Oxbridge actively targeting private school pupils

[mumsqna]

Read in the telegraph this week that oxbridge and some other top unis are actively trying to reduce the number of private school students they give offers to.

Right now it’s 72% to state and 28% private schools in Cambridge. I personally think it’s should be about 65% to 35%. After decades of free education there can’t be that many children in this country that are very bright that can realistically be classed as ‘disadvantaged’ imo. Most should be in homes that are the top 20% of household incomes for their region. Most of bright but disadvantage should be ethnic minorities coming from immigrant households.

I’m quite annoyed by this, it feels like some academics trying to force you into the state system. So put off I’ve just decided that they can fuck off as there are universities around the world.

like my drive to work comes from wanting to give my children the best education available in the world. Just feeling deflated.

After decades of free education there can’t be that many children in this country that are very bright that can realistically be classed as ‘disadvantaged’ imo.

Wow. Eugenics lives.

'Selective breeding' in people doesn't work quite like that OP. Neither does society. Ability can spring up from anywhere. Disadvantage can befall almost anyone.

Right now it’s 72% to state and 28% private schools in Cambridge. I personally think it’s should be about 65% to 35%.

But as only 10-12% of children are bought an educational advantage, your 35% is completely unreasonable and discriminatory.

Educational success tends to map onto sociopath-economic advantage. Parents trying to buy advantage for their children should not influence university admissions policies.

I want to teach the brightest and the most capable. We know from long-term research that parents paying for a fee-paying school can add up to one grade level in A Level results. This goes not mean that these young people are brighter than those in the neighbouring comprehensive school. In fact, often the reverse.

What we do gain some insight into here, is the mindset of clever, high-earning parents driven by fear (sometimes masked by a stubborn inability to acknowledge) that their child may not be as bright or self-motivated as they were.

It seems to me that a lot of parents pay a lot of money, to private schools and tutors, to try to paper over the cracks that they've created, by pushing their perfectly nice and capable but not so super bright child, towards the kind of top-level academic attainment they either had or dreamt of themselves.

Sorry, contextual offers might be the wrong word - perhaps 'showing favour to state pupils'. I was certainly shown favour,, and that was 30 years ago. But my point remains, that it's not as simple as 'an A is worth more at a state school'. For a start, consider that the A grade gives an upper limit on achievement which disguises the fact that some A grade students are better than others. A private school pupil might in some cases find it easier to get an A than many state school pupils - but that pupil might have got an A+, or an A++, or an A+++, if such grades were available (so might the state school pupil, of course). There are far more straight A students than places available, so the challenge is to identify those who are particularly bright, particularly passionate about their subject, and also particularly likely to thrive in the very particular Oxbridge teaching environment.

It's about more than grades. I got straight As in my GCSEs, and four of them at A level, from my state school. But I don't actually think I was a particularly worthy Oxbridge candidate. I suspect (hope) that Oxbridge knows full well that it needs identify the best pupils, regardless of grades and background. But I think there is a real public appetite in some quarters (including on MN) to actively discriminate against the very brightest privately educated students as well as the 'polished turds' that some posters so charmingly refer to.

While we’re at it we should probably limit places to those who have ever benefited from having a tutor, go to a selective grammar school; have an educated “stay at home” mother; have parents who work in education; live in wealthy areas; are “privileged” in any way….In fact why not just make entry into higher education a lottery. Grade inflation has made exams so easy these days that they are meaningless. My DS and many of his friends smashed the grade boundaries this year by 15-20% so I would agree that not all
A stars are equal. The system is broken and trying to level up with dumbed down exams and “quotas” is not addressing the root of the problem. It’s easy to blame private schools and rich people for everything but in doing so we don’t make education better.

As an aside, many large companies are actively trying to limit recruitment from Oxbridge candidates. The optics don’t look good in todays society which is obsessed with punishing privilege. So “all things being equal” think how you would feel if your Oxbridge educated DC lost out on their dream job because the other candidate came from an ordinary university and their first was deemed to be worth more because they weren’t hothoused in an elite educational environment with small tutor groups and endless feedback, coddled in luxury accommodation, living in a “bubble” that most normal people can’t relate to? Surely it’s a lot harder to get a first when you are surrounded by less able students and poorer quality lecturers….

