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.

It's really unfair that the privilege that you can buy is being ever so slightly reduced. Boooo hoooo.

@WeeBisom

Oh, I know exactly what you're talking about...I volunteered at open days and met many angry parents who felt that Oxford was discriminating against their privately educated kids. The parents had the impression that Oxford were taking on less talented students for diversity box ticking purposes. The reality is that the standards to get into Oxford are the same across the board - for law, ALL students no matter their background need to achieve at least 3 As. What this means is that when faced with the choice between a student who went to Eton and got 3As or a student from a crap school who got the same, Oxford are more likely to give the offer to the kid from the rougher background. But they are just as deserving as the Eton student, as they will have achieved the minimum entry requirements.

It used to be that Oxford applications were dominated by privately educated students, but in recent years there has been a real push in outreach to get state educated students to apply. The result has been that mediocre private school applicants who a few years ago were almost guaranteed a shot at interview are now being set aside in favour of more talented state students. The competition has got much fiercer but the number of places has remained static.

Thank you @WeeBisom.

It is beyond belief that some people really believe Universities that can afford to take whoever they want among their alumni and whose reputation (and money) is on the line, would just happily give places to undeserving students becasue they want to look good.

The whole selling point of Oxbridge is elitism. Nobody would want these Unis if they were not ultra selective. Why would you even want to send your child there if you believe this kind of story

We are going to spare this heartache but sending our very bright kids to study abroad.

We have seen how much resentment go towards privately educated children in this country. Reverse snobbery and the assumption that all private school kids are wealthy.

MsTSwift
What an amazing dad you have.

Reverse snobbery and the assumption that all private school kids are wealthy.

Yes, it’s ridiculous to think that. We all know that most private school parents are on universal credit.

Wow really @Caplin I'm Scottish and have never heard of anyone doing this!

My best friend and I came out of private school in Scotland to do 6th year at state school. This was 25 years ago so long before the push to get state school students to university. My parents did it because I had already attained the grades I needed to go to university, but wasn’t ready to go to university. They were giving up a lot to pay for my education, and in fact, my 6th year at state school was really good as it focused less on education and more on doing non academic stuff like working with younger kids, running clubs, community outreach, business initiatives and work experience. I got a few more qualifications, but the non academic stuff was way more beneficial than the private school’s insistence that if I stayed on I had to do 5 more higher grades subjects.

Thing is that it's very obvious that those who get an independent education in a school with small class sizes will get a different experience to someone from a poverished background in a sink comp.

It's not always about ten grades but rather about who will have the right attitude and has shown the right attitude.

If you have 2 students who achieved gcse grade 9 in maths and science and As in a level at those subjects and 1 had an independent education and 1 a poor state education with difficult homelife you would quite likely assume (and probably correctly) one had put in more effort and independent study and you may assume they will be better suited to the demands of the course.

It's not always about equal opportunities (which 100% do matter and should exist which is why the current system is better) but also about who would be suited to the demands.

My son does an elite sport. His coach cracks me up when he gives instructions or they require to be independent. He can always pick out the kids who are educated privately!

I always refer people to the Royal Family for these arguments. Decent private schools from the word go, not a Russell Group first between them. Or even a 2:1.

You can take a horse to water.............

[quote Cam77]@BungleandGeorge
Surely the figures you have quoted are the school fees rather than the amount actually spent on the child?

You're probably right, but then I expect the same also applies to the state school figure? IE, the state school figure is just a crude calculation of Total Education Expenditure by the UK government divided by Total UK state pupils.
If so the comparison would still stand, at least more or less.
Happy to be corrected if wrong.[/quote]
Personally I think a much higher proportion is spent on actual education at a state school. A fair amount in private is ‘window dressing’, outreach (or profit depending on status), extra funding for bursaries, sport, events. A lot more is included whereas I pay extra for sport, (expensive) lunches, extra contributions left right and centre. So yes there is still a difference but not anywhere near 2.5 x.

[quote supermoonrising]@moch11
An interesting post. I guess if your kid is bright, and you are of reasonably decent, but not unlimited, financial means, you’d perhaps be better off focusing your money on getting a house in the catchment area of a very, very good state school (selective or not) rather than throwing 15-20k a year at a slightly better private school?[/quote]
As tutoring doesn’t have to be declared, you could spend a lot on this too. That’s what some of my friends locally have done. Mid-ranking comprehensive and thousands a year on tutors.

Is it a fairer way of doing it than paying school fees.

Yes, it’s ridiculous to think that. We all know that most private school parents are on universal credit.

Yes, of course it has to be UC or wealthy. I have seen parents driving TESLAS at our local state school so I guess they are on UC.

Srrry on this thread - not seen one comment from a parent whose child is privately educated and is being discriminated against - it is all comments from people who feel that is what parents of privately educated children think.

The sneering and derision from adults on here is obvious. My private educated child works their butt off to get middle of the road grades - there is no privilege. MY state child swans around and gets top grades - on this thread you would think my private child is being gifted his grades - he knows what it costs and works his butt off to do his best. That people belittle his efforts because he is at a private school and therefore has not worked as hard as someone at a stat school - is insulting.

Shall we bring into the equation - he is summer born, premature and got medical issues - which are far more relevant than wher he goes to school.

We can not even out every issue.

Yes, it’s ridiculous to think that. We all know that most private school parents are on universal credit.

