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]

Ok. Don’t let the actual lives experiences of these young people get in the way of your confidence.
The North of England is a lot bigger than a couple of private schools who surprise surprise manage to buck the trend. Like I say, have a look at the statistics if you don’t believe me but I’m sure you won’t because people like you don’t like to admit you are wrong.

@Iliveinacarboardbox But if specific schools are able to buck the trend then surely that shows you it's not an anti-northern bias?

I really don’t understand the reluctance to introduce a Year 12 IQ/further CAT test etc. I would prefer to live in a society where naturally very intelligent students, whatever their background, are identified early and tracked and given the real chance to enter the top universities without any faff and pomp. Of course, not all will want to go, but if there is a greater proportion of them going to Oxbridge, the experience itself will be less alienating for them. It will benefit the whole of society in the long run. Of course, it may require some extra pastoral care and study skills help from tutors at Oxbridge. I do think it is do-able though.
Especially in a post Covid world, where children from more deprived backgrounds have suffered immensely due to school closures/lack of safe places to learn/access to IT etc this true shake-up of our elite university system is, in my opinion, long overdue and required.

As to the question of whether IQ is effected by social deprivation
www.kcl.ac.uk/news/severe-childhood-deprivation-has-longstanding-impacts-on-brain-size-in-adulthood
We do know it is effected by pregnancy etc. and early years experiences.
Some adjustments can be made for children who have been in care etc.

When I applied to law firms 20 odd years ago it went like this 1) most elitist, male dominated, posh: - interview only plus uni/grades 2) the ones in the middle - mix of interview and various tests 3) the most diverse with the hardest working persons, mainly CAT based test plus short interview.
It is a well known thing and tactic used in recruitment to this day.

You can even apply the above to the top independent school and compare their admissions systems. Westminster, for example, with the brightest will rely more heavily on the tests than let’s say Eton.

Oxbridge is not just about naturally intelligent people. It’s about who is best and likely to thrive when studying a specific subject. It’s not the same. Why on earth DC need more hoops to go through is beyond me.

A big issue is DC not applying whatever their IQ intelligence. We know this is an issue in the north where students prefer a northern way of life. So that’s what needs to change. Not more selection hoops. You must still be excellent at your subject and do additional reading/study etc to prep for the interview. My DD found agility of thinking about what was presented to her was important. Interview prep does not help and she didn’t have any. She could engage in conversation about the interview questions. Plus passed the MFL tests. I’ve no idea what her IQ is. Who cares. Or CAT scores. I think Oxbridge are looking for engaged brains that think coherently on their feet and can engage in the style of learning. If people like the north and wish to stay there, that’s up to them and they will be happy with their choices.

I am fromt he NE and both my siblings went to Oxbridge in the 1980s - one was the first from our school ever. (I did not try). My father and uncle read medicine at Durham by the way so stayed inteh NE but went to a very good university. my mother's was technically Durham University too (her teacher training college was affiliated there although in her case it was a 2 year residential Cert Ed not 3 year degree). In other words people have got to Oxbridge and other good universities from the North and still do.

I think there has been a brain drain to the South because of money - whereas some of my English ancestors moved to the Durham area because it was bookming with money and jobs in the 1800s all three of us - my sibling and I - moved to the SE for work in the 80s where 2 of us remain because of more work, higher earnings. I suppose it is similar to my ancestros from Orkney, N and S Ireland who moved to NE England in the 1800s for economic chances that were better. Some of my 5 children (and I) would have done well at Oxbridge but none of us chose to apply for all kinds of reasons and it's been fine not applying - it is not the be all and end all for a successful London professional career.

On the topic of the thread I and my parents paid school fees and the parents of my grandchildren do from age 4+ for all kinds of reasons and it has been money well spent. It is not that you pay for Oxbridge. You pay for a vast raft of reasons which will differ from parent to parent.

I am not asking for “extra hoops” - I am asking for a complete shake-up.

1. CAT/IQ tests - identify the top 2 per cent nationally (or whatever percentage is appropriate)
2. Those kids can sit aptitude tests in whatever subjects/how many they like - headteachers will need to aid and assist. Again, many poorer highly gifted kids won’t know where their aptitudes actually lie.
3. online interview used to sell Oxbridge to them not ask them to prove they can “think on their own feet”. That will come later when they join and gain confidence.

Take the raw product and actually make something of it. Not the middle class kids who have been pushed and honed since infancy. Of course, there will be middle class kids in categories 1-3 too and independent school kids as well.

Get away from the “just bright but hard worker who has read around their subject and writes nice coherent essays already and can argue (what you call think on your own feet)”. Start actually trying to identify the real geniuses.

gumballbarry You can’t really compare the facilities that schools like MGS have compared to most ordinary schools. It really is like some young people have there hands and feet tied up and are still criticised for never winning the 100m race.

@Iliveinacarboardbox It's not anti-northern bias though is it?

