Have I done my poor kid a grave disservice in sending him to an independent school?

[Firstgenuni]

I was the first (and only) generation of our family to go to university - as was dh. My parents scrimped and remortgaged to send me to a v middling independent (on a scholarship), and I got a place at Oxford. Dh went state until sixth form, and also got to Oxford, where we met, yadda yadda. My parents (mum is an immigrant, dad left school at 15) always said that there won’t be any inheritance (and there really won’t be!), but my education was their investment in my future.

I did take this to heart, and ds (Year 12) has been in the local independent since reception, for other reasons too (a huge teacher discount of 66% for junior and senior schools being the main one, and load of extracurricular stuff handily on site <given we both work full time> being the other main reason.)
Uni admissions didn’t figure in decisions we made way back. His fair-sized school gets about 15 kids into Oxbridge a year, so good, but no St Paul’s, etc (about 80 apply, I think)

Ds now has his heart set on natural sciences on Cambridge. I know nothing about it - both dh and I did humanities subjects. But we tell him to use the internet to search up natural science taster sessions and essay competitions and online courses, and see what interesting things he can find.
He’s now finding that there just aren’t many things available.

Pembroke college, for instance, that he loves the sound of, is running a taster event for natural sciences - online, but ‘due to capacity restrictions, successful applicants must be attending a UK state school.’ It’s online, ffs!

Newnham college (yes I know he can’t go there ) runs all their essays for UK state schools only now, despite a friend of ds’s at a neighbouring independent winning one of their prizes just last year. Is this the way things are going?

I’ve chatted to his head of sixth, and they are very much offering advice like yes, we are encouraging applications to the Ivy League now too, and look at this great summer course by invest costing over £400. . Meanwhile, his cousin enjoyed a totally free materials science course run in the hols by a major independent as part of their ‘outreach to state schools’ - but is at a very well-respected grammar, with a good sized Oxbridge cohort anyway!

We don’t have £400 for fancy courses. We don’t have lots of connections like a lot of wealthier parents seem to. I feel extremely sad that I have, inadvertently, made it so much more difficult for ds to achieve his ambition.

Obviously he is reading science books out of the school library and pursuing the topics that he is interested in, and he’s watching videos and listening to podcasts, but what can he do to impress that doesn’t cost money, but isn’t restricted to state school students?

And I know I’ll get a load of flack for complaining, but it really feels as though things are being made extra difficult for ds for being the ‘poor relation’ in an independent- and it’s my fault. [eyeroll]

By all means keep the interview system for medicine, but why does Oxbridge get to interview and run a complex admissions system basically like a top independent school? It is inherent elitism, at its worst.

I think any University or course can require candidates to attend an interview, can’t it? Not Oxbridge’s fault that the others choose not to.

I don't think the application process is really that complex. My DD with ASD navigated it very successfully with pretty much no help from her bog standard comprehensive, and certainly none from her parents - we weren't allowed anywhere near it. She didn't even know anyone who had been to Oxbridge, but fancied her chances and wasn't taken in by off-putting myths and bullshit.
The interviews didn't present the stumbling block I'd feared they might, because they simply asked her a bit about her own projects then offered her some problems to solve. No good cop bad cop or anything she couldn't handle.

I agree. When I did mine I read the prospectus and followed the instructions. If a kid today can’t read the website and work out how and when to apply then he or she is quite clearly not bright enough to go to Oxbridge.

I disagree - having to attend an invite across the country and finding time to do so (or even having to request funds/help to be able to do so), encountering unknown adults etc - it is intimidating for many bright kids from certain backgrounds. It is unnecessary. It benefits the middle class kids who regularly engage in conversations with educated adults (their parents, parents friends etc). Most bright kids will learn to engage in the tutorial system within weeks of arriving at Oxbridge, they don’t really need to be weeded out by the interview process.
The way the current set up is that the College and interviewing tutor selects his own students and to some extent, takes responsibility for his selection and that they will get at least a 2:1. This will favour a conservative selection process towards kids who will conservatively achieve that and are already ready for that.
My view is that the naturally brightest should go regardless of background. It should be an anonymous process based on grades from an IQ style test, with certain algorithms applied for disadvantage. The students themselves will self select courses they are most interested in.

