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.

I’m trying to see both sides on this thread but struggling a little to understand the lack of empathy and compassion coming from some of those who feel their privately educated dc are now at a disadvantage and somehow being cheated out of university places which were never theirs in the first place! Unless I’m missing something, getting a guaranteed place at oxbridge or a Russell group university is not on the contract when you sign your dc up for private education.

Even more interestingly, some of those who are unsettled by these perceived unfair changes, are people who have themselves been educated in poor state schools and don’t want the same for their dc! They understand that there is a big difference between the two so they want to provide their dc with an advantage. This is completely understandable and it is up to them how they decide to spend their money.

But surely they must see that if someone achieves similar grades at a “worse” school with bigger class sizes, less facilities and more behaviour issues, that is a phenomenal achievement? Especially if that child does not have the advantage of supportive parents, money for technology, extracurricular activities etc? I imagine these are fairly rare occurrences, but if someone does manage to achieve highly, despite their circumstances, then they absolutely deserve a leg up to the next stage.

Then there are children like my dc, who attended an average mixed-ability state comprehensive (with large class sizes and disruptive behaviour in some lessons), but has very supportive parents, university educated professionals, who can provide support, extra curricular activities and financial assistance. We trusted in her ability to achieve in this environment as she was extremely hard working and conscientious. She achieved highly, better grades than her contemporaries in private school. Should she qualify for a contextual offer? No, absolutely not. Are her achievements more impressive than those gained at a private school? Yes, personally I think so.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

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

Contextual offers of the Bristol kind are recognising that children who achieved lower grades (against difficult odds) have the academic ability to do well. These odds include:

• Being a young carer
• Going to school in deprived areas with oversized classes where teachers have to spend so much time managing behaviour that no teaching gets done
• Children from lower income families going without, as pp gave the example not being able to even go to the library. Or wanting to study but needing to work part-time/look after siblings.

Despite having ticked all the boxes your friend's DD doesn't seem to have any excuse to achieve her full potential. She has had an enriched upbringing, an educated parent. Social housing means that she had more security than most working families struggling to pay rent. A BAME background nowadays doesn't mean much as there are lots of highly paid professionals etc who are immigrants. 'BAME', but not subject to systematic discrimination in the U.K on the level of those BAME who have been here for generations.

Unless her mother had health issues or struggled for basic necessities throughout her entire childhood the information you've given alone is insufficient to determine deprivation that necessitates a lower offer. Her grades are just that - her best. No lowering needed.

*her grades are already her best and she wouldn't have done any better if she had two parents and more money.

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 can't they become a university professor or investment banker??

@Lollipop444

I’m trying to see both sides on this thread but struggling a little to understand the lack of empathy and compassion coming from some of those who feel their privately educated dc are now at a disadvantage and somehow being cheated out of university places which were never theirs in the first place! Unless I’m missing something, getting a guaranteed place at oxbridge or a Russell group university is not on the contract when you sign your dc up for private education.

Even more interestingly, some of those who are unsettled by these perceived unfair changes, are people who have themselves been educated in poor state schools and don’t want the same for their dc! They understand that there is a big difference between the two so they want to provide their dc with an advantage. This is completely understandable and it is up to them how they decide to spend their money.

But surely they must see that if someone achieves similar grades at a “worse” school with bigger class sizes, less facilities and more behaviour issues, that is a phenomenal achievement? Especially if that child does not have the advantage of supportive parents, money for technology, extracurricular activities etc? I imagine these are fairly rare occurrences, but if someone does manage to achieve highly, despite their circumstances, then they absolutely deserve a leg up to the next stage.

Then there are children like my dc, who attended an average mixed-ability state comprehensive (with large class sizes and disruptive behaviour in some lessons), but has very supportive parents, university educated professionals, who can provide support, extra curricular activities and financial assistance. We trusted in her ability to achieve in this environment as she was extremely hard working and conscientious. She achieved highly, better grades than her contemporaries in private school. Should she qualify for a contextual offer? No, absolutely not. Are her achievements more impressive than those gained at a private school? Yes, personally I think so.

