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?

If non-Oxbridge Unis have a greater share of the bright state school kids who haven't been spoon-fed etc - why have they not overtaken Oxbridge academcially with its decandent cohorts of public school hoorays whose parents have boguht the A levels?

'It's a pity they didn't include iGCSE which is hard which meant Manchester Grammar which must be in the top 20 - 30 schools scored 0 on the new criteria. They ought at least to correct that.'

My children's schoolsboth selective, independenthave been placed at the bottom of the county listings as a result of the IGcSE non-recognition. They, and two other very well-known public schools--now rank below the failing comprehensive in the town.

Oops, punctuation went awry there!

I don't think the likes of Manchester Grammar school need to worry about league tables. Parents sending their children there know full well that they are not going to be fobbed off with Tourism GCEs.

The tables are there for those parents who are not so informed and who have no choice but to send their children to their local state school, to actually see what is what.

But I am sure you all know that really anyway......

Well, quite. Though I did see a poster near the top of this thread comment that the independent schools in her area had done really badly under this measure, so perhaps not everyone is as au fait as you might imagine.

' Decadent cohorts of public school hoorays' (NOT my words) or privately educated students are over represented at all universities. Lots of them at Nottingham for instance. They don't all get into Oxbridge you know :) Thankfully, nowadays there are more complicated admission procedures that weed out quite a few.

Many very average students are getting top grades and filling up the non Oxbridge universities. It could be equally argued that they are dragging down the results there at the expense of state educated pupils who miss out on the places, through not taking the 'right' GCSEs or A levels, or not having extra private tutoring to get their grades up, that kind of thing, I can't be bothered to go on.

However, I am getting very bored with trying to explain the inequalities to people who are just determined not to understand....or, more to the point, care.

I have no personal axe to grind. My DCs are the recipients of an excellent education,are/were at top academic schools and top universities but I do have at least some empathy for those not so fortunate (through absolutely NO fault of their own) and am mighty glad that Michael Gove is making this stand to try and even out the playing field a bit.

Really,it makes me wonder why some people are quite so fearful of a bit of evening out.

As far as I am concerned, the government should make all examinations harder then only the truly bright would get the top university places, regardless of their parents' income.

Abr1de, most iGCSEs do count to the stats this year. The one that has tripped up a lot of independent schools that doesn't is the Edexcel maths iGCSE which the qualifications regulators weren't happy with. To be perfectly honest I don't think it's any more rigorous/difficult than GCSE (I have one child who did it and one doing a regular GCSE) - it has a tiny amount of extremely easy calculus (differentiation) which you could get away without knowing as it accounted for so few marks in the exam, but otherwise doesn't seem that much different, though the regulators obviously felt something was missing from it. I'm fairly sure it's not harder as when the school switched to it they reckoned studies had shown grades wouldn't be lower (you can't have it both ways).

And the reason it was a popular choice in independent schools was because it didn't have the coursework element that the old GCSE maths used to. That was a bit of a joke (time consuming, open to cheating and lacking in substantial maths content), and has now gone, so I don't think that particular iGCSE offers much if any advantage over GCSE any more, though to be fair I wouldn't really rate it as less good either.

Not sure about that. One of the French IGcSEs hasn't been accredited, either. I can't remember if it's the Edexcel or cambridge syllabus, but ironically the German papers from the same board have been given the green light.

So for some independents that could be two out of the five that haven't counted.

The maths one messes up the 5A*-C inc. maths & english figures as well as the ebacc ones though.

'so, for instance Cambridge IGCSE French is included, but not German; and no Edexcel IGCSEs at all).' (My bold.)

From The Girls' Day School Trust (GDST). And it's not that there's something 'wrong' with the IGCSEs, it's simply that some haven't got through the accreditation bureaucracy yet.

Interesting thanks abr1de. I had heard the Edexcel ones have a reputation for being easier, so that gives some credence to it. The Cambridge ones are supposed to be hard and are what give iGCSE its more respected reputation.

The Edexcel maths is the one that is most widely used though. If a school just does one iGCSE it's usually that one.

Oh it may be that the accreditors haven't looked at them all yet, but they have looked at the maths - I just can't remember what it was that they didn't like about it.

