Who gets the best jobs?

[fizzyfanta]

I wonder if anyone watched this programme on BBC2 last night.

Whilst I appreciate that children from poorer backgrounds are not exposed to the same resources as those who have been privately educated, I cant help think that sometimes,these children are let down by their own parents and possibly their schools for not giving them enough courage to make them believe that 'they can be who they want to be'. Surely, the whole thing is being generalised and private education is being used as a scapegoat for the failures of the state system?

'I believe that many of them are making decisions based on incomplete information and with biased assumptions, and that their decisions could be improved by supplying more information and correcting biases.'

I am prepared to concede that there are some schools where information is incomplete but not mine.

But as for bias. There is no way of making an objective guess at a student's chances of getting into Oxbridge given that it is not an objective process.

I have seen time and again one student chosen over another who in my professional opinion (and the opinion of colleagues who have taught them) is a better candidate.

And the evidence supports this. Nearly 50% of students at Oxbridge come from private schools even though students from state schools with the same and even lower grades do better at degree level.

If you take a student with entirely As from a private school they are statistically more likely to get in than a student with A or even As from a state school but they are less likely to do well.

I also think the material you quoted from the Sutton Trust does not reveal the complexities of choosing university (or whether to go at all) for students from poor backgrounds.

No amount of well-timed advice dissuaded my student from her choice to become a hairdresser. Sometimes teachers cannot compete with peer or parental or media influences.

There is no mention of the financial and cultural reasons for which many of my students choose to stay at home while at university.

It is very hard to persuade a Muslim girl from a traditional and poor family that it is worth getting into debt which is against their fundamental ideology to go and live hundreds of miles away from her family and study at Oxbridge. This is the sort of discussion that we have at my college. In fact, we often struggle to get Muslim girls to go on theatre trips!!

It is wrong to assume that teachers are not providing good advice and not doing everything they can to raise aspirations. But teachers are not miracle workers.

Increasingly I'm going to find it difficult to persuade students its in their interest to go to university at all given they're going to accrue £30,000 of debt with no guarantee of a job at the end of it.

I am not naive.

My arguments are based on facts and the reality of teaching in a deprived area.

Your arguments are based on hypothetical scenarios and an assumption that if only teachers were giving the right advice and students were a bit more clued up more kids from state schools would get into Oxbridge.

You have ignored the fact that actually applications from state schools went up this year but fewer students from state schools were successful.

There is no shortage of bright, able personable kids from state schools ie who get 3As , can speak articulately and with life skills, but these children are being rejected from the very best unis - so there IS something else at work here.

Could be school, postcode, accent ,people like us,

BTW does anyone know what the headline entry grades to Bristol for French or French and Spanish are. My DD has been turned down with predicted AAB (B at AS) good personal statement atc

@fivecandles:

'From that they can estimate their own chances but there's no such thing as 'unbiased'.'

I am using the statistical definitions of the terms 'bias', 'biased' and 'unbiased'. If you wish to be taken seriously in a discussion about statistics I suggest you learn what they are.

'But it's not about YOU is it?'

Actually, in this context, it is. I was addressing your allegation that I was underplaying the statistics.

'And there's no SEEMS about it.'

Actually, there is. 'long' is a relative term, not an absolute. People's frames of reference determine long and short.

'Statistically students' chances are slim.'

Ditto with 'slim'. How many of your students or their parents buy lottery tickets? The odds of even a £10 payoff are far lower than 22%, and yet so many people play. And I think that 10:1 is a very, very low estimate of the payoff of an Oxbridge place compared to the effort of an application.

'There were 3,200 places at Oxford this year and 17,000 applicants. If there were 17,020 applicants there would have been 20 more rejections.'

True. But my point is that, if the 20 extra applications were from state school students, another 4-5 places might have gone to state school students, therefore only 15 more rejections for state school students. What's your point? That the next 20 state school applicants would have exactly 0 chance of being accepted? Do you believe that Oxford has a fixed quota for the number of state school acceptances?

