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?

Joan - Or maybe with many state schools it's survival of the fittest?

I'm with Litchick on the 'joy of the ride' thing. My own comprehensive school was pretty dire (dh's wasn't great either). We can afford better for our dc's.

It's really not about results or giving them an advantage over others - it's about their happiness and having the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

I will concede there are many seriously wealthy/aristocratic parents who do not send their children to private/public schools just for the results. Not sending their children to Eton or whatever just doesn't come into it.(Remember David Cameron's suggestion that SamCam is a bit 'edgy' because she went to a day school...:).) They don't need results!

However, moving slightly down the social/financial scale, I do think getting the string of A*s does make a tiny bit of difference in their choice of schooling, (especially if they have failed to gain entrance to a grammar school) along with all the other musical/social advantages.

Whether one approves or disapproves of the actual concept of being able to buy advantage, it can hardly be argued that it is fair in any way or form.

I doubt Simon Hughes is going to have some kind of blanket legislation that will automatically let someone from a failing comp leapfrog over someone from Eton in order to get his place at Oxbridge. I suspect it will be a little more complicated than that. Although, of course, it is entirely possible that the child from the failing comp may be equally (or more) intelligent as that boy from Eton. How to prove it though?? It is very difficult, without both children having had equally good teaching in equally academic subjects. I am beginning to think bringing back grammar schools to all areas is the only answer (with a nationwide test which cannot be tutored for, blah, blah).

Exactly.
My kids already have advantage by dint of being born into the family they have. Many posters' children are also advantaged simply because their parents are so very interested in them...this is certainly not the case for a sizable number at the school where I volunteer.

Would my kids get the same grades if they went elsehwere? Probably. They're not at genius level, but they're pretty smart and have a huge work ethic.

Would their experience be as good? Absolutely no way.
And I'm happy to pay for that alone.

Well that is certainly my plan of action, my children are going through private until 16 and then will join a state 6th all going well for exactly the reason given in this thread, they aren't genius' they need pushing, encouraging what ever you want to call it and the state system simply will not get the best from them.

Even the best state school because the state system is not set up for that.
However whilst I have breath in my body they will not fail and I'm sure every parent feels that way, we all do what we can for the DC's don't we ? And those who don't make the sacrifices, well they reap what they sow.

Sorry, lastresort, crossed with you.

I do understand what you're saying, and of course I can't speak for all parents any more than you can.

I can only speak for myself and my group of friends who do the same.

And I'm realy really not paying for results.
Though concede that this happens to be a happy by=product often.

I'm far more interested in the all round environment. Frankly, I wouldn't hand over the cash for some pieces of paper.

As an aside, a mate of mine who is a headmistress at a very challenging school, is asking a lot of people (me included) to come and talk to the pupils about opportunity and education from the prism of coming from social disadvantage...
Some will take on mentoring roles...though I don't know if I want to commit to that yet.

I don't know if I'll be any use at all, but some of the people she's got on board are stunningly talented and successful and I'm sure they might be able to open some children's eyes about aiming high.

I really don't mean to offend those who do pay. I send/sent my DC to a grammar school when there is an outstanding comp in our town. We all have our own reasons for making these choices,(and actually my reason wasn't for the results only, I suspect at least one of my DC would have got better results at the comp, as his contemporaries did!!)

However, I had a 'choice' in the first place. For the vast majority of people 'making a few sacrifices' will NEVER give them enough money to pay for a private education/a move to a catchment area for a good comprehensive.

Taking out the private 'tutoring' argument, at least a grammar school puts academic excellence over money in the entrance criteria. Universities should be for those of the highest academic ability not for those with the most money which is what it is beginning to look like.

notired I don't know if that's ture or not.

Certainly, I have a lot of friends and a DH who went there, and they are a mixed bunch.

However, let's say for the sake of argument you're right. Why would accepting pupils who are articulate and confident, and have a track record in passing exams be wrong?

Oxbridge is world renowned as a great university, so it must have been doing somehting right all these years.

Now I'd be all for more disadvantaged students obtaining places, but let's surely not throw the baby out wiht the bath water.

Nottirednow. Actually more pupils from my DCs state grammar school gained places at Oxford than any other university (and they practically all gain places at RG universities).

I can't find it - but I have seen a list of which schools sent most pupils to Oxbridge.

Some state schools sent a large number (The London Oratory was the top comp) but many state schools sent a very few or none. Mind you, there are also some 'non-selective' private schools which don't send many to Oxbridge.

Agree with Litchick. We pay to send our DC to a good school where they are stimulated and it contributes to them having an ejoyable childhood (not the inly factor -there is life outside schol!!!) - the other DC there enjoy learning, and so they can flourish. I am not interested in exam results, or whether they go to Oxbridge or any university, just want them to 'enjoy the ride' - good expression! and follow their inclinations. I would have loved to go to a school like theirs - the school I went to is now one of the worst added-value in the country - we are not landed gentry - far from it! Butr I am happy to work to pay for a good experience for my children - obviously I would rather sit back & get it 'free' but we don't have that option where we live.

why are you so sure your kids wouldn't have a good time at state school? if it's not about results, what is the added value that they're getting? Nicer children to play with? What? I don't get it at all.

I hope you people who are invading the state system at 16 get put right to the back of any queue there might be, though! Cheeky buggers!

