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

Yes, it is appealing to many. Too much drama tbh

Surely it will be fair when 7% of students at the top universities went to private school, which is I believe the percentage of children who go to private school. Does that make sense?

The entitlement of these people is staggering. Yanbu OP

oh yawn, this has been done to death on MN!

As the latest league tables are showing (Oxbridge knocked off top slot for first time ever) the 'top' and 'elite' universities will simply be redefined to those that have the most wealthy, privately educated students. Money talks and Oxbridge is already seeing a diversion of funds away from it and towards other top universities.

@Islamorada

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

Yes, it is appealing to many. Too much drama tbh

It may become a bit difficult for all those people going to private school on tight budgets, I guess. The drama is done by those who really believe their kids are discriminated against. Why did you send your kids to a private school? I guess because you could & you thought they would get a better education.

Or was it because you thought it would be easier to enter Oxbridge institutions?

As I said one of my children just got a shcoalrship to go to a very elitist boarding school. It is not what I would have chosen, but I don't think for a second this will give her a disadvantage in entering the University of her choice, and that it would have been easier if she did her A levels at the comprehensive school she attended across the road.

We will not have money for universities abroad, that's for sure.

Don't scream, just whisper "don't worry you can still buy privilege"

@Triffid1

Lots of good points on here, not least is that education is generally not exactly a level playing field and that there are way too many variables. I would include grammar schools in this - in DS' year, I know a number of kids who are applying for grammar school and in every case they have had private tutoring and additional support from their parents to help them get there. Not that they aren't smart, just that the extra help has been on hand. So I can see a situation where grammar schools are the ones that then get all the extra places and that it's not necessarily any more fair.

But if 25% (according to the FT) of places are still taken by private school kids, that does suggest there remains an inequality there. Then exacerbated by the high percentage of grammar school kids who get top university places and who have probably had help along the way too in one form or another.

I was struck recently by Wes Streeting's list of things that children under 10 should have done and that many children from socially/economically deprived children don't have. It wasn't complex or hardcore things like skiing trips but rather things like the opportunity to present / speak publicly, trips to museums etc.

The is an issue with only looking at the type of school attended. There are of course people who attend private schools on a full bursary. I know someone who does, his home life is not a bed of roses and without the bursary he would have gone to a rather crappy state comprehensive (no grammars in our area). Should he be disadvantaged over another student with a similar home set up (five/six people in a two bed flat and three generations of his family)?

The abolition of grammar schools has done more to entrench privilege than almost anything. The political landscape was more diverse when clever people from a range of backgrounds could attain an elite education. But they did have to be clever, which chimes with the statement made in the first 100 posts, that selection at 11 is a better predictor of academic success than most.

There are of course people who attend private schools on a full bursary. I know someone who does, his home life is not a bed of roses and without the bursary he would have gone to a rather crappy state comprehensive (no grammars in our area). Should he be disadvantaged over another student with a similar home set up (five/six people in a two bed flat and three generations of his family)?

The vast majority are not from impoverished backgrounds. Why do you think the boy you know is disadvantaged? Why do you think he deserves the place over someone from a similar background but not at a private school?

The funniest thing is those that spend loads on their kids education and their kids just end up doing average jobs

“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!“

It’s a bit like asking how long is a piece of string though, isn’t it? What about when the student from the disadvantaged comp gets into Cambridge then? Does the disadvantage he previously faced in getting there just cease to count? Poof gone!

There are many forms of disadvantage and this should hardly need pointing out. Just because a pupil’s parents are able to pay school fees, or a student gets a bursary place at a top school, does not exclude them from a difficult home life - violence, abuse, divorce, illness, mental health issues and you name it.

A stable home life is far more of a predictor of academic achievement than the actual school, I would argue. As long as the teaching is ‘good enough’ and covers the curriculum, a child from a stable home with interested parents should reach their potential.