Well done for proving the PP’s point. There is a world of difference between wealthy and those on universal credit. The private school I attended wasn’t full of kids from wealthy backgrounds. My parents are not wealthy, neither were they on universal credit. They were fortunate that the business my dad built up from nothing suddenly had a decent market value and he sold it which paid for the majority of my time at private school. They chose to send me there because we had just moved house and the local state school was very, very poor at the time. By the time I was in my fifth year at school, the fees were almost crippling but we got a small bursary from a services charity who provided for the children of ex servicemen. I was by no means the poorest kid in my class. The vast majority came from backgrounds similar to mine.

@Islamorada

Yes, it’s ridiculous to think that. We all know that most private school parents are on universal credit.

Yes, of course it has to be UC or wealthy. I have seen parents driving TESLAS at our local state school so I guess they are on UC.

No, they’re not on universal credit, they’ve chosen to spend their money on cars, not private schools. If that’s the level of your logic and you went to a private school, your parents should be asking for a refund.

I don’t think anyone who sends their child to private school expects preferential treatment, but it seems very unfair on the child to be discriminated against because they went to private school. Our best performing state school is Catholic, we can’t get in, we wanted that kind of education for our children so paid for it. Now we are nearly through the system, our children are being looked at as beneath state schools-that is what I find unfair. I do see why those at schools with issues should be looked at in a different way.

I haven't read the thread, but my DC were privately educated and I completely agree with the OP!

MY DC are both at their 2nd choice Unis, still Russell group, and I'd like to think they would have ended up there anyway had they had a different education, but we will never know.

Meanwhile other friends whose DC did not get into Oxbridge blame the system for being weighted against private schools. Stop whinging FFS, your kids will always be fine!

The private school I attended wasn’t full of kids from wealthy backgrounds. My parents are not wealthy, neither were they on universal credit

I went to private & a selective 6th form. My parents weren't wealthy either. However in 2021 with fees & house prices as they are you need to pretty wealthy to afford fees. Not going on holiday & buying a second hand car won't cut it for most.

@moch11

It’s not always correct to say, ‘ Every single person in x school is extremely privileged, mostly by virtue of having rich and supportive parents.’ Things are changing in terms of the way too independents select as well. Google Latymer Upper School as an example. 25% on bursaries, I think? There is a much wider range of ‘privilege’ in some London independents than your average leafy suburban comp who just wander in from the surrounding avenues.

But @moch11 those children on bursaries at Latymer Upper ARE extremely privileged, by virtue of them attending one of the top private schools!

They are lucky to be there, as are all the children there and at similar schools, and have a huge advantage over similarly bright children who DON'T have bursaries to private schools.

They ARE privileged!

I suspect going to universities abroad will become increasingly appealing to private school pupils. Especially if they read threads like this!

It’s frightening that people don’t see the gap.

In private school kids have currently 180 clubs on offer this term - they HAVE to sign up for 3. In 3 different categories one is physical one is academic and one is one interest. That a minimum or they get misconduct marks. All have mentor. Usually a parent mentor in the field they want eg medicine - parent who is a surgeon - mentors them once every 2 weeks. They have to read 6 books for ‘interest’ a term. I was speaking to one - he has applied for politics at Oxford. Asked him what he would do if he didn’t make Oxford he said ‘gap year I’m going to travel too poor counties and help with a ngo and do some work experience with the bbc and travel. Innocently asked if he has connections to the bbc and he said ‘my mum knows XY and he’s said I can work as an intern for him’ no worry about earning money for travel parents face given him a £50K budget. Also for the NGO it’s already set up. It’s called privilege and those in state schools do not see the gap - they just don’t.
A kid in the private schools parents pay for an assessment for an EP and they get extra exams, wonderful teachers and then a tutor on top if needed. Holidays are the Maldives - one paid for the tutor to go - so mornings work and afternoon playtime.

We literally have no idea. This is way the gap gets wider and wider it’s not narrowing. Abolishing grammar schools played a home goal for equality.

all Blossomtoes

No that’s your level of logic actually.

@Darkchocolateandcoffee exactly & a bursary doesn't necessarily mean 100% free fees.

Yep, they are annoyed that the advantage they feel entitled to by virtue of being able to afford to spend money to get it is slightly less automatic than it used to be. This is because universities have made a connection between motivation and outcomes, with in some cases the result being that students who have reached the same grades but without the benefits of small classes and individual attention tend to get better results at uni.

@Foxyloxy1plus1

I wish we could in some way alter the notion that the only successful way through life is school, university, well paid white collar job.

Not all children can or should be going to university. Some should be using their skills and talents in practical ways.

When it was decided that up to 50% of students should or could go to university , a number of courses became available, which it seems, had less academic rigour than traditional subjects. I think many of those who focused on them have had and will have more difficulty in securing the higher paid careers that might be the expectation of former years, when fewer university places were available and a degree more or less automatically ensured a career.

I wonder how people feel when their offsprings expensive education leaves them unable to find work in their degree subject, or, in fact, any work that they couldn’t have done without spending megabucks.

I really agree with a lot of this. Also higher education doesn’t have to be only for when you’re 18 and fresh out of school and that’s something I will be impressing upon my daughter as she makes her way through school. There a lot of options throughout her whole life and they don’t all hinge on one set of exam results.

I always refer people to the Royal Family for these arguments. Decent private schools from the word go, not a Russell Group first between them. Or even a 2:1.

Prince William went to St Andrew’s, currently ranked 4th in the U.K. and got a 2.1

Charles and Edward went to Cambridge. Peter and Zara Phillips went to Exeter.

So, RG unis and a 2.1. What’s your next point?