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.) ...

Some private school students are smart (believe it or not).

As a private school student, I endorse this view

But still think it more likely that state school students will develop independent learning skills, as many are incentivised to do so by their disrupted environment. As I said it's been suggested as one of the explanations for state school students out-performing private school students at university, where these skills really start to count.

The amount of handwringing over this issue is incredible.

If people are really so concerned that their precious children will be at a disadvantage as a result of being privately educated, then they can move their kids into the state sector. However, most of them won't do this because they know that their kids are not actually at a disadvantage in the slightest. They are merely pissed off to find that they are not entitled to quite the degree of privilege that they thought they had paid for.

But still think it more likely that state school students will develop independent learning skills, as many are incentivised to do so by their disrupted environment

With respect, stoney you have no idea what it is like trying to learning in a disruptive environment as someone from a private school background. It is impossible. The bullying and the disruption does not encourage independence! This is a foolish idea. It encourages fear, stress, pressure and most of all many students shut down. It delusional to believe it is in any way helpful! I say this as a state school pupil, the bullying and violence and intimidation was rife and frightening and did not serve ANY of the pupils well, the race to the bottom mentality was hardly helpful either. I do not speak for all state schools, many are fantastic and are disciplined but a large percentage are simply failing. Failing every single child. My dn is a HoD in a school in special measures and her stories would make your hair fall out.

@Swayingpalmtrees
You clearly don’t have a child with SEN otherwise you wouldn’t be quite so scathing. You also don’t know much about how little funding there is in some fee paying schools for good quality SEN support and detection - yes there are smaller classes, but they don’t usually have as many masters educated SEN professionals as the state schools. Do your research.
I went to a very well known top boarding school, but I am a mum myself so it was many years ago now and I have no idea what their SEN support and screening is like now - hopefully better!
However Dyslexia, which shows up in many different forms, is still going undetected in both sectors. I am very passionate about my job which is in this area.
You come across as really quite an unpleasant person on here, hopefully that is just social media and you are kinder in real life.

@Swayingpalmtrees
what percentage of state schools are ‘failing’ in this way please?

I am not your PA chocolata I am sure you are capable of looking up the ofsted stats yourself.

I am only unpleasant because I don't agree with you, and pulled you up on your spelling. You have this very fixed small view on the world of education, maybe through the SEN route you come across as very anti private school without any valid reasons. I have friends with children that have SEN and they have simply chosen schools that excel in that area, they didn't try and shoe horn their children into very academic top public schools but a nurturing environment instead. They can choose - that is the point, and they don't need to fight tooth and nail for support.

@Swayingpalmtrees how absolutely rude to pull someone up on their written English, particularly when you don't know the background. Some might say the small-mindedness is all yours. And by the way, it's 'that's' not 'thats'

@Swayingpalmtrees
of course you are not my PA. I simply asked you to point me in the direction of the stats you used to inform your statement in that post.
So, once again, tell me @Swayingpalmtrees about how many state schools are failing.I think you paint a darker picture than the reality and I would like some facts pleas to support your opnions if I am to take them seriously.
I work cross sector, I work in state and private schools, I have a very broad view of education, I have family and friends using both sectors with a variety of positive and negative experiences in both.
I suspect you are the one lacking nuance TBF. You had a bad experience yourself which is tough, you educated your children privately so this wasn’t repeated, and you are hacked off that this might mean they are discriminated against because of your choices. Which is understandable. But that doesn’t mean that universities should stop trying to make sure talented, hard working pupils from less privileged backgrounds have the same opportunities that other children have.

The performative outrage is pathetic red you are going to have to try much harder....

Well done, you can spell performative. You must have picked up something in that awful state school you went to be. Although, sadly, no manners.

The random 'be' was a phone glitch but I fully expect you to criticise my English. For the record, I got a First...in English...from Oxford. 😉

I am very content with my decisions for my own dc.

I also think one of them certainly will get into Oxbridge or Cambridge, she has her father's gift for mathematics and it is looking promising. I didn't choose the children's schools to increase their chances of an offer. I choose them because they are excellent well rounded schools, that offer outstanding education and pastoral care. We have had a wonderful experience, and regardless of where they go next they are bright and intelligent young people that will thrive anywhere, and that is all one can ask for as parent.

As a state educated child I would like to see more equality and access to ivy league universities - allowances should be made for those on free school meals etc of course, but also it should not be assumed all children are 'privileged' just because they go to a private school. Lazy stereotypes at either end of the spectrum are unhelpful. I was fortunate to be one of only two students in y class to go to university. Yes it was dire! I sincerely hope things have improved.

And my final comment as this is becoming a farce. Nobody CERTAINLY gets into Oxbridge. Any parent who thinks like that is very, very deluded indeed.

