If you can afford private education but remain in the state sector...

[TheseJeansHaveShrunk]

It's going to be hard to avoid this becoming another state v private thread, but what I'm interested in is a slightly different take on that debate. It's not "which is better?" but "if you think state school is better even though you could afford private education, then why is that?"

The question is based on the assumptions that the DC in question is/are reasonably bright (so might benefit academically from academically selective education), that the state school is non-selective (as most people don't have access to grammar schools), and that you hope for your DC to go to a good university (to make the £££££ fees worthwhile!)

I've been mulling this over ever since I heard some maths professor from Cambridge talking on the radio about the age-old private v state inequality of Oxbridge admissions. He was all for improving access for state school applicants but said that the simple fact was that for maths, even the best state schools generally teach only to the A-level syllabus, whereas the best private schools take their maths/further maths A-level candidates well beyond the syllabus and so the state school applicants are at a huge disadvantage - they simply don't have the starting level of knowledge required for the course.

This made me wonder: with this sort of unequal playing field, if you have the choice of private education, what reasons might you have not to take it?

Would be interested to hear from those who've made this choice - how it's working out, or if your DC have finished school now, how did it work out? Did they go to good universities/get good jobs, etc? On the other side of things, if you paid for private schooling but now regret it, why?

My DC go to a state school by the way.

.

Why some schools send more to Oxbridge than others when all other things seem to be equal is not necessary easy to ascertain. One independent with over 70% getting A and A*'s sent less than 10% 13 out of 170 this year that would be comparable with schools with significantly lower results. Maybe it related to the choice of course; for those wishing to study medicine Oxbridge may not be everyones first choice I'm sure this applies to other subjects. On the other hand our local comp sends about 5 -6 a year.

Not sure about whether it's statistically insignificant, but the reasons why A sends more than B are incredibly significant if you're looking at how you can make a fairer society.

There are people who think that it's fine for the rich/and or privileged to automatically have more choices than the poor and/or disadvantaged. For those of us that don't, knowing why A sends more kids to Russell Group than B is key.

It's like 0.2 or 0.5% of each year's cohort of 18-19yos, Naming, who go to Oxbridge. Very tiny percentage. Amazing how much MNers obsess about getting their offspring into "top universities", meaning Oxbridge. Lots of amazing offspring is the norm, I guess.

If my kids manage a decent set of GCSEs at 16 and not to become drug addicts I'll be delighted (plenty of people in my family failed on both points).

The difference between comprehensive A and comprehensive B is easily explained.

Is there such a thing as a comprehensive sixth form? We are a comprehensive but there is a huge intake at sixth form - the cohort doubles in size - who are selected. We feature in one of those Sutton Trust 'top 100 Comps' tables. We require a minimum of 7 GCSE for sixth form entry, for new intake and home-grown.
As a double whammy, as said upthread, our gain is some other school's loss.

I suppose I think of "getting to Oxbridge" as a sort of code for a school giving kids the widest possible range of choice in life. If you are capable of getting to Oxbridge, your school should be in a position to support you in trying. Most people won't be able to/won't want to. But is should be an option available to anyone from any background. And it isn't.

"Why some schools send more to Oxbridge than others when all other things seem to be equal is not necessary easy to ascertain."

I think we need to remember that it is not a given that every Y13 wants to go to Oxbridge. Sure, in those highly academic private schools whose very raison d'être is to get pupils to Oxbridge, almost everybody probably does want to. But I really, genuinely don't think that the very particular atmosphere at Oxford and Cambridge appeals to everyone. We are starting from a false premise if we assume every Y13 pupil wants to go to Oxbridge and then look at entry statistics and try to manipulate them from there.

As I said in my post of 9.05, bonsoir..

I agree, Oxford and Cambridge, like grammar schools, don't suit every bright person. They don't even suit every academic person. Interestingly, also, those of my friends who enjoyed being at Oxford the most are not those who got the best degree results...