'I have seen time and again one student chosen over another who in my professional opinion (and the opinion of colleagues who have taught them) is a better candidate.'

Which I take as support that my probabilistic model is a more realistic description of the process than your deterministic model.

'No amount of well-timed advice dissuaded my student from her choice to become a hairdresser. Sometimes teachers cannot compete with peer or parental or media influences.'

But you tried. And I think she was fortunate to have a teacher that did. But whilst this student did not respond positively, I'm guessing that some of your students in the past have.

'It is very hard to persuade a Muslim girl from a traditional and poor family that it is worth getting into debt which is against their fundamental ideology to go and live hundreds of miles away from her family and study at Oxbridge.'

You don't need to convince me of this. Did you not read my discourse on Henrietta Barnett School a few days ago?

'It is wrong to assume that teachers are not providing good advice and not doing everything they can to raise aspirations.'

I am assuming no such thing. Well, I do assume that some teachers are providing imperfect advice because, I don't believe that 100% of people in any field are perfectly competent and I also believe that mistakes are made. But I do not assume it is from any malicious intent.

'But teachers are not miracle workers.'

When did this discussion move from being about state school students to being just about their teachers?

'My arguments are based on facts and the rality of teaching in a deprived area.'

Your arguments are based on a relatively limited data set and, while they should have significant veracity in describing your own school, should be treated cautiously when generalized. You yourself assert that you are 'an outstanding grade 1 college according to Ofsted' which implies that your school is not representative of the population of schools as a whole.

'Your arguments are based on hypothetical scenarios and an assumption that if only teachers were giving the right advice and students were a bit more clued up more kids from state schools would get into Oxbridge.'

Substitute 'if only students were given the right advice' for 'if only teachers were giving the right advice' and you're most of the way to my argument. I make no claim that it is necessarily teachers who should do more. Also, my arguments have generally been supported by empirical studies using data sets which I'd guess are larger, more controlled and more representative than your own personal experience.

I've actually been more impressed with some outreach programs that seem to have made a difference in getting more state school students to apply - and be admitted - to some top universities. Again, from the Sutton Trust:

"The results ... [have] shown that almost half (45%) of the first group of students to benefit from the project were admitted to research-led universities, compared to just one-fifth (21%) of similar students.

The programme was also found to boost the likelihood of students entering higher education in any form (87% compared to 65% of the comparator group) and to cement their aspirations towards further study."
www.suttontrust.com/news/news/innovative-access-scheme-hailed-a-success/

"'But if you can be certain that there would be even more rejections, I can be certain that there would be even more acceptances.'

Rubbish. There are no more places.

There were 3,200 places at Oxford this year and 17,000 applicants. If there were 17,020 applicants there would have been 20 more rejections. Even my maths can work that out!!"

Why on earth do assume that those 20 more rejections would all be from your college? This is the point that expat is trying to get across to you.

It's possible (probable) that there are a whole load of students from colleges like yours who are more capable that a significant proportion of the private school applicants that currently get accepted. If they'd only apply they would take some of the private school candidates' places.

Look at your own statistic of an over 90% acceptance rate. Also consider that the fact that you admitted that the one that didn't get accepted was the most able but had confidence problems. So why are the borderline candidates not applying? Is there really absolutely nothing that can be done to make Oxbridge more appealing? I'm not saying that you as teachers are actively dissuading students from applying. It may be that the forces at work are entirely out of your control. But I don't understand why you are so closed minded to the possibility that something is wrong, and there may be something that could be done.

More worrying to me is the question of whether your success rates for RG places are similar.

@fivecandles:

'You have ignored the fact that actually applications from state schools went up this year but fewer students from state schools were successful.'

And you have ignored that the success rate of independent school candidates also went down this year. The number of applicants from both sectors went up. The number of places available did not.

