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.

.

'I'm sure there are plenty of other students who see subfusc as neutral. Masses probably'

WTF. Most students haven't a clue what 'subfusc' is and would, rightly, see it as absurd, outdated and offputting.

The fact that you think that the 'masses' see it as 'neutral' makes you sound as out of touch as Marie Antoinette. Let them eat cake!!

I'm referring to masses of other students at Oxford fivecandles, all of whom will know what subfusc is. I didn't refer to 'the masses'. The three of mine who are at home now say subfusc is perfectly harmless, costs very little and probably does help with exams. Not a single one is remotely right wing. So what if it's borne of tradition? Life would be pretty grey and miserable if we wiped out all tradition - and for what purpose, when it's harmless? I'm very in touch indeed as a matter of fact. And I think you're vastly exaggerating the homogeneity of the student body at Oxford and Cambridge. I find it gratifyingly diverse, particularly when compared to certain other RG universities. That doesn't mean no more needs to be done, but it's not all rich kids, that's for sure. Besides which why shouldn't clever rich kids have an education there too? Surely they've at least as much right, if they're cleverer than the less well off who apply? The appeal for me as a parent is overwhelmingly the education the place provides and the fact that each DC who goes there has an interesting and talented peer group for friends. Nothing to do with the shallow stuff you impute, that's just a bonus (though some of the accomodation is utterly shit, much less good than elsewhere - you may need to get up to spped with that too).

'And I think you're vastly exaggerating the homogeneity of the student body at Oxford and Cambridge.'

An institution where approx 50% of the population have been educated independently and, once again, where as many students have come from 5 (just 5!!!!!!!) schools is really quite homogenous. It is in no way representative of the population as a whole.

There is probably information about the sort of schools the other 50% have come from and you'll see grammar schools and faith schools disproportionately represented there too. The link posted earlier tells us where they DON'T come from and that's particularly from deprived regions in the north. It also remains the case that Oxbridge does not reflect the ethnic diversity in the country either.

I can't imagane why anyone would suggest that things are otherwise, whatever their take on it, unless it is because they are uninformed or are trying to deliberately mislead, making Oxbridge sound more accessible than it evidently is.

'Just five schools in England sent more pupils to Oxford and Cambridge over three years than nearly 2,000 others combined, researchers have found.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14069516

'I'm referring to masses of other students at Oxford fivecandles'

Which is then a pretty bizarre argument which ends up simply reinforcing my point. What you're saying is that people who go to Oxbridge (who we've established, are by and large really quite privileged) know the uniform and don't mind it. Well, knock me down with a feather!

But, my point is that such old-fashioned an exclusive traditions are rather off-putting for those who are not in the club.

If you find this difficult to understand or believe, it really does suggest that you are out of touch.

The people who have got into the club and benefited from it are unlikely to be the ones to complain about it are they? And they're unlikely to understand why others might be repelled by it or intimidated by it (or they will find this part of the attraction as posters have suggested upthread). But that doesn't lessen the fact that it IS repellent and/or intimidating to many whatever your personal view may be. And all the statistics point to the fact that for a variety of reasons, some obvious and some less so, Oxbridge remains relatively inaccessible to disadvantaged kids and is significantly more inaccessible even to kids who have not attended private schools.

'I find it gratifyingly diverse'

That's either an offensive or an ignorant statement to make.

'Oxford's social profile is 89% upper and middle class while the Cambridge student body is 87.6% drawn from the top three socio-economic groups. The average for universities in Britain is 66%.'

'of more than 1,500 academic and lab staff at Cambridge, none are black. Thirty-four are of British Asian origin'

1 in 3 white people are successful entrants into Oxford compared to 1 in 5 black people.

At Cambridge it's 1 in 3 compared to 1 in 6.

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/oxbridge-elitism-oxford-cambridge-race-class

So much for diversity!

@five Of course Grammar schools are well represented. They are, after all, selective. Many of them are significantly more selective than many posh schools. This doesn't mean that the kids who go to them aren't going to state school. My school was a comp though. The fact that it was a catholic school in NO WAY makes it any less 'state'. There are a LOT of working class Irish immigrant Catholics, you know. And some of us (including me) have gypsy heritage. Is that diverse enough for you?

'is perfectly harmless, costs very little and probably does help with exams'

The bit about the subfusc helping with exams was intended as a joke right? And the thing about diversity probably was too?

and that you hope for your DC to go to a good university (to make the £££££ fees worthwhile!)

Because they may not want to go to university (a great one or otherwise) so paying for a private education based on better groundwork for a possible university entry is tenuous, to me.

five mine all do access and have collectively done access for a number of years, so your chippiness doesn't cut a huge amount of mustard I'm afraid.

My understanding and I think theirs too and also the university's is that Oxford is accessible for anyone, from any background, given the brains. Your stance deters, which is a problem, though not for the already entrenched.

Mine are all a large chunk East European and another chunk Scot - does that also count as diverse? And my parents didn't pay a penny for my education either, so where's the theory about privilege now? It's intelligence five, and filling in the name on the form, not poshness or cash.

Not a joke no. Why would it be? Makes sense to me. What university did you go to yourself - one of these? (Sorry, thread is too long to scroll back).

