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.

.

'and it is informed by my own experience'

I think you'll find that this is NOT, fortunately, how statisticians and researchers work. They look at evidence and statistics and do not make wholesale generalisations based on one person's or a handful of people's personal experience.

If you do not look at the picture as a whole you are saying that your own experience is more valuable than anybody else's. Surely you can see that that is no way to argue a case? Unless it IS simply that you want to talk about your own experience and bugger the way things are for everyone else?????

Mordion, I'm struggling to understand the motivation for your questions? What difference does my personal experience of education make to the position for young people as a whole?

Your insistence on valuing the personal experience of a few over the evidence for all is quite baffling.

One of the thing I find most depressing about mumsnet is that you don't seem to be allowed to feel passionate and engaged about a subject unless you have a personal involvement in it. If you feel strongly about an injustice it must be because it has directly affected you or your children. And by extension, you must therefore feel bitter and/or jealous. It is inconceivable that you can feel strongly on behalf of other people.

Both Oxford and Cambridge have failed to widen participation in any meaningful way. This does not mean, of course, that they never let in anyone from a poor background. It does mean that their entrance is not about just about ability.

For example, in 2010, only about 10% of those admitted had a family income of less than 15,000. This is significantly below all other 'top' universities (Warwick managed 17% and KCL 22%) before anyone suggests that they just were not good enough.

If anyone is interested in the exact position, full details can be found on the HESA website

I'm an individual. I'm not an education statistician and I'm not an education researcher, and I don't think you are either, actually. Given that, the only things we can possibly talk about with authority on this subject are our own experiences. You have proved in your posts that you really don't know very much about Cambridge at all, I don't know about Oxford myself so I can't comment on whether your apparent ignorance extends to that university as well. You have also displayed pronounced bias and hyperbole. I work in an evidence based field (just not one associated with education or accessibility) and I wouldn't accept anything you had posted in this thread, to be honest, because of the evident bias.

'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.'

It's not remotely patronising. I've taught many kids who find it incredibly off putting either because it's intimidating or because they see it as repellant. And at the age of 18+ I think you'll find a lot of young people no longer want to be wearing 'an extension of school uniform'.

'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.'

Absolute tosh. Do you think the same thing about Eton's uniform?

It is intended to mark the wearers out as different and special. It is instantly recognizable. Many 18+ year olds and especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds would see this as a sign that Oxbridge is not for the likes of them.

'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?'

Princes William exactly meet my criteria for dimwits who are nevertheless running the country.

Here's a picture of Wills in his school uniform. It's a great 'leveller' isn't it? How much do you think it costs? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-william-at-17-never-before-seen-portrait-945362

Im fine with "privileged people" replacing dimwits.
five one of the reason why five send so many is becasue they are basically super selective both Westminster and St Pauls are sending 40 - 50% a year but this is their game plan Im sure their ambition is to increase this number yr on yr (and in fact they are). My DS was interviewed for St Pauls at 10 yrs old and was put through a mini Oxbridge style interview, without a doubt they are looking for potential Oxbridge students even at this age; his ability to argue a point in the face of a slightly hostile interviewer, think on his feet when asked difficult questions and the fact that he is highly articulate were commented on in the offer letter and the reason why he as a rank outsider got offered the place in face of enormous competion. Then right from the moment they walk in the door in yr 9 Oxbridge entry is being discussed as the norm and many will have already been told by their parents that this is where they are going. It starts to become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Picking up on what was said up thread and thinking about it perhaps a factor that disadvantages those from state schools accessing Oxbridge and its ilk comes down to the PS I would be the first to admit to not knowing much about it. But I do know I that at my DS's school (34% into Oxbridge) and other like Westminster extra ordinary care and attention is taken over the PS whilst according to I think it was creamteas some from FE colleges only a few lines are written.

'Given that, the only things we can possibly talk about with authority on this subject are our own experiences'

How completely bizarre. Why can you not look at statistics and research?

Thank goodness this isn't the way most people think otherwise we'd never make any progress in science or policy.

My DH lectures part time at an FE College and for one of his classes, helps with UCAS forms, PS etc. It can be really difficult as his student group is often return to learners, who didn't do well at school first time round and after discovering all is not rosy outside of school if you have no decent qualifications, are having another go.

Regardless of how bright these young people are, many of them are living lifestyles that make preparation of a PS tricky - they are no longer at that scouts/DofE/school orchestra/prefect stage (and indeed most never were, as many rebelled a bit at school). I know he really struggles to identify outside interests for some students, as their life is often college, hang out with mates, play on xbox, which doesn't really fill a PS.

Life is not fair (the only sensible and accurate observation by Bonsoir on this thread). My husband also works with care leavers and psychologically troubled young people, many of whom have had really dreadful childhoods. Intelligence alone is irrelevant for many young people as life has not dealt them a fair hand. I don't expect Oxbridge admissions tutors will have the inkling of an understanding of what life is like for many young people, but the whole sub fusc gown culture is so far removed from many young people's lives as to be laughable.

'I work in an evidence based field (just not one associated with education or accessibility) and I wouldn't accept anything you had posted in this thread, to be honest, because of the evident bias. '

Mordion, you don't have to accept anything I've said at all. However, it is really quite difficult to ignore the statistics which have been widely published.

I am quite surprised by the way in which certain posters here are so unwilling to engage with those facts and statistics, choosing instead, to cover their ears with their hands, spout on about their own personal experience, and hope it all goes away.

It's incredibly ignorant and also lacking in empathy not to accept that there are very real advantages for the privileged and disadvantages for the underprivileged in terms of accessing good education (and the doors this opens) in this country.

