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.

@thing47 quite the reverse in my experience. I am blown away by most of the teaching I have seen in the state sector.

A substantial portion (probably most) of private schools are selective in the later school years. Therefore if the oxbridge entrance percentages of state versus private just reflected the numbers in each sector pupils in private would be at a disadvantage as they would be competing against a pool of selected candidates most of whom will have had to achieve an academic minimum to be in the school sixth form. Those academic minimums can be quite high for the most competitive/academic of the private schools.

I don’t know why so many people seem to be getting upset about the fact that Oxbridge is trying to favour state school pupils. And vilifying me for stating that this happens. I’m not concerned that state school students are being given these opportunities. Oxbridge has to make difficult choices as there are lots of strong applicants. This is the least awful way of making a choice.

However, I do dislike the way that we clump all states schools and their pupils together as if they are all equally disadvantaged. This is not the case. State schools are as equally divisive. State school pupils are selected either on academics (most often from supported with tutoring) for grammar schools and on parent’s income (in order to afford a house in the catchment for the best schools and tutoring when needed). So please don’t oversimplify this debate and make it sound like all state school students are created equal.

And because all state schools are different Oxbridge treat them all differently. So a more affluent community school will be treated the same as Eton. It's really not hard to understand.
My lot now have 7 interviews already - looks like a bumper year 😊. All predicted a handful of A stars.

@Dancingdreamer - well, you are the one who appears to be oversimplifying the debate and pretending that Oxford and Cambridge treat all state schools as though they are equal. Have you actually bothered to find out what contextual data Oxford and Cambridge take into account when assessing candidates?

@Dancingdreamer DC at top performing state selective schools are contextualised very similarly to DC in top performing private selective schools. I have first hand experience of this with my own DC and have no issue at all with it. Why would you think all state schools are clumped together?

Do we actually know the average A level grades achieved by:
-private school applicants accepted
-state school applicants accepted
-contextual applicants accepted, regardless of school?

With these “buckets” being both mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

I don’t know why so many people seem to be getting upset about the fact that Oxbridge is trying to favour state school pupils

As many people have explained several times, this is not the case. I'm not sure why you find it difficult to understand but here goes again - Oxbridge look at the performance of each candidate in the context of their school, irrespective of sector. It will be easier to get an Oxbridge place from a low performing private school than it is from a high performing state school. In that sense it is not about state vs private at all.

And vilifying me for stating that this happens.

"Vilifying" is a bit hyperbolic - people have repeatedly explained that this doesn't happen, patiently and politely.

However, I do dislike the way that we clump all states schools and their pupils together as if they are all equally disadvantaged.

I don't think anyone has said this? I guess we can all agree that in general students in the state sector are educationally disadvantaged compared to their private school peers. Private education wouldn't exist otherwise - who would pay for something that gave no advantage over free provision?

In any case, as has been explained over and over, whether we on the thread lump all state education together or not, Oxbridge do not do this, the admissions process is much more sophisticated than that.

Do we actually know the average A level grades achieved by:
-private school applicants accepted
-state school applicants accepted
-contextual applicants accepted, regardless of school?

I haven't seen this information split state v private, probably because the majority have at least 3 x A stars as you can see. Not sure what you mean by contextual applicants, everyone is a contextual applicant in that the context of their school is considered. Nobody receives a lower, contextual offer.

I guess we can all agree that in general students in the state sector are educationally disadvantaged compared to their private school peers. Private education wouldn't exist otherwise - who would pay for something that gave no advantage over free provision?

Actually I think that's too general assumption. First, because there are some really poor private schools out there. Why anyone pays to send their child to them is a mystery. Second (related to first) is that just because people think something, doesn't make it true. Third, because lots of people pay for private school not for the academic advantage but for the sports etc, or the convenience, or sometimes for the social cachet.

I'm not convinced that it's generally true that a run of the mill private school will confer much academic advantage over a decent state school. An elite academic school will have those advantages - but then so will an elite grammar school.

However, I do dislike the way that we clump all states schools and their pupils together as if they are all equally disadvantaged. This is not the case. State schools are as equally divisive. State school pupils are selected either on academics (most often from supported with tutoring) for grammar schools and on parent’s income (in order to afford a house in the catchment for the best schools and tutoring when needed). So please don’t oversimplify this debate and make it sound like all state school students are created equal.

I hope that you have missed a some out of there, because otherwise you are as guilty as lumping state school pupils together as others.

Some state school pupils go to selective grammar schools. Some go to schools where the entire/main intake is from an area where you can only live if you own an expensive house.

Plenty of state schools are genuinely comprehensive and others take most of their intake from deprived areas.

@hoooops , thanks. I also suspect that grade averages are the same between state and private. When I say “contextual” I mean students who are formally given lower offers because of postcode, polar score, etc. They could actually be at state or private schools, and they would need to be removed from the state/private averages to get a clear comparison.

Whether the averages are the same or not, wouldn’t change opinions or settle anything. But I’ve now read the full thread and a lot of posters seem to be relying on an implied assumption about this to support their pov.

