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?

No, frumpy. We had always intended to switch the dcs at 16. They've known this for a long time even though it's still a long way off.

I've listed the reasons why this is a logical change for us.

But of course I'm interested in how my dcs would be perceived by university admissions (as privately or state educated when they will have done GCSEs at indepdent and A Levels at state) and also interested more generally in how such kids are considered and counted in the stats.

Here's a link www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/03/state-school-pupils-university

But as I keep saying does it make any difference?

'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....).'

In fact, the research would suggest something different.

State grammar schools are lumped in with private schools in terms of kids faring worse at university when compared with kids who have the same or worse grades but went to comps

Something I read recently said that they do look at the standing of the student's secondary school (ie up to GCSE), not just the 6th form.

A student from an average school who has exceptional GCSE results would be preferred over one from eg a selective grammar where the majority do well.

(I haven't explained that at all well but the gist of it is that switching from an indie to a state 6th form college after GCSE would be noticed!)

fc, my children's schools have found really very little problem with getting children into universities where they ought to go. For years the very bright poor child at the under achieving comp who got BBB when everyone else failed would have some advantage which is fair enough and will continue but the unviersities would go private rather than start to admit the least able children, without a doubt. There would only be a very minor impact depending on where you went. They just want people passionate about their subject. I wouldn't worry about it either way but nor do I think they'd be advantaged by leaving a indepenent school for a sixth form state college which sends a lot of pupils to oxford.

The idea is that the poor might be advantaged such as people whos eparents have not had degrees or who went to a very bad state school not to help those in comps the middleclasses send their chidlren to or state grammar schools.

The main thing will remain your grades and what subjects they are in, what demand there is for places at some institutions and in which subjects.

And then in life all the other stuff will matter to like your accent, clothes, confidence, hard work ethic etc

we were in touch with lots of them / had talks at schools etc for the older 3 who have all now been through university.

But you can't just say private will do better than state. Surely it depends on the type of school. Selective private schools will do better than non-selective ones, and grammar schools are likely to do better than comps, because they start off with pupils of higher academic ability, who IME, know that they are expected to work.

In some areas you would actively CHOOSE a state school over the local (non-selective) private.

I honestly don't think it can ever be completely fair, there are just too many things to take into account.

no, that's true, SC, you can't.

But the universities can (& do, apparently) consider a school's overall GCSE/A level results & whether a particular applicant has done better than the school's average.

They always have but they have never really had money dependent on how may children from very poor homes even if the children are very low IQ as an issue before IF that becomes relevant to substantial amounts of their funding.

At my DD's state school 6th form, even the teachers recognise that standards aren't up to scratch teaching A levels, she is in a brain storming group along with teachers to establish how this can be improved.

I tried to get her a tutor to help with AS Maths, couldn't really afford it and couldn't find one locally.

I think it's a great idea to try and level up the under-representation of state school pupils at top uni's. I do think that it's fair.

Some of the indie school pupils have joined their 6th form for some reason, I expect it's money driven and that fact that the indie is non-selective and their results are not much higher than the comp.

'But you can't just say private will do better than state. '

Nobody's saying that every child at a private school will do well or that every private school produces excellent results.

But it is a fact that 'Half the A-levels taken by pupils at independent schools in the UK were graded A or A* this year, according to figures from the sector.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11112169

And 'About two thirds of GCSE exams taken at independent schools this year gained at least an A grade, compared with only one in five in the state sector.'

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6822700.ece

Whatever you think about this it's silly to ignore the facts.

My father does mock interviews with secondary school children and according to him the mock applications they fill in are usually quite appalling. Terrible spelling, grammar and text speak, even at supposedly the best state secondary in the area. Most of them are no better at interview either. That would seem to explain the paucity of state school pupils at top universities.

I think MrsMipps point about not really having the potential to be a great footballer at 18 if you've never kicked a ball until then is interesting. I suspect there is an element of 'use it or lose it' with brain development in the formative years, although probably you need a fairly severe case of not using it to suffer irreparably.

I think that a child that has been very poorly educated to the extent where they have given up fairly early on, really won't be able to catch up by the time they are 18 whatever their initial potential may have been. While this really wouldn't apply to the 3Bs candidate from a low achieving comp. who clearly still does have the potential to succeed at tertiary education, I think it may apply to some of those with much lower grades and could be one factor that skews the statistics away from state children going into higher ed.

Another thing that I'm sure skews the figures towards the privately educated but which isn't really to do with the quality of their education is the fact that almost by definition they all have parents who care substantially about their education,and so will have very supportive homes and high aspirations. This is one of the contributing factors to the harder working ethos at private schools and also means that these children would likely do pretty well (maybe not as well, but who knows?) in a state school had they been there instead, but it's an effect that is virtually impossible to quantify. (Note I am not that state children's parents can't be like this - many are, but in addition there will be many who aren't so much).

It's really difficult to say how much of the better grades achieved by private schools is down to better teaching/smaller classes and possibly a slightly brighter intake as against how much is down to harder work, pushier parents and higher aspirations, so it's extremely difficult to know if and how much how much positive bias should be applied to state applicants (and if it is, how you eradicate other inequalities that arise), but it is right that the questions are asked and effort is made somehow to address disadvantage. Personally I prefer schemes that address the problem at the cause - ie raise standards in schools so that all children can achieve their potential at school but there is a place for access schemes to allow for lower offers to disadvantaged children too. I'm not sure about the funding thing though - my gut feeling says if it costs the same to educate any child at university then the university should receive the same level of finance for all and the government shouldn't use this as a stick to encourage wider access.

