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?

mamatomany- does it sometimes worry you a bit that surely the A level end is where the private pays dividends? That Y1-13 are the ones you should be paying for? What if- just an if- your DCs or any who have come from a cosseted, highly supported, well-financed environment into teh rough and tumble of a state 6th form suddenly can't cope with the degree of unguided, autonomous learning required? The same unguided, autonomous learning that makes you shudder at the thought of state comprehensives?-

Especially if the universities do take note of where the string of A* GCSEs were gained and 'weight' accordingly, which is what the OP is worried about!

As for 'enjoyable'- not the experience of my friend's privately taught DSs (Y6 and 8) who get home at 4.30 or 5 every evening then are faced with at least an hour's homework. No playdates or extra-(non-school) curricular activities allowed there!

Litchick -yes, no one is suggesting there's a one-size-fits-all mentality in choosing private. But it is a little disingenuous of those who claim the glittering exam results isn't a pretty big pull..

BUT the simple fact still remains, it is unfair that top university places are taken disproportionately by privately educated DCs when endless research tells us that it doesn't necessarily mean they are the best candidates, merely the best trained.

The degrees gained therein ensure the best paying and most powerful jobs in the country. Thus the system self-perpetuates.

Then I feel very sorry for the child.
I wouldn't want that for my children...who have always exhausted me (if not themselves) with their endless sports and drama and meet ups and sleep overs etc

In much the same way that I feel very sorry for many of the children at the state school where I volunteer...children who get no support or interest shown in their education from home. Just plonked in front of the telly and fed crap.

But I wouldn't draw from that any conclusions about state schooled pupils per se.
Anecdotal evidence tells us nothing very much.

My DC's have not been spoon fed at any stage of their education and so I have every confidence that if that's what it will take to ensure they are given a fair chance at a University place of their choice they will pass their A'levels at the local state 6th form. They will also have access to the teachers they have been taught by up to that point to help them through the admissions process.

I would also point out that Universities are putting a lot of weight on GCSE results so 11 A*'s (wouldn't that be nice) could be the difference between an offer or not.
As I said earlier it would be much much better if they could finish their education at their current school and as i'm looking 8 years in the future hopefully this silly system will have been changed by then, nobody wants extra disruption or hoops to jump through do they ?

I expect your pity for them really endears you to them, Litchick! But at least your own kids won't have to go anywhere near them, and that should be some comfort

ampere I don't disagree about the inherent unfairness.

I'm just not that convinced about Hughs' proposals as an adequate way to tackle it.

But then, I am becoming increasingly cynical about how much of an equalizer education at any level can be.

Fourteen years ago, I was there with Blair. Education x3. Fully engaged.

Now...I'm not so sure. So much money has been spent on education, with all the right motivation, and yet social divisions have widened.

I see the kids at the school where I volunteer and think a plan to allow them into Oxbridge is just window dressing. These kids can barely read. They are disengaged from education before eleven.

It is a bit rich to complain that social divisions have been widened when you're perpetuating them by keeping your own kids out of the state system so they can enjoy the ride or whatever!

I don't think my parents had the faintest idea how desperately unhappy I was at the time. Perhaps times have changed, but for me it was much more a case of stiff upper lip and get on with it. I don't think it occurred to me that I could be happier elsewhere anyway. I didn't know any different, after all.

I'm not at all against private education but I do think it's are FAR too expensive because of a lot of superfluous extras which aren't important to me.

Joan I think the fact that I show an interest in them endears me to them.

And what on earth makes you assume my children don't know them?

Or are children only allowed to mix with the kids in their school these days? Must have missed that memo.

Mrsmipp I'm sorry to hear you weren't happy.
I had a horrible school life too...but to be fair, there was bugger all my parents could do about that.

Perhaps we are more alive to our children's feelings than the previous generation? We're certainly more analytical I feel.

And the kids. Well, I don't know about yours but mine are ridiculously vocal about their likes and dislikes. Sometimes I feel I have between my parents telling me what to do and now my children, almost seamlessly.

Joan I'm afraid you'll find me complaining and campaigning about all sorts of social issues.

I represented children in the care system for ten years and we still foster.

Is that a bit rich too?

snorkie, not sure where you got your information. I'm just going by the Sutton Trust report on top school for Oxbridge entrance by 5 year "hit rate" and the top 10 are the following:

Westminster (49.9%)
St Paul's Girls (49.0)
Winchester College (36.0)
Wycombe Abbey School (35.1)
St Pauls's School (33.0)
Eton College (32.4)
North London Collegiate (30.5)
Perse School for Girls (29.3)
Haberdashers' Aske's School for Girls (29.3)
Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe (27.1)

London Oratory is the highest comp at 21st place and 20.4% hit rate. There is only one other comp on the list and that is Dame Alice Owen's School at 99th and 10.2%.

