Are top private schools getting fewer oxbridge offers?

[Ijustwanttoask]

Just read in the papers about the drop in Oxbridge offers to Eton in the last few years. Is there a same trend for other big name public schools and top London day schools too?

In the past years, these schools generally happily announce the numbers of Oxbridge offers they get around this time of the year but I haven't seen much for 2021.

* Title edited by MNHQ by request* **

@rattusratrus20 you have no empirical proof that kids from Brampton Manor are smarter than kids from KCS. Actually the only data points we have is the value add score of the school and the exam results. On both counts it would suggest KCS kids are actually cleverer as with much less “value add” from the school they achieve more. Your money ball analogy is ridiculous - professional sport and the development of an athlete is completely different to the development of a child’s IQ. Furthermore a large proportion of the resources in private schools pays for facilities and extracurricular activities - strip that away and the spend on education alone is actually very similar.

It is very clear from your posts that you are unwilling to when entertain the possibility that it’s possible to be highly intelligent and deserving of a place at Oxbridge regardless of your background - which in my mind screams bias and discrimination. You also fail to acknowledge that there are other factors driving educational attainment other than parental wealth - most of which are accessible to the majority of the population. Life is not fair and we don’t live in a communist state. What next? You talk with a very scathing attitude about parents who prepare their kids for educational success from an early age....should we ban parents from reading to their kids? Or for helping with their homework? Or for moving to areas with better state schools? Maybe we should ban having books in the house? Let’s also ban tutoring while we’re at it... are you suggesting we do all of this or is it just private school kids that you have a particular issue with?

[quote Shinyhappypeople762]@rattusratrus20 you have no empirical proof that kids from Brampton Manor are smarter than kids from KCS. Actually the only data points we have is the value add score of the school and the exam results. On both counts it would suggest KCS kids are actually cleverer as with much less “value add” from the school they achieve more. Your money ball analogy is ridiculous - professional sport and the development of an athlete is completely different to the development of a child’s IQ. Furthermore a large proportion of the resources in private schools pays for facilities and extracurricular activities - strip that away and the spend on education alone is actually very similar.

It is very clear from your posts that you are unwilling to when entertain the possibility that it’s possible to be highly intelligent and deserving of a place at Oxbridge regardless of your background - which in my mind screams bias and discrimination. You also fail to acknowledge that there are other factors driving educational attainment other than parental wealth - most of which are accessible to the majority of the population. Life is not fair and we don’t live in a communist state. What next? You talk with a very scathing attitude about parents who prepare their kids for educational success from an early age....should we ban parents from reading to their kids? Or for helping with their homework? Or for moving to areas with better state schools? Maybe we should ban having books in the house? Let’s also ban tutoring while we’re at it... are you suggesting we do all of this or is it just private school kids that you have a particular issue with?[/quote]
Haha, crikey.

I might respond to that kidney stone of wisdom [hope it wasn't too painful to pass] in dribs and drabs but one thing I'll quickly say in relation to the value add scores is that they do not measure the attainment of pupils relative to underlying capability, but rather the attainment of pupils relative to the level they start at on their first day at the institution. This difference matters.

@mids2019

I think the reason people don't want to ban private schools is because in general we as a society don't like to take away something we know is beneficial to an individual just because it generates inequity.

For instance, using a ridiculous scenario, a large share of children in poverty aren't read to which has long term consequences for school readiness and leads to an unequal playing field at the very start. However, banning people with money from reading books to their children as a solution would seem perverse even if it did generate a more equitable outcome.

The human inclination is to level up, not level down. We push for better state education rather than abolishing private education. We push for childhood interventions that make a difference to school readiness like free preschool places.

This approach means that there will always be a degree of inequity because there will always be a constant game of catch up. The better the state sector becomes the harder private schools work to prove they still add value.

@rattusrattus20

I agree that you will find all sorts of bile in the DM comments section.....lovely publication that it is

However... we have an influential right wing press in this country so personally I am not underestimating their influence.

