Private schools getting fewer oxbridge offers II

[MurielSpriggs]

The story behind this full thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/4166618-Are-top-private-schools-getting-fewer-oxbridge-offers
plus a quote from a poster here, have made it into a lengthy article in today's FT.

(Of course, I read the FT by accident. Clearly I live in a static caravan, my kids are educated by the local feral cats, and I would never consider paying to try to improve their chances at fancy-schmancy so-called universities ).

www.ft.com/content/bbb7fe58-0908-4f8e-bb1a-081a42a045b7

(Just to add to the unjust exclusivity, FT is behind a paywall.)

How Britain’s private schools lost their grip on Oxbridge
As state-school admissions rise at elite universities, some parents who shelled out for private education regret it

<span class="italic">“Five years ago, my son would have got a place at Oxford. But now the bar has shifted and he didn’t,” says my friend, a City of London executive who has put several children through elite private schools in Britain. “I think he got short-changed.”</span>

I’ve been hearing this more and more from fellow parents with kids at top day and boarding schools in recent years. Some of it sounds like whining: most of us like to think the best of our progeny. But my friend has a point. After years of hand-wringing about unequal access to elite higher education, admissions standards are finally shifting.

A decade ago, parents who handed over tens of thousands of pounds a year for the likes of Eton College, St Paul’s School or King’s College School in Wimbledon could comfortably assume their kids had a very good chance of attending Oxford or Cambridge, two of the best universities in the world. A 2018 Sutton Trust study showed that just eight institutions, six of them private, accounted for more Oxbridge places than 2,900 other UK secondary schools combined. When the headmaster of Westminster School boasted at an open evening that half the sixth form went on to Oxbridge, approving murmurs filled the wood-panelled hall. (I was there.) ...

But they are getting more and more students into Ivy League Universities in the USA (and can afford to go there……….)

My kids are privately educated but it has never crossed my mind that it “buys” a place at Oxbridge. Both my husband and I went to Cambridge from state schools but we have no expectations on our children.

I know a boy from a big name boarding school who was predicted and got 4 A* but didn’t get into Oxford. He’s very good at passing exams but is not a free thinker. It’s like he couldn’t think outside the realms of what he had been taught. When schools are so focussed on exam grades they can become a little blinkered to thinking outside the box.

I think it is great that the balance is shifting more fairly but I do think it’s still about selecting a certain type of student and getting in on more than just grades. Independent schools that teach purely for grades are those that will become unstuck.

Attached, a chart with a bit a quantitative info.

This has been the case for several years though. Also no wriggle room for slipped grades.

It isn't about paying to get into university. Its about all other things being equal if there are two candidates with equal merit and one place, the place will be given to the state school child over the private school child. That isn't right.

On the other hand the stupid system on postcodes operated by a number of universities means that some children at independent schools are given postcode privilege. Fuck off daily mail but I know of a child who lives in an enormous manor house with acres of land and goes to a very, very well known public school but because the local village is a poor, run down one they had an adjusted offer because they came from an area of low participation in higher education fuck off daily mail. When I said this couldn't possibly be right because of the fact that they attended independent school and were not on a bursary they showed me the offer. It was indeed true.

I work at a prestigious uni. I know there is a big drive to get kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. I think this will only increase given the huge attention on education disparities (and rightly so).
My DS is at a prep and the education is incredibly poor - sole focus is on passing exams. I won’t be sending him to a top tier school as I really don’t believe this will be an advantage going forward.

It is still the same kids getting Oxbridge places though - clever kids from supportive families which value education.

Most “well off” UK families were priced out of private schools a decade ago and have gamed the state system - grammars, partially selective schools in wealthy areas, denominational schools etc all supplemented by private tuition. Their DC are still the ones getting the Oxbridge offers. I suspect this demographic also accounts for many of the successful applications from the big private schools. They will have got scholarships and bursaries at 11 and 13.

And many of the successful applicants from poorer backgrounds are those who would have got grammar school places in the past - the Diane Abbots and Margaret Thatchers of today. The role of those grammars has been taken over by the large, highly selective sixth form colleges. They just select at 16 rather than 11.