"I agree, Oxford and Cambridge, like grammar schools, don't suit every bright person. They don't even suit every academic person"

But it shouldn't be socio economic background or the system that decides whether or not you have a go at getting in.

Bonsoir I agree I suspect at the top 20 schools Oxbridge entry is part of the package. I was surprised by how many parents at my DS2's school were assuming even in yr 9 that their DS would automatically go onto Oxbridge. Ive nothing against parents or children aspiring to anything but this seems to be a given for many.

My DSS1 has been doing his UCAS application this autumn, as have many other French final year lycée pupils that I know. Very few want to try for Oxford or Cambridge (and most of those that do have a British parent who went there themselves). They don't want to go because they don't think they would like the cloistered atmosphere in a college in a small town. They are used to, and want, a metropolis and a lot of freedom. Their socio-economic background clearly determines their preference. But it is not a poor or disadvantaged socio-economic background.

I agree bonsoir and my son and his friends all want to be able to still access the life they have had at home ad are not running away to live the student life as it is an outdated idea of how young people live.

"the cloistered atmosphere in a college in a small town"
Interesting point although I don't think Oxford can be called a small town! My DN has just gone to Oxford and is living in halls he was describing it to me and I thought it was like being at boarding school. He's lead a relatively protected life nice London day school and I can see that it would suit him on the other hand I was less sure it would suit my DS whose boarded since he was 7. IMO part of university is experiencing new things hence our interest in universities outside of the UK.

I lived in Oxford for a while (not as a student) and almost died of boredom! Whether or not you think it is a small town depends on where you are used to living (and what you are used to doing).

"IMO part of university is experiencing new things hence our interest in universities outside of the UK."

I agree very much with this. Much more interesting IMO to go to Harvard or Yale or Columbia if you have been at a top school in England.

I was born in London but have lived and worked in Oxford at different stages in my life I love it there! I now do live in a small town (pop less that 6000) so really do know what it means to live in a "cloistered atmosphere" of a small town Oxford positively rocks in comparison!

Bonsoir and increasingly Beijing and others. A wonderful life enhancing/changing opportunity for those prepared to take it.

Asia is an awfully long way for an undergraduate degree, IMO. Hard to pop home for the weekend if you are feeling homesick!

One of my cousins went to ANU (Canberra) and did a semester in China and a semester in Canada as part of her undergraduate degree. She is about as cosmopolitan a twenty-something as they come (and very clever) but she now hates China (after three long stays). I have another (even more clever!) cousin who read Chinese at Cambridge years ago and spent a year in China - also hates it. So I am a bit about how much fun doing a UG in China might be!

Its very complex we know quite a few at the Ivy League the vast majority love it but one absolutely loathes it he wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Two friends of mine did their 2nd year of UG studies in Canada one never came home the other left half way through. The problem is that you don't know before you get there.

"Their socio-economic background clearly determines their preference. But it is not a poor or disadvantaged socio-economic background."

Bonsoir, I do wonder what you get out of being deliberately obtuse.

Cambridge is much smaller than Oxford.

I think how stimulating one finds Oxford depends on who one knows there, what one does there, and various other things. As life in most places, I imagine. I grew up there (and did want to get away for Uni, as it was home and therefore - at 18 - stifling), have various family members there, and interestingly find the non-Uni people love it as much if not more than the academics.

I suspect the 'Holy Grail' it is held up to be (to people who didn't grow up there!) leads to disappointment, though.

And my mother complains of the damp

I'm not remotely obtuse. You, however, have a bee in your bonnet à la Xenia. Single-issue politics is not usually very successful

I agree, happygardening. One of the reasons we have sent DSS2 to summer camp in the US (last summer and he will go again this summer) is so that he can get more of a feel for the US and make a more realistic assessment of whether he might like to go there for UG. But I realise we (and he) are very fortunate to be able to provide that opportunity.

I love the word obtuse am going to try and use it today which shouldn't be hard as I am dealing with planners!