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?

Our experience also, Crimbo.

It takes ages just to get the class to settle down. Kids who want to work are just wasting their time.

Well, as an Oxbridge grad I have chosen to teach in the state sector and have turned down a private school position as I felt my state school was much better! Admittedly I am lucky enough to teach at one of the best state schools in the country and so my experience may not be typical.

As a student I was slightly daunted by the Oxbridge process I had minimal help from my state sixth form, but on the advice of a past student I applied to a college with a strong record of taking students from state comprehensives.

I was obsessed with my subject and with the typical arrogance of a 17 year old knew that I would get in.

I was advised by one teacher not to apply, as apparently I was too shy and would find it too intense. I chose to ignore him. Actually, the collegiate system is perfect for shy students.

If your dc has her/his heart set on an Oxbridge college I would leave them at private school.

Is there a specialist in applications at the school? Could your dc have a chat with them before she leaves. Is the current school selective? What would class sizes be? I have seen state schools were the History class is 25+ but the German class is only 4. This will make a difference.

What subject is your dc interested in studying as a degree? I love options!

How disheartening for a really bright child who passes their exams with flying colours to be discriminated against just because they happen to be at a private school. Why does this country insist on dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator? Improve the state schools fgs.

And while I'm on it, why the hell should anybody get their uni fees subsidised? A student from a poor family is just as likely to benefit financially from a uni education as a student from a well off family. Either repayments are based on future earnings or they're not - this confuses the issue totally. Unless of course they only have the place because they got straight D's from a sink state school and wouldn't, in fact, have done much better elsewhere.

My DS will be attending state school btw - no way on this earth we could afford private even if we wanted to.

I know that Simon Hughes is talking more about fining universities for not picking enough state educated pupils. But I don't see that allocation of places will be on anything other than merit but that still means there must be more chances for state school pupils to get discounts or full scholarships (not just if you are on FSM). That in itself would incentivise the less privileged to apply and perhaps even stick the course without dropping out.

But fear not, quotas will not happen. If elite universities resent quotas being imposed, they will just go private and charge 25,000 per year like the Ivy League.

gaelicsheep by the way, I don't see what is wrong with subsidies if if gives you the same advantage as an upfront payment which avoids interest charges. That should still be allowed. But any early payment penalty for the hardworking graduate seems grossly unfair on those who just want to pay off debt quickly or have made a brilliant early start to their career out of merit. In New Zealand apparently they give you a discount for early repayment.

As for Simon Hughes, I think its cheeky of him to be passing the burden for this completely onto universities, while this government disincentivises and removes support for higher education (and also oversees the highest level of graduate unemployment in two decades).

I wasn't aware there is an option for upfront payment tbh. Do parents really do this? More fool them IMO. FWIW I do think there should be subsidies - for anyone - for courses like medicine that are long and will incur massive debts. The subsidy should be conditional on working for the NHS for x number of years.

Courses like medicine are the most expensive to run - how can you compare that with an English degree where you have 9 hours of lectures per week? How can the even justify charging £350 per hour for that when medical training requires more hours, training, supervision, equipment?

You can't expect a school to expect their English teachers to be graduates with debts of £60,000 and then only pay them £23,000 per year. At least the doctors have a chance of earning more.

Won't it be to the universities' advantage to take more of the students whose parents are paying fees upfront? I mean, that the money will then be in the bank for the unis. Although that can't be how it'll work, can it? (Sorry, don't understand uni financing and the fees.)

I'd say it depends very much on the state school/college. Some of our local schools/colleges are getting excellent results. But we visited a secondary (without Sixth Form) where the teachers who showed us round seemed to take it for granted that any pupil they got would be heading for vocational courses: I imagine it would be very difficult in that kind of environment to stick to your guns and achieve top academic results. But am quietly confident about dd at her state school- not outstanding but good enough for hard work and success to be possible at least for some pupils.

I don't think it's as simple as admissions tutors looking at the name of the school and thinking "Eton- oh we'll have you". I think it's a case of a good school, state or private, teaching skills and the kind of confidence that convinces admissions that you will make good use of your years at uni. The child at another school may be just as bright, but never have been taught how to present themselves. Sad, but the only answer must be to improve the schools.