My background is similar to that of your daughter. IMO giving contextual offers to those from a clearly deprived background (low-income family, first to go to university, young carer, foster care) is absolutely clear and acceptable. Given the incredibly challenging circumstances that they go through their grades are not a reflection of their true potential. Like you said no supportive parents, extracurriculars etc.

However it's the ones who don't quite make it that will game the system. Children in a single-parent household where the parent isn't a low earner. Or even blended families. Children whose parents are 'manual workers' (plumbers, electricians) etc but these people are self-employed and far from being deprived richer than the rest of us. Such as several members of DP's family.

These people don't have 'ideal' lives but neither have they necessarily face upheaval and disruption resulting in them not being able to do their natural best.
At low numbers, well below the inflection point contextual admissions will identify and uplift deserving student.
However the moment contextual admissions start covering large swathes of people they cease to be of value and then everybody will be forced to game the system.

@SkinnyMirror

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 can't they become a university professor or investment banker??

The discussion was in relation to the value of university names/prestige in comparison to the Big4. Don't take it out of context. Investment banking is very competitive and one of the few graduate roles where candidates are not only expected to go through multiple rounds of personal AND technical interviews, but where you need relevant work experience. Target universities have plenty of coaching workshops led by student bodies and sometimes even recruiters themselves. Academic positions are also competitive (of course depending on the field) and apart from needing years of study some fields are rife with unpaid research internships, which you can't take if you actually need money to live. Again because there's a clear academic difference between universities you need to get into certain ones if you want an academic pathway.

Compared to most roles in the Big4 where you can just walk in with a generic degree and CV. As long as you meet all the criteria and apply early you'll succeed. There are many, many detailed forums and online posts from people who have been through the process, sharing advice, that anybody can Google.

The point being getting into a prestigious university is not necessary if you just want a good job. It is if you want a specific job. So if you all you want to do is allow people to have good careers then getting people into uni is good enough. People with BBC can go to for example the University of Stirling instead of the LSE and still get into the Big4. The use of 'van driver' was again because that was what the original post referred to.

I think academically talented people of any background should be able to get into the best university - however there needs to be a way to identify whom. Oxbridge does it with interviews. With only a personal statement and grades - how would you know ability? A student getting BBC in a school with an average of 'D's is obvious. Students getting BBC which is an average grade for schools in the area - how can you tell who is exceptional? How will you measure up who is more entitled to a contextual offer among the various combinations of deprivation indicators? Will someone getting BBC in a comp with a good academic record still be entitled to a contextual offer over somebody from a worse school with the same grades?

Even more interestingly, some of those who are unsettled by these perceived unfair changes, are people who have themselves been educated in poor state schools and don’t want the same for their dc!

I don't find this surprising at all. It's a common attitude among women who've achieved well in a 'man's world' too. Essentially 'if I was able to do well, despite all that, anyone else can do it too'.

It's a self-absorbed position, that lacks empathy and any understanding that people's precise circumstances can be different, despite a similar broad social context, or that the same precise circumstances can affect different people differently, in ways that are entirely real, normal and not a sign of weakness.

Of course brutal, self-interested focus is often advantageous in the workplace, so this attitude, this lack of social and emotional sensitivity, may be one of the secrets of their success.

Oh and part of that attitude is about exceptionalism. The person who had succeeded against the odds, often believes themselves to be more special and exceptional than they actually are.

Recognising that there were many other people from their background who could also have achieved as much, given a chance, a critical bit of support etc, punctures their bubble of specialness.

Investment banking is very competitive and one of the few graduate roles where candidates are not only expected to go through multiple rounds of personal AND technical interviews, but where you need relevant work experience. Target universities have plenty of coaching workshops led by student bodies and sometimes even recruiters themselves.

These are typically run by the careers services in conjunction with employers. Employer engagement with universities is another discussion entirely but it's an ever expanding part of a university careers service.
Clearly some employers target specific universities and it becomes part of the advantage of attending a particular university. Another reason ensuring high achieving disadvantaged young people have the opportunity to attend an elite university.