You could have them in the best school in the land, but make no mistake, these schools are tough, competitive environments where no excuses are made for under-par performance. And there’s no such thing as ‘pay your money and take your place.’ Competition for these schools is fiercer than it is for universities. Eleven-year olds are regularly taking entrance exams for five to ten schools to just have a hope of a place. Sometimes there are 10 to 15 candidates per place. The stress in these children is immense. Try being in that type of environment, with everyone telling you how very privileged you are, when there are problems at home. It’s not hard to see how mental health problems are rife in these schools. You hold it together and you survive the school - only to be told that your string of top grades don’t count as much because your parents pushed you into a privileged school when you were 11.

But grammar schools did so much more harm to the “just missed the grade” kids that ended up at the secondary modern in many cases, whole life chances decided by one exam.

My father went to grammar school in the 60s and did well (vocational career, not uni), his siblings failed their 11+ for various reasons including childhood illness, they were bright children who wanted to learn but ended up going to a school with many social problems and where few children passed their o levels. The difference in outcomes was stark.

When assessing educational outcomes I think it’s really important to look at the bigger picture of children having an environment to learn and succeed for their own potential, not just how many top grades are achieved. Although this was a thread about uni entry so sorry to derail.

“The funniest thing is those that spend loads on their kids education and their kids just end up doing average jobs“

I know right. They should write it in the prospectus - “ Only prospective hedge-fund managers need apply.”

@Jng1

oh yawn, this has been done to death on MN!

As the latest league tables are showing (Oxbridge knocked off top slot for first time ever) the 'top' and 'elite' universities will simply be redefined to those that have the most wealthy, privately educated students. Money talks and Oxbridge is already seeing a diversion of funds away from it and towards other top universities.

Some league tables are showing Oxford at #1

Worth pointing out that there are many reasons that parents pay for private education.

In our case, we thought our bright but socially retiring daughter had less chance of being beaten to a pulp by the same bullies who had plagued her existence for 6 years of primary school if we sent her to a different school. The school is academically selective, has low fees and a very high proportion of pupils are on 100% bursaries.

She is thriving and happy. I genuinely don't give a crap about her grades; she is not coming home covered in bruises any more.

As someone who teaches at a Russell group uni (stated for context, not because I think the RG is 'better') I have learned to look at the student in front of me and their unique profile of strengths and potential, not the school they came from.

@XingMing

The abolition of grammar schools has done more to entrench privilege than almost anything. The political landscape was more diverse when clever people from a range of backgrounds could attain an elite education. But they did have to be clever, which chimes with the statement made in the first 100 posts, that selection at 11 is a better predictor of academic success than most.

Totally agree with this. I went to a selective grammar where a very high number went to Oxbridge annually. Most of those were not from wealthy backgrounds - those from the local council estate were treated the same as those from more middle class families. The few children sent to private schools in my area were those middle class children who didn't pass the 11+ and so were probably not destined for university anyway and the local private school had a very small sixth form as a result. The local secondary school did classes in more practical subjects that suited the non-academics much better. It wasn't a bad school, just very different from the highly academic grammar where Latin and Classics were compulsory. There was also the option to sit the 13+ for those who may have been unfairly judged at 11. The system worked well until it was dismantled.

@WishingYouAMerryChristmasToo

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.

You missed out the word ‘some’. Prefacing private schools and kids.

@SchnitzelVonCrummsTum I used to think this before reading mumsnet. Most people cannot choose between private and non-private. They don't have the money.

For those who can, I always assumed they decide based on what they think is best for their kids. However, reading here you would think it is all based on university entry at the age of 5

But grammar schools did so much more harm to the “just missed the grade” kids that ended up at the secondary modern in many cases, whole life chances decided by one exam

I’m not sure about that. I went to a grammar school in the late 60s too. There was an interview process for borderline passes and pupils who performed very well in the secondary modern first year were given the option of transferring to a grammar. It was a system that gave a lot of kids from very poor homes a real leg up.

@moch11

“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!“

It’s a bit like asking how long is a piece of string though, isn’t it? What about when the student from the disadvantaged comp gets into Cambridge then? Does the disadvantage he previously faced in getting there just cease to count? Poof gone!

