Settle a private v state argument for me?

[Givemyheadpiece]

Friend sent kids to prep schools, and now doing senior private schools til GSCE.

then the plan is to put the kids in state school for A levels to ‘fool’ the Uni admissions people - Oxbridge in particular- into thinking the kids were state schooled all along and get them into good unis - as many universities are now trying to give more bright state schooled/ low income kids a chance to get in.

I told her that they can see which school the kids studied at pre 6th form and that will be considered -

YANBU - of course it won’t fool admissions
YABU - she’s right, you can go Eton all the way then switch for A levels and no-one will know

Surely it’s not a question of “fooling admissions” - because they will see where they did GCSEs; more fooling the press/government? Oxford and Cambridge have been historically criticised for not taking enough state school pupils. So if people swap to state for A-Level Oxbridge can take the students who they feel are the best and then say “we are taking more stage school students”. In the same way they take much higher proportions of grammar school kids.

From my limited experience of state (two sixth forms, one significantly better in terms of results than the other). The thing which seemed to be missing was good quality support to get into university: no guidance on subjects, minimal support for personal statements.

There was also a lack of aspiration combined with a slightly bizarre inverted snobbery. Students were expected to aim for the local (mainly vocational) university or Oxford/Cambridge. Nothing in between was discussed.

Private schools seem to offer a lot more support and have far greater input into uni applications. They also seem to offer a lot more aspirational teaching. Our local sixth form mainly taught to the grades necessary for the local uni.

'Of course they’ll know. But at the same time, they’re under pressure to fill quotas so they may not care.'

I hope it goes deeper than that, one for moral and ethical reasons and also because tick box exercises tend to come out in the wash. Universities get a lot of public money, so claiming to be more representative while actually catering to the same old networks of privilege will not be look on kindly when it comes out.
IF that's what they're doing rather that what they say they're doing...

They are looking for unicorns, applicants need something that’s sets them apart. I know someone with a daughter at Cambridge. She comes from a state comprehensive but she self taught herself an A level course as it wasn’t offered by her school and she got an A for the exam. This impressed them with her attitude as well as ability. Get something thing that sets them apart from their peers and it’s much easier.

minimal support for personal statements

What 'support' is needed though? There's guidance online, and it's a personal statement. The only real advice DDs (excellent state) school gave was to describe why they're passionate about the subject/what it may lead to without using the word 'passionate'.

In the same way they take much higher proportions of grammar school kids.

It'd really be quite bizarre if they didn't take higher proportions of GS and also selective private school kids. They've been preselected for at least some academic ability so of course more of them are likely to have the ability for a tough academic uni course. The difference now is that unis are trying to ensure that the playing field is made a bit less unequal across the board, that it's not so much "unto them that have, more will be given" in terms of educational opportunities, and trying to dispel the pernicious 'people like us' attitudes.