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.

Oh sorry @hoooops i misread your post and thought you were talking about a different metric.

@opoponax i agree they're a good indicator of potential. But only potential. My DS got an average 140 CAT score but I still don't necessarily think he's 'good' enough for Oxbridge. (And NB one of the reasons primaries don't do them is because they're expensive.)

@lechatsmiaou I obviously can't comment on your DC but with my own and peers who got 140/141 in CATS, they have all gone on to Oxbridge/medicine etc. The medicine ones scored spookily similarly in their medical clinical entrance exams at seventeen to how they had done in their CATs at ten/eleven.

Interesting. I'm just not sure mine has got enough passion for any particular subject (he's very much an all rounder) to either convince an Oxford entrance tutor or to make the most of the opportunity once he got in. He's bloody clever but also tends towards the laid back...

Maybe something to bear in mind for the future- I went from high school into work, but was an all rounder with a ‘spike’ at my preferred subject (think all A’s but with an A* in my preference). I didn’t think much of it at the time, then found my passion later in life and went to Oxbridge as a mature student.

Reading these posts do you think private schools will gradually become extinct? Why send a child to a private school if there is no advantage?

Is this the end if the private school, Oxbridge route to establishment power?

Interesting times and would like to see the effect on social mobility on 10 years time.

Obviously it's possible, but I suspect not. Contrary to what many people on MN think, lots of the people who choose private schools really don't do it to buy better grades or an Oxbridge place or an old boys' network. They do it for better teaching (controversial I know, but there are lots of tales of woe even from very good state schools about recruitment problems and lots of non-specialist teaching and supply cover), better facilities, better extra-curriculars, longer day, boarding options where of interest, wider subject range, lack of behaviour problems, and just a generally 'better' school experience (subjective of course). State schools are facing a funding meltdown which can only get worse in the current climate. In those circumstances, many parents will continue to pay, even if it means less of a concrete advantage in terms of Oxbridge and jobs than it once did. Our school is just as oversubscribed as ever - no signs of a downward trend in applications AFAIK.

No because academic success and Oxbridge entrance are not the only advantages. Some of the other advantages are much more significant.

No because it's not just about Oxbridge. Some want a boarding option, wrap around care is better, prep time so no homework in younger years, and smaller class size to name a few. Outside of the big names it's not even the old boys network. For us we don't want him in a class being disrupted by less than desirable kids.

@mids2019 my kid is not especially academic but has fantastic skill at art & music. I’m a state school educated, working class mature Oxbridge grad but will be trying to get her a bursary for a nearby private school as they have much better arts provision & extra curriculars. I want her to thrive and have confidence, which I believe will be more attainable in a school that offers more than state can.

I’m against private schools in principle but this is the world we live in. I have to play the game or she misses out for the sake of my principles.

'Less desirable kids'. Are who exactly ? Sorry, but makes me a little angry to see children described as less desirable. Why, because they are poor ?
Our school has art classes at the V&A, Tate Modern and at the Royal Academy. Outreach programmes for the less desirable kids are really good these days, so much so people are trying to elbow their way into our school - unfortunately they can't as catchment is mainly high rise council flats. Money can't buy you one of those 😊

I think one of the worrying things is that high achieving DC (whose parents, not them, chose a private school education for them) are now taking their potential elsewhere because they are feeling excluded. Maybe they have been given extra advantages in life. However, when DC are clearly achieving top grades and are told after interview that we only had x number of places for the privately educated and you didn’t make the cut this year although you were stronger than other state school candidates, please reapply next year (true story), these children often decide to go elsewhere. Usually their private schools have encouraged them to make a US application and they have an unconditional offer from Harvard or Stanford, so why would they bother to reapply? And those bright DC are lost to the UK academic community and economy forever.

I think it is galling that universities are now having to make up for failures of the state school system. I’m not convinced about the ethics of grammar schools especially when many schools are forbidden to prepare students for grammar school exams. However, it is a sad fact that in the past grammar schools were a way of accessing an academic education for many working class students albeit at the expense of those who failed the 11+ (which troubles me). My own comprehensive school was a sausage machine that never stretched me or supported me to achieve more. I was bullied mercilessly for being one of about 5 swots from a cohort of 200 and many bright friends caved under the pressure so under achieved their potential. The teachers largely ignored those with ambitions because frankly they has too much else to worry about and assumed we would succeed without help. So without parents to support me, I stumbled my way to university. With support I could probably have achieved a much higher ranked institution and therefore not had so many of my options limited in my early career.

We must have better ways to bring state schools up to standard. It is shocking that to make Oxbridge less dependent on private schools, we are reliant on candidates from grammars, a few faith schools (that exclude large swathes of the population) and a few lucky academies in London that have links with corporate sponsors or select students based on the commitment of ambitious parents.

I agree that 'less desirable kids' is an unpleasant phrase to use (similar to 'polished turds' upthread), but it's also true that disruptive behaviour can be very... disruptive. The PP didn't say anything about poor kids though. (The most disruptive child in my DS's primary class left to go to private school.)