There are many forms of disadvantage and this should hardly need pointing out. Just because a pupil’s parents are able to pay school fees, or a student gets a bursary place at a top school, does not exclude them from a difficult home life - violence, abuse, divorce, illness, mental health issues and you name it.

A stable home life is far more of a predictor of academic achievement than the actual school, I would argue. As long as the teaching is ‘good enough’ and covers the curriculum, a child from a stable home with interested parents should reach their potential.

You could have them in the best school in the land, but make no mistake, these schools are tough, competitive environments where no excuses are made for under-par performance. And there’s no such thing as ‘pay your money and take your place.’ Competition for these schools is fiercer than it is for universities. Eleven-year olds are regularly taking entrance exams for five to ten schools to just have a hope of a place. Sometimes there are 10 to 15 candidates per place. The stress in these children is immense. Try being in that type of environment, with everyone telling you how very privileged you are, when there are problems at home. It’s not hard to see how mental health problems are rife in these schools. You hold it together and you survive the school - only to be told that your string of top grades don’t count as much because your parents pushed you into a privileged school when you were 11.

Poverty is the biggest predictor of outcomes for a child than anything else. Of course poverty can lead to more instability at home, but poverty is the single biggest issue.

And yes there are lots of things that cause inequality and lack of access to university. Private schools are just one thing, of course those parents who can move to a catchment of a better state school are also privileged.

YANBU.

My ds is at a small independent school but he's there for the quality of the maths/science teaching specifically and for the extra support that the school gives me as a single parent.

He'll get the maths and science teaching just the same. I'll get the extra support I pay for. If he deserves a university place, he'll still get one. If it's that marginal then I'd probably be pointing him in another direction anyway.

@Blossomtoes

But grammar schools did so much more harm to the “just missed the grade” kids that ended up at the secondary modern in many cases, whole life chances decided by one exam

I’m not sure about that. I went to a grammar school in the late 60s too. There was an interview process for borderline passes and pupils who performed very well in the secondary modern first year were given the option of transferring to a grammar. It was a system that gave a lot of kids from very poor homes a real leg up.

My mother couldn't afford to go to grammar school. Her family needed her to go out to work. It wasn't that much of a leveller.

My mother couldn't afford to go to grammar school. Her family needed her to go out to work. It wasn't that much of a leveller.

She went out to work when she was 11? Wow.

@WishingYouAMerryChristmasToo

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.

The situation for the vast majority of children in private schools is nothing like what you describe.

@moch11

“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!“

It’s a bit like asking how long is a piece of string though, isn’t it? What about when the student from the disadvantaged comp gets into Cambridge then? Does the disadvantage he previously faced in getting there just cease to count? Poof gone!

There are many forms of disadvantage and this should hardly need pointing out. Just because a pupil’s parents are able to pay school fees, or a student gets a bursary place at a top school, does not exclude them from a difficult home life - violence, abuse, divorce, illness, mental health issues and you name it.

A stable home life is far more of a predictor of academic achievement than the actual school, I would argue. As long as the teaching is ‘good enough’ and covers the curriculum, a child from a stable home with interested parents should reach their potential.

You could have them in the best school in the land, but make no mistake, these schools are tough, competitive environments where no excuses are made for under-par performance. And there’s no such thing as ‘pay your money and take your place.’ Competition for these schools is fiercer than it is for universities. Eleven-year olds are regularly taking entrance exams for five to ten schools to just have a hope of a place. Sometimes there are 10 to 15 candidates per place. The stress in these children is immense. Try being in that type of environment, with everyone telling you how very privileged you are, when there are problems at home. It’s not hard to see how mental health problems are rife in these schools. You hold it together and you survive the school - only to be told that your string of top grades don’t count as much because your parents pushed you into a privileged school when you were 11.

But we are discussing inequality in getting into top universities. NOT in a wider context.

You were saying not everyone at private schools is privileged, and I was saying that everyone there IS privileged by virtue of the education they are receiving. Within the context of us discussing state vs private kids getting into top unis.

No one is arguing that everything should be fair in every sphere of life, because obvs. I was simply refuting your argument that people at private school who don't have a Tesla parked on the drive at home are not privileged.