I agree a little bit with you but also massively disagree with a lot of what you’ve written.

firstly, I do suspect there is something in inherited intelligence. It wouldn’t surprise me if over decades the people in some of the top earning professions (and therefore able to earn fees) have passed on through nature/nurture high expectations and favourable genes on the intelligence front.

but where I massively disagree is that I don’t think an A is an equal achievement in different settings. My sister’s children are at selective day schools. No doubt they will come out with amazing grades. They are both clever and will work hard. But… the experience of their schools is incredibly supportive and puts them on an easier path to do that than someone in a school that isn’t set up to push high achievers. there is a world of difference being in a school where bs are seen as a bit of a failure versus being somewhere where there are kids routinely getting the worst possible grades and being in a class with them.

I went to a comp with low aspirations and got straight As. I think it was harder to achieve that in that sort of environment. When I went in for my Oxford interview I imploded. I didn’t have the confidence in my own abilities, one of the tutors was scathing about my financial situation for example. I can’t imagine what that process would have felt like to someone from a more deprived background.

With the hindsight of being a grown up, I was clever enough for oxbridge but didn’t have the tools to thrive in the interview environment at 17. I was able to build my confidence at a different institution and compete with the oxbridge grads for grad schemes. My peers are still heavily oxbridge at work. I am no less able than they are.

(Sorry to quote all of this)

2 things…they don’t make contextual offers in the sense of lower offers to state pupils in that if you can’t get an A and ace the test you won’t cope with the course. But they do if they are assuming that the private kid with the same results isn’t as good as the state one so just don’t give an offer to the private. You can’t ask for a grade higher from the private kid when everyone applying is predicted 3A” and there’s no higher grade.

The admissions process needs to be able to distinguish those at private who would have done as well anywhere and those who wouldn’t…and it just feels like the exceptional private kids have no way to prove that.

saying that private schools are disproportionately represented is like saying kids from the top sets are disproportionately represented- private schools do not have the same range of abilities as state schools because all the privates have filtered out the 3Bs and below.

We need the numbers I wanted earlier - number of private kids teaching the standard (and I’m happy for it to be a sensibly different standard) and the number of state. Then the percentage private expected is number of private divided by total number. Which is nothing like percentage of private educated.

or look at number getting 8 or more 9s in private and a similar standard in state (maybe make it 10 in private and 8 in state or something) - then you are still looking at the similar ability kids across both sectors.

“Reaching the standard “ not “teaching”…sorry

Sorry, contextual offers might be the wrong word - perhaps 'showing favour to state pupils'.

How do you think that Oxford for instance shows favour to state pupils? We know that their admission stats don't yet match the percentage of top achieving students in the state sector. They are still in fact showing favour to indie pupils.

For a start, consider that the A grade gives an upper limit on achievement which disguises the fact that some A grade students are better than others. A private school pupil might in some cases find it easier to get an A than many state school pupils - but that pupil might have got an A+, or an A++, or an A+++, if such grades were available (so might the state school pupil, of course).

Unless you have any evidence that this applies more to private school students than state school students, it doesn't mean much. You might consider undergraduate performance as a good way of identifying the truly talented, if you worry that A levels can't do that. Funnily enough state school students are more likely to get a 2:1 or 1st than private school students.

But I think there is a real public appetite in some quarters (including on MN) to actively discriminate against the very brightest privately educated students as well as the 'polished turds' that some posters so charmingly refer to.

Making things fairer for people that have been denied equal access to Oxbridge for many years is not discrimination though, right?

The admissions process needs to be able to distinguish those at private who would have done as well anywhere and those who wouldn’t…and it just feels like the exceptional private kids have no way to prove that.

Well they are still more likely to get a place than an exceptional state school student, so forgive me if I'm not sobbing into my handkerchief.

