AIBU to discuss A level success without private school spending?

[Absorbthecost]

Parents/carers who have not spent a penny on Educating their children and they have just received great A level results.

The sacrifices made all the struggle,

I’m interested to discuss families where the child has succeeded without need for private school

https://www.gbnews.com/money/private-school-fees-soar-vat

https://www.ft.com/content/091b214d-231b-414a-8f3e-9ef9fc021926?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Those who did pay,

presumably to secure great results at A level

The same kids off to Uni, placements easier to secure as less international competition. Uni the playing field evens.

And now time to pay for Uni,

https://inews.co.uk/news/education/university-tuition-fees-11000-2030-4705197?srsltid=AfmBOorss52PSHD6xJzisWMdeNxcXDen3IrCGS49nnGH1ZyDnmvTOh_k

A child who did outstanding (without spending a penny) the same result as a family who spent £250k + The above article is a low estimation for a selective U.K. day/ boarding.

The kids holding the same result off to the same Uni, How are families feeling!?…. Did you save to help towards the Uni Fees/accomodation.

They do if you want to study music. The entire state college A level music course at the large sixth form college by me consists of people whose parents paid for private instrument lessons. Lots of unis regard music as a rigerous a level when making offers when done with other subjects (edited to add so is useful if studying beyond music, you can explain the skills you learned how they apply to the subject you want to study. My ds did this with his personal statement and is going this year.)

Yes your knowledge,reading and preparation for your subject,your annswers to unfamiliar subject problems they pose, your thought processes, analysing aspects of your personal statement etc. They’re not going to be allocating offers based on hugely unrelated expensive hobbies funded by parents. Young people will have all sorts of things in their lives anyway just as valuable as expensive parent funded hobbies.

Thorough knowledge and reading round of your subject matter will make you think better and argue better at interview.

They are living in “hardship”. Financial hardship and debt. 1 in 3 are on internal benefits as they cannot afford it. Home life must be idyllic.

“Thorough knowledge and reading round of your subject matter will make you think better and argue better at interview.”

@Pittachip - yes sure, cultural capital makes zero difference to advancement, fitting in at Oxbridge, mastering an interview in the first place…
Of course they tell you only the above matters. You still have to do the above. But cultural capital matters, always, ask any primary school teacher. Without cultural capital you do not have the right reference points to get along. Yes it is depressing. But it is also the reason why there are hardly any Polar 1s at Oxbridge in the first place. It is a posh elitist and competitive environment where advancement depends on cultural capital. However much the lefties would like to deny it. Why are you gunning for private schools and not the elitist university system?

Not at all. Positive discrimination - whether against private school students or top quintile comprehensive students - is the "soft bigotry of low expectations".

And a cop out.

The solution is to actually improve state education: which is entirely the government's remit and responsibility.

73% at Oxbridge are state educated so….

You know many people who are state educated come from families who earn enough to pay for tonnes of tutoring including sport and music and extra curricular ? Statistically, only a very small proportion of the highest earners in the country send their children to private school.

Oxbridge does not offer lower offers. State pupils there have the same grades as private pupils. And state pupils with contextualised offers in top unis very much deserve to be there. There is no low expectation. They’ve earned admission and it is simply recognition that kids from low achieving areas and schools have to work ten times harder and more independently than the privately educated with their classes of 15 highly supported education. Hence the date that shows state pupils
do better at uni than the privately educated .

But not enough to pay for private education which is over represented. Only a third of that 70 odd percent are from selective grammar school so many kids from normal families are there. That isn’t to say work doesn’t need to go even further to reduce the private over representation and up the numbers of Polar 1 kids there.

As I said upthread, your data about state pupils doing better than private students is 15 years out of date: it was published in 2015, but analysed students who started university in 2010 and graduated in 2013.

Current data shows the exact opposite.

What data? Link please.

It was several notable studies that show that state-educated students often achieve better degrees than privately educated peers who enter university with the exact same A-level grades so will expect several studies if we’re to ignore previous research.

Actually, that 2015 study was only for Cambridge.

The one for all universities - which everyone still references - was published in 2010, and analysed students graduating in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Ie starting in 2001, 2002 and 2005.

So you're 21 to 25 years out of date.

Actually the key studies were

• HEFCE Higher Education Report (2014): A large-scale project by the Higher Education Funding Council for England tracked 130,000 students. It revealed that state school graduates were more likely to attain a first or upper second-class (2:1) degree than private school peers with identical A-level scores.
• Cambridge Assessment Research (2015): Led by researchers examining entry predictors, this analysis confirmed that state school students outperform independent school peers at both Russell Group and non-Russell Group universities when holding prior grades equal.
• Cardiff and Oxford Brookes University Internal Studies (2013): Freedom of Information requests exposed independent university data showing students from comprehensive backgrounds gained superior final degree classifications compared to fee-paying peers with matching entrance qualifications.
• Higher Education Policy Studies (2010): Early comparative work highlighted that comprehensive school attendees regularly secure better outcomes in selective universities, noting that private school entrants often required higher UCAS tariff points to achieve the same ultimate degree level.

And the links to your studies?

What notable studies in the last 10 years please?

Cambridge's own published analysis:
www.cao.cam.ac.uk/admissions-research/app-research-papers-2020

You can download 'Analysis of student characteristics and attainment outcomes at the University of Cambridge' which was done in 2019. Still 7 years out of date, but more recent than any study that shows what you believe.

So exactly the ones I mentioned which are 15 and 25 years out of date.

None within the last decade then?

Oh well...

Over represented because the top private schools are academically selective. I would find it very odd if private schools weren’t over represented at top universities.

This was all during the private school hay day. Conservative government.

1 in 3 are now, today, currently in 2026 unable to pay their fees. Money being taken from the budget (education standard) to cover fee deficits. Big problem.

Labour have taken VAT from private schools.

The relevant situation is, the ability/funds the government has to invest in state education.

Vs The independent sector financial decimation. The past is the past. Every passing year Independent schools grow poorer, not richer.

What are honest predictions for the next ten years?

You can’t download it but an overview says its outcomes identified gaps related to ethnicity and disability l, mental health no mention of private/state education. Hence there being no link anywhere stating that the privately educated do better at uni than state and thinking is very much the reverse state educated do better at uni than the privately educated - not least because of the abundance of data showing this.

Sorry, who are they? And what is internal benefits? Sorry to be dim.

Think the bot has gone back to auto replies...

Answering messages with the same repeated answer, which bears no relation to the message being replied to.

It's a bit tedious.

£50k of VAT.

Thanks Labour!

Blimey, they've pulled it. That's telling!

It certainly did go into private versus state.

Further back in the thread there is a link.

Data from the CEO of the ISC representing independent schools.

1 in 3 families are on internal financial support. The highest ever.

Apropos of nothing - when my dc was looking at university options, I found a Oxbridge College YouTube interview samples - to show all those willing to try to apply, what it looks and sounds like. They recruited willing participants (year 2 and 3 real life students), under their real names, studying medicine and put them through an interview. So real life professors and real life 2nd and 3rd year students. One of the parts was to read a chart/table, etc. and have a conversation about it. I was astounded how fucking dumb 2nd and 3rd year Oxbridge students were - and they were relaxed, it was not like they were worried, etc. It was literally role play for them. I remember to this day (and it was pre-Covid) that they were discussing neonatal mortality in Finland using a chart or a table, and comparing it with other West European countries. It was truly shocking, how dumb they were - I think it is still on YouTube, I just don't want to signpost it, but if this is top of the top medical students, then it is scary. None of them, bar one, had any suggestions as to why the disparity might exist. It had to be gently coaxed out by the Professor.