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.

This is also interesting Are state schools biased against Oxbridge?, though in that case it seems to be less about bias and more about lack of resources to help pupils get through the application/selection process.

And Stop sneering at 'posh' universities.

I absolutely agree with what she says about other universities being just as full of posh students, if not more so - I live in Bristol, and the house opposite me (costing £600k+) was bought by a family for their daughter and her friends to live in while they are students here. Very nice, very posh girls - they have a car each, and can regularly be seen unloading their Waitrose bags full of shopping...

Oxbridge gives a superior educational experience to other Universities

It is impossible to generalise this especially since universities change over time and what might have been good, bad or indifferent when we all went could have changed. It does a real disservice to our education system to have this narrow focus on Oxbridge being equated to 'the best, always'.

They remain superior if unfair social advantage is what you are after, no question.

(mummy, I know you did post later to qualify your statement but I still think this needs saying)

That's the whole point! Oxford and Cambridge have perfected their teaching and research over the last 900 years to the extent that they are consistently in the top 5 universities in the world, despite being much less well funded than many Ivy League schools. They have found an admissions method that works and they are sticking to it. And incidentally the admissions tutors at my college at least interview every applicant differently in order to try to get the best out of them. You have no idea what lengths they will go to to find out what an applicant has to offer. They know that many state school pupils will not have the same range of experience as very well-off urbane independent pupils and will absolutely adapt even the type of questions to the applicant and their experiences. I firmly believe than within the realms of possibility every possible adjustment is made to assist applicants from poorer backgrounds through the admissions process.

Okay my experience, I got my first, not brilliant degree (a desmond) from a Russell group Uni. After I got my degree I actually got certain jobs, which someone from a first from Oxford would not have been considered, unless they had a lot of work experience. This was because my degree included aspects of my subject which employers valued highly, but is not part of the Oxbridge degrees in my subject.
I then went on to study for a Masters, and then went to Oxford as a graduate, and was very lucky to get into a wealthy academic college. Most of the graduates were State school educated, and my highly academic college preferred State school pupils, even though among the Undergrads there was probably a slim majority of privately educated students.

Some schools (Comps and Grammars) do their best to get all their pupils to achieve their best, and encourage the more able to aim for Oxbridge (although some may turn down Oxbridge for somewhere else more aligned to their interests). Some schools underestimate their pupils, or stereotype them (this is why I didn't want my quirky DS to go to one school, the risk was too great). In others there are teachers who despair because their bright pupils: don't want to leave home for Uni, think Oxbridge is not for them, or settle for any job they can get.

I am not against private schools on principle but I can fully understand people with that view point still wanting/allowing their kids to go to Oxbridge.

Ds state school took their brightest kids to Clare college last year to get a taster of being a student at Cambridge, what struck him was the A* grade requirements are only the starting point of getting in and what they are looking for are the ones who have been taught to think way beyond the exams and can hold their own in intense 1-1 tutorials for the next 3 years. This is where state schools who teach only to the test really let their kids down.

"Poosh - you seem to think Oxford and Cambridge are full to the brim with 'rah' types ..... Maybe go and see for yourself instead of perpetuating a myth that hasn't been true for a generation?"

I said that Oxbridge is disproportionately stocked with Public/PRIVATE/GS students.

How do you manage to translate that into me claiming that the place is full of upper class kids.?

... and I don't need to go there to see. My City firm recruits their fast track candidates almost exclusively from there but please do feel free to educate me as to what goes on there because I have no idea

"What goes on there" might be slightly different depending on who you talk to.

People who apply for "City firm fast track" are a self-selecting group and may not be representative of the full variety.

"Oh, so my dcs are privileges becasue they#re bright? So what should I do then as a good left-wing proletariat?"

@titchy - I can't use any smaller words to get my point across. I am NOT saying that being bright is a privilege

"So you're objecting to the fact that once you have been to Oxbridge you get advantages that others don't get?

But in general once you have been to University you get advantages that people who haven't been don't get"

@Trills

Again, that is NOT what I am saying

I am not objecting. I am asserting the opinion that a graduate from Oxbridge has an advantage over a graduate from a red brick. And, as you have said, a graduate from any university has an advantage over a non-graduate.

Everybody seems fine with that.