And as @Zodlebud points out many UK private school students are now looking to the US. The fee increases in the UK make Ivy Leagues look much more attractive as does the Ivy League focus on all rounders with good extra curriculars. I think there is also a perception that their applications will not be treated less favourably because they went to a private school.

I noticed that thread got hijacked by one poster in particular asking probing questions. I always wondered if it was an article or academic research, without having to do any of the legwork.

@Bloomsbury45 it is not true that’s it’s “always” the same kids. There is an increasing number of kids I teach at my uni who are not from the type of background you describe. Yes, the middle classes milk the system but applications from disadvantaged backgrounds are actively sought. There is a massive outreach drive to raise awareness amongst schools from these areas to attract talent. Yes, they are still a minority but this will change in the coming years.

DS managed to get through the lottery that is now Oxbridge entry. He got top grades, but so did most of his friends. He was educated privately, but so we’re many of his friends. He went to a school where 30% went to Oxbridge, but so did his friends.

He said there was so little difference between those who got in and those that didn’t and it was a lottery. Did you happen to click with the person interviewing you/choose the right college etc

At Oxford, he met his girlfriend. She went to a state school, which was in special measures for most of her time there. She was an outstanding pupil there and did and won everything. It was always obvious why she got in compared to her schoolmates. At Oxford, they were just two equally bright students - both deserved their place, but DS can list a number of friends who could equally have deserved his.

I totally agree with @Zodlebud. We also both went to Oxbridge from state schools and now send our kids private. The choice to go private over grammar was always about their education right now, never about what comes next. (The arguments have been rehearsed on here a million times, but in summary it was about class size, subject choice, teaching, facilities, extra curricular, academic excellence without constant testing - and generally about having a really fantastic day, pretty much every day). Results at our school are slightly better than at the grammar, but it's marginal. Would I have made a different decision if I'd considered the fact that it might be a little harder for the children to get into Oxbridge at the end of it? Not a chance. They're spending seven years at secondary school compared to probably three at university. As an Oxbridge graduate I am well aware how special a place it is - but I also know that it doesn't suit everyone (even the cleverest, sometimes), that it's not always the best university for every subject, that it can be a lottery to get in regardless of school, and generally that other universities are available.

I think it is the beginning of the end of private schools.

There is a much greater element of selection in private schools than in state schools, yet acceptance rates at Oxbridge are converging.

Why make life more difficult for yourself and your child? Go to the local comp, stand out as one of the best students there and save your family ~£140k on private secondary education.

No brainer really.

Except that it isn't a no brainer at least IMO, because it's not all about outcomes. A close friend has a son the same age as mine who is similarly very academically able (not the same geographical area). Her son has gone to a 'bog standard comp', and the divergence in their school experience since they went to secondary has been so stark. Her DS will still get very decent results I'm sure, because he's very clever, and he will no doubt get to a good university if he wants to. But his basic attitude to school is uttey 'meh'. Teachers are 'rubbish'. He's lost enthusiasm for all of his subjects and will probably just continue the ones that he finds the easiest, even though he's not that interested in them. He got involved in a couple of extra curricular things as a keen Year 7, but they've all fizzled out because it's really not cool to get involved in stuff, so not many people do. His overriding outlook is basically just that school's a bit crap, and is something to be got through before moving on. My DS's experience couldn't be more starkly different - he loves school, he loves most of his subjects, he hugely respects and admires his teachers and he gets involved in all sorts of things which really enrich his life. It sounds cheesy, but nearly every day is a pretty great day.

I'm not saying this has to be as simple as a state/private division - I've no doubt that some children in both sectors have both attitudes. But I can't imagine DS having a much better seven years at school than he's having, and yes, I am willing to pay quite a lot of money for that.

I think pocketcalculatoroperator has a point. DD is well motivated and would do well anywhere. DS is very bright but needs a competitive cohort to motivate him. If those around him were meh he would also adopt this attitude..

