilfully ignore evidence that proves otherwise.

Should disadvantaged young people not apply to elite universities?

Of course they should apply. And the criteria for selection should be transparent and objective. Preferably focusing on tangible measures like IQ, etc. I've been saying this all along and I don't believe anyone has a God-given right to these places

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.

@mustlovegin

Which of these statements do you disagree with? I'm trying to work out why you think contextual admissions are unfair.

1. Some children through no fault of their own are disadvantaged in society and especially in the education system.
2. It is wrong that these children should not have the same opportunities as others.
3. It is right to address this issue by assessing their achievements in the context of the challenges they have faced.
4. Universities have the right to admit those they think are the most able.
5. Universities have the right to set their own entrance criteria.

Sorry I don’t have info for Oxford, but what is the difference between the 4 year Classics programme at Cambridge and the 3-year? Is the first year a foundation year on the 4-year programme? This has over 80% applicants from the state sector and a very high admissions rate of over 50%.

To make it simple, it's unfair that:

a) two applicants being equal regarding grades and objective data, that the place should go to the one perceived to be more disadvantaged - there should be a ballot system

b) some universities offering a place to a BBB student rather than a AAA student just because they come from a perceived disadvantaged context

And Skinny, don't say the above isn't happening as it has been mentioned several times on this thread

It will start to happen soon enough as middle classes (who are bearing the brunt of the taxes to pay for all of this) realise what's going on IMO.

I am looking forward to this revolution, I must say. How long do you think it will take them to realise? Contextual admissions have been used for years.

(IQ is not a good measure btw. Look up the history of intelligence testing and you'll see why. And even if it were, a high IQ is not what universities are looking for.)

purpleneon agree. The stories of Ugandan Asians’ success particularly interest me (some at my school too). They were Gujarati weren’t they-what was/is it about the culture and how can that be emulated by others?

For the rarer breeds eg white working class who “made it”..what made that happen? The “contextualised Oxbridge offer” is the tip of the iceberg. Very very few will make it that far.

I count myself so lucky that my parents saw I was reasonably intelligent and encouraged me. It starts in the cradle or, really, before the child is even conceived.

Alexa I think they do have compassion because aren't you and I those very people (ethnicity aside at this point)? I know what it was like to not fit in; I’ve never forgotten how some of the teachers clearly hated us. I passed the entrance exam just like anyone else but the divide was obvious.

It’s just interesting that we are hoping to help the white working class boy become MN’s most hated demographic the “white middle class male” and the posh toffs carry on as they always were, regarded almost with affection.

What I'd like to know, is when schools, colleges and universities are going to work together to do enough (I know they do some but more), so that all those children with the potential to do well at university, are encouraged to apply - and to apply to the right, the best fit for their talents and interests, the ambitious places.

Until that happens, it is impossible to admit students fairly. Impossible to base fair entry on an assessment of aptitude and potential that goes broader than grades (grades that are so dependent on the quality of teaching in schools and resources at home).

All this 'let's assess potential then have a ballot' cannot work, when so many people with the right potential are not putting themselves forward, or not to the places that match their ability, so would not be entered into that ballot in the first place.

Contextual offers only scrape the surface, even of those DC who have got as far as studying for A-levels, because they can only be made, to those people who apply for places.

some universities offering a place to a BBB student rather than a AAA student just because they come from a perceived disadvantaged context. Isn't it only Bristol? I guess you could argue that better that they are over contextualising than under contextualising offers? Bristol is one of the universities with a reputation for having very high numbers of private school educated students. Maybe their 'contextualising' generosity will end once they feel they have successive cohorts of students more reflective of the society in which we live?

And some people may come from schools in leafy suburbia or from what some would consider educated backgrounds which make them on paper seem absurd candidates for Bristol contextual offers. However, they may well tick other eligibility boxes?

I say this as someone with a friend whose DD was such recipient. Mother is a graduate and DD attended what many would say is the best local secondary school (and lots of outstanding state school provision around where we live). DD has had an extra-curricular enriched upbringing I would say (drama, music lessons, etc.). But lives in a single-parent family, brought up in social housing and from a BAME background.

And we all know that grade boundaries and grades given are not as clear-cut as some would say. There will be BBB students out there who are every bit as clever (or possibly more so) as some AAA students. It's not an exact science particularly if DC do humanities subjects!

Th

@mustlovegin

“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?”