A cynic may suggest that:

a) Selection
b) disruptive pupils edged out
c) fewer pupils with special needs ( see selection)
d) teaching to the exam
e) discouraging weaker students from taking exams in their poorest subjects.

May have something to do with the higher grades achieved at private school. Private education is the source of huge inequality in this country.

Teaching to the exam - would that be following the syllabus? Meaning that pupils don't find themselves in the same position as some who find they were never taught half the course. (Any) good schools teach the syllabus and then a good deal more besides.

No, I ran teaching formulaic answers to the exam. But needs must eh, especially when the students from the local 'comp' are given preferential treatment.

Parents will take their children out at 16 and move near to the 'best' state school if this happens (which it won't) and therefore causing all sorts of problems for the local population, not to mention housing prices

In answer to the OP taking them out at 16 means they are state educated at 'point of entry'

I think that's called exam technique. Perhaps the exams shouldn't be so predictable. Also good schools tend to enter pupils for the harder exam boards. All exams are equal but some are more equal than others.

Interesting thread. It seems not many posters have DCs at completely different types of school. We do - one attends a highly selective single-sex grammar school which frequently appears in lists of top schools nationally, the other attends our local mixed secondary modern which was in special measures a few years ago but is now doing better.

I can state absolutely categorically that a 'C' for the latter would be equivalent to at least a 'B' for the former and personally speaking we would have no objection whatsoever if this discrepancy was reflected in their university offers when the time comes.

Maybe it would mean state educated at point of entry if anyone did move from private to state, but as GCSE results are looked out by Unis, they won't fail to notice that they were taken at private school.

Abouteve, I don't think they would care tbh. If this happens it will be because they have been forced into it

I've been involved in admissions at both Oxford and Cambridge (now working at another RG university). Those doing admissions get quite a lot of info about the students - so not just their current school but also where they did their GCSEs (if different) and you also get info about the schools - rate of university entrance/A-level results. So you do have a fair amount to go on even if it's not a school you know anything about, and you can tell if a student has been in private education up to GCSE and then switched, for instance, to a good sixth form college (this happens quite a lot from single sex girls schools, for instance, which are close to the best sixth form colleges).

At both Oxford and Cambridge, the proportions of state/grammar/independent school students who are admitted is almost identical to the proportions who apply. It is really infuriating when politicians continuously imply that the top universities are sifting out bright state school applicants at the admissions stage when a large proportion of the problem is the differential in applications. They can't get in if they don't apply! Of course that's not the only problem - universities must continue to encourage applicants from schools without a strong record; and I think it goes without saying that a child of the same intelligence will almost always emerge with better A levels from one of the best public schools than they would from a weak or even an average comprehensive. People doing university admissions are well aware of that.

One reason for requesting marked work to be sent as part of the admissions process is that admissions tutors can then get a sense of the quality of the teaching/marking involved - particularly important in some subjects like maths and modern languages where you see some quite shoddy things.

While there is a lot that is wrong with the system if you read this and similar threads on MumsNet you would think that there was nothing, more important in life than getting DCs into the various top universities CSs having made their way through the so called best schools, CEs, piano exams, flute exams, kuman maths etc.

What about having a happy fulfilled childhood, graduating the university of life, relating to peers, being able to empathise with others, making the most of things, enjoying life, knowing the lateest cricket/football/ xbox game, seeing that success in not related to status, university, accent, money, class. These are Life Skills which are the basis of successful relationships both personal and professional.

As for state school children not being able to speak properly as raised by Xenia - frankly this is insulting and zenophobic clearing showing their own lack of life skills. In the real world it is common sense and life skills that are the building blocks for success

I was talking to the head of a major department (think traditional subject - geography/history/english - something like that, but won't out him) at Bristol University last year.

I said "Must be difficult to select from loads of pupils with identikit A* grades. How do you start?". He said "Well first we go through all the applications, take out all of those from Eton, Westminster, Harrow, St Pauls Girls, Cheltenham Ladies and Wycombe Abbey and chuck them in the bin. That gets rid of a lot. Then we take out all the double-barrelled names and chuck them in the bin. That gets rid of a lot more. Then we assess the rest."

He was serious, thought it was funny, and was slightly drunk. I was horrified.

Discrimination, pure and simple. And I bet it happens a lot.

I think people should be assessed on their merits. And if you have 2 people of equal merit and one went to a big private school and the other state, then it is fair enough to assume that the state pupil probably worked harder and is brighter than the private, to get the same grades and take him/her. But to blanket discriminate against private pupils is wrong I think

Also I don't think you can ignore the fact that parental support and encouragement of education is an important factor in how children do at school.

Stands to reason that proportionately higher private school pupils are getting that support since their parents have made enough thought to pay for their education, whereas there is a small but significant proportion of children in state education whose parents do not support education at all, And no, I don't mean the vast majority, I mean those parents who send their children to school without breakfast, have never been to a parents evening, never had a book in the house let alone read one and wouldn't know what homework was if it hit them in the face...
sad

Anyway that must be a factor in better results across the board

freshmint - I think your uni guy was taking the piss.