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?

So, not "do".

@fivecandles:

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

I confess I was having a bit of fun there. After five days and God knows how many words, I felt I deserved some. And it was a short point.

''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 think you misunderstood my point. I was not talking about 10:1 odds of getting a place. I was talking about a 10:1 payoff, i.e., the rewards of winning an Oxbridge place are greater than the costs/effort of an application by a factor of 10. And I think the true ratio is much, much, higher than that.

'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.'

In the business sector it is an axiom that in order to make a return, you have to take some risk. If these students are not willing to take the risk.... It appears that a lot of private school students are willing to take the risk. Whilst, overall, their chances are higher than state school applicants, 70% of private school applicants were still rejected.

''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?'

No. See the next comment.

'''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?'

I'm trying to say that, while you can clearly rate some students higher than others, there is a lot of noise in the application process. Even those you rate very highly have some non-zero chance of rejection. Conversely, even those you rate poorly have some non-zero chance of acceptance.

''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.'

You have misread what I wrote. Read it again. You originally wrote:

'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.'

Do the substitution I requested and the sentence now reads: "Your arguments are based on hypothetical scenarios and an assumption that if only students were given the right advice and students were a bit more clued up more kids from state schools would get into Oxbridge." That is a more accurate representation of my position. I repeat, I make no claims that it is primarily the teachers' responsibility.

'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.'

Can we agree that it would be worthwhile to explore expanding these programs? Both to more schools and deeper into the student base? Particularly if Oxford and Cambridge could be persuaded to participate?

'''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!'

First, I find it quite impolite that you did not bother to read my entire post before responding four days ago. And you most certainly did respond. Second, I see no contradiction in suggesting that additional information and education might overcome some of these cultural and/or financial barriers. It may be very hard, but that does not mean it is either impossible or not worth trying.

Perhaps more schools could try to bring back those few female Muslims who did go to Oxbridge for evening presentations to the students and parents where these girls describe their experience with bursaries and attest that it's not all sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. Unless, of course, it is, upon which I concede the point, as far as poor Muslim girls go.

''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.'

It is true.
www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/undergraduate_admissions_statistics/school_type.html

''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. ... This is why I'm defensive because this is insulting nonsense.'

This thread had, for practical purposes, been a two-person dialogue for three days. I have not stated, implied nor insinuated any of the things you find insulting. Throughout this discussion I have made the effort to engage you as an individual, not as a stereotype. I will thank you to reciprocate.

@purits:

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

Apparently eleven students applied. Ten were offered places. fivecandles has declined repeated requests to provide further numbers about his school's students.

I think it's worthwhile to repeat the point about outreach programs:

"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/

fivecandles responded:
'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.'

fivecandles is missing the importance of the result. One of the reasons these results are so interesting is that they used control groups. The methodology in these studies is to select two groups of similar students, but only expose one to the program, and then follow the results of both. Therefore, both the test group and the control group were likely to have been 'self-selected and/or encouraged to aim high by teachers and [are] already showing enormous determination.'

The point of the result is not that a 45% of a group of exceptional students were admitted to research-led universities.

The point is that 45% of one group of exceptional students were admitted to research-led universities while only 21% of another group of similarly exceptional students were admitted. And the main difference between the two groups was that the first participated in the outreach program.

Also, the detailed report indicates that the university participating in the program was Leeds. Most of the difference between the 45% and 21% admit rates was driven by the University of Leeds because a lot more students applied there. Whether the outreach program allowed the university to become more familiar with the students or, as I suspect, the program allowed the students to become more familiar with the university, it appears that increased approachability is associated with increased accessibility.

This is a result which has been demonstrated many times in the United States. If you demystify the higher reaches of higher education, if poor students realize that the people at Harvard put on their pants one leg at a time, just like they do, more of them will be willing to apply. And sure, most of them will be rejected (Harvard only accepts 8% overall, after all). But some will be accepted. In the States this is considered worthwhile.

Fivecandles.

You state that interviewers favour interviewees who are like them.

But very few interviewes are like the film and media image...e.g. old school, Eton educated dons. Many of them will be comprehensive school educated physicists.

I think that your school did very well to get 10 students Oxbridge places. As a comp. student who went to Cambridge I observed a lot of self-unselecting going on. 'It's not for the likes of me etc'

So, I would say, state school students need to be encouraged to apply but to also be able to cope with a rejection. Saying all that, the latter is difficult. When I was at school, there was a big bust up in our local county hockey team over Oxbridge places! Actually, it was the privately educated person who didn't get the place.

'I was talking about a 10:1 payoff, i.e., the rewards of winning an Oxbridge place are greater than the costs/effort of an application by a factor of 10. And I think the true ratio is much, much, higher than that.'