It has been made clear we can pay upfront which I expect I will do with the next 2 children. I paid fort the older 3 anyway who graduted without student debt but there is a case to be made either way - some very rich parents don't give a penny because they think you appreciate what you pay for and work hard for yourself. I think providing an education for a child is something I'm happy to do and doesn't amount to spoiling but I can understand the opposite point of view. If you pay up front now as I've done for teh first 3 at the lower rates tehre is no discount for early payment. The interest their friensd who were fully funded by paernts but took out the loan and put it into an ISA is so very little compared with the hassle of having all that administration and complication of the student loans company around your neck that I didn't want them to do that.

I am just that someone would take a student loan and put it in an ISA.

There's something rather arrogant about that.

Have a good friend who is a don at an Oxbridge College who was educated in a northern grammar school and bends over backwards to find state pupils to offer places to, but he has to give them to the candidates who can will get the most out of the university edcuation and are likely to get firsts. Hs subject is languages and state school puils are underprepared - many they really don't know what they don't know, and assume (and because their teachers know no better)that because they are the cleverest in their schools they over-estiamte thir knowledge and abilities. In top performing indies, the children are used to working with the best and oftern UNDERestimate their abilities!!! He lays on remedial sessions for those he thinks will be able to knuckle down make the grade with intensive work, but far more of a gamble, and a big shock to the state pupil who really has to up their game very quickly - so happens rarely.When my dc were small I asked him his advice and I thought he would tell us to go for grammars. In fact his (reluctant) advice was if they were keen to learn and we could afford it, send 'em to indies (where they are NOT spoon fed - they actaully are taught well, but expected to work more independently, and read around their subjects at a younger age!) He cannot be expected to make up for decficiencies in the state secondary sector. He is also now competing for the best students with American Universities, and increasingly, (as at my son's school) candidates are turning down Oxbridge offers to go to Harvard, Standord, MIT.

Re the ISA - even better option in the US. A frend got a no interest loan to study @ NYBS - didn't need it as he was given a scholarship as well, so put the loan money on the stock market and made a handsome profit.

'But are they demonstrably better for university though?'

Don't get me wrong I'm not for a second saying that all kids who've been to private school are better than all kids who've been to state school.

But it is a fact that they do better in terms of GCSE and A Level grades so on paper they are demonstrably better.

It is also much more likely that they will have done traditional subjects including separate sciences at GCSE and at least one modern language which again makes them demonstrably more prepared for university (in that this is what top universities say that they are looking for).

But, of course, they still have to prove themselves in their UCAS forms and if they are applying to a RG university then possibly in universities' own exams and interview process.

"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."

Yep. But but you can't jump to conclusions because private school kids are more likely to go to top universities where its statistically harder to get a 1st or 2:1 so you could easily argue that a 2:1 from Oxford is comparable with a 1st from Huddersfield university.

And it will be more marketable anyway whehter you like it or not.

'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. '

I disagree with this and there's already been many thousands of pounds invested in trying to raise the aspirations of kids from state school.

It remains a fact that kids from private schools achieve the lion's share of A* and A grades at GCSE and A Level.

The fact that they disproportionately achieve the top grades inevitably means that they are going to get the places at the top universities.

Coupled with the fact that they get grades in the 'right' subjects. They are more likely to do separate sciences and languages. This is what universities want.

Sooooo unless universities say we're no longer going to look at A Level grades or we're no longer interested in traditional subjects or they add an extra 10 points automatically to every state school student then it is always going to be the case that private school students will be better placed to get into (the best) universities.

Once a child has received education for 13 years, surely it isn't unreasonable to be looking at their attainment rather than simply potential. You don't talk about someone's potential to be a great footballer at 18 when they'd never even kicked a ball - you would expect them to actually be showing some prowess by then. Even if there is still scope for further improvement.

If some children receive inadequate state education at their schools then they need to catch up (assuming it's not too late). If a private school has successfully educated a child then that child is then in a strong position to build on it with further education.

But you can't assume that a state education is always inadequate, and a private one is always superior. Small class-size, bully. Means bugger-all. No guarantee of anything.