If they think it is that much of a problem they could always put their child into state school instead, if they think they are getting preferential treatment? It would be win win. Preferential treatment and less expensive. I wonder how many will decide to do that!

two applicants being equal regarding grades and objective data, that the place should go to the one perceived to be more disadvantaged - there should be a ballot system

But if one is from a disadvantaged background then they aren't equal. That's the point.

some universities offering a place to a BBB student rather than a AAA student just because they come from a perceived disadvantaged context

Not many universities do this BUT this is the point of contextual admissions. Understanding that BBB is equivalent to AAA in some circumstances.
If you aren't willing to understand disadvantage and the impact this has in educational attainment then you will never understand why we need contextual admissions.

What I'd like to know, is when schools, colleges and universities are going to work together to do enough (I know they do some but more), so that all those children with the potential to do well at university, are encouraged to apply - and to apply to the right, the best fit for their talents and interests, the ambitious places.

This happens!! There are entire teams that do this .... it's a lovely job ❤️

And surely we must assume that the powers-that-be in universities are better positioned to judge what constitutes disadvantage than those of us sitting in our comfortable homes unable to understand the privilege we've never even had to consider has give us advantage upon advantage?

The Ugandan Asians sisters at school with me arrived about Christmas 1972 IIRC. Their forebears had been transplanted from India to work on the construction of the railways in the later 19th century and never returned; they held British Overseas status and passports. They set up businesses and worked hard, so hard that the indigenous population became resentful of their conspicuous successes and encouraged Idi Amin to eject them from Uganda. Fairly sure that the parents were a doctor and a university lecturer, or civil service: whatever their occupations, they arrived with almost nothing and got stuck in. But the cohort and their children and granchildren have succeeded equally visibly in their 50 years here.

Of the white working class people I've known who became middle class, via art school rather than university, some (maybe most) have said their familial relationships were strained by their upward mobility.

Yes, I know that universities working with schools and colleges to encourage applications happens, which is great. I suspect it needs to happen a lot more.

I think there's so much subtlety about the support and advice children need and, in many schools, colleges and families, don't get. Working out what courses and careers exist that might match their interests. Then what universities offer suitable courses. Then which are more stretching, more potentially interesting, considered better by employers etc. Then, which of the preferred courses the candidate might have a chance of getting in to, so should realistically apply to.

There is so much subtlety in all that, that even applicants from supportive families and schools can get it wrong, as the poster upthread, whose DC only discovered belatedly that the Cambridge college to which he'd applied offered only two places for his subject, shows. Of course my first thought was 'why didn't he do his research and find that out before applying? Then, why didn't the school or parent suggest he checked how many subject places each college could offer? Surely assessing which is the best and most realistic college to apply to is a huge part of the Oxbridge application process.'

Often, it's knowing what questions to ask, that is the barrier.

@Xenia

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.

All of the Big4 are university blind. Expect for perhaps management consulting. They are the easiest large employer to get into. Final interviews are CV blind. Anybody with a degree meeting the minimum requirements (Deloitte has even removed the 2:2) , passing the online test and a couple of clubs/societies on their CV gets to the assessment center. It is similar with many employers recruiting for large graduate schemes.

How do they achieve this 'meritocracy'?
By selecting not the best candidates but the quickest.
Recruitment is on a rolling basis and whoever passes all stages gets an offer. A brilliant, outstanding candidate may apply in late November (from Oxbridge even!) but it doesn't matter. They are too late and will fail unless someone else rejects the offer.

Your university doesn't matter if you just want 'a job'. In STEM fields where the STEM makes a difference it matters for certain jobs but it's not necessarily the most prestigious uni 'name' but the course itself. For other jobs I don't know but given that people in things like film production and journalism have to work lots of unpaid internships the deck is already stacked against people who need to be paid actual money for their work.

The conclusion is that we can't tell. Each university, each course, each industry needs to be assessed on its own merits. A van driver's son may not be able to become a university professor or investment banker - but he can become a highly paid Big4 accountant. Is that enough? Or not?

Off the bat the Oxbridge process makes sense. Bristol's from what I've glanced at doesn't make sense as @opoponax pointed out. The bottom 40% is still a LOT of schools. If 2 candidates were equal other than one belonging to a school on that list it's very unfair.

Can't comment on other places

A van driver's son may not be able to become a university professor or investment banker - but he can become a highly paid Big4 accountant. Is that enough? Or not?

Why not. DS is reading for a PhD, starting off at a private school. Amongst his close friends from LSE who have continued on an academic track, two others are first/second generation Londoners whose parents have unskilled employment (one via grammar school and one via a "bog-standard" comp) and a third is stateless being born in one of the Gulf states to Asian expat parents.

Once you have your degree employers, unless abnormally snobbish, are unlikely to look back.