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]

@SarahAndQuack fwiw, I think you're absolutely right. I would expect anyone who tried to sell a 'practical application' approach at interview in my subject (English) to bomb it completely.

(No longer at Ox' or 'bridge now myself but ex-undergrad and postgrad there.)

Is there a practical application for an English degree?

I may or may not be joking.

@Talbot53 not that I've found so far

@Firstgenuni I too am a humanities student to PhD level and had a DC applying to Cambridge for NatSci. However I took the approach that if I couldn’t add knowledge I could certainly support them in both the process and dealing with the emotion. I would never have encouraged them to set the highest bar for themselves ie getting through the admissions process at Cambridge, as opposed to studying NatSci at the highest level, so that not reaching it would be perceived as failure. It didn’t take much research, and visits and sample lectures, to discover that there are brilliant Nat Sci courses at other universities with world class professors and other staff.

That my DC is both a talented, clever, and passionate (to use an overused word but it is true) Scientist is evidenced by the fact that they are now a Research Scientist working long hours for not a huge amount of money (for now at least) at a leading biomedical research institution specialising in cutting edge genetic research.

She didn’t succeed in the Cambridge interview. One of the interviewers, who would have been their tutor if they got in was so intimidating they clammed up and they were relieved not to get in. Where they did go in contrast (along with lots of Oxbridge applicants) the interview process was exciting and inspiring. Our visits to other unis with good Nat Sci courses were similarly positive. Now none of her colleagues went to Cambridge either, though they all went to good universities internationally.

Where my DC did go they were taught, including in tutorials, by one of the countries leading Genetic Scientists, someone you will regularly hear on the radio because he is engaging as well as at the cutting edge of genetics. They also had chances to intern on research projects and even had their name included in a research paper before they finished their Masters.

They have since been told by a Cambridge Professor , and I don’t know if it is true, that he finds it depressing that many of the NatSci undergraduates turn out not to be interested in careers in Science but have their eye on the money in business and the city (which are very much focused on those STEM graduates these days). He said that if you want a career in Science that it is going to be equally useful to your career to study at undergraduate level some where else that is good and then if it does turn out that Cambridge is providing good opportunities in the areas you specialise in to study there later. Ironically this is true for my postgrad area too where there is a specialised institution not as prestigious as Oxbridge but where you will be taught by world leading high profile academics. I know my Oxbridge colleagues (who are more than likely to have been there themselves at some point in their careers) say this at interview to students, that if they go there they will have the same standard of academic education.

I would really recommend that if your son is truly focused on Nat Sci which provides such exciting opportunities for would be Scientists that you lose the focus on Oxbridge. The visits should do that anyway.
If however it is Oxbridge rather than Nat Sci he wants then it might be easier to plump for a single Science discipline at Oxford which is easier to get in but more limiting in terms of future opportunities in Science.

If it is the former, enjoy! I have learnt so much and broadened my mind in the course of my offsprings pursuit of using their inexplicable talents (I have no idea where they came from in the gene pool).

In either case it is really not that hard to access books on the world leading advances emerging from NatSci and immerse yourself in the culture and knowledge.

Finally my DC did go to a highly selective independent school and I don’t think for a minute we let them down. It wasn’t so much the quality of her academic education but all the extracurricular stuff and the friendships they made which has helped make them who they are today. I know her peers from state schools have pretty much levelled the playing field in their academic and subsequent careers so I don’t think it bought that much advantage but it was right for them.

My DC both boarded at different state schools whereas plenty of their uni friends went to private day schools. I am not sure what your point is?

@Plantstrees Bit disingenuous. You know perfectly well that boarding is rare in the state sector, as do we all.

Plantstrees My DC both boarded at different state schools whereas plenty of their uni friends went to private day schools. I am not sure what your point is?

?You do understand proportions don’t you?

There are only 43 state boarding schools in the country, as opposed to 500 independent boarding schools and 2700 state day schools (educating 83% of the school population) So the chances of finding someone from a state boarding school turning up on an Oxford staircase are very small whilst the chances of someone turning up from a state day school should be much greater, certainly there should be more than one.