I think it just shows a certain degree of ignorance regarding the admissions process. To be fair, if you don't have experience, you wouldn't necessarily realise that many exceptionally bright candidates do miss out.

I am

Raw nerve red raw nerve
Yes lets leave it there. Perfect place. Au revoir and good luck to all applying.

Posted too soon.

I am entirely confident that my dd is "worthy" of an Oxbridge place, and I think she has as good a chance of getting in as anyone, but I am well aware that there are no guarantees for anyone as there is always an element of luck involved. In my case, I believe that I got in because I happened to show an interest in a very niche area that subsequently turned out to be a bit of a lifelong obsession for the interviewer. I had no idea!

Of course, whether my dd would get in or not is only one side of the equation. She is still in the process of deciding whether she actually wants to apply or whether she prefers what is on offer elsewhere.

No raw nerves here @Swayingpalmtrees. Your ignorance is mildly amusing.

There is always so much detail that gets lost on threads like these. Different colleges take different proportions of state/private, different subjects have different profiles too (e.g. Classics - majority of applicants from independent sector because of things like what A levels are on offer, Maths/medicine - higher proportion of state school applicants). Even a cursory look at my son's college you can see that their outreach appears to be working (quite a lot of successful applicants from an area of low participation). 10% of all students are overseas students, but on ds's course, the proportion of overseas students is nearly 35%.
it really is not all as simple as some of the arguments that go round and round.

With respect, stoney you have no idea what it is like trying to learning in a disruptive environment as someone from a private school background. It is impossible. The bullying and the disruption does not encourage independence!

"With respect", yes I do because I have also attended state schools at various stages of my education, I have children in the state system and family members who are teachers.

I'm not just plucking this from the air, the idea that children who do well in the state system have often had to develop independent learning skills to get there. It has been suggested by researchers in this field as an explanation for state school students out-performing private school students at university.

"People do not pay for a 'nice' experience, the can send their children to village schools for that."

"Who on earth is going to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to be disadvantaged in this way?"

"I didn't choose the children's schools to increase their chances of an offer. I choose them because they are excellent well rounded schools, that offer outstanding education and pastoral care."

Slightly contradicting yourself there @Swayingpalmtrees no?

This is a fascinating conversation. While 7% children are in the private sector 17% of 6th formers are in the private sector in the UK. I've been looking at Oxford admissions stats quite a bit in recent years. No 1 DC is a fresher and No 2 DC has an offer. Both have been in the state sector the whole way through (excellent primary and secondary schools). We live in the north of England.

What is clear is that Oxford and Cambridge are actively seeking to increase applications from under represented groups and ensure better equity of access to applicants. This is very different to discriminating against private schools. While progress has been made intake remains unrepresentative as Oxford is about 69% State, 31% private ie private school students at Oxford are ~double their proportion in society. DC1's college is 56% state, 44% private and predominately SE so northern accents are thin on the ground. DC2's college (assuming A level's achieved) is somewhat better at 66% state intake.

Contextualisation is used for selecting for interviews - lower offers aren't given out. Also Oxford analyse their intake against overall population's performance in A Levels looking at what proportion of 6th formers get the minimum requirement for their courses. 2019 figures show of all Uni students in UK 76.7% of state school kids get AAA and 73.4% state school kids get AAA while Oxford admitted 68.6% state school kids. So still a way to go on that measure as well.

Oxford understandably don't want to reduce admission standards so instead they are now offering foundation years to bright kids who have potential but aren't yet ready. This seems a good approach and one used for some time by other unis as well.

The research evidence also shows that on average private school children perform better at A Levels so it will be hard for Oxford to get admissions to match the proportion of kids at state school ie 83%. Not surprising given private schools have on average of 3x the funding of state schools. See this article blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2019/11/06/paying-for-a-private-sixth-form-education-how-much-difference-does-it-make/

So it is a complex picture but there doesn't appear to be any evidence children in private schools are discriminated against by the admissions process. As others have said above the conscious and unconscious biases in favour of private school kids are simply being mitigated against and this is resulting in the % of state school kids increasing. I have to confess I do get irritated when friends suggest my DC got offers when their DC at private schools didn't because mine were at state schools.

That said we worked hard to support our DC in the application process, helping with Ps, interview technique, past admissions tests and we were fortunate to have the experience and time to do that - again the playing field is far from level.

Clearly O & C are only two of many good universities in Britain but the application process for them is particularly complex and therefore challenging without support. That is why colleges run programmes to support state school applicants.

I love these threads. Time for some uncomfortable truths. Having been to both Oxford and Cambridge (for undergraduate and postgraduate) I would like to explain some things which debates like this seem to miss.

