State educaten makes pupils more likely to be successful at university

[Agggghast]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26773830

Found this interesting - is it because they are more used to learning independently?

"given that most private schools select and most state schools don't?"

I think "most" do at all, the vast majority will have you if you can pay.

No, I don't think it's possible to be completely fair at all, but it could be a lot fairer than it is ATM.

^State school students tend to do better in their degree studies than students from independent schools with the same prior educational attainment

15. This difference is less marked in women, those with the highest A-level achievement, and those who study at HEIs with high entry tariffs, but even in these categories it remains statistically significant.

16. This improved performance is not affected by the type of state school. Students from community schools, foundation schools, sixth form colleges and voluntary controlled or aided schools all tend to do better than their independent school counterparts with the same prior educational attainment.^

hth

But also, horse

Degree outcomes are not affected by the average performance of the school that a student attended
20. Specifically, a student from a low-performing school is not more likely to gain a higher degree classification than a student with the same prior educational attainment from a high-performing school.
21. For example, regardless of ‘school type’, a student gaining AAB from a school in the highest 20 per cent of schools in the country has the same likelihood of gaining a first or upper second as a student gaining AAB from a school in the lowest 20 per cent of schools in the country. In both cases, the proportion gaining a first or upper second is 79 per cent.

They havent written a very helpful summary! but the data on p16 is a bit more helpful

Ah, thanks Burden.

I agree, Collection. Any steps are positive steps- just because perhaps it would be difficult to design a perfectly fair system, it doesn't mean we can't be making advancements. I know that plenty of the kids at my DDs' school are capable but there are so many things that will hold them back

I would say the data clearly supports making differential offers at AAB and below. Above that, not so clear.

I wonder if it's something to do with the fact that the State school children get out of a place that's over-stimulating, a bit stressful, big and bustly where nobody listens to them, into an environment of relative calm, where what they say has an impact.

And the Indie kids are going from an environment of relative calm and getting a lots of attention to somewhere that they are left to get on with it, and probably bigger and more bustly than their previous school.

Interesting.

horse would that be so true of grammar school kids? perhaps they are all in the AAA population where there's no difference- that would fit with what you say.

perhaps the indie kids are more likely to apply to the 'harder' universities and so less likely to get a higher class of degree? there is no way a 2:1 is the same standard at top and bottom unis.

"Because very few children from the other kind of state school ever get to university and therefore, are not included in the data"

Well they break that out separately.

They show that children from the best (top 20%) state schools should, like private schools, get a slightly higher offer.

But here the effect is smaller - it's less than one grade different at highest.

They also consider higher education access, and there's a small difference between the areas with fewest higher education entrants (children from these areas do better given the same grades) and those with the most.

The biggest gap is found with deprivation - children from the most deprived areas perform much better than those from the least deprived. This gap exists even with 3 As, and it's of consistent size across the grade ba, suggesting that whereas universities make some attempt to redress advantages of privately educated over state, they pay much less difference to socio-economic advantages of children within the state sector.

Presumably there is high overlap between the least deprived areas and the group of independently educated children, but it's at the AAA level that the difference is largest. Given that 14% of the total cohort went to private schools, presumably nearly all will live in the top 1 or 2 least deprived quintiles, that suggests that the set of children who:

• are socio-economically advantaged, but
• went to state school

are flying well under the radar - if you come from a nice home and got AAA at a state school then that that's perhaps an ABB from an average home.

So:

• university tutors at elite (Oxbridge+) universities appear to be adjusting fairly for the advantages of private over state
• but at lower levels this might not be the case
• and university tutors at all levels need to pay much more attention to the advantages of parental wealth, where that wealth is not expressed in private school fees, but in other, less obvious, still very important advantages.

'grade bands'

AgaPanthers very interesting! And I completely agree with your last point. I really firmly believe that things outside of private education, such as easy access to books, museums, extra curricular activities, wider cultural experience etc are massively important in education as a whole, but whether or not you have access to them is not recognised at all.

aga has it spot on

except I still think there is a weakness is not controlling for Uni and subject type. but then HEFCE cant admit politically that there is any difference between a 2:1 from different Unis, so not sure how they could measure that, much less control for it

Beast I can't get my head round these statistics but I guess a Nice grammar school would be similar to a private school with probably slightly higher student/teacher ratio. So for a grammar school child, Uni is probably not such a shock to them.

It might also explain why the progression from Private to Oxbridge is also helpful, there is a similar focus on the student so there's no culture shock. It probably also explains why politicians get it so wrong when they progress from Private to Oxbridge to the Party. How to leave a world where they get no attention and cossetting?

Horse

except that Oxbridge educated Etonians seem to do quite well in politics .

Funny, in that case, how politics is the last place where women do less well than men, eh?

Possibly this stems from my very limited knowledge of higher education but I had no idea that a 2:1 is different depending on the university! And then there is subject choice to look into- god there's an absolute maze!!

Beast - yes the Oxbridge Etonians do well at politics but I really meant to say they do very badly at government, not having any real understanding of real people in the real world. Even Ed Milliband is borderline and he went to a State school.

Well, the thing is, it's nto something ppl want to say as it sounds mean. But I think most ppl would say that a 2:1 from say Imperial is more rigorous than a 2:1 from say London Met (not picking on anyone here). And a 2:1 in physics or engineering from Imperial is probably going to be more difficult than a 2:1 in golf studies at Buckingham (which is a real course, or it was wehen they did this study, which is based on 2007 cohort data)

horse I'm not going to disagree with you at all! Though I give you Maggie Thatcher, state-educated (but Oxbridge) and John Major (state-educated and no Uni).

The source of politican's distance from realilty is a fascinating thing. I think maybe it comes from a deep-seated self-centredness and narcissism

The biggest problem with most senior politicians is that they go straight into politics from university and few of them have ever held down a significant job outside of westminster.

I think these results could indicate that the learning environment has a big impact on a student's outcome - that we all need a supportive environment but too much comfort/attention/hothousing doesn't do us much good either?

I think it indicates that you can artifically inflate performance for a bit but it reverts to the norm.

So if your norm is CCC and you were artificially pumped up to BBB, back down you go once you hit the real world.

but if you were a natural AAAA it doesn't matter if you went to private or state school.

It's interesting- what about when the two switch? So a rigorous subject at London Met and a 'softer' subject at a Russell Group? So much to think about

a subject that is rigorous in one Uni may be easier to get a 2:1 in elsewhere- that's another very difficult thing to discuss.

Looking at the summary Aga posted upthread it looks like a larger difference mid-grades (like a normal distribution graph?) which suggests that the AAA will succeed anywhere, the EEE will not hit the heights anywhere but the smaller classes, etc may pull up those in the middle.

However I also agree that variations between schools and universities casts doubt on statistics like this. My DCs went to an independent school which gets good results, nephew went to a state grammar which gets higher results so comparing the sectors is not straightforward. A 2:1 from Oxbridge is not perceived as the same as a 2:1 from a Russell Group which in turn is not the same as a 2:1 from a metropolitan.

Too much for my brain!