The point was clear enough.

Though of course in some colleges it would be more than one which makes the point even clearer.

My DC's state boarding grammar school has always had exceptionally high Oxbridge numbers so I don't think it is as rare as you may think. I don't like the automatic assumption that all boarders have attended independent schools.

This is so nitpicky and off the point, though. Not everything is about you and your DC.

If you talk to anyone involved in Oxbridge admissions, they are not really interested in extra curriculars, unless it's directly related to the subject in question, and the kind of things a poor kid could manage are considered equally/more relevant. Like, if you can talk intelligently about all the YouTube video lectures you've watched about your chosen subject (which can be accessed for free), that would be considered more valuable than blithering on about how you've done Mandarin and sailing lessons since you were 6, which merely proves you had ambitious parents and are good at obeying adults.

The original post about this was suggesting that a state school student felt out of place, "alien" at Oxford. Given that almost 70% of Oxbridge intake is from state schools, I think it was just reinforcing stereotypical mis-conceptions.

Plantstrees It would not matter if every student at state boarding schools was going to Oxford you would still be very much less likely to encounter them amongst the 50000 Oxbridge students than you would pupils from other types of school. I am very familiar with State boarding schools, two in particular, but it is very much a small niche of very different schools with proud histories and traditions. You are actually sounding a bit chippy, the schools I am familiar with stand out for their very different individual characters and are well known for them, their pupils would be very unlikely to be overlooked.

So Oxbridge are going to immense lengths to try and level the playing field, but still state school pupils are being advised to go for or avoid certain colleges because you are likely to find greater numbers of state school pupils in certain colleges or staircases like the one described in others, for no good reason?

OP, Mumsnet is largely pro tutoring and grammar school for the MCs rather than independent school so I'm afraid you'll find little support for your disappointment here.
I would go back to the school and ask what they can do to support your DC.

This is the silliest post I’ve seen here all week.

There are vastly differing opinions on schooling on MN as in life. The reason more people here, as everywhere, go for Tutoring + state is because more people can afford that.

For goodness' sake. Click on the Education branch and you'll find it's almost entirely about independent schools. MN is the most pro-indie bubble that I've ever come across in life.

I haven’t read the whole thread. But it seems to me the basic problem is the assumption that all state school pupils are ‘walking into the wind’ against major disadvantage. State education is an incredibly broad spectrum. If you attend the local comprehensive in a backwater market town you will likely have a very different experience from a pupil in a highly selective grammar, or even a London academy with amazing new buildings and Teach First staff. MN is full of threads agonising over eg ‘SW London grammar or Independent’, or advising other parents to save a fortune on school fees because the state schools in their particular leafy suburb or cathedral city are so great. Parents who use their economic muscle to buy expensive houses in top state school catchment areas, or tutors for the 11+ are also buying privilege, and it’s hypocritical to claim their DC are disadvantaged. When I was at Oxford I participated in ‘Target Schools’, where undergraduates talked to sixth formers in schools with no track record of Oxbridge applications, seeking to help them envisage this as a choice they could make. I would always welcome additional help and support directed at children where the playing field actually needs levelling. But it’s a lot more nuanced than simply private vs state.

Funnily enough oxbridge admissions have also noticed the variation in state education and use a whole range of markers of disadvantage when looking at students. Nothing is done on as simple a measure as state vs private. The outreach events like the ones the OP mentions are usually restricted to non-selective state schools and will then give priority to students who meet other disadvantage criteria (pupil premium, fsm, care experienced, postcode based university entry and poverty data etc). When looking at student performance during applications they look at all those factors and take into account the school’s GCSE results profile and their history of sending students to higher education. So the London kid (where there are very high rates of progression to university) attending a high performing comprehensive will not flag for any disadvantage unless they are themselves entitled to free school meals/care for example.