The concept of "Getting in" (or worrying about getting in) is only for 85/90% each year who manage to go to Oxbridge. They knew it was going to be competitive/hard for them - it might happen or they might end up at Durham/Bristol/York/UCL/Imperial etc etc etc. They were in the fantastically clever and/or well educated (or both) camp of A star maybes. Incredible academic records but ultimately like lots of the other applicants with similar grades who don't get in. If they get in - they will do well at Oxbridge - and off the back of it. Families will be pleased/justified and they will have a little aura/glow about them because they sleep/learn in a very old college/have beautiful libraries/invite proud relatives to visit a lovely old hall etc etc etc. Equally, when they graduate and work in whatever area they choose -the halo will continue to glow a little - either socially or intellectually - depending upon the field they end up in. They leave usually with an undergraduate degree or possibly a postgrad qual but they know fundamentally that "getting in" was the end of the journey; the prize.

Oxbridge exists for the 10/15% of undergraduates each year who were never part of the "Can I get in?" brigade. the 10/15% each year who are known to teachers and noted by Academics at both Oxford and Cambridge (via the exam, application and interview process) who demonstrate marked, observable intellect that sets them so well apart from even a 4x A star 18 year old out of the "Can I get in?" brigade. Not all of these 10/15% will bear fruit. Some may give up/slide away/do all sorts. But some out of this 10/15% will go on to produce world class research at some point 10-15 years after their undergraduate degree has ended.

Those are the people for whom Oxbridge exists. They will always get in. The other 90% of Oxbridge undergraduates each year (many of whom get firsts) are merely the ballast. They are bums on seats. They make up the numbers. They provide income. They are useful people to have around for 3 years whilst the "real" work of the university goes on and on and on.

So know this, if you are wondering about whether your child might get in or not (or whether you might change schools/work the system/pick an unfancied college to improve their chances) Oxbridge (the 'real' inner Oxbridge) is not really for them (even if they do manage to get in).

I was very much there to make up the numbers (my tutor told me "any moron can get straight A*s" - and he meant it), but I was lucky enough to know and meet some people who (even as a teenager) I could recognise were on a different planet/level to me and the others there intellectually. They had cruised through A - levels. Not because they worked hard or put the effort in just because (for this small inner cohort) A levels (and probably Undergraduate) were just a minor irritation/bump in the road to navigate on their way to something way beyond an Oxbridge first.

So ultimately - don't worry. They might get in or they might end up at another Uni - it will be great and all will go well for them in life. And ask yourself this honestly - as a parent - if the Blitz had got to Oxbridge and blown all those lovely old romantic, ivy-clad buildings apart - would you really, really, really, be so desperate for your offspring to get there - or is it just how it would add a certain shine to an otherwise entirely excellent (but probably quite intellectually inconsequential) hard working 18 year old?

@unitileecrire some good observations here and I agree the academics are often more focused on progression for the brilliant students. I would though suggest that the other 85% can benefit enormously from the non academic opportunities and to eb blunt the wealth that these two universities have that enables individuals who are academically 'inconsequential' to develop their outside interests.

I was at Oxford and DH at Cambridge - he was in the 10-15% (top scholar at top super selective public school, scholar at Cambridge) and I was in the 85-90%. That said when we discuss our experiences 30 years on I probably benefited more from the 'Oxbridge' education as realising I wasn't brilliant spent all my time leading an expedition to a far flung part of the globe. Oxford provided amazing support, training and funding that gave me the skills I needed for my career much more than my degree. DH conversely had an academically stellar first and second year then focused on punting his last year...

So as with any university (and life in general) it is to a certain extent what you make of the opportunities provided.

In some easy it was a easier 30 years ago as then you couldn't get a 1st by hard work (less than 10% got them in the early 90s) so might as well focus on other life skills and be happy with a 2.1. Now days with 40% heading for a 1st it is all very different. DC1 was chastised last term by his tutors for his target 'only' being a 2.1.

Having done my masters and PhD at two other Russell Group Unis I would say that the teaching / supervision elsewhere were also excellent .

@unitileecrire

Great post. I guess there is a normal curve of intellectual ability and the top 0.01% will tend to be found in Oxbridge. I am thinking the likes of Stephen Hawking and obviously there are other historic examples.

the idea of Oxbridge being the cradle for intellectual brilliance and the next generation is obviously the reason for its existence yet it is also the platform for leaders in politics, law, industry etc. Should this be the case (this brings into question whether only purely academic ability should be taken into account when choosing applicants for elite unis)?

there is also the question of whether all our intellectual elite apply for Oxbridge and if not how do other universities accommodate them? Won't they simply cruise to firsts these days? Is Oxbridge in danger of missing out on intellectual talent through the pure number of applications now?

Regarding the O P it would be interesting to note historically how many of intellectual elite attended private schools. It may not be PC but I am hazarding a guess that private schools I turn out a fair number of impressive characters. Is there any danger of Oxbridge detering or missing some of these truly academic private school pupils?