Also, as you have repeatedly emphasized in the past, it's one year's data. If fewer students from state schools being successful develops into a trend, that would be meaningful.

@MrsMipp: I'm surprised that anyone other than fivecandles and myself is still following this thread. Thank you. It makes me feel that I'm not completely wasting my time composing these long posts.

expat, I really think you're wilfully misinterpreting my points.

When I said it's not about you I meant it's not you that has to make the decision about whether to apply to Oxbridge with the odds as they are now and growing ever longer. So quite frankly it doesn't matter whether the stats make YOU flinch or not. What matters is how our young people feel about them because once again it is THEIR decision to make.

'And I think that 10:1 is a very, very low estimate of the payoff of an Oxbridge place compared to the effort of an application.'

YOU may think that and that's fine and that's great if students feel the same way. But many don't.

I see students go through this process every year and some are absolutely devastated by rejection (often their first rejection). I know people who are bitter about it years later.

I also know some students are concerned that the time it takes to commit to an Oxbridge application might jeopardise their chances of getting the grades they need to get in to this or to any of their universities.

Many students feel quite blase about it initially and take a 'what is meant to be will be' attitude but the more time and emotion they invest into the process and when they get a chance to see the gleaming spires they often feel quite differetn.

To go through this process they have to be absolutely sure that Oxford or Cambridge are the right universities offering the right courses for them.

LOL expat96. Still following. Impressed by your stamina! (both of you)

fivecandles said, way back on Tuesday, "How do you account for the many thousands of kids who leave state schools with amazing grades every year and go on to A Levels and top universities and top careers." and I answered facetiously (I thought!) that the answer was tutors. Have now read the article that scary teacher linked to in the Telegraph:
"A survey by the Sutton Group last year found that one in five teenagers at secondary school have private tutors, rising to one in two in London, and includes some of the best public schools."
I know it doesn't say how many were State and neither does it say what Key Stage they were at, but 20%~50% is a shocking statistic.

I still don't understand how fivecandle's college got a 90% success rate at Oxbridge entrance. What was the size of the cohort?

fivecandles, if less applicants from the state sector got in this year, what do you reckon is the cause, bias at Oxford ... or poorer quality from the state?

'But my point is that, if the 20 extra applications were from state school students, another 4-5 places might have gone to state school students'

Well, they MIGHT have (depending on the candidates and the interviewers) but actually as state school applications rose this year but fewer actually got in (a point I've made several times but has been completely ignored) this year this really does seem unlikely wouldn't you agree?

''I have seen time and again one student chosen over another who in my professional opinion (and the opinion of colleagues who have taught them) is a better candidate.'

Which I take as support that my probabilistic model is a more realistic description of the process than your deterministic model.'

I don't understand your point. What are you trying to say here?

'Your arguments are based on a relatively limited data set and, while they should have significant veracity in describing your own school, should be treated cautiously when generalized. You yourself assert that you are 'an outstanding grade 1 college according to Ofsted' which implies that your school is not representative of the population of schools as a whole.'

But I am not just talking about the experience from my college. I am talking about the cold, hard facts and statistics of applicants compared to places and state v private over years together with my experience over more than a decade as a teacher in various different schools and in various different capacities and examiner and the experience of colleagues.

'When did this discussion move from being about state school students to being just about their teachers?'

It moved that way when it was suggested by various posters that state school teachers were not advising students or misadvising them or dissuading them from applying to Oxbridge. I'm not going to trawl back through this thread now but there have been many, many examples of this including one poster who even said it was part of an 'ideology' that teachers had not to stretch able students and another who said that at my college we only allowed students to apply who had a cast iron chance of getting in!!!!! This is why I'm defensive because this is insulting nonsense.

'Substitute 'if only students were given the right advice' for 'if only teachers were giving the right advice' and you're most of the way to my argument'

And there again. You're assuming that teachers are not giving the right advice. I really dispute that. You have no evidence that that is the case except for a few anecdotes.