I would agree having the same proportion of oxbridge places as A* grades awarded to a particular school type seems reasonable at a population level though you would find problems at more local level and if you're looking at the inclusivity perspective how many from poorer backgrounds are getting those grades?

I think generally given ShinyHappy's stats on just one public school you can see from one perspective there is going to be an amount of anger not vocalised publically in the independent school community. (Given the awarded grades there does seem to be a specific point).

As you say this is a zero sum game. I would prefer oxbridge to have built more colleges in the previous century but we are we are and it looks like these arguments will come to a head and I think in a legal sense.

Why? Well if you are the head or member of the governing body at a private school it may you face an existential threat through the removal of one your unique selling points i.e. high oxbridge (and possibly others) offers. Why would parents choose a private option if they feel that actually it may mean a reduction in their child's university chances. It makes no sense.

Therefore independent schools will go to the courts with amassed evidence like the stats from KCL over a number of years with the intent that the oxbridge application system is discriminatory against a part of society (independent pupils). The aim would be to gain more transparency over selection criteria, investigate the legal implications of contextualisation etc and certainly look at the means of interviewing. Interviewing is by definition subjective and prone to unconscious bias (in any direction) so it would make sense the interviews are recorded for independent scrutiny.

The case for bias would be more evident for universities that do not interview as there are quantitative exam results and predictions to look at.

The oxbridge interview, subject to many apocryphal stories, should be scrutinised in the 21st century and it may be that the questioning is more formulated in the interests of transparency of an emotive decision making process

I dont think elite schools have a great future unless they contest inclusivity agendas.

@southlondonmommy exactly....we need to focus on levelling up rather than levelling down. You also need to be in the game to win - massively more private school kids apply to Oxbridge than state. That’s is an issue for the state school kids to address. If more applied with the right grades the proportions would change. No one would deem this unfair.

@rattusrattus29 it’s clear we won’t see eye to eye on this - I just don’t believe the way to bid up someone’s stock is to bid someone else’s down. I’m not saying there isn’t work to be done by there is little to be gained with sweeping generalisation about private school kids. I am also curious as in an earlier post you said you would be sending your daughter to a private school when she is older? Is this not somewhat hypocritical?

@SouthLondonMommy

Gosh where to start...

Your right in this debate feeds into a more general one about educational inequality.

You can't argue with levelling up but can I put forward you have described the private v public school debate in terms of an arms race where the state sector is continually improving to catch up to the private who in turn improve to show a market advantage

The end result is presumably ever improving standards to the benefit of all.

However the scenario implies the private sector with its selectivity and greater resources will always produce relatively more oxbridge successes and would therefore act as the beacon for the state to follow.

You could therefore argue that the state v private proportion shift at oxbridge acts as a downward pressure in that the application process may be marginally easier for state applicants (especially when elite schools seem to have significant numbers of rejections with brilliant A levels)

I am going to contensiously put forward that the idea of awarding a foundation year to students who initially do not have full knowledge to enter an oxbridge degree
is like rewarding parents that do not read to their children. We will obviously not punish reading parents by taking away books but we could take away relative advantage by allowing the non read children to catch up. Fair or not fair?

Such a difficult topic

@mids2019 I was thinking along those same lines but was a bit scared to write it down ;-) I know that when I was at my state school and actually sitting down and doing the homework every night rather than hanging out on street corners I would have been appalled if someone had decided to award the kids on the street corners the same grade as me just because someone decided that their lives were harder than mine.

The foundation year places that people keep bringing up as the controversial leveller for disadvantaged candidates will be very small in number compared to the overall numbers admitted to Oxbridge: about 50 each, I believe, and will be aimed at care leavers, asylum seekers and other severely disadvantaged but talented candidates. Let's not kid ourselves that large numbers of Eton or even Brampton Manor alumni are going to have their offers slashed by this initiative.

