Why on earth would you go state if you could afford private?

[Schmedz]

This thread is for Maisie and happygardening . I like dares!

I would think that for many, many, many eighteen and nineteen year olds, Oxford or Cambridge would be Hell on earth, the polar opposite of ideal. That's a very narrow view Tas.

Yellowtip

Glad you say so. There are people on here constantly complaining about how "poorer students" are disadvantaged when it comes to Oxbridge admissions (which statistically speaking, they aren't), and say that many more state school students should apply to Oxbridge, regardless of whether they would have wanted that. Some courses are just not offered at those two unis.

If I wanted to be a film director, for example, I'd probably not apply to Oxbridge... there are many other places (the best are maybe not in this country) that would be more applicable.

Tas - I too am struggling to reconcile the fact that 75% of the town sends their kids to the SM with the assertion that the "town" looks down on the school.

Lavolcan it's not necessarily that their is more emphasis on sport but there is simply more choice. My DS's school which has a reputation for not being very sporty offers 20-30 different sports and most of them are incorporated into the daily timetable. This also applies to the 20-30 cultural activities offered and I believe orchestras bands quintets and choirs etc of which there are over 15. So the education is much broader and these activities are not extra curricular activities they are as integral as maths and physics.

Er, 'statistically speaking' they are disadvantaged though (how do you come to any other conclusion?) And of course more should apply because they probably would want to be there and would do very well and that could radically alter their life trajectory. But that still leaves the vast majority of the population ill equipped intellectually or temperamentally which is why they'd be miserable and it would be the opposite of ideal, on any reasonable measure of ideal.

happygardening - I have no problems with seeker's choices. Every parent should do what is best for their child even if it means sacrificing one's principles.

But she went from someone whose principles I can respect even though I didn't agree to just another champagne socialist who doesn't think that others should be able to choose a selective education for their DC. Smacks of Diane Abbott-ism IMO.

Anyway, thanks for the update.

Tiff there is another thread can't remember what the title is where this has been done well and truely to death at times the postings were exceedingly acrimonious.
I haven't read seekers justifications for her choices that carefully and can't remember whether or not she has ever critisised others for doing something she's done herself. But even if she has does it really matter who isn't full of inconsistencies who hasnt said one thing and done something else? I suspect like so many of us she did what she felt best in the circumstances perhaps we just all need to be a bit more tolerant.

Yellowtip

Because statistically speaking, the disadvantaged students who actually do get the grades are more likely to get in. It's just that not many of them apply - which is not a problem of Oxbridge. Basically, there are far more MC candidates, when compared to their WC counterparts. And far more MC candidates obtaining the required grades... which means that inevitably, the pool from which these unis can select from is skewed towards MC students.

But if you work out the percentage of people who actually get offers, WC candidates get more than the MC ones, it's just that there are so many from the MC part applying, you think the unis prefer them. A typical example of how statistics can get screwed up.

But anyway... I thought you said that not everyone should apply to Oxbridge, and that it would be a very narrow view to think that everyone would want to be there - so why zeroing in on this again?

What if a disadvantaged student with 3 A*s would want to study something that Oxbridge does not offer - which I'd understand very well?

Wow Tasmania. Just wow.

I hope someone who's breath isn't taken away by the shallowness of that post will come along and answer you instead.

What's shallow about that Yellowtip? It's plain statistics.

After me suggesting that in an "ideal world", people want everyone to attend unis like Oxbridge, you said:

I would think that for many, many, many eighteen and nineteen year olds, Oxford or Cambridge would be Hell on earth, the polar opposite of ideal. That's a very narrow view Tas.

and

And of course more should apply because they probably would want to be there and would do very well and that could radically alter their life trajectory.

So what DO you want?!?

You say that Oxbridge is not the be all and end all (which I do agree with), but then you say that many more SHOULD apply, pretty much eradicating anything you said previously?

^^ Basically, if you told me, here are 100 students who met the admission criteria. 10 of them are WC, 90 are MC. There are 40 places.