Comparison is at the bottom here Lack of a non calculator paper seems to be the key difference.

Very thought provoking stuff.
I'm one of the parents struggling along and paying because local schools don't offer the sort of education we want for our child. I feel really guilty about it and I hardly ever have money to buy luxuries or stuff .... We have to go without.
It's a bit rough to find that having made these sacrifices both financial and emotional, our child could be locked out later because of our choice.
And what about the money we save the state by taking them out of the system. In our locality more than 25%of kids are educated privately.
Hey ho. I'm weary with it all.
Thinking of moving somewhere with state grammars.

There was something about this in the papers today. The useless ex polys have high drop uot rates. If good universities recruit poor children they will increase drop out rates and suffer massive financial penalties under the new system so some whingeing was going on about that today.

..and the poor don't always stick it out not just because they aren't stickers and cope in adversity but also because it's not cost them a penny so they've not much to lose but also because they have less to fall back on if times are hard or have to cover for a sick relative. We probably nee a better analysis of why those from poor homes and with bad A levels drop out though. Perhaps they just never worked very hard hence teh low grades and propensity to throw in the towel at the first obstacle.

Xenia - I am in a very senior role (board level) and came from a background such that you mention in your post. I went to a "good university" after studying at nightschool in difficult circumstances. What I would say is that it made me more determined to achieve as I knew what would be my "lot" if I did not succeed - most of my friends who were at public schools believe that this has had an impact on my attitude towards achievement - i.e. I don't take a lot for granted. I think that you are generalising in your post (I actually found it offensive).

Just to clarify, at our University the policy is to look at the average a levels for the school. So if the applicant has 3 A's at a level, if the average for the school is 2 C's rather than 3 A's, that is taken into account.

Also, I believe there is some evidence that state school children actually do better at University that privately educated children. See link:
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/23/state-school-pupils-better-university

cool, the universities are worried that if they increase childern from that background they WILL get drop outs as all the studies show it is that group who drop out. It is not my saying it. However the drop out rates I think are from the worse ex polys not clever children from poor backgrounds who get to Oxbridge so it would only be the rather useless institutinos who woudl lose out which I suppose is just market forces asserting themselves adn in a free market I suppose they would lose funding and drop away and it may be no great loss. We probably could do with jobs which don't require a degree like being a secretary where you can do 2 years typing and powerpoint etc age 14 - 16 at technical school and get a job at 16 which have beomc often full of people with degrees we cannot now afford can go back to being non graduate and chidlren can get on with their real lives much younger which would suit many of them anyway.

Coolwhip, you are right to be offended.

The whole point is that the type of 'clever children from poor backgrounds who get to Oxbridge' are underrepresented at university as SOME 'stupid children from rich backgrounds' (using your language Xenia) tend to get the places, due to a myriad of reasons, many outlined further up the thread, which really, really, really DO not need explaining again but one of which is that they are not naturally more intelligent.

Obviously there is going to be a high drop out of students from not very good universities, because many of them shouldn't be there in the first place. There are plenty of privately educated pupils who shouldn't be at university either.....

Abdabs I couldn't have put it better myself. Congratulations on having the art of summary! Bet you did well in English GCSE? Joking apart, you have said exactly what I am feeling. Thousands of others are probably of like mind.Private school parents are taking a load off the state system and should receive recompense for that. The State should give private fee-paying parents some kind of vouchers to pay some of their fees. These parents are paying for their state education AND their private school fees. Maybe I am straying off the point and need another thread for this idea?

CrosswordAddict maybe we should give vouchers to the childless too. They also pay for a service they don't use.

All that Sutton Trust document tells us, is that children don't do very well if they don't go to a decent school. That university students are likely to make up lost ground once they get some decent teaching at university.

Why don't the government actually spend some time addressing the education problems in our state school system, rather than attempting to wedge the stable door half open?

sue52 - to be fair childless couples don't produce well, educated new tax paying adults for our society and work force. The parents of privately educated children do.

Privately educated people form a large percentage of our doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers and entrepreneurs. All at minimum expense to the tax payer.

(that's not to say I'm a big fan of the education voucher idea).