[quote mids2019]@Elij00

I agree. The story behind this Newham school is a great narrative for the media and breakfast TV picked this up.

I found the DM article uncomfortable in its subtext with a picture of majority ethnic pupils outside Brompton Manor and a stock picture of white Etonians.

A lot of comments on the article seemed to suggest positive discrimination from a 'woke' society and I think that's the narrative that Oxbridge are going to have to fight in future.

In fact I think the positive discrimination argument will be the one used by private schools to combat falling levels of Oxbridge entrance with legal class action by private schools at large if any evidence could be found (either at an individual or collective level). I do pity the admissions tutors, their position is unenviable, and I wonder where the drive for diversity is coming from? Is there advice given to admissions tutors in terms of fairness of access or is there an overarching policy of inclusion at the University governance level? .I do not think the reduction in private school pupils was part of any conservative manifesto so I presume there is limited government interference. I wonder what Boris Johnson's attitude would be when reading this article while eating his corn flakes? Will it be pleasure at a more diverse university make up, 'levelling up' in the new parlance or will it be a feeling that his old school is being stuffed and this 'woke' lefty nonsense has to stop?

I think we are in for more stories about private school children with streams of A stars that have been denied Oxbridge places in the right wing press specifically the telegraph to keep the pressure on to influence admission policy.[/quote]
Absolutely it is but to be fair when Brampton Manor's Success story first came to light 2-3 years ago, it was portrayed by the Regional Tv and Newspaper outlets as something positive in light of the School's surrounding areas. A far cry from the way outlets like The Daily Mail are portraying it.

I am less concerned about how the Media are portraying it tbh and more concerned about their performance in the School once admitted. As reports have shown, they perform just as well as their Private School counterparts so it seems the various Admissions officers at these schools know how to pick their candidates.

There is bound to be an ongoing title for tat for years to come as no sector will entirely be Happy with their results. I'm sure State Schools students will also show you many applicants with a string of A* getting rejected. As long as Oxbridge have a limited amount of seats available, there will always be quibbling from both sides.

@Shinyhappypeople762

Good point. I am sure all applicants to oxbridge are very bright but I think the problem is that quite simply the universities are massively oversubscribed with applicants that are predicted or have the standard offer. It was mentioned earlier by a poster that they viewed contexualisation as something of a myth as AAA grades were the 'cream of the crop'....well maybe in the 80s and 90s but now? (I read Imperial are making triple A* offers) . This leaves room for a lot of selectivity and the whole process is vague in the sense feedback for rejection is limited (especially with the infamous interviews) so you are bound to have debate about the merits of different candidates. The problem is this leaves room for the perception of positive discrimination.

I dont think a sense of schadenfreude about private school rejects helps as at a personal level rejection is a huge disappointment no matter your background. There is sense that private school children could be made they are less worthy of others.

@DahliaMacNamara

State pupils maybe do relatively better degree classification wise but do we know the reasons for this? Is it historically the state pupils chosen were particularly driven and the academic focus remained throughout their university career? Could there be some private school applicants that let off the accelerator a little after entrance? Could it be with greater state school acceptance both sectors will now appear to be equally well?

With regard to foundation years Guardian readers will be triumphant and Daily Mail readers will be seething.(I dont think asylum seekers being aided into oxbridge is going to go down too well in certain quarters......Priti Patel isn't going to be highlighting this tii soon)

The horrible fact of the matter is that the parents of privately educated children arent going to be placated after oxbridge rejection letters with the knowledge a deprived child has got a place. (Hopefully that wasn't too unfair). Granted there are few positions currently but you can see how foundation years feeds into this general discussion.

@Shinyhappypeople762 and @mids2019

There is no silver bullet. It will be a multi-pronged approach to address poverty, inequality and fair access to opportunities.

I am actually supportive of foundation courses as I think they help level the playing field. Just like I'm in favour of free preschool places.

