Not one pupil in Knowsley went to Oxbridge last year and only 2% went to RG universities.

[thebestisyettocome]

In adjoining areas, Sefton and Halton, admission to Oxbridge was also 0%.

I'm really angry about this. No wonder people who can afford to send their children to private school.

My guess is there are less SAHMs by choice up north anyway. Partly because the north has a proud history of women earning their own living from the mills onwards and partly because there are fewer men able to support their partners on their income alone.

Xenia I listed the top 10 grammars by A level results last year on another thread recently and the split was I think 60/40 South/North. Although my definition of North might include some people's definition of e.g. the midlands.

I'm pretty sure the average parental income of the Devon school is significantly lower than in most 'south' schools on the list. The state funding for the school is certainly well below average because of the funding model used by the DfE which disproportionately disadvantages schools in the south west (and some other areas).

You are sadly right about attitudes on (some of) the feminist threads. I've given up on the 'having it all' thread because of this.

I think you have a point about RG not being for everybody and the value of other institutes fivecandles but I'm really keen on keeping this thread on track and whether we like it or not, in the current climate RG grads will have the edge.

Xenia. Some years ago a very drippy woman I was acquainted with droned on at me about how she would love to send her children to private school. Once she paused for breath I innocently remarked that perhaps, if she decided to go back to work, she would be able to. She looked at me as if I was insane and barely spoke to me again. Given that I am in the north of England and fees are pretty reasonable I couldn't fathom what I had said that was so unreasonable.

Yes fivecandles. My grandma was a cotton mill worker. I always smile when people talk about the 'fifties housewife.' There weren't huge swathes of them in the industrial North.

I really do challenge the notion that a graduate of Manchester University has 'the edge' over a student from York or a student from Leeds has 'the edge' over a student from Exeter or even Leicester. Is there any evidence to support this view?

If a future employer has to whittle down a pile of CVs would they not prefer the Manchester University graduate to the MMU?

Well, you're right that MMU employment is 88 compared to 91 at MU but at Oxford Brookes it's 90.7% compared to 90.2% at Oxford so I'm not really sure what that tells us.

It's 93% at Reading which isn't a RG university.

Date here www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/18/graduate-employment-by-university-and-subject

You see? It's easy to make all sorts of assumptions that are actually not very helpful. They just perpetuate the prejudice and snobbery.

94%= at Aberdeen, Trinity and University of Surrey which are not RG and 93% at Nottingham Trent which is better than Nottingham Uni.

The various statistics being bandied about on this thread aren't doing much to reassure me about the value of statistics in general.

Someone cited the Guardian employment stats in relation to Oxford. Oxford graduates are more likely to do post-grad than many other students. If you add together the figures of 90.2% and 6.9% 'unavailable' they = 97.1, which isn't bad.

Yep, almost as good as Nottingham Trent which is 93.7 + 4.1 = 97.7

You see? There is an unchallenged assumption that Russell Group graduates have 'the edge' but the evidence isn't necessarily there at least in terms of graduate employment figures.

Arguably, once again, this thread says more about the prejudices and concerns of pushy parents than about the real challenges facing our young people.

In practise maybe all those Philosophy, Latin and Theology graduates at Oxford actually find that their degrees did not prepare them for employment as much as those graduates who may have opted for less 'traditional' courses at Nottingham Trent. Quelle surprise!

'The various statistics being bandied about on this thread aren't doing much to reassure me about the value of statistics in general.'

Well, that's what people always say then they find the statistics don't support their particular argument isn't it?

I'm not being snobby or prejudicial. The emplyment figures don't specify the type or quality of the employment. The simple fact is if you apply to, for example, chambers for pupillage, chances are they'll prefer an Oxbridge RG candidate. Of course people who do not go to either regularly get pupillage but it would be harder. The same principle applies to the best solictor/accountancy firms. As for medicine...

'The simple fact is if you apply to, for example, chambers for pupillage, chances are they'll prefer an Oxbridge RG candidate'

I'm not going to dispute this but what I'm saying is that it all comes down to prestige. Parents and employers ASSUME that RG universities and Oxbridge are better than other universities and this becomes self-perpetuating.

I just find it a bit strange that people waste so much energy in getting angry that Oxbridge and RG universities exclude most students (and particularly students from deprived backgrounds) when this is precisely what they aim to do.

Well I don't actually have any argument in particular fivecandles so that usual refrain doesn't attach. I can certainly see errors in the original DfE data so I'm a bit meh about that. And these employment stats are pretty junky too: what field of employment? permanent or temporary? how many are 'unavailable' due to post-grad and how many for other reasons etc. etc. It's just another hall of mirrors tbh.

All I want is an level playing field fivecandles.
The issue of the merits or otherwise of other unversities is a different matter entirely.

I used to work for an investment bank - for graduate recruitment they certainly targeted particular UK universities, and even for experienced hires having gone to a 'prestigious' university was an advantage.

That's not to say it would be impossible for a strong applicant from another insitution to get an offer, but I would agree that the Oxbridge/RG graduates did have a certain 'edge'.

The employment percentages really don't tell you much on their own. For example often the 'new' universities have a higher percentage of mature and part-time students who are more likely to have a job afterwards either because they already have one, or have significant work experience. It would be interesting to see average starting salary as well!

I posted those figures in response the the poster who is insisting that RG graduates have 'the edge' over non RG graduates. I have provided evidence that at least in terms of employment figures this is not the case. Where IS the evidence of such an edge then?

In what way is a graduate of Manchester at an advantage over a graduate of York?

I think several people have tried to answer this point fivecandles, myself included.

'All I want is an level playing field fivecandles.
The issue of the merits or otherwise of other unversities is a different matter entirely.'

Aaaahhhh.

You can NEVER have a level playing field where you have 20 universities that are considered the best, given more funding and are allowed to cream of the students who are on paper the best.

As I have said even if these students suddenly refused to accept any students from the independnetn sector and took only the best studetns from the state sector, they would still be excluding the majority of students.

If your kid gets in that means somebody else's doesn't.

The system is designed NOT to be a level playing field.

'think several people have tried to answer this point fivecandles, myself included.'

No, various people have made all sorts of assumptions.

Not one person has offered any EVIDENCE that a graduate of Manchester has 'the edge' over a graduate of York for example.

Please do not patronise me fivecandles. I am not an expert of education but that doesn't invalidate my opinion.
When I said a level playing field I meant for the children, NOT the universities.

And if you reverse the logic, why don't all the highest achievers go to Oxford Brookes instead of to the university?

Half these tables tell us almost nothing at all.

Stop bloody going on about York. It is a good university but the children of Knowsley, Sefton etc who I am concerned with probably haven't gone there en masse
Why not talk about comparing Manchester with Edge Hill instead?