Also don't forget that it's not as simple as state v private - they look at the context of the school, regardless of sector. So exceptional kids in high performing comps, grammars and sixth form colleges are in exactly the same situation.

You can’t ask for a grade higher from the private kid when everyone applying is predicted 3A” and there’s no higher grade.

As far as I know, Oxbridge actual offers don't tend to be as high as 3 x A star. So they could if they wanted to make a higher offer to the private kid.

We need the numbers I wanted earlier - number of private kids teaching the standard (and I’m happy for it to be a sensibly different standard) and the number of state. Then the percentage private expected is number of private divided by total number. Which is nothing like percentage of private educated.

I have posted these numbers before - of the students who achieve Astar Astar A or better at A level, around 75% of them come from state schools, 25% private. These numbers make no allowance for the relative difficulty of achieving the grades.

Oxford's admissions are > 25% private, hence the disproportion.

You’re right, of course. No consideration of school should be necessary if they simply measure the height of each child’s ears above their neck and the angle between their nose and top lip. That will mean the can sort the well bred from the Neanderthals.
Obviously being educated at a school that gives you huge privilege should smooth your path to a high-flying political career after time in the Blues and Royals and the city. Parents of publicly educated children who don’t achieve this should get a refund.

We should definitely stop funding student loans and special consideration for Oxbridge entrants; If you’ve not got the money then it’s not fair to take away from some dimmer, but richer, child whose parents have paid a significant amount for the opportunity.
I think they should also reintroduce a higher-dress code and ensure there are fewer girlies admitted too. Waste of time sending poor girlies to get ideas above their station, isn’t it? Nice for the chaps to ‘cut their teeth on’, but their never going to make a suitable wifey.
In fact, we should probably remove all state school sixth forms and reinvest the money in nice vocational courses that will give the poor children a living wage income. No need to educate the poor and give them silly ideas about social mobility. We need so many people in retail, in bricklaying, in nurseries and catering that it’s ridiculous to let these youngsters think that they want or need A levels; an NVQ is much more suitable for anyone not living in a listed property. No place for oiks at the boardroom table, they might outshine Rupert, eh?

Correct. A lot of folk on here tying themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible while attempting to say the "right" thing. True social mobility doesn't just depend upon poorer children getting themselves to university - in some ways that reinforces the view of class in this country. True social mobility is closer when the children of the rich take up plumbing apprenticeships and don't think certain occupations are below them.

If you are a parent distressed at the thought of your privately educated child being the victim of discrimination in Oxbridge admissions, hang on to these bits of information, they will help to put your mind at rest:

• private school students are still advantaged in Oxbridge admissions

• they are also still advantaged in all those other ways that you are paying for

• privately educated people are vastly over-represented in top paying jobs and positions of power in this country

• for every privately educated reject, there are ~2.4 state educated rejects

• everyone goes through the same admissions process and has to achieve the same grades

• students with high grades from poorly performing schools have demonstrated desirable qualities that students from high performing schools (in all sectors) haven't

• undergraduates from the state sector tend to out-perform their privately educated peers, so Oxbridge might not be as good a fit for your child as you think it is, even if they have done well so far

• Oxbridge are looking for the "best" people by their criteria, so if you didn't get in, it was because there was someone else they wanted more

True social mobility is closer when the children of the rich take up plumbing apprenticeships and don't think certain occupations are below them.

I was interested to hear that at my niece's private school, the focus in the sixth form is entirely around getting the students into university. To the point that the student applying for degree apprenticeships with highly regarded employers was given no support at all, and told he should complete the UCAS process "just in case". And I believe (in terms of positions available) it's actually harder to get a degree apprenticeship at a good company than a place at Oxbridge!

But I guess this is what private school parents pay for. I've seen lots of posts on MN from parents saying that their expectations are that their DC get a raft of good GCSEs and A Levels, go on to a Russell group university and ideally then a Masters or well paid job. Many of these also mention playing an instrument and at least one sport to a high level. I always wonder what happens to the children of these parents who have ideas of their own.