As an aside, one of my husband's friends went to a terrible school and got a U in maths at A-level despite being quite clever. He did a foundation year and became an engineer and working Rolls Royce and then Ferrari at very senior levels!

We should help everyone live up to their potential. Anything else is such a waste of human talent. Despite how competitive the world fields in the London bubble, the country actually has a massive shortage of highly skilled people.

*feels

I think the Brampton Manor example shows that U.K. state schools can provide great learning environments but judging by the things I have read it is not for the faint hearted! Some of the kids arrive at school at 6am for early morning study session and don’t leave until 6 - that’s a 12 hour day! There are 6 dedicated staff with no other teaching responsibilities apart from university admissions and Oxbridge entry. Discipline is very strict - no talking in the halls, zero tolerance for bad behaviour and if you don’t make the right grades after the first year you are asked to leave. In all the newspaper articles the kids talk about the fantastic resources and the support they receive from both the school and their parents. It does seem quite similar to the Korean or Chinese school systems (and look how successful they are). I wonder how it would be received if a selective Brampton Manor style school were opened in every area across the U.K.? Not everyone agrees with Grammar Schools and is this essentially a grammar school on steroids?

@SouthLondonMommy

Absolutely there is no silver bullet.

The statement about the mutiny pronged approach to poverty could have easily been written on the manifesto for the Labour party in 2019 To my mind where you line up on this debate depends on some extent on political persuasion and there will be alternate views.

Levelling the playing field works in some areas but the problem I believe lies in the fact your trying to level up at the very top of the academic pyramid (maybe in the world).

With an approximately constant number of places every place gained through a foundation course means a place lost elsewhere There is possibly a privately educated student somewhere whose parents have sacrificed a great deal for her education who has spent a few years studying to get top A levels that would miss out.

Being horribly elitist about this should oxbridge be the breeding ground of the Stephen Hawkings of this world along with other renound academics or should it aim be partially about solving social inequality?

Oh by the way we will always need engineers( life would be grim without them). We undervalue engineers in this country (another subject).

@Shinyhappypeople762

I think the Brampton Manor example shows that U.K. state schools can provide great learning environments but judging by the things I have read it is not for the faint hearted! Some of the kids arrive at school at 6am for early morning study session and don’t leave until 6 - that’s a 12 hour day! There are 6 dedicated staff with no other teaching responsibilities apart from university admissions and Oxbridge entry. Discipline is very strict - no talking in the halls, zero tolerance for bad behaviour and if you don’t make the right grades after the first year you are asked to leave. In all the newspaper articles the kids talk about the fantastic resources and the support they receive from both the school and their parents. It does seem quite similar to the Korean or Chinese school systems (and look how successful they are). I wonder how it would be received if a selective Brampton Manor style school were opened in every area across the U.K.? Not everyone agrees with Grammar Schools and is this essentially a grammar school on steroids?

I can't say I much care for the concept of Brampton Manor. If you're being super-selective at age 16 then what you're doing isn't, y'know, [bad analogy klaxon] cutting rough diamonds, what you're really doing is adding a probably fairly modest layer of extra polish onto diamonds that've already been cut, faceted, and finished. If stories of kids travelling up to two hours each way are true then it stops being an East Ham school, or even an East London school, you're talking about somewhere [London, and East London in particular, being so densely populated] with a catchment area of, what, up to around a couple of million people[?] and you really need to be comparing its results with the results of say 'all the grammar schools in the North West of England combined'. If your catchment area is that vast, there's no fees barrier, and relatively little selection being practiced by other state schools that side of Kent, then you're going to be in a position to attract some serious, serious talent, forget the top 1%, it's potentially far more elite than that.

It'd be interesting to see how the reinvention of BM has impacted the total number of Oxbridge and other Russell Group places that other East London state schools have earned over the same period.