Academic positions are also competitive (of course depending on the field) and apart from needing years of study some fields are rife with unpaid research internships, which you can't take if you actually need money to live. Again because there's a clear academic difference between universities you need to get into certain ones if you want an academic pathway.

I am an academic - I know how it works. Incidentally I am the only person in my family to go to university (still) and my UG degree is from a not very elite institution.

Unpaid internships don't really happen in academia anymore - that's not to say there aren't issues around low pay, the need to move around etc which do disproportionately impact those form low income backgrounds - they also tend to impact women disproportionately too.

Compared to most roles in the Big4 where you can just walk in with a generic degree and CV. As long as you meet all the criteria and apply early you'll succeed. There are many, many detailed forums and online posts from people who have been through the process, sharing advice, that anybody can Google.

I wonder why universities invest so much money in their careers services if it's really that simple!

I think academically talented people of any background should be able to get into the best university - however there needs to be a way to identify whom. Oxbridge does it with interviews. With only a personal statement and grades - how would you know ability? A student getting BBC in a school with an average of 'D's is obvious. Students getting BBC which is an average grade for schools in the area - how can you tell who is exceptional? How will you measure up who is more entitled to a contextual offer among the various combinations of deprivation indicators? Will someone getting BBC in a comp with a good academic record still be entitled to a contextual offer over somebody from a worse school with the same grades?

Nobody is saying contextual admissions are perfect or simple but they aren't the blunt instrument people are suggesting.

I'm speaking from twenty five years ago, but I got a place at Cambridge from a shitty northern comprehensive. My ability to do this was, I think, down to the fact that my mother's family were refugees to Britain and growing up in that familial environment gave me a wider perspective than my school peers on pretty much everything.

But when I got there, holy moley, was I a fish out of water. It wasn't just the private school confidence, public speaking experience, and all those other benefits, it was the incidental knowledge that my mostly privately educated cohort had about the subject that shocked me most.

I spent the first two years of my degree solidly locked away, studying like mad to try to make up for everything I didn't know. I reckon I was about three years behind them all, even though we all had the same A level grades.

And that feeling never quite left me. I sometimes now find myself thinking: "shit, what is it that I don't know here?"

I think, really, what we are discussing is one of those eternal implications of the human condition: some will always have more, some will always prioritise differently, and all those factors will always affect a child's life path.

And Oxbridge doesn't necessarily deliver a life of contentment or riches. It seems to me, looking at my old college friends, that the one thing that governs happiness and financial comfort, above all, is the choice of partner they make in life.

Yet we don't seem to focus on educating our children about that decision, even though the implications are huge. We accept it as a kind of fate.

Odd, no?

@TractorAndHeadphones one of my university professors in a STEM subject was a former builder. The rest of my professors including the foreign ones had followed a straight academic path.

Talking to flatmates, friends and partners of colleagues who went into academia, in STEM subjects people can and will find ways to help you get funding to pursue your studies and research. However if you fall foul of any of the people helping you, you are cast aside very quickly.

So yes a van driver could end up as a university professor though it is more likely to be in a STEM subject than a Humanities/Arts one.

Investment banking is very competitive and one of the few graduate roles where candidates are not only expected to go through multiple rounds of personal AND technical interviews, but where you need relevant work experience. Target universities have plenty of coaching workshops led by student bodies and sometimes even recruiters themselves.

This work experience is just one of the many ways investment banks find themselves in a situation where they have so many privately educated types at the start and being promoted. Because those work experience opportunities are often very narrow in how you get them - by school/university etc. And the informal ones are, of course, worse. I remember vividly when our entire department had to be involved in creating a dynamic and interesting two day programme for a big cheese's daughter as she had expressed interest in Corporate Communications.

@Triffid1

Investment banking is very competitive and one of the few graduate roles where candidates are not only expected to go through multiple rounds of personal AND technical interviews, but where you need relevant work experience. Target universities have plenty of coaching workshops led by student bodies and sometimes even recruiters themselves.