My understanding of Cambridge is exactly the same as Yellow's is of Oxford and it is informed by my own experience. Working class, comp, council flat, non WASP heritage - didn't matter. I got in because I was brainy enough to do so (did the entrance exam too, because I am that old :( ) and while my school said 'you should go for this' that was the extent of the support I got from them. No extra classes. No interview technique lessons. Nothing. But they believed in me which was the key thing (my mum also believed in me, she used to say I could do anything I wanted. Except things like tying shoelaces etc ). If a whole load of people had said to me 'you have no chance because you live in a council flat in and your gran was a gypsy and maths at cambridge is only for posh people' then I might have listened and not been brave enough to give it a go.

Gosh, Seeker, you seem to be unusually angry about Oxbridge.

"Most students haven't a clue what 'subfusc' is and would, rightly, see it as absurd, outdated and offputting."

I find the suggestion that working class pupils should be put off a university by the wearing of gowns so patronising that it defies belief. I'd guess the majority of all applicants to Oxford have no idea what sub fusc is, but the thought that any intellectually able kids should be intimidated by donning what's basically an extension of school uniform is absurd. If you want to know about other countries that do 'dressing up' how about the graduation gowns and mortarboards worn by American school students? That's definitely seen as a sign of quality, as you put it, and a reward for hard work. Variations of academic dress are all over the place; wearing it's not going to kill anyone...

Anyway uniforms tend to obscure differences between individuals and make it much harder to guess their background. So, actually, subfusc is a leveller for Oxford students (wherever they went to school) - not something divisive.

"...working class kids continue to be prevented from accessing great education and positions of power while dimwits born with silver spoons continue to rule the country."

If you're insinuating by this that 'dimwits' can get into Eton and Oxbridge I'd be fascinated to know your criteria for a 'dimwit'. How many As should they have at A Level exactly?

Not me, doweli

Dowdling, sorry.

"working class kids continue to be prevented from accessing great education and positions of power while dimwits born with silver spoons continue to rule the country"
How are you defining dimwit? If your definition is someone whois "less smart than the average person" then although I think even though no David Cameron fan or any of the others mentioned but I think to describe them as dimwits is very wide of the mark. Generally genuine dimwits don't make it into these kind of positions of power. Just because someone doesn't have the same political views as you and appears in your opinion to be introducing legislation etc that you strongly disagree with doesn't make them a dimwit.
"and that you hope for your DC to go to a good university (to make the £££££ fees worthwhile!)"
Im not sure if Goldplated is quoting this from another posting of stating this but I don't see how getting you DC into a good university makes the fees worth while. As far as Im aware I don't get the thousands I spent on fees returned on their first day at Oxbridge or even pay cheaper university fees because I've already paid thousands towards my DS's education but maybe Im just being a "dimwit."

"If your definition is someone whois "less smart than the average person" then although I think even though no David Cameron fan or any of the others mentioned but I think to describe them as dimwits is very wide of the mark"
Too early in the morning! Lets try again If you definition of a dimwit "is someone whose less smart than the average person" then although no David Cameron fan or any of the others mentioned I think to describe them as dimwits is very wide of the mark.

""working class kids continue to be prevented from accessing great education and positions of power while dimwits born with silver spoons continue to rule the country"

Replace the word "dimwit" with "privileged people" and the sentence holds. Although there are some in government from all parties who do seem to tick the "dimwit" box.

'mine all do access and have collectively done access for a number of years'

Well that's alright then. Frankly, you're 'I'm all right' approach just reinforces the point. It's OK if you and yours are in the club isn't it. Bugger the rest of them.

Just because you might like to think that Oxbridge is 'accessible' doesn't mean it is. Look at the stats. Look at the evidence. It is significantly less accessible if you are black or if you are working class or if you are from a state school regardless of your academic results.

@five the exam results thing was an issue for a (very) short while in the 80s - perhaps only a year or two, because grade inflation kicked in almost as soon as they dumped the entrance exam. You can't possibly, right now, say that A level and GCSE results are an indicator of a person who should be given a place at Cambridge or Oxford because there are more kids who get straight As and A*s than there are places.

I completely agree that, without knowing them personally Cameron and his mates (not Boris) seem to be incompetent and dull. I would however point out that they went to Oxford, not Cambridge.

'It's intelligence five'

It quite clearly isn't however much you repeat that and may personally like to believe it.

I'm not sure if you're aware of it but your refusal to accept the facts based entirely, it seems, on the fact that your own kids got in to Oxbridge, makes you sound extremely uncaring and ignorant to the plight of others.

'Private school students are 55 times more likely to win a place at Oxbridge and 22 times more likely to go to a top-ranked university than students at state schools who qualify for Free School Meals (FSM)[1]. '

'The Sutton Trust study underlines a familiar divide between the private and state sectors ? finding that independent school pupils are twice as likely as comprehensive pupils to get into the 30 most selective universities and seven times as likely to get into Oxbridge. Even at the 30 highest achieving comprehensive schools, entry into competitive universities lags behind private and grammar schools.

Just under 60% of pupils from the best state schools went to the most selective universities compared with just under 90% of pupils at the best private schools and 74% from the top grammars.

Of a comprehensive and a private school in Cornwall, with near identical results, the former sent 17% to selective universities and the latter 66%. There are striking differences even between schools of the same type. At two comprehensives with similar results, almost 70% of 18-year-olds applied to go to university at one, but only 33% at the other.'

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/08/university-admissions-study-oxbridge-divide

'What university did you go to yourself'

What difference does that make? What a shame that you don't understand that yours and my personal experience makes not one iota of difference to the stark realities of getting into Oxbridge. How odd.

@five did you go to either Ox or cam? Were you working class, or a member of a minority, and possessed of stellar exam results when you were that age? Are you involved in education now? Or recruitment?