An IQ test measures IQ. It doesn’t measure much else. Eg MFL proficiency, for example. It’s utterly ridiculous to think the process doesn’t give ordinary kids a chance. I agree with other posters, a good dollop of common sense in applying is needed. Most schools can now spot young people who might go. I don’t really recognise these downtrodden DC who really deserve Oxbridge but cannot fathom how to apply. Many people come from very ordinary backgrounds and have to work things out or ask how to. It’s part of learning.

@Iliveinacarboardbox : "None of the young people I referenced went to the schools from the north who do manage to get a decent amount of Oxbridge applicants."

But how do students from these other schools in the north manage to get through Oxbridge if there's such discrimination against northerners?

It benefits the middle class kids who regularly engage in conversations with educated adults (their parents, parents friends etc).

@Abuildingwith4wallsandtmrinsid kids with parents who are not well-educated still interact with teachers in school. It’s not like they have never met or chatted to anyone with a degree before. And it’s a bit patronising to suggest that intellectually-challenging discussion is only possible with people who have had formal education. You sound like the journalist who said that Angela Rayner had to resort to titillation because she did not have Boris’ Oxford debating training.

“An IQ test measures IQ. It doesn’t measure much else. Eg MFL proficiency, for example.”
I am sure they can devise tests appropriate to the various subjects in question. An MFL student will already have at least 1 MFL GCSE and an MFL predicted A level grade, for example and can take a further aptitude test. There are aptitude tests for law etc as well. It wouldn’t be an issue.
What I am asking for is an objective test which produces actual quantifiable (and potentially appealable) results.

Interviews will always be biased - especially if run primarily by Oxbridge white, male dons. I am not alleging intentional bias - it is the unintentional bias at issue.
Oxbridge are using the interview system to differentiate between students at the end stage and that in my opinion, is not OK. I have illustrated exactly why I do not believe it is OK. It isn’t just independent school students getting “interview” practice, it is students in selective grammars exposed daily to debate with peers at their intellectual level, it is connected middle class academics with kids in state comps etc., anyone with engaged educated pushy parents etc.

I actually believe if the whole system was based on natural intelligence and aptitude Oxbridge would also end up with a larger cohort going into academics long term, rather than Oxbridge being the middle class spring board to a career in the highly paid professions, politics etc.

gumballbarry They are lucky to go to schools historically favoured by Oxbridge. It’s a simple as that.
The flip side of this are schools/sixth form colleges who produce students with outstanding results yet have struggled to get offers. There is a statistical evidence that these students have comparable results with famous public schools, yet their Oxbridge admissions don’t compare. But yes, pointing this out makes northerners ‘chippy.’

Tosh.
“Halls” is the generic term for Uni student accommodation whether it’s blocks of flats or corridors or whole houses. Many students live in accommodation that involves a staircase.Calling them “stairs” is to set apart Oxbridge from other Uni ‘s.

My friends lived in sets but that didn’t make them badgers. Obviously they could be called studios or flats but that doesn’t add to rarified glamour.

What I am asking for is an objective test which produces actual quantifiable (and potentially appealable) results

I'm not sure such a thing exists, does it? Or even that it could exist. I agree with @TizerorFizz that IQ tests are not the answer, they don't tell you very much and are mostly taken by DCs whose parents want to boast about how highly they scored ime. Although I take the point you are making.

I know some highly respected educationalists who think GCSEs and A levels should be abolished and a whole new system devised.

Did anyone see the comments from the chairman of the National Association of Grammar Schools? He basically said those with the best results are the brightest children and most of those are at grammar schools. Ye gods, do people really believe this nonsense? And this man is a QC too! I think a lot of us wouldn't stand much chance of a fair trial if he was involved.

I know some highly respected educationalists who think GCSEs and A levels should be abolished and a whole new system devised.

I actually agree with this. I think the education system plus testing methods are outdated when it comes to the skills required for success in the work place.

It's really interesting what defines intelligence, though. For example, emotional intelligence is a really important skill in the work place but not one that's tested at school, or easily quantifiable.

I agree IQ tests are definitely not the answer. It doesn't measure all forms of intelligence. Or the skills required to be successful at university.

GCSEs should definitely be scrapped. They are pointless.

So we are scrapping public exams, scrapping interviews and basing everything on some random online IQ test which will have adjustments made for social deprivation (fundamentally flawed as IQ is not learned). Oh and then run a lottery to see who gets in. It's all starting to sound a bit like 'Britain's got talent' tbh.