Geography also has a big part to play. Friends of ours live in north London and their children attend an outstanding primary. Parents at the school are highly driven.. most work in finance / law / media. House prices are over 1 million in the 180m radius catchment area. There is very little social housing. V ethnically diverse. They will also get into a very good secondary and will have state school stamped on their university applications...

We live in a poor rural county remote from the south east. We have a small village primary of 70 children. Catchment area is 5 miles. Average earnings in our area is about 15k per year. Most parents are carers, lorry drivers or farmers. Very white hardly any ethnic minorities. We tried the state primary for four years but our children were not challenged and bored so we moved to private school which better caters for their needs. We will have private school stamped on our uni applications..

Is this fair? I suspect it's the London middle classes who are using state education and tutors who are pushing for more state schools at Oxbridge..

DH and his school friends were all privately educated. Education in London has improved massively and all have chosen state schools for their kids and spent any spare money on extensions of their million pound homes

There is a much greater element of selection in private schools than in state schools, yet acceptance rates at Oxbridge are converging

Is the selection point true? What percentage of successful state school applicants come from selective grammar schools? What percentage come from selective sixth form colleges eg King‘s Maths where you need a grade 8 or 9 at GCSE plus a high maths aptitude score to enter?

Most private schools admit any child whose family can pay provided they can access the curriculum. Highly selective private schools are in a minority and even there many parents with an offer at eg Tiffin and Westminster would think long and hard about the cost of the value added at the private school. Outside London, many families with an offer at eg Ermysteds and Sedbergh would probably go with the state grammar for a clever child.

30 years ago I tried to get in to Oxbridge. I had top A level grades (3 As which at the time was the maximum I could get from my state comprehensive). What I didn't have was anyone to help me with the admissions and interviews. When I got there I found out that I was competing with kids who had been tutored for months and were mostly privately educated. (And yes I should have been better prepared but there was no internet and nobody in my family had been to university- I was so out of my depth). I am really pleased that things are changing. It is right that Oxbridge is taking more state school pupils. I'm not sure how anyone could argue against it unless they think it is right that you can buy a place. (Next year ds - state educated - is applying to Oxford. We'll see how he gets on).

I am staggered by the oblivious assumption that it was OK to have a ‘grip’ on Oxbridge places in the first place.

I'm not sure anyone does assume that. As a state-educated Oxbridge grad, I certainly don't. But I think it's true that private school applicants are often the most 'obviously' well-qualified candidates (top grades and well-prepped in terms of interview skills and UCAS forms), so that breaking that 'grip' requires a degree of positive discrimination, particularly in the case of candidates from state schools which have little experience of sending students to Oxbridge. (I went to Oxford from a high performing grammar, and even there I had very little support or advice with the application. Looking back now, I suspect my UCAS form was awful.) Any form of positive discrimination is always controversial, because it can be a very blunt tool if done badly, and can produce unintended consequences. I think that's more the issue - not that people are thinking that it was always perfectly fine that such a high percentage of Etonians went to Oxbridge.

@pocketcalculatoroperator

I'm not sure anyone does assume that. As a state-educated Oxbridge grad, I certainly don't. But I think it's true that private school applicants are often the most 'obviously' well-qualified candidates (top grades and well-prepped in terms of interview skills and UCAS forms), so that breaking that 'grip' requires a degree of positive discrimination, particularly in the case of candidates from state schools which have little experience of sending students to Oxbridge. (I went to Oxford from a high performing grammar, and even there I had very little support or advice with the application. Looking back now, I suspect my UCAS form was awful.) Any form of positive discrimination is always controversial, because it can be a very blunt tool if done badly, and can produce unintended consequences. I think that's more the issue - not that people are thinking that it was always perfectly fine that such a high percentage of Etonians went to Oxbridge.

*How Britain’s private schools lost their grip on Oxbridge As state-school admissions rise at elite universities, some parents who shelled out for private education regret it*

That says to me that parents who can afford it paid for private education to get their share of the ‘grip’ on Oxbridge.

Over the years I have seen numerous indignant MN posts protesting the (slight) re-balancing of admissions.