If I select 9 of the WC applicants, 31 of the MC applicants, you still won't be happy, because proportionally, the MC candidates outweigh the WC ones. Would that be my fault?

teacherwith2kids yes, it does suggest just that - taken as a whole the state sector is extremely effective while not all of the independent sector is as good as it is reputed to be results-wise. We know for example that state school pupils do better at university than those from independent schools with the same results.

It's interesting to see bright children doing better than average in areas where there are no grammars or private schools - and higher levels of unemployment. Among children in Rotherham schools who left primary with above Level 5 in SATs, 98% manage 5 GCSEs inc E&M and grades are also well above average, despite forming only around over a quarter of the intake in the various Rotherham comprehensives. Ebacc scores not quite so high but it seems that not many language teachers are enticed that far north ...

"But if you work it out the percentages of people who actually get offers, WC candidates get more offers that MC ones"
I know it's late but I just do t understand how you've come to that conclusion. You're probably right but can you explain it to me.

It's not that late happy :)

If 10 WC students apply and 9 get offers then 90% of WC applicants were successful. Tas's point is that 90% is a good % figure but the low absolute number gives the impression that there is an admissions bias against WC kids.

happy

There were figures I gathered a while ago from numerous articles about both unis, etc. And if you combined them all mathematically (finally made use of taking Econometrics at uni!), it did work out like that. Of course, newspapers wouldn't do that, because it is so much less sensational to say that, and the general population would prefer not to believe it.

I was stunned myself, to say the least, because I was actually expecting to prove the opposite. But it does coincide with things I was told by personal friends afterwards (associated with the admission process at either uni). They are doing their best to get more people in who may not have been thought of as typical Oxbridge material before, but there are just many more MC applicants applying. I think somebody on MN even pointed out that those applications from disadvantaged postcodes get highlighted, etc. - so really, they are doing their best. One would say it's affirmative action at work.

Also, a lot of people make a big mistake with using the popular 7% of the population attending private school quote to work out from that, that any uni that derives over 7% of its students form private schools would prefer them. However, at Sixth Form, this increases drastically. At 16, over 18% of students go to private school - which forms the first pool of potential university students because - realistically speaking, and mature students aside - you can't go to uni without A-Levels or anything equivalent to that.

Thank you I get it now!
I'm all in favour of trying to attract students to apply to Oxbridge who wouldn't normally but I think it's going to be a struggle. Many independent schools I think are pretty determined to increase their numbers of successful applicants because this is what many parents are paying for. I'm not talking about Westminster et al although they are increasing their number slightly year on year but now the less selective ones are also keen to get more into Oxbridge. Many now proudly display their figures on their home pages, a school a friends DC's attend which at one time only sent an occassional pupil now hold special sessions for those pupils indentified as having "Oxbridge" potentiaNdent it's paying off the occassional pupil is 3-4 a year and super bright children from abroad are joining in the 6 th form to boost the numbers and thus to attract more potential bright pupils/parents. Another factor assuming the comments on MN are correct althoughI I personally don't understand why this has to be the case, apparently children from independent schools write better personal statements and perform better in interviews oh and let's not forget are not intimidated by Medieval buildings! I remain unconvinced that we will see any fall in the % of pupils from the independent sector in fact quite the reverse and I think we also need to remember that most independently educated children who get places do so because they deserve to be there.

Private school pupils make up much more than the 7% they represent of children. The private schools obviously do something right and most parents who pay are happy to do so believing they do their child good. If you don't think so don't pay. If both types of parents are happy that's great but the statistics speak for themselves, private school pupils made up 30% of Olympian I think, may be more, they are 80%+ of judges, they are about half the cabinet I think, and go through just about any profsesion except left wing local authority and you will see those who succeed have massively increased chances if at private school. Even if you take UK island owners (my category) we seem to have been to private schools - Ben Fogle, Branson etc.