If you look at the figures it certainly looks like that. When you consider the A levels achieved compared to admissions it’s hard to reach any other conclusion.

@Iliveinacarboardbox It's easy to reach another conclusion because the evidence contradicts your argument.

You said yourself that there are some schools in the north which do really well with admissions THEREFORE it is not an anti-northern bias on the part of Oxbridge is it? There must be other factors that are not regional related if some schools do really well and others not FROM THE SAME REGION.

You will find the same effect in the south, some schools do very well, others send hardly any. It's not anti-northern bias.

The specific school is a much bigger factor in determining Oxbridge through either better preparation, more applicants, suitable course selection or other reasons. It's NOT Oxbridge deciding they don't like northerners.

Oh for goodness sake. You really don’t grasp it do you? I’d advise you look up the word ‘outliers’ as a starting point.

Oxford 2019/20
NE England (where I am from) 2.1% of oxford applicants, 2.2% of those admitted and the area has 2.7% of high grades.
Greater London (where I live) 26.7% of Oxford applicants, 23.7% of those admitted (so they have a lower hit rate than NE children) and London has 19.3% of high grades.

That % difference for London will be distance. If you are in the NE or Yorkshire like my children's cousin who went to Durham you might well not want to travel down - the % difference is very small anyway.

One problem is that all the pedagogic studies show that educational achievement is very rarely linear – apart from a handful of outliers most of us have peaks and troughs in our education years and while some DCs peak early but never push on, others come into their own later.

There are a number of factors behind this, including, but not limited to, home life (parental divorce, moving home), background (siblings, caring responsibilities), school experience, different forms of assessment (exams v continual assessment v lab work v dissertation etc etc) or just being very good at one subject as opposed to an all-rounder.

This being so, at what stage do we assess DCs for their 'potential'? We run the risk of missing out on all the late developers (which is my objection to 11+ exams, it's much too early to decide on a child's future potential).

That's not to say that @Abuildingwith4wallsandtmrinsid doesn't raise some interesting questions, but the practicalities of implementing a root and branch re-set of education is… challenging.

@TizerorFizz is talking about the application of knowledge and I think that's right. Innate intelligence such as that assessed by IQ doesn't tell us much about a person's employability so while it might, conceivably, have a role if you're going to be an academic, it's no way to decide if someone is going to make a good lawyer, or engineer or doctor, for example.

Hold on, there are two different types of alleged “anti-northern bias” being conflated here. The first is that fewer Northerners get places. The second is that those who do get places feel socially excluded, ridiculed and unable to fit in.

I can’t comment on the former. My own experience suggests that the latter is nonsense.

I can’t speak for Scotland HaveringWavering because I don’t know any young people from there. My experience is the north of England, specifically the North West.
And yes, there is some conflation. If you follow the thread, you’ll understand why.

@thing47
I do think later developers are catered for, as your DD proves. They can do well despite the 11 plus. My DD2 didn’t even take it. There are great universities available for Masters. Engineers from Oxbridge are not fought over. It’s of little consequence that they are Oxbridge educated in the real world. As I suspect is the same for medics.

The idea that loads of undiscovered brilliant DC are not unearthed by schools but can be found by Oxbridge doesn’t make sense. Oxbridge requires DC to sit exams and engage in an academic subject. Many bright people might not be suited to this. It doesn’t diminish their potential or intelligence.,

@Iliveinacarboardbox calling them outliers doesn't explain anything, we know they're outliers, YOU need to explain WHY they are outliers when you claim Oxbridge are bias against Northerners. You also need to explain why the ones who are accepted don't drop out after experiencing all the anti-northern hate you claim make their university life so difficult to bear.

It is not normal to go to Oxbridge. It's much more reasonable to suggest that the successful schools are doing something right, rather than Oxbridge being anti-northern.

"narcissist"? What?

Sorry I should rephrase that. You need to explain it if you expect anyone to take what you say seriously.

I’m not speaking about Scots when I relate my own experience. I’m speaking about my many, many friends from Cambridge who are from the North of England and did not experience any social exclusion and fitted in just fine.

There you go, you've got nothing left except your prejudices.

I do think later developers are catered for, as your DD proves.

Aah, thanks for remembering @TizerorFizz , she would say she's not particularly intelligent, what she is, is hard-working, focused and determined (and possibly part of that is a desire to prove people wrong…). But certainly none of her results at 11+, GCSE or A level would have led to anyone predicting her to get a first-class Masters from a university rated higher than Cambridge for her particular subject. Not even her parents .

We have a lot of friends who are doctors, including about half my DCs' godparents. They would all agree with your suspicion that Oxbridge isn't particularly relevant for medics – and that includes the ones who went there themselves.

This is an interesting thread. A few years ago the Guardian did a thing on what Cambridge admissions tutors are looking for - it's possibly out of date but still interesting.