I always wonder what happens to the children of these parents who have ideas of their own.

And those children who don't have ideas of their own but for whom university may not be the best choice. I guess they end up going regardless.

@sheepdogdelight my grammar school did this. You either aimed for university or left before a levels. There was no alternative path at the school. I left at 16 and my parents and the school acted like I was the dirt under their shoe, I did do a levels and then I trained to be an accountant passed my exams in the evenings and am now earning more than a lot of my degree having friends. Not that earnings mean I'm 'better'

I don't get why everyone has to have a degree for social mobility. I'm 36 and when I started out in the work place you could still start at the bottom and work your way up.

Nowadays even to be a junior you have to have a degree. I campaign within my own company telling them that this holds back many suitable candidates because not all are able to get a degree often it is also the middle classes not able to (as was my case) where l parents refuse to help them towards the cost of university and you are expected to work and study and that's if you're lucky enough to end up earning enough to cover the bills. Not everyone is capable of doing this and many middle class students drop out as a result of trying to juggle too many things at once.

My very first junior job I was paid £16 ph the equivalent role now pays less plus you're expected to have a degree. It's crazy! I literally had to file stuff away as well. Now you have to take on a full on role plus study. And a lot of places won't pay for your study anymore too. It's almost been a race to the bottom in the work place since the whole 'everyone have a degree' malarkey started.

I know a few Oxford and Cambridge grads. Only one has impressed me with their actual intelligence and he was on a full scholarship and is now in a field he needed his degree for. 2 have had breakdowns and can't work any more.

I cannot see the reasoning behind aspiring to oxbridge unless it is for genuine passion for a subject that can be continued there. It seems the aspirations and the whole 'let's get the underdog in' is all based on a step up in society. That is what's wrong. Society. Why should only two institutions hold such power over the job market and society as a whole?! Break that down and start accepting that people from all walks of life can actually do the majority of jobs in the U.K at least! And stop companies who refuse to employ anyone unless they're from theses institutes. I know one public sector worker who really does not come across as the least bit intelligent but is on one of the highest salaries available in the PS and was quite obviously selected because they went to Cambridge. It's that that needs stopping.
Plenty of state students are tutored and coached all the way in as well so to say state students haven't had an advantage is also not true. Even when I went to school this happened!

Just to throw into the debate that it’s all a bit arbitrary because my children could have gone to very different schools depending on where we lived. We are in a county with no state grammar schools and the nearest private schools are difficult to get to from here. So they went to the local ‘comp’, which is good, and got the star grades needed. My DC didn’t apply but several did from their school and have gone to Oxbridge.

Nowadays even to be a junior you have to have a degree

I think apprenticeships are starting to fill this gap. But there are not yet enough and they are not widely available.

It does seem that options for DC who don't go to university at 18 are fewer than they used to be.

zandathepanda I assume you are somewhere like Lancashire in which case the private education set on here wouldn’t count you as a being anyway near their their social standing. We are thoroughly in the pleb category for being north of watford from what I gather by a lot of posters here, no matter how much we earn.

I don't think you have any idea of what the makeup of private schools is like in today's world. You are stuck somewhere in the 1980s.
The top private schools in London today are at least 50% ethnically non-white. About half of all the kids are of Asian (Asian and South East Asian origins). Of the white kids, most are not 100% British (including ourselves). At least one of the parents is not British (quite a lot of East European), and sometimes both.

And the main thing they have in common is that they are grafters . These are kids who have been put under pressure and pushed from the start - I am not saying that is a good thing, but it is an undeniable fact! In my DC's class, one child plays in the Academy of a premier league football club, another is the top tennis player in England for his age, another one is some sort of snooker champion. At least 50% play an instrument at Grade 4 + (they are 11 years old). Many go to language schools on Saturday morning (Arabic, Russian, Flemish, French) as the parents want them to speak their home language properly, not just English. These achievements do not just fall into your lap, however rich your parents are, and however many tutors you have. It takes hours of work or practice, and not all children are able to manage it, whatever their background.