It isn’t Positive Discrimination to change an admissions system that is clearly missing many of the minds that an institution is trying to attract, it is moving to a fairer, more efficient system: Equal Opportunities.

Oxbridge Admissions thinkers could make significant changes in order to achieve equal opps access, but seem wedded to what us in effect a class based admissions with some ‘positive discrimination’ adjustments.

One of my state educated Dc is at Cambridge. Despite rather than because of the Open Days, at which lack of awareness of different backgrounds was almost laughable.

The problem is that you can have 2 kids with the exact same exam results, same level of intelligence and same level of enthusiasm for the subject they want to study.
Traditionally the privately educated child would get the place because they had a list of extra curriculars and had been exposed to situations that made them confident, were well travelled and just the ‘right fit’
No thought would have been made to the fact that the state educated child might have had to work 4 nights a week to help feed the family, might have neglectful parents, might have had to study in a room shared with lots of siblings. There would be no spare money for extra curricular activities or tutors etc
Now I know that’s 2 ends of the scale and there are plenty of families at the lower economic scale who place great importance on education etc.
I do think that the emphasis should be on the individuals knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject they want to study rather than if they were on the school lacrosse team as some kids just don’t have the same opportunities.

@MarianneUnfaithful

I am staggered by the oblivious assumption that it was OK to have a ‘grip’ on Oxbridge places in the first place.

Oh, come on. Surely you understand how privilege works?

An interesting thread!

2 thoughts;

i) I wonder how many of the students contributing to 'state intake' are from comprehensives; that piece of information is not available anywhere - 'state' includes grammar schools, academies, maintained LA schools - which provide vastly differing experiences. It would be so interesting to see that particular breakdown, but I suspect it would not support the narrative of widening participation.

ii) as a parent with children at state schools, (we don't live in a grammar area, so all state schools are comprehensives), one of whom is HOPEFULLY headed to Oxford, grades permitting, it was obvious to me that there is a massive issue in the difference in preparation for admissions to Oxbridge. Dd was pretty well left to her own devices, had to rely on google and youtube to find out what was expected in an Oxbridge personal statement (which is very different to any other university, being almost entirely subject and supra-curricular based, and almost nothing on extra-curricular). She had to access her own past-papers and mark schemes for the entrance tests, and create her own practice interviews, including devising her own reading list, study area etc.

In a way, that is how it should be - because for her, that is what she would be doing anyway, it's what she's like. On the other hand, it is very much not a level playing field with schools where the 'Oxbridge group' will potentially have weekly tutoring sessions for Oxbridge prep (I have worked in schools where this is the case). So it is vital that interviewers are aware of the differences in preparation, and support - and given that she was successful in interview, I think they probably are!!

Seriously? Debates around the ethics of choosing to pay for your child's education always boil down to it being the parent's choice. Well... paying WAS your choice - if you paid in the mistaken belief that you were buying your child's way into a 'top' university as well then, according to that news report, you have done so in error. Oh dear. What a shame. Suck it up. It's always heartening to see the most privaleged in society whinging 'it's not fair' though so do crack on.

A child who got high grades from a disadvantaged background and at a struggling comp is a far better candidate for top unis than those privately educated. Those kids have no idea about real life, how to learn independently and a har deforming ethic.

I am glad of these changes

I reckon @MrPickles73 has it about right.

I suspect it's the London middle classes who are using state education and tutors who are pushing for more state schools at Oxbridge..grin

The argument made on behalf the so obviously deserving, free school meals kids in terrible neighbourhoods at poor schools who have beaten the odds is easy agree with. I suspect the real beneficiaries are actually middle class professionals who maneuvered their kids into good comps. It looks more likely that one group of middle class kids are gaining an advantage at the expense of other middle class kids and the theoretically, disadvantaged child is not much better off than they ever were.

disadvantaged child is not much better off than they ever were.

We are getting kids into medicine and Oxbridge that would NEVER have stood a chance getting in before. Bristol uni even accepted a kid with 3 Bs to study medicine 2 years ago