Grammar or Private School for Oxbridge

[londonmummy4]

I wonder if you lovely ladies or gentleman can help me in my dilemma. My DS has won a place at a very amazing grammar school and a top private school. It is driving me crazy because everyone has an opinion on what we should do. We have no endless trust fund to help our 4 kids and who knows what the political landscape will be in the future. I'm inclined to go with the private school because I never went to one and I think it will be an amazing opportunity. But I am being told by various people that to get into Oxbridge in 5 or 7 years time for the private school students it will be a lot harder. I don't want to play that game. I don't care about Oxbridge. I think the journey and end result will be better at private school for our kids. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Pays tax so is entitled to free education

And that just about sums up the morally bankrupt of a lot on these threads.

It's certainly utter bullshit re take up of "places" in Y9. My DS's SS, for example, 170 odd intake, has to take a few children in on appeal each Y7. Which means their PAN is over, and they don't let more children in until the PAN is regained. So in his year, they let 7 in on appeal. 2 left in Y7, and around 6 in Y8. (Most as couldn't take the pace of learning, came from private schools).

So there were 8 that left and one place available.

If you can afford it, pay. Leave the place for a less fortunate kid.

What do you mean by ‘more deserving’?

Someone who's parents can't afford an excellent alternative and their alternative is an atrocious school. I'd say they are more deserving of the place.

You're missing the point @Taffeta
She's perfectly entitled to take up the place that her son has won. It would not be 'morally abhorrent', 'selfish' or 'atrocious' for her to take it particularly as she 4 children and cannot afford to privately educate them all. Get off your high horse.

I think it is morally abhorrent to sit on a state place whilst sipping her latte and pondering the private school options.

So I won't "get off my high horse". That's my opinion.

Yes BertrandRussell in my previous post I meant to write that grammar schools and state sixth forms are in effect often financially selective in effect.

Not meaning to derail the thread though! Although, I think it is a bit relevant because universities know this about them and won’t be making contextualised offers for most of those who go to them.

AnotherEmma

All OP is looking for is a logical argument to convince DH that it is worth it. She wants opportunities for her kids and a level playing field and she is critical of DHs attitude. Is OP prepared to earn more to contribute? Otherwise its a recipe for resentment which will divide your family. The point about economic uncertainty is also valid - this is an added risk you take on. Do you have savings to cover unemployment? Unless your kid will do better there or you can comfortably afford it and all the extras I wouldn't. I went to private school but it was the difference between a school in a town v a school in the countryside with acres of stunning grounds to roam outside. What about private 6th form?

Sorry AnotherEmma glad you got out the other side! Mine was also all girls which I hated as a bit of an oddball tomboy. But it was at least northern and down-to-earth (no ponies!) and about a quarter of us were on a bursary.

Taffeta just on a tangent, if you know people coming up for 13 who missed out on a grammar school place it could still be worth a look to see if they might be able to transfer. I have seen students get there from a comprehensive at that stage, so worth a try.

We are all entitled to state school places.

If you choose to do something else, Home school, private etc, that’s your choice.

We are not all in the same situation financially, so we do not all have the same freedom to make those choices.

The OP has as much right to a state school place as everyone else, she is in the lucky situation of also having the freedom to make other choices if she wishes.

It's a system issue. One that people exploit for their own personal gain with no thought for less well off others.

Grammars should be abolished, but in the absence of that should be means tested.

Its difficult to judge as we do t k ow exactly your financial situation. However i wouldn't necessarily base it on having to do the same for all 4.

We have 4 in private but they have all suited different schools.. If we had a grammar school I would definitely had sent my youngest as she would have suited it very well. Sadly we don't.

I wouldn't have thought all 4 children are super bright, sporty, musical, etc.. They will all need different things?

Taffeta I think that’s a whole different argument and not very helpful to the OP.

People always look out for themselves, game the system, do what they think is best for them.
School applications show this more than anything else, everyone wants the best they can get for their child.