Having said that, there is something that private schools frequently do better. They train for exams. The exam-factory I attended churned out grade A's like they were going out of fashion. At university, I came across many grade B state school students who were academically superior to many of the grade A ones at my school. They just weren't as adept at passing A'level papers.

So fix the exam system. Fix the failing state schools. But don't penalise schools simply because they're doing a good job.

BTW, I'm not saying the only reason why private school kids often don't get the same degree class as kids from state schools with the same A Level grades is entirely because they are more likely to go to the best universities where it's harder to get the best class degrees.

It probably is the case that they've been working at capacity and feel they can relax a bit having got where they want to be and an element of spoon feeding etc etc.

But (genuine question) does it matter?

Does it really matter whether a kid with all A*s goes to Oxford and only ends up with a 2:1 or even a 2:2 or even a 3rd?? Does that make them any less marketable?

And does it make that person less marketable than a 2:1 or 1st from Huddersfield University??

I'm not sure it does.

My kids WILL move from independent school to state 6th form at A Level for lots of reasons:

1.) It's a better transition to university both in terms of the social mix and academic independence.

2.) So we can save money ready for university.

3.) Much bigger college means wider range of subjects and faciliities and specialist teaching.

4.) The college still offers excellent Oxbridge support plus specialist gifted sessions for each course in a lunchtime a week.

Just wonder whether the kids will then count as having been privately educated or not in the eyes of universities. GCSES done in private but A Levels done in state.

gaelicsheep: re NHS that is pretty much the default setting already. After leaving university doctors have to undergo a number of years of postgraduate on-the-job training. In UK this means posts in NHS or the Forces.

Herplaceby: I don't see how universities advantage themselves through those who pay upfront, as the is nothing in the application process about means of payment.

Is part of the real issue here how UK sees education? Is it an end in itself, of general benefit? Or is it utilitarian, a means for an individual to get on in their particular rat-race?

I don't think it is a question of under or over estimating abilities!!

The point is an averagely intelligent child is (on the whole) going to get better results at an independent school, NOT due to their superior intelligence but due to different teaching (i.e smaller classes, no disruption, a myriad of other reasons.....) and the way in which A levels are undertaken now. Fortunately, other pre-admission tests really do test who is the brightest of the bright. Whether one agrees with private education or not or 'life being fair' etc, being able to buy an advantage for children who are then competing for the same places at universities is simply Not Fair. However, many, many people really don't care about other people's children, only their own.

Being able to speak nicely/dress appropriately doesn't actually make one more intelligent. Hence the number of privately educated applicants who actually don't get their Oxbridge places, despite their expensive education.

As for putting the loan in an ISA, just shows how some people really have no idea of how the vast majority of people the 'poor' manage, but then I think we all knew that anyway.

I am sure I don't need to point out that one can only put the loan in an ISA if parents can afford to give the equivalent money to their student offspring in order to actually go to university, but I suppose it is worth saying anyway.....

BTW my DCs attend/attended a state grammar school where all pupils go on to Russell Group universities, but a large majority go on to Oxbridge where they find they are not in any way intellectually inferior to their independently educated contemporaries (possibly the opposite....).

I suspect the don quoted in MrsGuyofGisbournes post is perhaps in the minority, judging by the very helpful posts by Oxbridge admissions tutors over the years in the Education topics here who are most adamant that what they really want is the most intelligent , not the most well taught so far. It is hardly the fault of an applicant that they have not been taught properly so far, is it?

Five candles - you seem to be saying that you want your child to have all the perceived advantages of private education, but by switching at 16, you don't want the universities to know that you did this.

There's tons of research showing that recruitment is subject to personal prejudice and all sorts of factors that have nothing to do with someone's achievement, abilities or potential. People have a strong tendency to recruit in their own image. Unconscious (or conscious) sexism and racism are real problems, so it would be surprising if class prejudice wasn't a factor too.

The research of which I'm aware comes from work, not academia (except one study showing female academics suffered because the statements in their recommendations from profs were more vague). But I'd be surprised if the same factors don't apply to undergraduate applications and interviews.