Blimey, I'm glad all these people who know I wouldn't fit into the "Oxbridge culture" weren't around to advise when I was applying.

Fortunately, my bog-standard comp didn't have the benefit of this great wisdom, and were highly supportive (tho they knew zero about applications or entry exams). But then it was the 1980s, we know better now.

Oh, and a thing you should know about schools with a high "hit-rate": they censor who can apply to Oxbridge in order to keep the stats up.

So while my comp pulled out all the stops to help me have the faintest shot at it (my A-level combo required creative timetabling), friends from private schools talked of not being "allowed" to apply, and having to fight their schools for "permission".

sofaqueen are those figures a % of how many pupils in each year group got in? Or the % of all the applicants who were successful?

Does that make any sense

It is the percentage of students who go on to Oxbridge.

Just as an aside..

I marvel at the amount of energy and time given on mumsnet to analysing how a child might get into a 'RG university' or 'Oxbridge,' (there is a thread kicking around right now which made my jaw drop, "what shall DD wear to the interview," I kid you not)and at the huge anxiety around what school do best in getting a child into an 'RG university.'

I don't worry about this at all, am I being naive?

Were my parents just super laid back? I went to a comp, got three A's, RG uni, blah blah, all the while mum implored me to come downstairs and watch Eastenders with her instead of cramming!

Is it more competitive now? Is it more difficult to get into a good university? Or is it just that mumsnet is a focus for people's anxieties?

Commander I think it is more competitive, but I do think that there is a tendency for some people to want to think that if they do X y and Z, they will win entry for their child into the University of their choice - If you do this subject and read these books and say this at interview - when in reality any procedure that has to do with human beings in all their variety - admissions tutors as well as applicants - there are no rules to confer certainty.

'None of the 'anti- 'preference to state school applicant'' posters here has yet come up with a convincing argument as to why the RG universities shouldn't discriminate in favour of state school applicants.'

Well, I don't mind discriminating in favour in the sense that admissions tutors would recognize the truly exceptional performance of a student achieving A* grades in a comp with 30% A-C. This is what has been happening for years BTW.

What I am saying is that it's not fair to discriminate AGAINST kids from private school.

It's not fair to say to ALL kids what we're after is 9 As at GCSE and 4 A/ at A Level and good communication skills and good references and enthusiasm and a good personal statement and extra-curricular activigties etc, etc which is what universities and the system as a whole DO say and then say well actually you can get all of that and more but it's never going to be good enough if you come from a private school BUT if you come from a state school we're not that fussed about your grades.

If A Level grades aren't a measure of ability at university then there needs to be new admissions criteria.

BUT as I keep saying we all jump to the conclusion that because students from state schools often do better than students from private schools in terms of degree then that must mean they are innately brighter but have been held back.

BUT it needn't mean that at all.

It may be because students from private schools go to universities where it's statistically harder to get 1st class degrees or they don't bother to work hard once they're at university etc etc.

Why are these points being ignored?

'The research also found that students at elite universities were likely to achieve a lower class of degree than students at less selective universities with similar A-level and GCSE results.

Elite universities awarded more firsts, proportionately, than the other universities in the sample but the research found that with more competition it was harder to get a top degree.'

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/03/state-school-pupils-university

And what does it mean to 'do better' at university?

I maintain that a 2:2 from Oxbridge is more marketable than a 1st from Huddersfield University (no disrespect).

Does what you get in your degree matter a jot if you go to a RG university?

I think some employers still require a 2:1 as a minimum. I don't think an exception would be made for Oxbridge, but I don't say that for certain.

That said some employers would definitely favour a 2:1 from an RG uni over a first from anywhere else.

Then there are personal foibles of course. When DH is recruiting he will give a law degree proirity over another 'less rigourous' course as he sees it.

Well I know of at least one person with 9 A grades at GCSE and 4 at A Level (before A*s were possible) who went on to get a 3rd from Cambridge. He was a genius which was recognizable from when he was a very small child but spent most of his time at Cambridge getting blind drunk hence the 3rd. It's never, ever got in his way in terms of employment. He's a consultant in the US making a stash. He went to state schools BTW.

What sort of employer asks for a 2:1? I don't think I've ever come across it.

The research is problematic.

Are A Levels a measure of 'ability'?

Are degrees a measure of 'ability'?

Can you compare a first from one university with one from another?

When I worked for a top management consultancy (in marketing, not as a consultant) they only ever took people from about six universities. And they asked for a 2:1.

It is very usual among the big accountancy firms as well to insist on this too.

No question that they took a second from Cambridge more seriously than a first from new universities.