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 am going about it the other way. State grammar then private for 6th form. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that DD won't be disadvantaged by a grammar and private education.

Lesser qualifications but who may have worked harder or be brighter or more able. That is the difficult thing, it is almost impossible to assess those things.

There are moves to allow private universities and tertiary education is becoming an international thing. My eldest is 11 and I do worry about his future but there are so many ways of doing things I hope we can find a way for him to be able to live up to his potential.

But that's the point. If there are ways of demonstrating someone's potential i.e. if a state school pupil in interview talked about a scientific theory that nobody had ever discovered or something then fine, great. BUT if it's impossible it's impossible.

We have A Levels for a reason. There are other checks in case the A Levels are a fluke like references and personal statements. Oxford and Cambridge and various other RG universities have their own tests and then an interview.

There has to be transparency.

You can't have a system which says on the one hand students who come to our university need to have x and y grades at A Level and demonstrate x and y qualities on their UCAS form and then say actually none of that matters what we're looking for is much lower grades from a state school and there's absolutely nothign you can do if you've been to a private school. No amount of A*s will prove to us that you're bright enough.

'Lesser qualifications but who may have worked harder or be brighter or more able'

And I don't think there's any evidence that kids from private schools have to work less hard to achieve their grades.

And the fact remains like it or not that students from private schools do get better grades and are better prepared for university or for what universities are looking for in the sense that they are more likely to have studied sciences separately and modern languages and have otehr strings to their bow in terms of sport and extra curricular activities etc. these are facts that can't be disputed.

I don't think there has been anything anywhere suggesting that privately educated young people shouldn't be allowed into university. It has just been said that there is something wrong if the ratios are very skewed from the overall national demographics. The best of the privately educated will not be obstructed from going to university.

It is already the case there there are other factors besides A Level results at play in admissions otherwise there would be no system to individually tailor the offers to each candidate. There are some young people admitted who have been home educated and have only a very small number of qualifications but have proven aptitude.

And when does it end? ATM I'm teaching 2 incredibly frustrating boys who I think are naturally much brighter than most of the people in their class BUT they are bone idle and are underperforming hugely. Now even if an admissions tutor could spot that these boys are bright and chose to give them a chance over another student with the same or better grades what's to say these boys would make the most of that chance and go on to fulfil their potential? Given my experience I would say the students in the same class who will get the same or better grades than these boys although they're not as bright will continue to work hard and do even better but the boys will probably continue to waste their potential. So ultimately unsatisfactory though they are we have to rely on something which is relatively fair and transparent and that's why we have exams.

But somethign is wrong. Something is very wrong about the inequalities in our society which leads to the polarisation of A Level results and everything else. But my argument is you can't skew university admissions to somehow make it more representative of those students from the state sector when the private sector continues to churn out candidates who are demonstrably better. You can't do that suddenly at age 18 without discriminating against the private school kids. You have to improve the chances of kids in the state sector earlier so that they take the right subjects etc, etc. By the time kids are applying to unviersity it's already far too late.

It was my understanding that the issue is that by the very nature of the beast, privately educated DCs are far more likely to have been given individual attention, tightly focused teaching tailored to that DC's weaknesses, all in far better equipped classrooms in much smaller groups than their comprehensively schooled counterparts.

Surely you'd be demanding your mine back if your DC wasn't reaching their potential in that environment!

I have a friend with DC in 'good' private schooling. She had to admit that when the head of the prep called her in to tell her her Y6 DS was barely making the grade for the secondary school tranfer, in both Maths and English, she realised that as the DS in question was working to his utmost ability (as there was no other option at the prep!)- there was no more to give. What you see it what there is. Whereas in the majority of state schools, you cannot be certain that the DC hasn't got more to give, it's just that the resources to extract that 'more' might not be financially available.

It's the flip side of the argument that a A private student might have been capable of A ++ had it been available.

Finally, if I had a DC in a private secondary, I'd not risk the move to a state 6th form. Surely that's when it pays dividends. As another thread points out, re Eton entry, to get in you have to be on a completely different educational trajectory to the rest of us. You have to pick which 'train' to be on and stick to it til it reaches its destination. The risk of discovering that your DC only got a bunch of A* because they had a teacher standing 4" off their shoulder for 3 years at GCSE, when they go on to perform really badly at 6th form because they're expected to carry on with their independent learning as per state comprehensive would be bitter indeed.

I'd stick with the private and believe that a government made up of rank after rank of ex-public school boys, all depending on the right-wing vote isn't about to scupper the golden futures of their voters privately educated DCs.

I think the plan is that universities which want to charge £9k not £6k will have to admit a lot more poorer pupils. I am not sure they have worked out how that is going to work yet.

I did just read in the paper today a statistic which really surprised me. only 15% of children in England do 5 proper GCSEs meaning A - C in english, maths, science, a language and a humanities (history or geography). In private schools children usually do the 8 traditinoal GCSEs my parents did in their school cert in the 1940s when you had to pass you maths, english, a language, two sciences I think, history, geography and RE.

Is it because the 94% of children in state schools are not clever enough to do 5 proper core subjects or do the schools make them do soft options? Don't the teachers realise that employers want at least those 5 subjects?

5Candles - my reading of what Simon Hughes is saying (I'm assuming that's what you thinking about) is that any university that wants to charge above £6k pa fees has to demonstrate that they are actively recruiting state school students.

I think that means various outreach schemes and bursaries.

Whether this means 'private school to state Sixth Form' students will have a statistical advantage (because they make the numbers look good) I don't know.

I think you have to do what's right for your dc's regardless, and you seem to have good reasons for considering state sixth form.

But are they demonstrably better for university though?