A student who revived fsm, lived in an area with low progression to university or was at a school with very poor GCSE results might find they were more likely to be invited to interview if they had a good application. My experience of the admissions process in recent years is they still have to reach just the same bar to be successful as anyone else once they get to interview though.

I’ll tell you why state school outreach is important. My school had low aspiration. The one teacher who had been took great delight in reducing my confidence and publicly humiliated me when I asked her to fill in the grade prediction from. She just refused to do it and announced to the class why I wasn’t suitable. There were 3 of us who had the potential to get the right grades. One made it after attending an outreach day for state school students to Cambridge. That day will have made a massive difference to his chance of success. In contrast, I felt like a fish out of water at my Oxford interview. I felt completely overwhelmed. My issue wasn’t brains or ability but confidence. By the time I came to apply for grad schemes my confidence had improved and I was able to compete with all the oxbridge grads.

There is a world of difference going to a school where aspiration is high, peers are expecting to go to university and going to a school where you avoid putting your hand up so you don’t get bullied for being clever.

@Chilmark79 what a daft post. Children at grammars and leafy comps don’t get the same contextual offers as comps where there is very low achievement across the board. Surely you know this?

@Chocalata No I didn’t, but am glad to, as it’s sensible. I agree largely with @Bunnycat101 that aspiration on behalf of children is crucial whether on the part of parents or school, or indeed children and their peers. I haven’t needed to engage with university admissions yet. I guess I was a bit triggered by the hostile reaction to @Firstgenuni by a succession of ‘zero sympathy’ posters who slammed her for buying unfair advantage and privilege for her DC whilst portraying any child in the state system as a victim of systemic inequality.
Ironically the current furore about Oxbridge admissions from state vs independent schools may be counterproductive for the former since many blue chip employers that previously recruited predominantly from Oxbridge are now also seeking to work against privilege and making a point of looking for talent elsewhere. @Firstgenuni even if your DS finds the gates of Cambridge closed against him he will still benefit throughout life from your investment in an excellent education. Please don’t imagine you have done him a disservice.

I would also say that having been to a rubbish comp myself I am hoping to send mine to private at secondary. The advantages are just massive and no contextual offer will compensate for the excellent education that many independents provide.

@Bunnycat101 not all state schools are like the school you went to. There are many excellent state schools and also many far from excellent private schools. There is a significant breadth of very different schools in both sectors. Thus it is disingenuous to say that all private schools are better. And better is all relative to the fit with the DC. Some DC might thrive in a very selective school and it enhance their confidence, others may wilt and come out with good grades and no confidence. It is easy to get caught up in one's own politics and school experiences and forget the shape of the individual who will actually go through the school. What exactly are those massive advantages you talk about beyond academic achievement? In my experience, such huge (but vague) advantages are mostly in the heads of those who are either justifying huge expenditure with diminishing returns or don't have the means to go that route and resent the perceived advantage it confers on those whose parents can.

StargazyMoon I’ve got family members going through selective day schools at the moment and their experience of education couldn’t be any further removed from mine. And I’d say my comp was ok and not a complete dive. Yes some state schools are better but not the ones near me so I will not be risking it. To be frank I’m already seeing the limitations of our outstanding state primary. I have no doubt the private offering locally is better but I’m not willing to make the sacrifices to pay the fees at this point.

I can believe that @Bunnycat101 but a lot depends on the particular school. I have friends who have made significant financial sacrifice to fund underwhelming private schools and have been left at the end of secondary wondering what they had paid when they had very good state options practically on their doorstep. I'm only saying that there is huge variation of standards in both sectors.

@thingymaboob Cambridge don't care about extracurricular. While grade 6 or 8 in an instrument shows commitment, someone who is too dedicated to an extracurricular activity risks being perceived as not serious about their studies. The people making the decisions on which students get the places care about academics. What is your potential to get a first class degree? Might your interviewer think that he/she will enjoy supervising you? Do they think you might be PhD material? What the OP is worried about is the politics of education and the very blunt state verses private biases being made by universities at the moment.