Well, I fail to see the subtle difference between being fine with the above but not fine with a Privately schooled kid having an advantage over a state school kid.

I'm running out of ways to rephrase my point.

"what they are looking for are the ones who have been taught to think way beyond the exams and can hold their own in intense 1-1 tutorials for the next 3 years. This is where state schools who teach only to the test really let their kids down."

Precisely. And this is why there is such a huge discrepancy among schools between "examination league tables" and "destination university league tables".

I fail to see the subtle difference between being fine with the above but not fine with a Privately schooled kid having an advantage over a state school kid

a) that is not my reason, or the only reason to be opposed to private education. However if we assume 'advantage', then
b) getting to Oxford or Cambridge through your own hard work and paying the same tuition fees you would elsewhere when you get there is different, IMO, from getting to a school through your parents' ability to pay for it.

I fail to see the subtle difference between being fine with the above but not fine with a Privately schooled kid having an advantage over a state school kid

It's about equality of opportunity. Surely the difference is that private schools offer an advantage to those whose parents have the money to pay for it (with exceptions for bursaries etc), but Oxbridge is open to all, whether or not they have money? It selects entirely on merit, and funding is available to all.

And of course people who have proved they are intelligent and hard-working enough to get into and then graduate from university are going to have an advantage in the job market over people who haven't - do you think employers should just randomly select people no matter what their qualifications?

Equality of opportunity does not lead to equality of outcome.

I'm getting a headache from knocking my head against the desk. I am NOT trying to equate private schools with Oxbridge.

*And as for Oxbridge candidates being favoured over Redbrick uni candidates.... they are going to want to employ the best. Why is that unfair?"

Are you saying that a First from Oxbridge is superior to First from Bristol, for example?

Your parents' income = ability to pay for schooling = privilege

Your natural academic ability = ability to go to university = not privileged.

It's quite simple really.

Oh and your OP says 'Oxbridge is one of the most exclusive and privileged clubs around.'

That's pretty much saying it's full of upper classes, when in fact it is neither exclusive nor privileged.

Poosh the quality of a First is most definitely relative to where it's from, yes.

And maybe if you stopped smashing your head about you would make more sense: you clearly ARE equating private schools with Oxbridge because you think it is illogical to be against one and not the other, and you think the reasons for being against the one all apply to the other!

If one person doesn't understand you, that's probably his/her fault. If two don't, you need to rephrase the question. If you spend all day slamming your head on a desk, you need to ask yourself a few questions....

Well, I fail to see the subtle difference between being fine with the above but not fine with a Privately schooled kid having an advantage over a state school kid.

One of these advantages has been purchased with parental money. The other has been got through hard work and natural ability.

"getting to Oxford or Cambridge through your own hard work and paying the same tuition fees you would elsewhere when you get there is different, IMO"

It is only different from your perspective.

Upthread I mentioned my Oxford mate who got a place on a fast track stream that wasn't subject to open competition. He got it because his tutor had a relationship with the head hunters at the bank.

In that scenario is the nudge and the wink ok because my friend comes from a state school?

Yes, my perspective is what I was giving. Because you asked what people thought the difference was. So I gave you my perspective. Do you see, or would you like a brick to bang your head with some more?

Trills - "The other has been got through hard work and natural ability"

Most/all of the cabinet ministers and the PM himself are Oxbridge grads. Please don't tell me that you think that they got their positions because they are the brightest and the best :o

My head hurts

Sadly, academically they probably are amongst the brightest.

Not the best though. Not by a long chalk

"Oh and your OP says 'Oxbridge is one of the most exclusive and privileged clubs around.'

That's pretty much saying it's full of upper classes, when in fact it is neither exclusive nor privileged."

It is exclusive in that not anyone can get a place since you usually need AAAA. How does that translate into me asserting that it is full of the upper classes?

"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."

A lot of working class kids simply don't apply. I think the problem is a climate of low expectations that start before a child can even walk in some areas of the country. It is hard for a bright child to fight the culture of people giving up before their education has even started.

I believe that low expections of very small children in working class areas is what limits working students going to Oxbridge rather than comprehensives. A culture of stretching our brightest children at primary school harms them further down the line.

In someways I find it stupid to refer to two SEPERATE universities as Oxbridge. Both universities offer a wide range of courses and all these courses have different admission tutors.