This work experience is just one of the many ways investment banks find themselves in a situation where they have so many privately educated types at the start and being promoted. Because those work experience opportunities are often very narrow in how you get them - by school/university etc. And the informal ones are, of course, worse. I remember vividly when our entire department had to be involved in creating a dynamic and interesting two day programme for a big cheese's daughter as she had expressed interest in Corporate Communications.

We had similar in our medical department.

As a rule we didn’t provide work experience for more than a day, and that was for A level students only.

Then the dc of one of the chief bigwigs at the hospital wanted to come for work experience and all stops were pulled out to provide a week of varied experiences.

Has it ever occurred to anyone in this thread that some private schools are absolutely crap?

All this talk about ‘privileged facilities’ - er, most preps in London are crammed into old, dark Victorian buildings. Tiny classrooms. Steep staircases and an inconvenient layout. Very cramped outside space. Kids doing lessons in basements.

Some private schools (not mentioning any names) are run by particular families - who are eccentric and problematic to say the least. There are teachers unfit for purpose which wouldn’t get jobs in the state sector they are so bizarre. They get away with whatever they like, frankly.

Even if a secondary school has ‘facilities’ well, that’s very nice if you happen to be a hockey player, or swimmer or whatever. But, if we’re talking about uni entrance here, unis don’t care about any of that. You’re hardly going to get into x uni because your school had lots of outside space or x,y,z sports facilities .

Selective schools - in either sector - will always field more candidates to unis. This is obvious and no amount of contextualisation will change that. It’s a different cohort.

Selective schools will get better results, not because of the teaching or the ‘facilities.’ But because they only accept the top x% of ability.

The ‘privilege’ of being in a selective school is two-fold -

1. Being among other similarly able children means that you’re inclined to push yourself harder and teachers can move at a faster pace (not needing to divide their attention across the full range of abilities).

2. Parents who pay (or who tutor for grammars) are more likely to be interested / involved in their kids progress.

Some independents are excellent and worth every penny. Some are shocking. Some are very strange. Some rest on their laurels or history of rah rah and some people are into that. Some are hothouses. Some are special schools.

There is no such thing as ‘private school children.’ They are no more a homogenous group than those in the state schools. I can’t believe people talk this way.

Also, not all independents even get very good academic results. Some are very laid back and / or ‘alternative.’

Yes, it's been discussed extensively upthread cinnamonswir1 I don't think there's anyone on the thread who is unaware of this.

@Packingsoapandwater that is a very illuminating post.

My Dad came from a working class, Lancashire background and benefitted from the grammar school system, like many did in the 50s. He went to Oxford and I wonder if his experience was much like your own?

He always felt the odd one out, even though he went on to earn money and status. Sadly the Oxford place didn't save him (or us) because he married my Mum who is awful, ended up an alcoholic and was never able to spend his money for fear of becoming poor again.

Interestingly, ds14 lives in working class school and goes to a school which has always 'required improvement'. He seems to have the big brain m and is academically strong, but I wonder if his experience would feel similar to my Dad's if he goes to Uni?

@cinnamonswir1

Has it ever occurred to anyone in this thread that some private schools are absolutely crap?

All this talk about ‘privileged facilities’ - er, most preps in London are crammed into old, dark Victorian buildings. Tiny classrooms. Steep staircases and an inconvenient layout. Very cramped outside space. Kids doing lessons in basements.

Some private schools (not mentioning any names) are run by particular families - who are eccentric and problematic to say the least. There are teachers unfit for purpose which wouldn’t get jobs in the state sector they are so bizarre. They get away with whatever they like, frankly.

Even if a secondary school has ‘facilities’ well, that’s very nice if you happen to be a hockey player, or swimmer or whatever. But, if we’re talking about uni entrance here, unis don’t care about any of that. You’re hardly going to get into x uni because your school had lots of outside space or x,y,z sports facilities .

