All this stuff about private school kids being overrepresented in universities..

[fivecandles]

out of interest does anyone know whether if a child goes to a private school up to age 16 but then a sixth form college or FE college to do A Levels the student would count as private school or state school in the stats? And how would university admissions tutors look on such a student?

I don't know. Perhaps they need to look back 4 years to be fair.

But I've always liked the idea that pupils from state schools should get a subsidy of their tuition fees as an incentive to apply, even more so now that fees are due to rocket. I'm quite relieved Simon Hughes has articulated that at last.

If you can afford private school then £9,000 may even sound cheap in comparison to school fees, which you would only think are worth paying if you are buying some privilege and advantage. If you are allowed to pay up front then of course richer parents will do it for their children. That just won't be an option for the majority.

I suspect it all be a damp squib and nothing will come of Simon Hughes's suggestions today, however.

thats a very complex question. I cant ANSWER IT..but I can say that if parents pay a lot for private schooling they will expect their children to benefit in later life. ,perhaps smaller classes is one thing private schools can offer 8 instead of 35 Good luck "gabby"

I don't think it's fair tmake assumptions about what parents of privately educated children can afford: what about those from Forces families? Or in other posts where the employer pays? Or who lose the high-paying job? Or who divorce? Or who only afforded it through major bursary support?

I thought the whole point of the new arrangement was that the adult graduate paid back their own costs, once they had an income above a certain level.

Mmm.. what about the parents who can't afford school fees but whose child is there because of a scholarship??

Also, what about those parents who are JUST managing the school fees but hadn't bargained on paying for tuition fees as well. Perhaps they chose private school because it means their kids are more likely to get good qualifications and other advantages which would make them more likely to get into university only to find that they are beaten to a place by someone less qualifications just because they went to a state school.

We've had experience of both state and private schools. I can tell you that any kid who gets top grades at A level at a state school - no matter high up in the league tables - deserves far, far more credit than one at a private school.

Just the amount of teacher attention they are able to grab for themselves is miniscule compared to the amount of teacher attention lavished on kids whose education is paid for.

That's before you even start to look at educational facilities, equipment, trips, teacher quality, and the rest.

Because of what I just said.

You seem to be implying, herplaceby, that private school students automatically receive good grades just because they go to private school but money can't buy the ability to do what needs to be done in the exam to get an A. As an examiner, I don't get to know which schools I am marking - just their centre number - and even if I did know the school, it's not like I say "Ooh, Eton College - no need to read these scripts then; just give everyone an A"

I strongly disapprove of active discrimination against private school students. In fact, I would support a move to not include the name of the school at all on UCAS forms - just details of the student themselves and their achievements. In the end, universities should be taking the best and brightest, regardless of their background.

I agree that where a student who gets exceptional grades or displays an exceptional talent in spite of a difficult educational background or personal circumstances then these should be taken into account.

But I do not think that there should be this sort of inverse discrimination where someone with the same or better grades and talent should be discriminated against because they've had a more privileged background or private education.

Especially as amissima says there are many, many privileged pupils in the state system who may even go to schools which are selective and exclusive (grammar and faith schools). And there are a significant number of students in private schools who are there because either they get a bursary of some kind or because their parents put all their money into education over and above anything else even though they are not at all wealthy.

I would be really cross to discover that a student with entirely A* at GCSE and A Level who also had a good reference and personal statement and hobbies and communicated intelligently in interview could be turned down purely because he or she went to private school.

(Even though he or she may be on a full scholarship.)

But,as I said in the OP, the 6th form thing complicates things further if a private school child then goes to a state 6th form college or FE colllege.

I don't think A level grades have got much to do with IQ.

I hear what you say *fivecandles but in grammar schools there are 30 pupils in a class and the much smaller class sizes in private schools give their pupils a greater advantage. I don't think a pupil from a grammar school would get any additional consideration from an admission tutor.

But there are other filters herplace. To get into Oxford or Cambridge (since that's still what all the fuss in the media and for politicians is always about) you have to have excellent GCSEs and perfect predicted grades and perfect AS Levels and a perfect personal statement and a perfect reference.

And just in case your money somehow bought you all that or your teachers did it all for you, you then have to pass an exam and get through an interview.

So, you'd think a half decent admissions tutor would be able to work out which students with the A*s has got genuine intelligence and potential to develop further and which student has got them JUST or got them but this is the peak of what they'll be able to achieve.

I don't know why more universities don't already favour state school applicants if they are the ones who do better with university education as seems to be the case.

The people best suited to university are those with intelligence and knowledge but especially those self-motivated - I wish thee were and easy way to measure that.

If only 7-8% of children are in private school then I don't see any reason for any university to have more than 14-16% of their intake from private schools.

Anyone got a link to what Simon Hughes has said.

I do think children educated in the private sector have an advantage over state school pupils and I think this should be taken into account to a certain extent.

In answer to the OP, if school are looked at then it would be the schooling up to GCSE, a lot of unis are putting a lot of weight on GCSE results. Liverpool want a minimum of 15 points from 8 GCSE best results just to apply for Medicine.

But you can't start discriminating against people on the basis that they've had a school with smaller class sizes.

You can't assume that the student who has been to a private school and got the A*s and got the personal statement and the grade 5 piano and speaks confidently at interview has only done so because he or she has been to private school whereas the kid who has achieved the same or worse but has gone to a private school is intellecutalyl worth more.

Nobody has the right or the ability to make those sorts of assumptions.

Sorry meant best 9 not 8.

'If only 7-8% of children are in private school then I don't see any reason for any university to have more than 14-16% of their intake from private schools.'

But they also scoop 30 odd percent of all A and A* grades. Like it or not they get better qualifications and like it or not this is still the primary requirmenet for university entrance.

They get better grades because they are taught better not necessarily because they are more intelligent though so it seems fair to favour the state school pupil who achieves similar.

Simon Hughes

'I do think children educated in the private sector have an advantage over state school pupils and I think this should be taken into account to a certain extent.'

But how 'should it be taken into account'? How in any way which is not discriminating against them because they are seen to be privileged?

'In answer to the OP, if school are looked at then it would be the schooling up to GCSE, a lot of unis are putting a lot of weight on GCSE results. Liverpool want a minimum of 15 points from 8 GCSE best results just to apply for Medicine.'

But it's still A LEVELS that are your means in to university. So wouldn't it be where you did your A Levels (state or private) that would matter most?

For example which student would universities be more likely to take all else being equal:

the kid getting all A*s at state school all the way through or the kid who went to private school to 16 but then a ropy FE college to do A Levels?

"Just over 7.2% of pupils in England attend private schools but make up over a quarter of the intake at the 25 most selective universities, and 46.6% at Oxford."

Wow that is quite shocking.

'They get better grades because they are taught better not necessarily because they are more intelligent though so it seems fair to favour the state school pupil who achieves similar.'

But my point is you can't ever KNOW this about any individual student. You cannot know that the pupil who went to private school and got all A*s would not have done the same at a state school esp a high performing state school. It's not possible to make this assumption.

I'd like to see (and I will look to see in a bit if it is information available online) how much A Level results give an indication of tertiary education performance, I know from my own learning that degree level study is very different to A levels.