@Shinyhappypeople762

Could you imagine the comments if a private school has these policies?

Anyway goes to show you that a 5 minute 'positive news' on the morning news doesnt tell the whole story. Sounds like the media have just developed a desired narrative around this.

I don’t think it’s the Steven Hawkins of the world that are missing a place. Just the least exceptional private school pupils.

Also, we might very well be missing a great scientific mind who because of social circumstances wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity to use their abilities.

The outreach and foundation work isn’t to bring in less able pupils. The idea is to widen access to all the most able pupils.

So it seems the BM 6th form are pretty elite which was not exactly mentioned in the papers. ..hey ho.

I think one thing that does not help is that interview effectively acts as a decider between a lot of pupils with A grades or above (predicted) (at least Cambridge).

It is here that presumably private school kids with their high grades are falling down.

I know in my sector of work of at least one case where a perfectly qualified applicant who interviewed well was rejected and she complained to the HR department to look into the decision making process of the interview panel and give specific reasons for rejection.

The applicant had many years in her field and was aware that there may have been a bit of politics in candidate selection so felt this was her right. Fair enough

I wonder if many 17 year olds would look at this for oxbridge interviews. I think one common complaint especially amongst independent schools is that candidates couldn't present better academic credentials as they already had the best, the interview subjectively went well, so why a rejection? Who were the better candidates mentioned in the rejection letter? I think the interview process allows doubts about the process fairness to develop.

The idea of tutors looking for 'potential' may be slightly concerning for some candidates as this does suggest a bias to (borrowing an analogy from up post sorry) 'rough diamonds' rather than the finished product.

@LondonGirl83

You make a good point

However when you talk about the least able private school candidates there is a lot of evidence from here and other threads there are private school applicants with superlative A levels being rejected where the school is utterly perplexed for the reason .

Not being harsh but doesnt the fact a foundation year is required suggest there is a deficit of knowledge or ability that needs accounting for

Stephen Hawking was privately educated and scraped a first at Oxford. I suppose state school applicants are more likely to do well and get better firsts... . ??

@LondonGirl83

I don’t think it’s the Steven Hawkins of the world that are missing a place. Just the least exceptional private school pupils.

Also, we might very well be missing a great scientific mind who because of social circumstances wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity to use their abilities.

The outreach and foundation work isn’t to bring in less able pupils. The idea is to widen access to all the most able pupils.

Exactly the point I made earlier. The Top performers in these Schools are still getting in. It's the in-between candidates who would have walked in in years gone by that are feeling the pinch.

However I do feel sorry for the likes of King's Wimbledon in particular as I understand their position. They currently amongst the Top 5/7 most selective secondaries in the country(Nationally and internationally academic selective at 11 and 13 along with the creaming of the Brightest Female students at 16)and the feel their Oxbridge numbers does not currently reflect that.

@elij00

It's difficult isn't it.

On the one hand it's really good more state applicants are applying to elite institutions and outreach has to be applauded for this.

I think the vast majority of people would support pupils getting into universties on merit and I think that there just is a suspicion that positive discrimiation is at play (though of course this will be denied).

The problem with the idea of mediocre private candidates missing out may be true but can this be evidenced? As I said there are numerous examples of independent pupils with near perfect examination results that appear to be losing out and I think the statistics may bear this out.

Expansion of oxbridge should have been done in the 20th Century really in anticipation of demand and we might have had a (slightly) less competitive scenario .

I mentioned Stephen Hawking above as an antidote to the less than brilliant public schoolers populating oxbridge with the influx of state school applicants raising attainment

@mids2019A foundation course suggests a deficit in teaching received not ability. You have to prove yourself on the foundation course, its not a direct link that you then move on to the university.

A deficit in teaching shouldn't hold people of great ability back.

I doubt a true genius like Stephen Hawkins wouldn't be spotted in the interview process. The idea that foundation courses are going to result in privately educated world class geniuses being rejected by Oxbridge is a bit extreme.