The kids are confident, but humble - they are well aware of the desire everyone around them has for them to perform.... and that desire to succeed has become ingrained in them. If anything, they often doubt themselves, as they are so used to having to compete with other high performing children, every single day (even in the top schools, the kids are put in sets, and live in fear of dropping down one), and can never let performance drop - which is sad to see.

Whilst it is undeniably terrible that so many kids have been deprived opportunity for so long, two wrongs don't make a right, and it is sad to see such prejudice against kids whose parents have often battled up the social ladder themselves (interestingly, a lot of the parents at my DC's private school are themselves the children of teachers, who did well academically and then professionally) - and who in the majority of cases are making financial and lifestyle sacrifices (very few SAHMs) to send their kids to the best schools they can afford. These kids may be priviledged - but it doesn't make them entitled, and it doesn't make them stupid, either.

Would be good to move past the cliches and update the knowledge to have a more informed debate.

@CocoC What has all the stuff about ethnicity / nationality got to do with it? Are you saying that non-white or non-British people can't be privileged in the same way as white or British people?

And the main thing they have in common is that they are grafters .

Unlike students from state schools I suppose, somehow managing to achieve top grades without all the advantages of private education. Aren't they lucky?

These are kids who have been put under pressure and pushed from the start

This is one of the reasons sometimes suggested for them not doing as well as undergraduates. It's a hindrance, not a badge of honour.

These kids may be priviledged - but it doesn't make them entitled, and it doesn't make them stupid, either.

They are privileged. I don't think anyone has called them entitled but some of the parents on this thread do give off a whiff of that. Nobody has said they are stupid either, but for every one of them getting top A level grades, there are 3 state school students who can match their achievement but in a more challenging environment. No wonder they go on to do better at university, and no wonder the universities want them.

Is this about status?

@hoooops you're very patient with your accurate explanations, but it's probably not worth debating with someone who thinks privately educated DCs graft more than state-educated ones.

State school DCs may not have time for all the superlative extra-curriculars as they are having to put more time into their studies because their schools aren't equipped to help them as much as the private schools. Although as the data shows (and as you have repeatedly pointed out) these DCs tend, as a generalisation, to go on and do better at university precisely because they are more accustomed to having to focus, be determined and to learn on their own.

😂 oh dear, at my ‘poshest’ I was educated at an expensive public school, before that private. But we were happy with the standard of education at the local comp. As a teacher and parent, I can honestly say the A Level teaching at the comp was of a better standard than at my public school - from my experience.

The difference in Oxbridge terms between the paying schools I went to and my Dds was the school/parent drive to get pupils into Oxbridge at my schools. I think there was the same proportion of really bright kids at both but at the paying schools there was a chosen group who had interview practice etc drilled into them every week. Whereas at the comp they had a talk about Oxbridge then it was only if the pupil was really interested that the teachers took it forward - I think there were a few extra lessons on how to apply but my two weren’t interested as neither uni had the course/experience they wanted. In my old school, my friends didn’t look at modules within courses- they were told what to apply to by the masters.

You can see how private schools dominated Oxbridge - because it was expected of them by parents. There’s a state school in the South I think that does the same - it’s a path they pride themselves on.

At the schools I know (both private and state) the few pupils who are truly exceptional, passionate/obsessed with their subject and want to study at Oxbridge, have mostly got in. These aren’t pupils who have been pushed and put under pressure, or ‘grafted’ as a PP put it, by their school or parents. The school they went to is irrelevant.

You're right @thing47
Some people don't get it no matter how simple the explanation. In any case there isn't much debate - I seem to be explaining to people who then don't come back.

I went to a private school myself so I do understand this world where you believe that you are the best of the best and that you deserve all the advantages you are given - "they are grafters"! It's partly why I chose state education for my children. Of course that option is also available to all the parents on this thread, if they really think it's such an advantage to go to state school..

As a human being I believe it's wrong that people should be disadvantaged by their background. And as a member of society I want the best people in top jobs and positions of power. Not the mediocre ones with the right ties.