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 think anyone would disagree that a child who gets excellent results from a poor school should be treated differently to one who gets similar results from Eton.

But how can it be right to say that all state school children should be give preferential treatment?

For example, not a million miles away from me is a state school where 77% of the children get 5 A star to C GCSEs incl Maths & English and a private school where 71% achieve that.

One mile to the east is a school where you would struggle to get change from £600k to buy a house in the catchment but a mile to the west is a sink school. Why should the children at those schools be lumped together?

At the sink school (26% A star to C GCSEs incl Maths & English) a pupil recently got 14 GCSEs at A star and A but he has moved to a grammar school for A-levels. How would he count in any new scheme?

Nottirednow, the information from your link on Oxford applicant success rates is:

2009
Grammar 26.9%
Comprehensive 21%
Independent 28 %

2008
Grammar 30.8 %
Comprehensive 23 %
Independent 29.4 %

So I don't see where you're getting the figure of 3% from. The overall difference in success rates between state and independent is 5.8% for 2009, but part of that is because of the very poor success rate of FE institutions - 12.7%.

caoimhe - to teach their parents a salutory lesson about how cash doesn't buy brains?

sofaqueen my info was also from sutton trust here It's absolute numbers getting a place rather than percentage and so favours the bigger schools.

The table for success rates is 1b.

Well JoanofArgos, I guess that should apply to the people who buy the expensive houses in the right catchment as well as the parents who pay more directly through school fees.

The thing is Milly it's clearly not fair to compare success rates between a highly selective school like Eton and a state sixth form like Hills Road which presumably takes anyone with 5+ A*-C GCSEs who lives in catchment/goes to its feeder schools. I'd say for a non-selective school, absolute numbers tell you more - clearly a bright child can get very good teaching there and presumably the staff know a thing or two about oxbridge admissions (moreso than the average private school I should think). I presume being located in Cambridge helps both with understanding the system and the so-called 'Cambridge effect' but it is exceedingly impressive none-the-less.

"and a state sixth form like Hills Road which presumably takes anyone with 5+ A*-C GCSEs who lives in catchment/goes to its feeder schools"

Hills Road isn't a good comparison - it is a very selective 6th Form College and you need a lot more than the minimum GCSE requirement to get in - probably a minimum of 6 A or A* grades. It also has a very large cohort taken from local independent schools as well as some students taken from out of the county (despite being heavily oversubscribed for places by local state school students) . And in recent years very few students from there have gone on to Oxford or Cambridge - not sure why.

Thanks for clarifying that Lilymaid, I assumed it was a normal state sixth with a very favourable catchment. Didn't realise they were allowed to be selective! The figures were from 2007 and 2008, so maybe they were just especially able year groups.

Quite. These will be the difficulties if the Government persists with this.

If they just leave it as it is where the over achiever from the sink school is favoured even if results are slightly worse it's fine. If they decide private school - won't let you in but state grammar and private comp where houses cost £600k your B will count as a private school A that's going to be such direct discrimination against private schools it might even be unlawful. They are going to need to be very careful.

"Well JoanofArgos, I guess that should apply to the people who buy the expensive houses in the right catchment as well as the parents who pay more directly through school fees. "

'They will be confident, even arrogant and able to talk well. They will not necessarily be the best at either analysing a problem or devising solutions, particulary if those solutions will need to be implemented by people they don't know much about.'

They will probably not be as prone to making over-generalisations based on no/little evidence.

I was as shy as a mouse when I left Oxbridge. But I was good at sitting quietly and working away at a problem. And I could work with anyone: I'd been a Saturday/holiday girl in M&S for years.

It tends to be the jealous or people whose children could not get in who make generalisations or women who made such bad career choices their wages don't cover private school fees.

People at good universities want to teach students who are really interested in the subject with quick minds. Interviewing as well as the new tests for some subjects like medicine give you additional means of checking for that. There are plenty of articulate people in the state sector who make up at least half of Oxbridge intake.

Anyway we will have to see how the Government deal with this. If they set the requirement badly so that unless lots of children come from poor schools with bad results the fees must be £6k not £9k then the universities or some of them may opt out or many good students go abroad which could be quite useful for those children actually to have experience of good US universities. We'll see.

They should also iron out the racial differences too. it's very unfair that because I'm English in England my children pay whereas if we were Welsh or Scottish the fee position would be different.

Irony here:

Abr 'They will probably not be as prone to making over-generalisations based on no/little evidence.'