Not true. You've taken a number of posters interesting, well articulated but opposing views, lumped them together and ridiculed them.

Not a great way to seek improvement in our education system for our children. Please don't ever work on my team.

Just on the point that nat sci students at Cambridge are all geniuses. I know a few, all of them are very bright and very dedicated to their subjects but geniuses they are not

They are not opposing views. They were all pretty much put forward by the same poster. I don't think I would be working in anyone's team who can't even quote basic statistics. It's more like 20%/80% independent/state split at sixth form level, not the 7% you quoted. In any case, I don't think you could afford me.

I totally get your point op. I think the picture is far more nuanced than private -bad/ state good.
I went to an independent school on an assisted place, when they existed. My dad was a labourer and my mum worked in a shop. No-one in my family before me had ever been to university or been to school past age 15.
My parents worked their socks off to give me every opportunity going and I think I've done pretty well, largely thanks to their support.
Evenso, through absolutely no fault of their own, they couldn't help me with school work beyond a certain level, they didn't have connections and they couldn't really guide me on where focus my academic energies.

I've only been really aware of the significance of this since having DC.
I've recently realised that I will be able to help /guide my state educated DC in ways that my parents couldn't. This has actually been quite a revelation to me., which has made me slightly reframe my past.
I realise now that there was actually quite a gulf in terms of academic advantage between me and my peers. And now I feel angry at the school 'friend' whose parents were academics with PhDs coming out of their ears, who told me Oxbridge wasn't for people like me. At the time I accepted this and didn't apply. Now I would question it.

In short, my private school place certainly boosted my chances and helped me fulfil my potential. I will always be grateful for that. But I still think my background put me at a significant disadvantage compared with many peers with graduate parents, including those who were state educated.

Thank you for ridiculing and correcting.

Do you have any insights on how to improve our children's education system?

Yes, I do but that is not the thread topic. Standard GCSE practice is to keep your answers relevant and refer back to the question. So maybe there is some value in GCSEs after all. Who knew!

Right, so now it's Oxbridge discriminate against northerners except the ones who went to specific schools in the North which they in fact favour.

You keep changing your argument, your original claim was that students were getting into Oxbridge, but whose lives were made so unbearable due to their northern roots that they had to/almost quit. Now you're making the argument that they don't even get in unless they went to these specific schools.

Why do the students from the favoured northern schools, who get into oxbridge, not go on to experience the anti-northern discrimination? Also, you're assuming they are 'favoured' and not considering what's more likely which is these schools are putting up more suitable candidates (i.e they understand the course they are applying for well, prepared and practiced for the interview, did well in the assessment etc). We also don't know what the ratio of accepted/rejected applications are.

There are so many variables at play here yet your lazy conclusion is 'they don't like northerners (except when they do)'. I really hope you're not spreading this about and putting people off from applying, this kind of thinking is poison.

Also, I don't get what you mean by 'chippy'.

That’s about it gumballbarry I realise it’s probably more than your brain can cope with. Some schools (MSG etc) get plenty of kids in there. Others don’t. Look at the statistics of you don’t believe me. I can’t however say how those MSG etc kids get on when they get there because I don’t know any of them. I can only speak about the young people I do know who went to Oxbridge and struggled to fit in.

@Iliveinacarboardbox Yep, keep hurling those insults while failing to make a coherent argument. Your initial argument that there is an anti-northern bias in Oxbridge is demonstrably false (yet I suspect that won't stop you from holding onto it).

The second argument you pivoted to, that some schools send more pupils than others, I don't object to. But I don't agree it's because the schools themselves are 'favoured'.

Correlation is not causation. Perhaps they struggled to fit in for other reasons, but it’s very easy to say “oh it’s because all the Southerners at Oxbridge hate Northerners”.

My own personal experience based in Cambridge in the 90s is of zero anti-Northerner sentiment. I am from Scotland so I had an impartial perspective on what I saw around me. I can think of several tight friendship groups that included students from both North and South.

Another thing that people forget is that Oxbridge is chock full of international undergraduates who have absolutely no preconceptions about the social, cultural and economic stereotypes of the U.K.

I agree with the other poster who said that it is incredibly damaging to spread myths that Oxbridge is “not for the likes of us”. Perhaps the students you know were fed that line before they went and were primed to see antagonism when it was not there.