If parents don't want to pay, don't. It's entirely up to you. If state school parents are genuinely puzzled as to why people pay (and I suppose just about I might have hda for my children the choices of places like Henrietta Barnet, Watford Grammar (which is comp not grammar), QE etc which are not bad state schools why do people pay for schools like North London Collegiate? First of all i wanted them in single sex schools from gae 4 - rather hard to achieve in the state sector.

Secondly wanted them educated in classes with only very clever children with 120 IQ = from age 5 - again hard in the state sector.
Music is very important to me - 3 of them won music scholarships and it tends to be better in the private schools.
Accent - not crucial and I am not that impressed how most teenagers speak in all sectors but perhaps marginally better in fee paying schools.
Ambience - nice to go to a school with lakes and parents' choirs and parents with whom I have a lot in common.
However none of those things matter as much for me as the fact everyone is very clever and I am buying a peer group who will go to good universities, 25% Oxbridge or whatever, very high expectations of careers at schools, feminism, most children getting mostly A or A*. There will be other reasons too - I have quite sporty children and that can be better at private schools too. Riding and lacrosse not impossible to do at state schools but less likely and were/are the passion of the girls - one now doing it for England, just chosen - congratulations her.

However 50% of children at the best universities went to state schools. The City has a lot of successful state school people and it's certainly not worth parents bashing themselves over the head if you are a woman who made such a poor career choice you cannot afford to pay fees. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat. And indeed your aims may be opposite to mine - you may want the children to have a particular local accent. You may want it to go into work similar to what your family does as the lower end. You may think there is nothing worse than church choral singing in parts and want tambourines and guitars. You might think competitive sport is a sin and competition the work of the devil.

Is she representing England for riding or lacrosse Xenia? (just interested and yes, well done her).

Tasmania I gave up because what you said so completely missed the point. The point and the whole point and the only point really is that currently too few pupils are applying from the sorts of schools which have traditionally not sent pupils to Oxford and Cambridge. Too few in relation to the numbers who would no doubt flourish there. By contrast both universities are flooded with indie school applicants, many of whom will be profoundly mediocre and pushed in that direction, as happy and Xenia indicate, because that is the expectation of parents who've paid a shedload in fees. I'm currently glancing down the list of the 2012 intake for a particular college giving the schools attended and it makes very interesting reading.

Take a wild guess, Yellowtip . If it were riding, Xenia name dropper extraordinaire would have told us in no uncertain terms! All MN knows Xenia's first daughter went to Habs Girls and Bristol University, her second daughter to NLCS (but we don't know which university) but we're never told which schools her boys ended up in, or which university her first son went to... if they were worth boasting about, we'd all know by now

yellow do we you know that "many are profoundly mediocre"? Westminster sends just over 50% to Oxbridge and it is highly unlikely bearing in mind how selective it is that any of these are "profoundly mediocre"!

As an ex horse rider/owner I don't think its a given that riding is groaning under the weight of name droppers.

"Profoundly mediocre" is probably a bit of an overstatement but for sure there are DC that get into Oxford and Cambridge by dint of pushy parental manoeuvring, making political choices of subject, changing school systems etc - means that aren't open to families that cannot afford to bolster their child's chances with lots of extras.

No, but riding has an awful lot more Tatler-chic potential for the ambitious classes than does lacrosse

"by dint of pushy parental manoeuvring, making political choices of subject,"
Bonsoir so these parents don't exist in the state sector?

Incidentally nothing I've said is internally contradictory (it never is) Tasmania. In relation to another particularly daft comment, that 'in an ideal world everyone would go to Oxford or Cambridge', I merely observed that in that case the majority would hate it. Apart from anything else, both universities require very, very hard work from their students. Xenia has previously said that her DDs chose not to apply because of that element, or pressure, which sounds a good call. I believe one of mine in particular would prefer it elsewhere for that reason alone and have advised him accordingly. Much better to find the right fit than go for a 'name' and then find oneself miserable and unhappy. Because you can't wing it there, not easily and probably not at all.