I do find it strange that you are trying to put these hypothetical figures on what is a PERSONAL CHOICE.

YOU may see it as 10:1 payoff but the student who is debt averse or the student caring for a parent or the student who wants to do a comination of courses offered not offered by Oxbridge, etc, etc may not.

You cannot project your personal opinions onto other people.

I find this lack of understanding that other people have backgrounds or circumstances or preferences which mean they do not see Oxbridge as a good or valid option for them truly astounding and it is certainly part of the problem and not the solution.

'In the business sector it is an axiom that in order to make a return, you have to take some risk. If these students are not willing to take the risk.... It appears that a lot of private school students are willing to take the risk. Whilst, overall, their chances are higher than state school applicants, 70% of private school applicants were still rejected.'

FGS we are not talking about the business sector we are talking about the personal choices of young people.

And can you honestly, in spite of all I've said, not understand why a private school student is likely to see Oxbridge application as less 'risky' financially or psychologically than a working class kid from a state school?

'I'm trying to say that, while you can clearly rate some students higher than others, there is a lot of noise in the application process. Even those you rate very highly have some non-zero chance of rejection. Conversely, even those you rate poorly have some non-zero chance of acceptance.'

That's no clearer.

You're trying to find jargonistic ways of avoiding the FACT that kids from private school have a much greater chance of getting into Oxbridge in spite of the fact that state schools go on to outperform those same students with the same or better grades.

And nothing will change the fact that no other students CHOSE to apply at my college and therefore any discussion about their hypothetical chances is really quite pointless.

If you don't apply you're not going to get in.

Students who don't want to apply cannot be forced to.

'Can we agree that it would be worthwhile to explore expanding these programs? Both to more schools and deeper into the student base? Particularly if Oxford and Cambridge could be persuaded to participate?'

Stunningly patronising.

Did you not read my lengthy descriptions of the programmes we ALREADY offer at my college??

Did you not read that we ALREADY send kids on summer schools etc put on by the Sutton Trust and others.

We also have open evenings and trips to Oxbridge in conjunction with other local schools.

We also have mentors who work with children from disadvantaged backgrounds from secondary school and help them cope with the transition to college and then help them at college with the transition to university.

Our programmes have won awards.

We also have websites with resources to help with these transitons and to stretch more able students from our feeder schools.

And I have been into schools and had able students from schools come in for extension classes.

I'd really like to give you links to some of this stuff but I'd end up giving away my whereabouts.

By the way, all of this stuff is likely to come to a halt since the funding is to be cut this year.

But we have been doing it successfully for years.

'Second, I see no contradiction in suggesting that additional information and education might overcome some of these cultural and/or financial barriers. It may be very hard, but that does not mean it is either impossible or not worth trying.'

Again, I really do find this extraordinary.

Trying to improve the life chances of young people often from disadvantaged backgrounds including young Muslim girls is what I do day in day out in hundreds of different ways.

The implication which comes across from many of your posts is that this hasn't actually occurred to me and to teachers like me when this is often what drives us to go in to teaching in the first place, what gets us up in the mornign, what makes us stay up till midnight marking, what means we spend lunchtimes counselling students....

I recognize you may not meen to sound patronising but if you had any idea what my life is like and what life is like for most of my students you really wouldn't be using the tone that you are.

@fivecandles:

I give up. You only seem interested in talking about yourself and your school. Well, to quote from an earlier post of yours, 'it's not about YOU'.

To any one else who is still following:

If you care about increasing access for disadvantaged students, I strongly urge you to read the summary of the Reach for Excellence scheme at Leeds University. The report indicates that outreach programs can significantly increase the number of state school students that get places in top universities as well as increasing the number continuing in any further education. It's only a page long but there's a link to the full report for the real anoraks (did I use that term correctly?).

www.suttontrust.com/news/news/innovative-access-scheme-hailed-a-success/

I noticed that the url gets mangled. You will need to copy the entire previous line, paste it into your browser's address bar, and delete the space that's in the middle of 'ac cess'.

To those who believe odds are tilted against state school students at top universities:

I agree, and changes should be made at the universities. But, in the meantime, things like the outreach program can help get more students access. At least those outside fivecandles' school, which is apparently already perfect.

I think again you are wilfully misinterpreting me expat.

I have been talking about my college (which you repeatedly refer to as a 'school')because I object to being lectured about the need to improve the chances for young people as though this hadn't occurred to me and to my colleagues both at my college and across the country and about how we might best go about this when my college has a proven track record and won awards in just that.

It may have escaped your attention but there aren't any other teachers on this thread who might benefit from your 'insights'.

Whereas, in fact, educating and improving life chances for young people is my vocation.