Is it hypocrital to be against private schools as a matter of principle and be in favour of Oxbridge?

[PooshTun]

In the last few weeks there have been various threads about private education and a number of posters turned up to say that they were against private education because it was socially unfair and because it lacked diversity.

Fair enough but some posters then go on to say that the went to a comp and that didn't stop them from going onto Oxbridge while others go on about how they aspire for DC to go to Oxbridge.

Am I the only one that thinks that this smacks of hypocrisy? It is generally acknowledged that Oxbridge favours the middle classes especially those from a GS and private/public school background. Some companies that I know of exclusively recruit their fast track graduates from Oxbridge. Just look at our political leaders and where they went.

Oxbridge is one of the most exclusive and privileged clubs around. How can you be against sending to your DC to the indie down the road while being an Oxbridge graduate yourself or while aspiring for DC to gain entry to Oxbridge?

Private school entry is based on money while Oxbridge is based on merit, I hear you say. Tell that to the working class kids that don't get in despite having great grades.

Private school kids are all full of well off kids whereas Oxbridge has a diversified student base I hear you say. The place is full of mega rich kids from the UK and overseas. Not to mention the private school kids you are so keen to avoid.

Oh, you again!

Oxford and Cambridge are indeed too full of children from private schools, and there's a lot I'm not keen on about them - posh kids who can row being allowed to do arch and anth with poor A level grades and so on. AFAIK they are trying to redress the balance with state educated children at interview, but the system has been in place so long that obviously that's going to take a while to filter through. If you saw 56 up, it was quite flabbergasting how the posh prep boys' futures were so mapped out at 7: 'I'll be going to Chartehouse and then Magdalen and then the Bar' and so on - and it worked!

However the system of getting in at 18 where your grades take you is the only one we have: basically we have an 18+ I suppose. But at 18 it's slightly fairer than at 11!

I'm not at all convinced I do want dd to go to Cambridge - dp didn't particularly enjoy it. But at 18 it is for them to decide, not you.

Oxbridge gives a superior educational experience to other Universities. They are still a publicly funded universities, and they tries very hard to recruit those from less affluent backgrounds. They also provide very generous bursaries etc.

Working class kids with great grades do get in if they apply. I have known academics for the last 20+ years who would positively discriminate in favour of those from less privileged background because :" If they have 3 As I know they are bright, if they went to somewhere like Eton, I am not so sure."

Are you saying we should all waste our money on sending our kids to the worst universities?

BTW I am not saying that Oxbridge are the only good Unis, there are others I would be very proud for my kids to attend.

Don't be ridiculous.

Oxford and Cambridge cost no more than any other university, so how are they comparable to a private school?

They are selective on merit, not on money or on what school you went to.

In many cases it can be cheaper to go to an old college with lots of money because they will feed you and house you (charging low rents for city-centre rooms that you only have to pay for during term time) and give our bursaries or prizes at the drop of a hat.

Tell that to the working class kids that don't get in despite having great grades.

There are shedloads of kids from all backgrounds who don't get in despite having great grades. It's just that the ones that make the best story for the newspapers are those from more interesting backgrounds.

"But at 18 it is for them to decide, not you."

Please point to where I pass an opinion about where your DCs' future choice of university.

Oops. The grammar is a bit off.

"Are you saying we should all waste our money on sending our kids to the worst universities?"

No I am not I am saying that it is hypocritical to be a product of one of the most privileged clubs in the world AND then argue that one is against private schools because of the privilege.

Why is a privileged education at 11 bad but one at 18 is good?

No.

Private schools are wrong because accessing them depends on parental wealth, predominantly. Getting a good education should not depend on parental wealth because that is fundamentally unfair.

Oxbridge does indeed have a disproportionate number of students who have benefited from the fundamentally unfair education system we have in this country. However, admission is not predicated on being able to pay.

Therefore it is not hypocritical to be against private schools on principle and in favour of Oxbridge.

What are the actual percentages of state versus privately educated at Oxford and Cambridge? And I wonder how it varies with different colleges ie I'd expect Kings Cambridge to have more private school than some although I might be wrong.

And what are percentages for other high achieving universities?

I imagine it's about the difference between qualifying for something on merit and buying your way in.

(I'm not against private schools in principle anyway, but I can see that it's totally logical to disapprove of buying an education but not to disapprove of taking advantage of something that costs the same but is better)

The education system is not unfair. Parents in the UK are free to educate their children as they deem fit. That is pretty fair to me.

King's college in Cambridge was originally set up by Henry VI as a college for boys from Eton but these days it has one of the highest proportions of state school students. In the 70s and 80s it was jokingly thought of as the Communist college, and had a hammer and sickle flag in the bar.

So your guess of it having more private school students is very wrong - don't judge colleges on their architecture!

"Oxford and Cambridge cost no more than any other university, so how are they comparable to a private school?"

a) Oxbridge are currently trying to break the £9k cap. Their argument is that it brings them into line with American Ivy League universities who charge about £30k pa. If they get their way then they WILL cost more than other universities.

b) I made no reference to cost. I am directing my post at those people who object to private school as a matter of principle.