They wouldn't have as good a time as the local options available to us now. Maybe at 16 the local state options will be approptiate - who knows? we are not ideaolgicvally wedded to one or the other - perhaps we shall be 'invading' - presume you should applaud that as you are claiming it is good and people should use it

I hope you people who are invading the state system at 16 get put right to the back of any queue there might be, though!

Well since the criteria is GCSE results i'd say that's unlikely
Cheeky though - really, saving the state system at least £18k per child, people could be as cheeky as they like if they were saving me that kind of money.
And they would continue into private 6th form if the system wasn't so screwed up, maybe it'll be sorted by the time mine get that stage and we won't have to play the game.

I'm sure my children could have a super time at lots of different schools, but given that I want them to go within a reasonable radius of where we lived, I chose the ones we liked the best.

And of course I visted a number of state alternatives ( I volunteer in one of them).
Some were nice. Some were dire.

Ultimately what I think is worth paying for is a number of things but these are of course personal preferences for my children.

• small class sizes.
• daily sports and weekly matches.
• great music department including choirs/orchestras/ensembles etc
• great art department
• extremely high expectations of behaviour and achievement
• looooooong holidays
• very very broad curriculum
• acres of green space

I don't think many state 6ths will specify only entrants will 11A*s at GCSE though...

The 'saving the state system money' line is a poor argument though - the two tier system is ultimately damaging to everyone in the state system, which the paying-for-the-ride brigade dismiss as inadequate and then expect to be able to barge back into when it suits them.

jackstarb, Hills Road sixth form college is the state establishment that sends most students to Oxbridge (it was third overall after Westminster, Eton as I recall).

nottired you have to be a bit careful about those sort of figures - it's like the ones recently that said how biased Oxford was against some ethnic minorities as their acceptance rate per application was way lower than that of other races, but it turned out that they were disproportionately applying for the 3 most oversubscribed courses. I actually think 3% is a very small effect, but there may well be higher numbers of unsuitable candidates applying from state schools due to lack of good advice - we just don't know from what we're told. However I am sure that the universities look at these figures very carefully as they are trying hard to widen their access, so I suspect there may well be some effect like that in play.

JoanofArgos Off the top of my head, some of the benefits my children have enjoyed are longer holidays (more free time), the chance to do high level music without musical parents entirely at school leaving evenings free to pursue sport to a high level as well, learning to sail and a few other such opportunities would have been missed too. Yes they're very lucky, yes they would probably have enjoyed themselves somewhat at a state school, but imo quite a lot less. The state school we would have probably moved to get them into gets equally good A level results by the way as far as I can tell.

They certainly specify 5 GCSE's at C+ which many state secoundary's seem to struggle to produce.
Are you seriously suggesting that taking the strain off the state is a bad thing ? If somebody goes to BUPA for an operation they should never be allowed to use the NHS again, despite paying for it throughout their lives.

All I can say is, I know the sixth form at the school where I work is oversubscribed year after year, with candidates from state secondaries across the city who have 5 GCSEs at c+, that's all I'm going on. I guess the secondarIES don't struggle quite as much with that as you might think?

And what I am seriously suggesting is that the social implications of private schools existing in the first place is so detrimental in itself that the 18K that parents console themselves they are letting us off is a bit of a red herring.

'are' so detrimental, I meant.

ampere - I think you've made a very important point there. Purely academic success (where Oxbridge is at the pinnacle) is not everything. There is no sensible reason why we shouldn't also be encouraging and showing respect for those who choose to follow more vocational routes. Quite why the former Tory government saw fit to dismantle well respected polytechnics and turn them into mickey mouse universities has always baffled me.

But I don't believe that my own children's success in life can only be achieved so long as they ensure that the bottom of the heap is suitably stamped on. I would like to think that if we bring the bottom up they'll contribute to society rather than living off it. And that makes everyone better off, surely.

I'm bemused at the idea that people send their children to private schools because it'll be more enjoyable! Not at all my own experience, and certainly the most noticeable difference between my state school and private school friends was that the state school ones had actually enjoyed their schooling!

I am currently intending to send my dc to the good local comp because it'll probably be more enjoyable for them. It's a two minute walk away in a good neighbourhood and most of their friends will go there too. I do, however, still have my wobbles. I have a huge thirst for knowledge and learning, and I desperately hope that this is something that can still be nurtured outside of the private system.

Ok well in that case use my £18k x 4 to improve the system for the other children - oh no it doesn't work that way does it, the council breaths a sign of relief they have got to fund 4 places and pockets the money to waste spend else where.

Mrsmipp my children have loved their schooling from the very start. There is no way on this earth I would pay that amount of money over, if they weren't.

I honestly do not understand parents who retain their children in a school where they are not enjoying themselves if they have a choice. Utterly bizarre.

But that's the thing. Don't assume you understand everyone's motivations. How can any of us know what is in the hearts and minds of others?

The question has been asked here on MN a thousand times why people pay, and the reasons a myriad.

Some want an uber academic environment, others want learning support. Some want short days and long holidays, others are looking for wraparound care. Some want a religious education, others want to avoid exactly that. Some want a highly traditional school, others a modern free-range appraoch.
A numer are escaping a bad experience elsewhere.

Certain posters won't listen to these reasons, because they're not want they want to hear. They have already decided who we are and what we want.

And they accuse us our children of being arrogant.