Yeah I don't suppose I'm looking to be helpful to the OP

I'm looking to open her eyes to her selfish actions by hanging onto a state place.

Taffeta well your self interest will probably just kill the thread.
🙄

My experience is that you will get significant bursaries for child 3 and 4 unless you are uber wealthy.

It's not self interest

It's a valid point given the OP.

I would say that a grammar school in London selects on wealth just as much as a private, in that many of the kids going there will have been at private primaries/preps and/or had tutoring for a year or two, plus of course living in highly desirable areas.

So the OP has a choice of two schools, both of which select on academic ability and wealth.

If there is a chance you cannot provide the same opportunities for all 4 children then go for the grammar school option. It really is important that both parents are on board with school fees, your DH resents paying and this could cause problems for your relationship in the long term.

There is some misinformation on this thread about the effect of state vs independent education on Oxbridge applications.

Selection of university applicants is mostly done on quantifiable data and the whole process has to be transparent.

Effect of applying from a state school:
When universities look at the GCSE grades of an applicant, many will compare these against the average GCSE grades in the school where the GCSEs were taken. In very selective schools with very good GCSE results, the applicant is going to have to get much higher grades to stand out against the average. The applicant would have this problem whether they attended a super selective state school or an academically selective independent school. Applicants from a comprehensive school with low attainment 8 perform comparatively better on this measure (in an attempt to even the playing field slightly).
The comparison data is taken from the school where they took their GCSEs, not the sixth form they currently attend, so moving to a state school after GCSEs has no effect.

Outreach days and summer schools:
For some summer schools (Sutton Trust) the applicant has to tick several contextual boxes (school with lower than average GCSE results, living in area of low progression to HE). For others (UNIQ, some outreach events) anyone from a state school can apply.

Contextual offers:
The markers used for this are usually based on rates of progression to higher education within your postcode (e.g. POLAR). Oxford and Cambridge may invite extra candidates for interview based on contextual markers, but the offer given will usually be the same as for any other applicant.

TL;DR
You are more likely to get an interview if you went to a comprehensive with low GCSE results or if you live in an area where hardly anyone goes to university. Other than this, neither Oxford not Cambridge will take into account what school you went to.

There are several factors to take into account when choosing a secondary school, but the difference between these two schools is not relevant for Oxbridge applications.

Thank you for all the replies. They have been helpful and insightful. I know it is selfish to hang onto two places. We will make the decision this week and hopefully not incur a term's fees. I understand we would lose the deposit. I do work but I don't earn as much as my DH. I guess it is the 4 kids that makes it difficult as who knows if the others will have the same choices. Then do we send them private or to the comprehensive (which locally isn't as great as the grammar). I do understand my DH's position. We do have enough savings but he would rather spend it on holidays, a second home, new car, deposits for them later on etc etc I really only mentioned the Oxbridge thing as I was astounded that people were really thinking that far ahead. That isn't a consideration for us. It's really about what we should spend the savings on. They are all happy at primary school so I guess it makes sense to continue state and hope that they all do as well as they would if we had chosen the private route.

And thank you to the poster for all the helpful information on offers to Oxbridge!

Grammar schools and selective independent schools are generally viewed as being interchangeable by many university admission people, as it's mainly the same pupil population that uses both. If you want to have an easy time of it, move to a rough area where few people go to university and choose a community comprehensive school!

Easy time ??? Yup because going to a school that is struggling for funding in an area of deprecation is a piece of cake. I do hope you were being sarcastic !

Why did you post if :"I think private schools have so much more to offer".
If that is your opinion, then that is your answer.

Or maybe you just wanted to crow or start another pointless private v state debate? You do sound smug btw

Of course private schools have a lot to offer. They have lots of lovely money to pay for it with!

Our 3 DC`s all went to private school, none of the courses on offer were available at Oxbridge. I would relax and do what makes your child happy.