Saying, 'I'm alright, Jack' or 'it wasn't like that for me' doesn't help anybody but merely proves the point that we live in a society where selfishness and lack of understanding or compassion for others (and the barriers they face) are rife and disabling.

"'Given that, the only things we can possibly talk about with authority on this subject are our own experiences'"

What? What?

Exactly, Seeker, but also the notion that one person's personal experience takes precedence over all other things, and, bugger other people's experience or evidence. It is selfishness and sharp elbows and really quite unpleasant.

Sorry, cross posted, Seeker. It's a gem that one.

Exactly, Ithaka, the fact that people accept 'subfusc' (WTF?) as normal and even desirable smacks of a real let them eat cake attitude here. Or in Bonsoir's case, let them eat foie gras and caviar .

@five I didn't say the only things we can talk out of our arses about. I said the only things we can talk with authority about. I do not know what the good research is, and what the dodgily predicated research is. Neither do you. A bit of googling doesn't put things into context. As a mathematician working in an analytical evidence based field I know we'll that numbers can be used to prove anything. Yes, I could take time and do my own research into what is the material that is credible. But I don't have that gme (especially not for conversations with ransoms on the Internet often conducted late at night or while waiting for kids to come out of dance rehearsals). Your posts have made it clear you are not an expert in this field though you are trying to imply otherwise. I'm upfront about the fact that I'm just talking about my experience.

Since I'm one of the most fervent supporters of state education in this thread - being a state success story myself, sending my kids to state schools though I could afford posh, and also as it happens having no expectations that any of my kids will go to Oxford of Cambridge, I find it really embarrassing that some of the other 'statepeople' are talking so much guff about Oxbridge. No wonder there's an application problem ic people are listening to you.

The most ludicrous gown I've ever seen was the UEA masters gown. Is someone going to try and claim working class people don't want to go there either?

Yes Seeker. I do not think you can speak with any authority on this subject at all. What, exactly, makes you think that I should recognise you as an authority? You are a SAHM in Kent. You aren't an educational researcher. Mind you I don't have a problem with most of your posts in this thread. But that still doesn't make you an authority, just a shouts person on the Internet.

I think a lot of people on here forget what real life academic and evidence based disciplines are really like. Credentials are important.

I regard any character from Hexwood as an authority on everything.

Mordion, do you not see anything at all that's odd in the fact that you think your entirely personal experience is valuable and of interest here but that you refuse to even engage with research about Oxbridge admissions as a whole which has been widely published (most of which has originated from Oxbridge's own admissions data) and statistics which have been unchallenged??

What do you think we can learn from your approach and your priorities from that fact?

'I could take time and do my own research into what is the material that is credible'

But why would you bother when there's perfectly good data out there? Is it because, by any chance, that data doesn't seem to support your opinion?

Mordion- I don't claim to be authority. But are you saying that the published figures for the school of origin of Oxbridge undergraduates are not reliable?

five for various reasons I've read every one of these reports that you link to. The fact remains that Oxford and Cambridge are at least as diverse as a number of other top universities in the UK. Almost all these top universities are making huge efforts to widen access with Oxford and Cambridge leading the field. It's absurd to say of students involved in access that they can't care since 'they're ok'. What a dimwit statement. Really five, I'm sure you don't possess a monopoly of virtue here. The problem of under-representation is overwhelmingly because the students you'd like to see there don't apply. And attitudes like yours do more than anything to deter.

Subfusc is worn very, very, very, very rarely. Though whenever there's an Oxford story in the paper they dip into the archives and whip out a picture either of the Radcliffe Camera in the sunshine or yes, of students in subfusc. But for most of a term the gown moulders in the back of a cupboard getting grubby. It's a tiny, tiny deal. It's also dead cheap. Anyhow the very generous Oxford Opportunity Bursary (automatic, doesn't have to be applied for, linked to income) will amply cover the few quid that the student does have to shell out. These things won't deter the vast majority of properly bright students because they really don't matter. It's probably not surprising that Elly Nowell failed to secure a place both at Cambridge and then Oxford, then affected to focus on this sort of stuff.

'I think a lot of people on here forget what real life academic and evidence based disciplines are really like'

Yep - that would be you.

Utterly bizarre that you refuse to even acknowledge the data, banging on instead about your personal experience, and then have a go at other people who are not referring to their own personal experience but are actually citing facts and figures that have been widely published.

'It's absurd to say of students involved in access that they can't care since 'they're ok'. '

I'm saying that there are posters on here who are resolutely ignoring the data about the barriers to working class kids on the basis that they or their kids got into Oxbridge.

To my mind, that is an extraordinarily selfish position.

Ok. My personal experience is that not a single person from a state school has gone to Oxford or Cambridge. And that not a single person who was not at least middle class has gone to Oxford or Cambridge. I have some anecdotal evidence that state school people have gone- dd's schools's honours board, for example- but no personal experience.

Not sure how that furthers the debate, though!

'The fact remains that Oxford and Cambridge are at least as diverse as a number of other top universities in the UK.'

That's not actually true but it doesn't really make it any better. Saying that other universities are as lacking in diversity as Oxbridge does not make Oxbridge's lack of diversity any better does it?

Look at this again, www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/oxbridge-elitism-oxford-cambridge-race-class

'Jeevan Vasagar wrote in December 2010 that a series of requests made under the Freedom of Information act by Labour MP David Lammy show that 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%.'

But five you're imputing a position to me which isn't mine. And the fact that I may have DC at the university in question doesn't mean I therefore ignore published data - I'm making separate points entirely. Of course there are issues, but they aren't the shallow ones that you're shouting about.