The kids who get in from the state sector (excluding foundations) have just as good grades as their private counterparts. The foundation students are just as intelligent but suffered from a poor education for whatever reason.

The rebalancing isn't removing talent from Oxbridge, it is expanding access to all the talented.

And as someone who studied at Oxford at masters level and who has worked with a lot of Oxbridge colleagues, there is a cohort who are hard working and very well trained but not really brilliant. Widening access will actually improve the overall quality. I also know some truly brilliant Oxbridge minds but its not at all universal in my generation.

[quote mids2019]@elij00

It's difficult isn't it.

On the one hand it's really good more state applicants are applying to elite institutions and outreach has to be applauded for this.

I think the vast majority of people would support pupils getting into universties on merit and I think that there just is a suspicion that positive discrimiation is at play (though of course this will be denied).

The problem with the idea of mediocre private candidates missing out may be true but can this be evidenced? As I said there are numerous examples of independent pupils with near perfect examination results that appear to be losing out and I think the statistics may bear this out.

Expansion of oxbridge should have been done in the 20th Century really in anticipation of demand and we might have had a (slightly) less competitive scenario .

I mentioned Stephen Hawking above as an antidote to the less than brilliant public schoolers populating oxbridge with the influx of state school applicants raising attainment[/quote]
It is indeed difficult evidenced by the fact we all on this board can't seem to agree with how to deal with it moving forward.

The Vast majority of people do support merit based admissions and the state educated pupils admitted into Oxbridge at there based on their individual merit. It's hardly surprising their numbers shot through the roof as soon as they began to apply in huge numbers.

Mumsnet is not a reflection of the real world as we have a disproportionate amount of Private school Mums compared to the rest of the UK or even London so we are bound to Hear more about their stories. Statistics however shows more state school students are getting the Top grades so they are bound to get more rejections.

Oxbridge might have to expand at some point to accommodate the ever increasing level of demand. Stephen Hawkings is the exact type of pupil that would not have been affected by the current fiasco. He passed 11 plus a year early, was one of brightest at St Albans and Westminster scholar material.

@SouthLondonMommy

I can understand your arguments it's just someone from the independent sector would have differing views.

Rebalancing is leading to removal if talent at least as far as the independent sector is concerned. The elite schools in question I am sure would argue that many of their unsuccessful applicants would have added to the oxbridge talent Its all a matter of perspective

OK Stephen Hawking was an extreme example and I am sure Oxbridge wouldn't have missed him. I was just making the point that private schools are not full of the 'Tim nice but dim' and this wasn't a useful stereotype and it would be easy to find many brilliant minds from public schools

I think part of this discussion could be that oxbridge admission tutors dont hold a monopoly on academic talent spotting and that we have a reasonably adequate way of judging talent through A levels. I think there us an argument to be objective A level grade could be the primary way of grading people for oxbridge entry with a A double star introduced if necessary to differentiate the high flyers. This would remove some of the subjectivity of the application process that does cause the most debate

Foundation courses could be viewed as an alternative means if oxbridge entry that bypasses to some degree established A level tariffs and again gives more power to the universities in setting their own talent criteria.

I think this would be uncontroversial if oxbridge wasn't so competitive to get into but for all it's good intentions you will get criticism that someone has been awarded a place simply because of a hard life (apologies if that does sound unsympathetic).

From an elite public school perspective this would look like possible social engineering (or at least the thin end of the wedge)

Behave, @mids2019. Either Oxbridge places are fiercely competitive, or they're letting people in 'simply because' they've been orphaned or abused or otherwise traumatised, yet show enough grit and promise to demonstrate that they deserve a chance. Every place is at the expense of another bright hopeful, whatever their background. Your perspective on social engineering implies that candidates from expensive public/independent schools are the de facto elite. Why shouldn't another Hawking emerge from the murkier side of life, given the right opportunity?