Not what is happening though. The state school students are 'better' than the private school ones, that's why they get the offers. There are not quotas, there is just some consideration of how those grades are achieved, as it's much easier to get an A star from a class of 4 living in a warm home rather than the 27th floor of an unheated tower block while caring for your siblings and with 26 in your classes.
More state school students apply, so more get in, which limits the number of private school now getting in. They all need to get the same A level grades to get in.

@lechatsmiaou I agree disruptive lessons are a pain. However, students with Oxbridge potential are v unlikely to be in those classes for GCSEs and A levels. Most schools stream or set to some extent.
And I agree, many of those disruptive kids end up being sent to private schools, for the smaller classes.

@Dancingdreamer I think that most state schools have changed a lot since you went. Thankfully. Most now offer a lot better chance to aspire high, and Oxbridge and other Unis have reached out to help. Giving more students the chance to believe they can.

I find it perplexing that some posters can't seem to understand that some state school DC are getting into Oxford and Cambridge because they are more impressive than other DC, not as part of some pity campaign. There still seems to be some notion of private school DC being excluded because they went to private school, not because they weren't good enough to overcome the competition. If that were the case then no DC from top selective schools would be getting places and we know that is just not true. Of course some deserving candidates will not be offered Oxbridge places from all sectors of education but that has always been the case. If DC decide to go abroad to study because they don't get into Oxbridge then why is that so worrying? The Oxbridge courses will still be full of impressive talent so it's swings and roundabouts really.

Perhaps true - but most parents are making those decisions before they get to secondary school, so they may be based on perception rather than reality. Disruption in DS's primary was really significant (no setting there, obviously). Our state alternative was a grammar, and disruption wasn't a factor in our choice, but after some real issues in primary school I can imagine that we might have been concerned about dusruption if our state options had been different, even if the reality might have been that disruption in the top sets would have minimal. (NB not all subjects are set, presumably?)

I think one of the worrying things is that high achieving DC are now taking their potential elsewhere because they are feeling excluded.

Do they really feel excluded just because admissions are a bit fairer now that DC are assessed against the performance of their school? If they are privately educated they are still more likely to get in.

And those bright DC are lost to the UK academic community and economy forever.

Do you think that Oxbridge should admit people based on how likely they are to study abroad if they don't - for the good of the UK academic community? That would be a novel approach, I must say.

One thing that has been conjectured is that Oxbridge state educated children are more likely to go into social/teaching roles such as teaching, research and academia as they may want to emulate role model teachers or want to continue their passion of the subject. For first in the family to go to university just earning more than their parents may seem sufficient financial success. This may possibly borne out by the fact the number one graduate destination of Cambridge grads is secondary education currently.

Those from private schools, possibly by coming from relatively high income families, are more likely to use their Oxbridge degree to enter the more well remunerated professions such as investment banking or law. The graduates possibly want the same opportunities as their parents lifestyle wise including private education for their offspring.

If places like Durham and UCL are now getting a disproportionate (relatively) number of privately educated students will the average graduate salaries of such universities increase and the gap to Oxbridge decrease. Will the parity of earnings have any impact on the relative perception of these universities and the idea of 'elite ' education? Will Durham be the new 'posh ' university with all the associations of privelege?

@opoponax do you think people actually think that though? I think that, where private school parents are worried, it's more because of the speed of change. Some of the top private schools are getting maybe a third of the Oxbridge offers they did a couple of years ago. That's more than just an increase in state applicant numbers (unless they've increased threefold). I suspect that's what is leading to perceptions of persecution in some quarters (I don't think that, I hasten to add). Maybe you're right and some people do think state students are getting in on pity. But I think that perhaps they are more likely to dislike what they (probably wrongly) see as a targeted attack on private school candidates.

There's nothing wrong with going private if that's what you think is best. But the assumption that this will get you a place at a certain Uni has gone. Your chances are now determined totally by your ability, not your wealth.

@mids2019 not true if my students are anything to go by. Lots of v driven youngsters who are now at top law firms, doctors all over the world and one is the CEO of a multi national tech firm (I abuse him a lot for work experience placements 😊).

And we send a lot to Durham too. And St Andrews. Sorry, these pesky state school kids are getting in everywhere these days 😂

I thought Durham and Exeter already were the “posh” universities 🤣. I think it is probably a good thing if bigots like @mumsqna who believe conspiracy theories about the Oxbridge admissions processes decide to send their offspring elsewhere, enabling the real academics to maintain the reputations of Oxford and Cambridge as world class centres of academic excellence and research, rather than finishing schools for the self-entitled. I’m sure truly academic, genuinely gifted, privately educated students are still perfectly happy to apply to Oxford and Cambridge, rather than cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

@kindness
@mumsneedwine

I wasn't insinuating teaching is not a great career with a direct use of intellect but it's not in general the most remunerated job. In fact it's brilliant Oxbridge grads go into teaching.

I was just wondering if there is a correlation (however strong) between proportion of private school undergraduates and salaries?