Interesting: teachers misconception about state school pupils ending in top Unis

[camaleon]

"Fewer than half of teachers at state schools would advise pupils to apply to top universities, a new study shows - but many do not realise that a majority of Oxbridge students come from state schools"

Article here

TwoIfBySea - in my case, it's about Oxbridge, because it found it a fabulous place to study and streets ahead of the (also very good) university I moved on to for my postgraduate degree.

I am honestly totally relaxed about whether either of my children want to go there. If it's not the appropriate choice for them, or for their preferred career, that's fine. But I don't want them to be sold the lie that "people like them" don't go there.

I think you are right Chicken, its about the choice. And a lot of kids who could have went there, just don't see it as a possible choice in the first place.

Chandon and Yellowtip well said.
I think it was last year @ the Easter NUT whingefest, Christine Blower (?) said that independent schools should be abolished because they get better results than state schools - what sort of barmy 'logic ' is that, logically should be the reverse - hope she isn't still allowed anywhere near a classroom.

I'm shocked that talkingpeace says that Kirklees teachers believe none of the kids round there will get into Oxford or Cambridge. Kirklees (West Yorkshire) has a mix of towns and villages, some very deprived, some very comfortable countryside. I moved away from my own village at primary school level but my friends who stayed included some very bright people who did go to RG universities (don't know any who went to Oxbridge but then I lost touch with plenty, there may have been some).

I don't mean kids in deprived areas shouldn't aspire to go to Oxford, btw, just that it's more understandable if teachers think it's less likely to be available to them. Hopefully teachers should challenge those views, but given prejudice and resources it's less likely to work out for a kid from a council estate in Dewsbury than a child from a big house in Denby Dale.

So Yt what is your comparable figure? 50% of oxbridge entry is 4-5000 students. How many public school pupils applyfor uni each year?
Are you arguing that oxbridge applicants =all highest ability public school applicants + all highest ability state school applicants?

edam - So are you saying that kids like I was who come from very poor areas and do get the grades, are less likely to do well at Oxford?

MrsGuy - what a ridiculous assertion.

In fact kids frim poor areas who do get the do better than privately educated kids at to unis..because of the full ability distribution of privately educated kids getting in v a high ability range from state...

No, Zombie, in fact I think the research shows kids from deprived areas who get into Oxbridge do far better than the over-privileged who regard it as their right. I meant it's harder for kids from deprived areas and poorly-performing schools to get into Oxbridge, so it's understandable if their teachers realise this - only I think the teachers should be trying to break down those barriers, not putting up with/enforcing them.

Betty, I'm arguing that even those determined to perpetuate the myth that Oxford hasn't moved on from the Brideshead era need to do more than pluck a nonsensical figure out of the air as a false premise on which to try to hang a worthless conclusion.

Both universities are doing their utmost to counter the inverted snobbery that holds too many pupils back from having a go. Pointless rants such as yours serve to put off those who could potentially benefit greatly from the education and social life and mobility that going to Oxford or Cambridge can afford.

That said, IME it's certainly better for those who do apply to have adults supporting them who make it clear that the world won't fall apart if they don't get in. State schoolers from non-traditional backgrounds should at least often have the edge in that respect, even if disadvantaged in others.

Thing is, you don't have to be all that bright to get into Oxford - or certainly I found that, back when I was there. Private schools tended to know this, and shovel the not so fabulous people in as well as the really bright ones. (The two thickest boys in my year at my college were the old Etonians.) Whereas state schools tended only to assume it was only for a very, very few.

I was rather taken aback, in fact, at just how errr average quite a lot of people were . I was rather hoping for arty pretension and intellectual giants, whereas in fact my first term was disconcertingly like being back in the sixth form. (I nearly left.)

Why the fixation with Oxbridge? Plenty of other places, where less risk of mingling wth the rich thick ones who have bought their way into the place. If bright kids have been unfairly persuaded by their feeble Kirklees etc teachers to go elsewhere and 'rich thick public school types' got to Oxbridge - why don't haven't those other universities eclipsed Oxbridge?

1. How long ago were you there though motherinferior?

and

1. Lots of people who go to Oxford or Cambridge think they aren't very bright and therefore misjudge quite a few of their peer group too.

Ooh, perhaps you thought you were too bright then mother!

I went to Cambridge from a (pretty good) state school. When I was a student I did a lot of work visiting schools and talking to pupils about Cambridge. As an admissions tutor, I tried my up most to reach out to teachers and get them to encourage people apply.

Because, the real problem is with applications. On average, there is little difference between your chances of securing a place once you have applied, in that offers:applicants ratios are comparable between independent, maintained selective and maintained non-selective applicants. But as you work along that list fewer people apply.

But it's not ambition that is necessarily the problem, so much as ignorance. Few Oxbridge educated folk end up as six-form tutors in maintained schools. Therefore kids are advised by people who are ambitious, who genuinely want the best tertiary education for their children, but who don't perceive that as likely at Oxbridge. The question is how based in realities those perceptions are, and how best to change them. King's, Cambridge, for example, has a decades long record of having 95%+ maintained entrants (which is better than most redbricks). But most teachers discourage applicants because they don't think a choir-based public school heavy education is right for their bright kids.

Well miss 'facts not prejudice' you seem to be doing a very good job of avoiding any - what are your assumptions about numbers and ability then? Or are you just putting me in an anti-toff box and going 'lalalalala'

Ages ago. I was quite good at my subject - came top in the exam to get in, which meant I had a scholarship - but no, I expected everyone else to be quite dauntingly brilliant.

oh flip.. the reason quality of UGs is not relevant is because .. its not relevant... to 'performance' of the university. Sheesh is everyone really this ignorant! The justification often used is the 'top jobs' argument, but seeing as 'top' recruiters have a Oxbridge/russell bias built in this is hardly a good measure..

FWIW I tend to think that if I could get into Oxford most people can.

WorriedBetty

The facts are in the second paragraph. If you apply, you are just as likely to get in regardless of your background. You have been for years, ever since separate entrance tests and general interviews were removed precisely because monitoring suggested a bias was evident. Any tutor who in a n interview even suggests that background is a factor is breaking every guideline there is. And it's all self-interest: why on earth would anyone thinking about a (minimum) three-year relationship with a young person's learning and about the future of their subject want to fill their tutorials with thicker people with the right accent?

I don't think the 'only the best from maintained schools' argument works either. My experience was that clusters emerged-a school put forward a candidate, they got in, next year they put forward a lot more, and more got in.

This doesn't mean universities don't have a lot of work to do themselves in reaching out, and I hate the idea that teachers are being unambitious.

But the fact remains, pick an application at random from those received, and that applicant has the same statistical chance of securing a place regardless of their background. If you don't apply, you have zero chance.

I agree with a lot of the posters. However, to assert that state schools are "frightened of change" and continue to feed "the lowest common denominator" is insulting to the teachers who have faced change on an annual basis, most of it positive.
The 80s saw the introduction of GCSEs to replace O levels and there was an erosion of academic rigour at that time, which has since been rectified. I teach at the school where my children went- a state comprehensive. Our results equal those of our local selective schools; our students go on to degrees at Oxford, Cambridge and the other high status universities; our parents and staff have very high expectations.
I accept I am very biased and have little knowledge of the private sector. At the end of the day, we all want the best for our children, whatever schools they attend.

Which raises the question as to who does most damage to efforts to get the brightest to Oxbridge-those who discourage applicants by telling them it's impossible, or those who are struggling (and not yet succeeding) to tell them it is (even if you think we're lying).