"They are selective on merit, not on money or on what school you went to"

I don't have ready access to the relevant links but that is why God created Google, but private/public/GS kids are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge. And if they have their way, they will be charging £30k pa in a few years time. So, yes it matters which school you went to and how much money you have.

"There are shedloads of kids from all backgrounds who don't get in despite having great grades. It's just that the ones that make the best story for the newspapers are those from more interesting backgrounds."

Agreed but the fact remains that private/public/GS kids are disproportionately represented at Oxbridge.

I disagree, Bonsoir. If you want to educate privately, you have to have lots of money. In the case of selective state schools and special schools the establishment effectively picks the child. Mainstream state schools have stringent catchment and entrance criteria. There are some excellent schools in all sectors, imo, but it is patently not the case that all children have equal access to a full range of educational opportunities.

Trills- there aren't 'kids from all backgrounds' at Oxbridge. The % of black students and students from families in poverty is much smaller than it should be. The state pupils who do get in come from nice middle class homes and go to good catchment comps or grammar schools.

Poosh:*But at 18 it is for them to decide, not you."

Please point to where I pass an opinion about where your DCs' future choice of university.*

You've misunderstood: what I'm saying is that at 11 it is your (one's) choice where your child goes to school. At 18 the decision about where to apply is their own, so one's own principles aren't the main factor any more.

"Therefore it is not hypocritical to be against private schools on principle and in favour of Oxbridge"

What you seem to be saying is that it is ok to have a privileged education if it isn't based on the ability to pay. To me, privilege is privilege.

My state school friend was a bit of a slacker at Oxford so it came as a surprise when he got a First. After his results were known his tutor took him aside and asked him if he would be interested in a job at X Bank. He said yes and he was in, such was the influence and reach of his tutor.

Two years later the Bank sponsored him to do a MBA at Harvard and at the age of 35 he is an millionaire, what with his 6 figure salary, bonuses and share options. All because his tutor had a special relationship with the Bank's head hunters. An exceptional graduate with a First from a redbrick wouldn't even get a foot through the door.

I suspect that you would be well pissed off that if a Private School kid gets the coveted internship over your DC because of his school's relationship with an employer. So I don't understand why you think its ok for a state school kid to get that coveted graduate job over yours simply because of his university's relationship with the employer.

Thats me told . Was in two minds about whether to try thinking of a college as knew id probably be wrong!

I would imagine both oxford and Cambridge have a greater proportob of privately educated students than the UK as a whole but coming from a comprehensive school where going to Oxford or Cambridge did happen I don't see it as a place where you need to be privately educated to go. However it helped that some teachers there had gone to Cambridge as they knew there was no reason to not go there. Plus they were able to give focussed exam preparation for STEP exams etc.

TOSN - I stand corrected.

But neither am I commenting on a child's choice. I am merely addressing the parents who are Oxbridge alumni or parents that aspire for their kids to go to Oxbridge.

Lots of statistics about Oxford admissions here:
www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/undergraduate_admissions_statistics/index.html

To me, privilege is privilege.

Are you saying that no-one should ever have anything that is better than what anyone else has? I don't really understand.

Oh this does annoy me.

Oxford got £131 million in Research funds this year. Do you really think it will give up that to be able to charge an extra £20k to each of its 9,000 undergrads - a net gain of around £50 million, BUT ONLY if it didn't offer any extra bursaries etc, and managed to recruit the same number of home students. It already competes on an international stage, and sets whatever fees it feels the market can bear for overseas students.

There may be a higher mix of privately educated students (but still less than half!), but that's always going to be the case given that 30% of comprehensive students go to univesity at all, but 90% of privately schooled studnets do. Access is by merit and not money so there is no dichotomy or hypocracy.

That isn;t to say that the comps don't need to work harder at making sure their brightest students are given the right advice over GCSE and AL choices - they do. But to call me a hyprocrit becuase my dcs are state educated with Oxbridge ambitions (actually they don't have any such ambition!) is ridiculous.

@Miranda

A number of DS's teachers are Oxbridge graduates. Each year their admissions people come to give presentations and the school hold sessions where the students are given 'direction' on how to handle the application process.

As a result of the above, about 25% secure an Oxbridge offer.

So, yes you don't need to be privately educated in order to get into Oxbridge but it does help if you are.

I think saying you're 'not in favour of Oxbridge' would be like saying you're not in favour of barristers, or the medical profession or something. Too many wealthy people get into all those things, but that doesn't make them a negative thing to aspire to in themselves.

Oh, so my dcs are privileges becasue they#re bright? So what should I do then as a good left-wing proletariat? Hit them on the head, keep them up all night just before their exams so they only do averagely well? Then everyone will be the same!

Being academic is NOT a privilege any more than being 6 foot 2 is a privilege. It just is!