I've explained the sort of advice, encouragement and support that goes on in my college but I've also explained just some of the reasons why in spite of all this encouragement students may choose not to apply to Oxbridge.

The Muslim girl who wants to stay at home has not been badly advised by teachers.

The student who has won a place at a prestigious music college has not been badly advised by teachers.

The student who has a responsibility for caring for her disabled mother has not been badly advised by teachers.

The student who wants to study a combination of subjects not offered by Oxford or Cambridge has not been badly advised by teachers.

And yet outsiders or even outside bodies like the Sutton Trust may see these students who on paper look like Oxbridge applicants and without knowing just how much work has gone in to not only encouraging them to apply to top universities but just to keep them in education and assume that they've been badly advised or not advised or that they've not aimed high enough.

And that makes me really annoyed. Because it does a huge disservice to teachers, schools and college and the students themselves.

"another who said that at my college we only allowed students to apply who had a cast iron chance of getting in!!!!! This is why I'm defensive because this is insulting nonsense."

I implied that something was awry because an acceptance rate of 90% is phenomenal. What is your long-term acceptance percentage?

I agree that the work the Sutton Trust does is interesting and certainly our students have attended summer schools and the like provided by them. But again this is a group which has been self-selected and/or encouraged to aim high by teachers and is already showing enormous determination.

'Why on earth do assume that those 20 more rejections would all be from your college? '

I never said that!

However, given that no other students at my college chose to apply, it stands to reason that if we forced them to when they didn't really want to then they wouldn't stand much of a chance!

It's also the case that the more people that apply the more rejections there will be (unless places increase which is not going to happen under this Govt). And it's also the case that state school students are more likely to be rejected that private school students even though more applied this year.

''It is very hard to persuade a Muslim girl from a traditional and poor family that it is worth getting into debt which is against their fundamental ideology to go and live hundreds of miles away from her family and study at Oxbridge.'

You don't need to convince me of this. Did you not read my discourse on Henrietta Barnett School a few days ago?'

No, I didn't read that. But there you go again. On the one hand acknowledging that there may be cultural and financial reasons why students may choose not to apply to Oxbridge and on the other hand suggesting that if only they'd been given the right advice they might have!

'But I don't understand why you are so closed minded to the possibility that something is wrong, and there may be something that could be done.'

I'm not at all closed minded and I think there are a Hell of lot of things wrong.

The fact that students are going to be charged £9000 in tuition fees for a start.

All the research says the kids who are most likely to be debt averse are the poorest.

'And you have ignored that the success rate of independent school candidates also went down this year. The number of applicants from both sectors went up. The number of places available did not.'

I don't think that's actually true. And let's remember that roughly half of all students at Oxford and Cambridge have come from independent schools although the number of students attending independent schools is about 7%.

And the figures do look to be getting worse and not better over time:

'The picture was gloomy for comprehensive schools: the success rate of their pupils fell from 23 per cent in 2008 to 21 per cent last year.'

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article7071736.ece

I can only see this worssening with the scrapping of EMA and the rise in tuition fees (with Oxford and Cambridge charging full whack and these towns being expensive places to live).

'fivecandles, if less applicants from the state sector got in this year, what do you reckon is the cause, bias at Oxford ... or poorer quality from the state?'

It's really easy to assume that the state kids are just not up to it BUT all the evidence now says that kids from state schools end up outperforming kids from private schools with the same or better grades.

So I don't understand why Oxbridge persists with the interview. Everyone knows that interviewers however well meaning favour interviewees who are like them. Interviews will discriminate against bright working class kids who may be lacking in confidence and not used to talking with adults in this sort of environment. This is why most universities have got rid of them.

Why not have a lottery? It'd be a hell of a lot fairer than the current system. The whole thing about personal statements is a scandal too. Some read them some don't. Most are written by teachers. There are all sorts of codes in teacher references.

Do your answer is that Oxbridge was more biased this year than last year?