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

[Schmedz]

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

I think it's lacrosse but even so that's very good tbf. I've watched lacrosse matches recently at both Oxford and Durham and rather regret never having been able to play. I flatter myself that I'd have been pretty good :)

happygardening - the options to do so are much less great. Anecdotally, I know DC who have got to much better universities than they otherwise would have because of canny IB and A-level choices of undersubscribed subject that are not usually supported by the state system (Russian, Italian, Theology...) heavily subsidised by bank of M&D (gap year in St Petersburg...).

My chosen area of riding was full of tired owners spending their every waking moment training their horse riders were covered in mud and scruffy although waterproof practical clothes. In contrast the horses which were better dressed better shod and eating an exceedingly expensive and more balanced diet than their owners not much "Tatler chic" potential Im afraid!

Of course a lot of applicants are profoundly mediocre Bonsoir. You don't get brainy by filling in the name on a UCAS form because your mum has insisted you do it.

But Bonsoir still pushy parents savvy parents in both sectors.

Schools don't usually allow pupils to make a fool of the school themselves by applying for universities they are clearly wildly unsuited to. How many Oxbridge applicants end up with a 2.2 from an ex-Poly (which would be my definition of profoundly mediocre not very academic).

As a horse owner myself... I can only attest to what happy said! Said horse is "manicured". I'm not.

Pushiness/savviness only goes so far, IMVHO. The ability to pay for your DC to swap system/change country/have an unusual educational opportunity clearly paves the way for some DC to go to much better universities than they would otherwise have achieved.

Yellow do you believe that independent schools are enabling the profoundly mediocre to get places at Oxbridge and others. I accept the profoundly mediocre from both sectors can apply but do they actually get in?

There are definitely some very ordinary intellects who are well schooled gaining places in the less competitive subjects. I know the most selective universities are trying to stop this but it is hard when students have done things like a gap year in St Petersburg or similar. One might argue that the student is fairly committed to undertake such a year but it is helpful to have proactive parents with deep pockets.

This is not a criticism, but I observe that Eton has a few successful students studying Theology. I expect few state school students plump for that.

I have never met a 'mediocre' Oxbridge person. Boring, nerdy, full of themselves, naive etc etc but never 'mediocre'. The selection process (usually) weeds out such people.

Incidentally nothing I've said is internally contradictory (it never is)

Oh, wow. Who's the know it all now?

So what makes you believe that WC students would prefer Oxbridge over everything else? There are other unis... and personally, I applaud it when people choose to do something else than, say, accountancy as a future careeer.

'Cos let's face it. Not many actually dream of being an accountant. They sort of "fall" into it. MC kids enjoy a lot of benefits, yes, but they are also trapped in a MC world where they are expected to do certain jobs, too. I'd think that WC kids who get the high grades, and prove they are worthy of more than the usual WC jobs may actually be more creative to find a career that's actually more interesting than being an accountant.

Nothing against accountants - it's just not as exciting a career as, say, a film director...

As for the Olympian thing- generally speaking the things Britain gets medals for are the expensive sports. So generally speaking there are lliky
to be more privatly educated people doing them and getting good at them. And even if you do n't need a horse, for example, you do need parents with the time and money to take you to swimming pools and tracks and whatever. I suspect private school is a correlation rather than a causation.

Well mediocre is a subjective term.

The research about state schooled pupils doing better is a bit misleading though. I believe the research covers all subjects at all institutions - and as the Guardian article states, the less selective the institution, the higher the likelihood of being awarded a higher graded degree.. If you do the same calculations on the more selective universities, I think the conclusion no longer holds true. I cannot remember where to find this further research though.

Surely the reason why there are more Olympians from independent schools is all about opportunities. My DS is able to pursue his slightly niche sport (although not desperately expensive in comparison with say riding/sailing) three afternoons a week and they have weekly competitions for two terms. The same sport is offered at my DS's school as an after school activity (no good for those on the school buses) once a week no competitions and our nearest out of school club is 30 miles away.

You might get a taste for a sport at an independent school, but you won't be an Olympian without huge parental input. Schools will give time off to develop skills to this level but they don't have the resources to develop them this far. Also they will give scholarships to already successful sporting children and so attract them.

Which just provides further evidence - if we need it - that the real determinant of success in education is family/parental support.

Slip your right but the taste for a sport will be much better if you can pursue it three times a week and compete weekly. Although a friend of ours who is involved in coaching future Olympic sportsman for said niche sport was telling us the other day that nearly all the children are from the independent boarding sector (not just Milfield) because quite simply they have the time.

Not quite sure why it's hard to make the distinction between applicants and those successful in being offered a place. I was completely clear in my language and then even resorted to italics.

slipshod, surely you've come across applicants at interview who are well below the standard you'd require? Mostly privately educated too I expect. That's without even delving into the swathes of applicants who don't make the cut for interview. And since Cambridge interviews far more applicants than Oxford I expect the phenomenon of dullish interviewees to be even more marked over there.

Tasmania it's not being a know it all to avoid saying things which contradict. You thought you saw a contradiction where there was none. It's a deficiency in your comprehension, that's all.

"surely you've come across applicants at interview who are well below the standard you'd require? Mostly privately educated too I expect."
So yellow have you any more sweeping generalisations you wish to make? Why do more applicants come from the independent sector? Do you really think mediocre applicants don't apply from the state sector? Do you think schools like Westminster (assuming they had mediocre applicants) would let them apply? Why would they? What would they gain from it?

seeker - I don't think that there were many MC kids in the boxing team but don't let that get in the way of your generalisation.

My kids go to an athletics club twice a week. I drop them off, do a supermarket shop and then pick then up. Cost me £6 a week for both.

A couple of the older kids are national class runners looking to breaking into international competitions and maybe the next Olympics. We live in a relatively affluent area so obviously these kids are MC but parental involvement is minimal and so is cost.

As for swimming, you are inferring that WC parents don't take their children to swimming clubs.

I accept that entry to certain sports are prohibitively expensive. Dressage is one example. Polo is another. Basically, anything that involves a horse. But it's a bit simplistic to argue that they are medal winning Olympians because their MC parents had the money and time to train them. By that logic, the premiership league should be full of MC kids who have been packed off to summer football camp all their lives.

It's quite obvious that more mediocre applicants will apply from the independent sector happy, precisely because of parental investment and pressure. It's a self-evident truth, not a sweeping generalisation.

I would think it highly unlikely that Westminster has any pupil that I would term mediocre.

Schools can advise but they won't forbid an application; they have less authority with parents than they did in previous years.

Yes Yellowtip. And some of them get places in the less popular subjects. From both sectors, though they tend to have parents who do the necessary, as Bonsoir points out.

Yellow - I have no figures or personal experience but I suspect that in the state system only the best are encouraged to apply to Oxbridge whereas at a private school all/most are encouraged to apply.

If you accept this then of course most of the state school applicants will be exceptional while a significant number of private school applicants will be mediocre by Oxbridge standards.