When I say “contextual” I mean students who are formally given lower offers because of postcode, polar score, etc.

Oxford and Cambridge do not do this, although lots of other universities do.

Well that’s a clarification right there! Reading the thread, i thought disadvantaged students were given lower offers, justifiably.

I know - people assume that disadvantaged students get in with lower grades but this is not at all the case.

There should be some way of pinning that to the top of any thread on this subject. I always bob in to make that exact point, as do others, but it tends to get overlooked in a general miasma of unjustified grievance.

a general miasma of unjustified grievance

So true 😂

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/private-schools-see-bigger-fall-top-a-level-grades-state-sector/

2020-2021 are ‘interesting’ years to compare private v state, particularly compared to 2022.

You could say that the provision was better in private schools during the teacher assessed years or that the centre assessed grades boosted private schools but it’s the comparative fall between sectors when you go back to exams that’s interesting.

Although of course it’s other tests and interviews that Oxbridge do that help deciding offers not just grades.

I have no idea why some people think that all state school children should be lumped together as disadvantaged. I was disadvantaged at an expensive public school for having bad teachers. My comprehensive school educated children were advantaged by having much better teachers. They both got more than enough Astars to pass the first hurdle to go to Oxbridge. I don’t know if they would have at my school. I think they are more independent in their learning than I was, and I know they are extremely bright from their CAT scores so maybe they would. But obviously from an academic point of view they could have only got worse grades by going privately!

The other thing that often happens on these threads is someone arguing that private school conveys no advantage apart from "sports or convenience".

And these top private school sporting opportunities that supposedly have no tangible benefit beyond self-fulfilment and rounding the child can assist quite tangibly with US applications if Oxbridge doesn't appeal enough.

No one had ever been to Oxbridge ever in my school. My head would not let me try even when I asked. Private school. (My younger sibilng was the first!) That of course was not the case for the state schools in Newcastle. So the assumptions private are always better is not necessarily the case.
My view is Oxbridge pretty much reflects how many go to private school and any minor difference in the % - private school on a de minimis basis marginally higher % is explained by the factors I and others gave.

I don;'t think private schools convey no advantage and I don't think most private school parents think so either. I certainly did not pay to achieve Oxbridge (I and none of my 5 graduate children even tried Oxbridge as we have all done pretty well elsewhere - 3 of mine went happily to Bristol and are lawyers or trainee lawyers). I did want single sex education. I also wanted lots of classical music (major family hobby - I met their father who is an organist, in his choir at a Cathedral and there was more classical music of the standard we like in the private schools including at primary level than state around here). Every parent will have different things on their lists. I liked having parents' choirs of parents who can sight sing to a high level of the kind of music I like - that is a very particular preference that is unlikely to be on most people's lists!.

I am now in the stage of watching my twins and their friends in the year or 2 after graduation so it is interesting seeing what jobs people pick and if their parents, their schooling, their university or some other factor decides that.

@ZandathePanda I can’t read the article, paywall. But the headline implies that more private school students dropped from As or As than state. Its sort of meaningless without knowing full distribution of grades for each. It could just reflect the average at private schools being nearer to the A/A threshold.

Yes, absolutely the sporting opportunities will help with US university applications, but the thread is about Oxbridge, where it won't.

Don't get me wrong, I do think my children get some academic advantage (their school gets significantly better results than the local super-selective grammar, so I assume it must convey an advantage, as I doubt the intake is any more selective). But I don't know how 'generally' true that is. For example, the prep schools near us get higher percentages of children through the 11+ - but I would be interested to see the difference if you stripped out the wealth and parental support factors, and looked at the difference between a well-off, heavily invested parent in primary and prep.

It's also the case that MN is full of people saying that children do just as well academically in good state schools as in private, and that private school is (academically at least) a waste of money. But maybe they're wrong.

I also wanted lots of classical music (major family hobby - I met their father who is an organist, in his choir at a Cathedral and there was more classical music of the standard we like in the private schools including at primary level than state around here). Every parent will have different things on their lists. I liked having parents' choirs of parents who can sight sing to a high level of the kind of music I like - that is a very particular preference that is unlikely to be on most people's lists!.
Curiously, I have very similar requirements regarding music and choral opportunities, yet both my children still managed very adequately with state education.

It's also the case that MN is full of people saying that children do just as well academically in good state schools as in private, and that private school is (academically at least) a waste of money. But maybe they're wrong.

My gut feeling is that my children may have done academically better in private school than in state school. But, we're talking maybe the odd grade or so higher at GCSE. I don't think a child who (say) got all 5s at state school is likely to have got all 9s or even all 7s at private school.

The crucial point for me is that the academic advantage would not have been worth the fees, compared to what else the fee money could be spent on (in our case, more enrichment type activities and a money towards a house deposit when they get to that stage). And, also in our case, the grades the DC got were sufficient to allow them to move on to the thing they wanted to do. I think people can get fixated on high grades in most cases "good enough" is all you need.