Xenia 'It tends to be the jealous or people whose children could not get in who make generalisations or women who made such bad career choices their wages don't cover private school fees.*

joan you and Xenia have both made silly over generalisations on this thread.

This has nothing to do with ones views on education...some people are just like that.

To be fair, I think if you read the threads on Oxbridge entrance on here, the posters who are admissions tutors are trying very hard to admit only the most enthusiastic about their subject, regardless of their schooling.

However, privately educated pupils are much more likely to apply in the first place (or indeed more likely to be qualified to apply), thus their overrepresentation, and that is the problem.

We are going round in circles here though, because the private brigade will say 'well state schools ought to teach more thoroughly/teach only academic subjects/the classics etc etc like they do at our schools' whilst not understanding for some bizarre reason accepting that it must be nigh on impossible to do so with a totally mixed (social and intellectual) intake, which is presumably one of the reasons why they send their children privately in the first place :)

thelastresort,

State schools used to teach all these subjects 20 years ago with a cohort where less children could read and they still seemed to manage fine!

I know!!!

But it is not the fault of the children these days to be receiving a dumbed down education, and it is not their fault either that some people can afford to buy their children a decent education and thus all the advantages (i.e. 'top' university places leading to 'top' careers.....).

hmmm, I went to a state comp 1989-1996 and there certainly weren't any classics on the menu! I put down to do a second MFL on my options form, and wasn't allowed to do it because no-one else in the entire year had opted to as well - I had to do sociology instead Of my 11 GCSEs, three were 'mickey mouse' (sociology, commerce and drama) - under which government did that 'dumbing down' occur, remind me?

My own daughter is currently filling in her options form at state comp and will be doing 13 GCSEs all in academic subjects including Latin.

Just saying - it's an often unchallenged assumption that kids' education is 'dumbed down' and that this is a thing that is new, or that Labour introduced.

'None of the 'anti- 'preference to state school applicant'' posters here has yet come up with a convincing argument as to why the RG universities shouldn't discriminate in favour of state school applicants.'

Erm, why should they?
Universities want the best students and try to pick accordingly. They are not there to participate in some social engineering scheme.
Why do you think that Universities need to favour state schools applicants? Are you saying that state schools don't do an adequate job and, if so, why should Universities have to make allowances for others' failure? At some stage people have to face up to the realities of life: if a resource is scarce then it has to be allocated in some way, there needs to be some selection procedure. If you were applying for a job would you try to project yourself as the best person for the position or would you ask them to choose you because they felt sorry for you because you went to a crap school?
At some stage, we have to grow up and face the fact that we are not the brightest or fastest or prettiest or most dextrous or whatever the desired quality is, and get over ourselves. We can't all have prizes.

"I marvel at the amount of energy and time given on mumsnet to analysing how a child might get into a 'RG university' or 'Oxbridge,' (there is a thread kicking around right now which made my jaw drop, "what shall DD wear to the interview," I kid you not)and at the huge anxiety around what school do best in getting a child into an 'RG university.'

I don't worry about this at all, am I being naive?"

Yes. Hugely.
It was different in our day. This year (an unusual one, I will admit) there are a quarter of a million more University applicants than there are places. Having 3 A grades doesn't guarantee anything because it isn't that special any more: about 12% of all applicants will have them.

In a way, this is a good thing. It used to be that people knew their place and PLU applied for University and the Great Unwashed didn't. Now everybody thinks that they can apply (which is a good thing) but it means that competition is fiercer (which is not a good thing, if you are one of the applicants!)

Erm, why should they?
Universities want the best students and try to pick accordingly. They are not there to participate in some social engineering scheme.
Why do you think that Universities need to favour state schools applicants? Are you saying that state schools don't do an adequate job and, if so, why should Universities have to make allowances for others' failure? At some stage people have to face up to the realities of life: if a resource is scarce then it has to be allocated in some way, there needs to be some selection procedure. If you were applying for a job would you try to project yourself as the best person for the position or would you ask them to choose you because they felt sorry for you because you went to a crap school?

Maybe because the universities might be interested in getting the brightest and most enquiring minds, as opposed to the kids who've had an A dragged out of them. It's already a given that Oxbridge know that results alone aren't enough of an indicator of potential/intellect, which is why they interview in the first place. In an interview, they're trying to work out whether you can cope with the course and make the most of what's on offer there - so surely one factor might be knowing how exceptional your GSCE grades and predictions for A levels are, relative to your background?