Selective schools - in either sector - will always field more candidates to unis. This is obvious and no amount of contextualisation will change that. It’s a different cohort.

Selective schools will get better results, not because of the teaching or the ‘facilities.’ But because they only accept the top x% of ability.

The ‘privilege’ of being in a selective school is two-fold -

1. Being among other similarly able children means that you’re inclined to push yourself harder and teachers can move at a faster pace (not needing to divide their attention across the full range of abilities).

2. Parents who pay (or who tutor for grammars) are more likely to be interested / involved in their kids progress.

Some independents are excellent and worth every penny. Some are shocking. Some are very strange. Some rest on their laurels or history of rah rah and some people are into that. Some are hothouses. Some are special schools.

There is no such thing as ‘private school children.’ They are no more a homogenous group than those in the state schools. I can’t believe people talk this way.

Also, not all independents even get very good academic results. Some are very laid back and / or ‘alternative.’

Agree I also get the impression that it’s the public school brigade who form the hated elite/establishment, not someone who has parents working all the hours to send him to a private school.

Hahaha but they are complaining about issues that don't exist and a system they know nothing about

Also, if the system is so obscure and cryptic only a few can 'understand' it and nobody can complain, there's a problem, don't you think?

The person who had succeeded against the odds, often believes themselves to be more special and exceptional than they actually are

This is a bit ironic given some of the comments on this thread

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

Most people have to work really hard and scrimp endlessly to be able to afford a good education for their DC. It's offensive to imply everyone is 'sitting comfortably' at home all day.

And surely we must assume that the powers-that-be in universities are better positioned to judge what constitutes disadvantage

I never assume that I am not capable enough to form my own opinion and hence I have to rely on others to think for me. Beyond rude

@mustlovegin

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

Most people have to work really hard and scrimp endlessly to be able to afford a good education for their DC. It's offensive to imply everyone is 'sitting comfortably' at home all day.

I agree that most private school parents probably have to work hard to pay the fees. Meanwhile, the parents of some of the poorest in our society will be working really hard and scrimping endlessly in order to put food on the table for their dc or to heat their homes. So by comparison, most of us are very comfortable indeed.

I found that interesting too Packingsoapandwater It matches some of my school friends' experiences on very selective courses. They noticed that they lacked a breadth of education, general knowledge really, that their privately educated peers had.

For me, that breadth of education, plus greater individual support and nurture, would be the reasons I might consider a private secondary for my DC. My assumption is that higher staff:pupil ratios, selective entry and smaller classes, possibly longer hours, mean that staff can cover the exam curriculum and then some. Also that they would have a more individual view of their pupils and could spot potential problems and intervene, before they become detrimental to progress.

OTOH, a state school will offer a broader social experience and perspective and we're supportive, well-educated parents, so a lot of that general knowledge, enriching experience and support will come from us anyway. I'm not convinced I need to pay someone else to offer more of the same.

We're in catchment for a very good state school, full of motivated DC with motivated parents, like us, so I wouldn't expect eventual grades to be any different. (Certainly no case for contextual offers here). It's the experience of the journey to achieve them and the life skills and other knowledge that accompany them, that might be different.

We just have to come back to my teacher mother's advice - life is unfair so just get on with it. It is certainly unfair if you go to a poor private schools not through your own choice and are at a worse school than a comprehensive but that sink comp is on a contextual list. Or you are very rich but put down you live with your post divorce impoverished mother on the form even if weekends are at the father's castle.

As soon as we benefit one group then we take places from another group - a state grammar child who has bust a gut to get their results then does not win a place because someone who took it pretty easy at a local comp which is on a disadvantaged list gets the place.

I remember vividly when our entire department had to be involved in creating a dynamic and interesting two day programme for a big cheese's daughter as she had expressed interest in Corporate Communications

You sound very resentful and ungrateful OP. First the Zoom client and now your bosses - all of whom enable you to have I imagine a comfortable standard of living.

You don't sound like a very nice person to be around (or employ TBH)