"However, research carried out for the government has shown that pupils from comprehensives are likely to do better at university than private or grammar school pupils with similar A-level results."

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/07/universities-intake-simon-hughes

Obviously there are many privately educated candidates who will be exactly right for university but at the moment the system seems set up in away that presumes that most of them are and this is done to the detriment of the state educated candidates, in some universities more than others.

The real answer is that we need enough of the most suitable places at university for all the people who could do well at that level.

"But my argument is you can't skew university admissions to somehow make it more representative of those students from the state sector when the private sector continues to churn out candidates who are demonstrably better."

Well, you'd have to define 'demonstrably better'. Slicker, better PR, more confident.. if not arrogant?- BUT as has been shown in very recent research, state educated DCs from similar backgrounds but with a grade lower A level results compared to privately educated counterparts actually get higher degree results. So not exactly 'better'.

It's not rocket science. If you have a teacher whose very job depends on exactly what grade your DC gets in their exam, a DC sitting in a well equipped classroom amongst a small number of other hand selected, disciplined(or kicked out without ceremony or appeal) identically abilitied DC, of course you'd expect a higher grade and a more polished product. But that evidently doesn't necessarily equate to a higher class of degree obtained which, to me, points rather obviously to the state DC having more potential that the private one, in this instance- oh, and the ability to learn and study independently, having spent their school career doing so.

If only 15% of state schools even get 5 very basic core subject GCSEs it is no wonder they do so badly at A level compared to private schools.

Private school pupils do very well at university. I didn't notice my children or their peers doing badly because they'd been at schools like North London Collegiate, Haberdashers, Manchester grammar. Thsee are very very clever children. Parents with loads of money cannot get their chidlren into these selective schools. Most who apply fail to get in.

There are also private schools for children who aren't very bright too and of course very useless private schools and very good state although obnviously on the whole the private ones are good such that the best are the envy of the world which can hardly be said of british state schools.

Also track those comp children post univesrity - the stage some of my children are atl. They might have passed exams but they may not have the other rounded skills you may need to survive at work and get jobs. Some don't always speak very well. That alone can hamper them. A recent study also looked at what they wore too. Now perhaps the comps should be teaching them elocution and what clothes to wear to ensure an employer isn't put off because they look working class. It mgithg et them a higher salary than just an extra A grade.

Look, in state secondaries you're lucky if the teachers know your kid's name. Let alone how bright they are, what special needs they might have, why they might be struggling, whether they're being bullied for being bright, and so on and so on.

Anyone who survives and gets any high grades is to be admired.

herplaceby sorry I don't recognise your description of my DCs sate secondary at all...

Do you read the DM?

Just our experience. Nuts if it's not recognised.

I thought that state pupils actually got higher class degrees than private due to the difference in the way they are taught: ie not being spoonfed, forced to study independently.

Xenia, you are funny.

State schools vary greatly. Some are excellent and send large numbers to top universities. Others are seriously bad.

I know of an example of two children one went to private school until her GSCEs and then went to the local sixth form college and got into a good red brick college. She applied for Oxbridge too.

Her friend went to the local comp until his GCSEs and then went to a first class private school for his A levels and he got into Oxbridge.

I think the days when private schools are not overrepresented are a long way off.

Only one person on my course ten years ago had been to state school, and it was a grammar one.

And I bet that one person was massively helped by their parents.

I don't know none of the rest of us spoke to her because she was common.

Yes of course she was, she had more money to spend than I did, I had been on a scholarship to my school.

Actually another girl had been to state school in Germany, her parents were loaded too.

Xenia I love it when you post.

Some of them can't talk properly.

It's better for the colleges drop out stats if the parents have got money. The children are less likely to have to work to survive and don't have to worry about the debt even if their grades aren't first class. Also parents with a bit of money are more likely to be able to control their grown up child for longer and make them finish the course. If you are funding yourself by getting into debt or working nights nobody can tell you that you have to complete your course.

I went to Cambridge and was entirely state school educated. I am now a teacher in a top performing state school.

I recently went for an interview at a local private school and was shocked at the difference in facilities. My state school was by far superior in terms of equipment, access to technology and resources. The central areas looked impressive, but when I went for my guided tour I was less than impressed by what I saw.

Private does not necessarily mean better, although I do appreciate that all schools are different.

As a state school student, I would have felt patronised if universities had offered me a place based on lower grades than my private school counterparts. I got my place at Cambridge through merit.

We cannot control for financial advantage - whether this comes in the form of private schooling, extra tuition, a house in a great catchment or well educated, professional parents. What I think needs to happen is that state schools should have to give their pupils an education which covers the core subjects, rather than offering soft options which boost their position in the league tables. In this respect I find myself agreeing with Xenia.

I was lucky. I took a so called soft A Level but my college admitted me because they saw my potential. However, if students were really made aware of the pitfalls of these soft options, there would be no need for any concessions to be made for state school students.

Well, yes, that's another issue. What advice is given about which options will go down well with top unis.

Were you daunted by the Oxbridge process, or did you have someone to help you with it?

Youd have to be mad to change from private to state at the last hurdle. Getting As in some state schools is VERY difficult.

The issues include bullying (eg being called a swot etc), not fitting in with the rest of the class in disrupting lessons, and even if the class is well behaved you have to really be pushing the boundaries to get As - you are leading the class and dragging them forwards while others in the class cant quite keep up and need things repeated and explained at a basic level.

At A level the behaviour issues are reduced as a majority of the year drop out, but the issue of lower standards remains. Also, ime the teachers are totally committed and hard working, they do their best for the children and know them personally as far as possible, but still the quality of teachers the school can attract are limited (where do Oxbridge grads choose to teach?).