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.

Yes because you live in exactly the same part of the country as everyone else and children are complete clones of one another.

Ah they do offer grades lower offers which I’m okay with. Kids who are the first in their families to go to uni and have grown up with a single parent in a council flat need a bit of help. What I’m against is given them to people who aren’t necessarily wealthy but aren’t poor either

I don’t understand why you thing 28%is unfair when it is from a pool of 6 or 7% pupils.

There is of course the arguments that nurture affects intelligence. Ie if educated well early enough they will be naturally brighter as they will have had the means for their brains to thrive properly. Is that what you think a private education can do.

Also there is the argument that children of intelligent people will be more intelligent as they will have inherited their intelligent genes. Any these children will be in private education.

But either way 7% to 28% is rather a large jump still surely? Surely that accounts for those two arguments.

I don't believe unacademic kids can get into Oxbridge because they were privately educated. However, if it comes to interview for two evenly capable kids, one of whom is from a comprehensive in Barnsley and the other from Harrow, the one who has been brought up to believe he 'belongs' at Oxbridge will have a clear advantage over the one who's grown up being told by society that it's very much Not For Him.

Private school can still confer all sorts of invisible advantages whether you get into your uni of choice or not, so it's not all about that and it's quite right Oxbridge should look to broaden who it accepts. The last 12 years have shown us that private school and Oxbridge are not really the best way to produce leaders!

Exactly, they don’t. I wasn’t saying those things should help students gain admissions. I’m saying that I’m laying so my kids get those things as I care about them.

You use very American (ie international) vocabulary and are obviously not a native English speaker

What are the universities like in your birth country? Maybe try one of those?

Honestly, it is mixed. Oxford has a long way to go in terms of understanding the needs of their care experienced students.

For example, 2 of the 3 were living independently in bedsit style accommodation when they went to Uni. Both lost their accommodation and yet have to move out of halls each holiday for months at a time (short terms). We managed to arrange au pair style reciprocal agreements (in Lecturers homes for both). One has graduated with a first in Chemistry and has a graduate job at a major global company - seems very happy. The other 2 are both managing well but it is a challenge. The environment is set up for those with vast reserves of parental support (and money). Other Unis are much more supportive and understanding.

We worked with a local CIC tutoring company to get them in. Private clients pay for lessons and the profits are used to teach children with ACE and enable them to reach their potential.

I would say our most successful client to date is a care experienced woman who was a victim of CSE and trafficking. She ended up addicted to crack and living on the streets in Leeds. She came to us for food and clothing but eventually chose education. 5 GCSES, an access course, Huddersfield Uni (amazing support), PGCE and 3 years later she is heading up the early years department of a large Primary School in East London. What. a remarkable woman, truly inspiring. And very very very smart. So smart. For women like her this post ENRAGED me. Thanks for letting me witter on!

AND! if anyone is thinking of private tuition on line for Oxbridge exams, 11plus or any other competitive test think about using a CIC not a for profit tuition model. The one we used has better results and is cheaper than alternative for profit providers! DM me if you'd like more info (I don't work for them - I work for a different non profit but we use them for all educational services)

Whilst I would not disagree that what makes Oxbridge universities 'elite' is money, I don't think you really grasp where the majority of that funding actually comes from. Alumni and donors are great and can help pay for great facilities but what makes Oxbridge universities top of their game is attracting research funding which happens by having the brightest and best researchers and staff, and often come from having the brightest and best students, not the richest.

By the way, Oxbridge is not a single entity. It is an umbrella name for the two oldest (and top) universities in the UK. There is no 'it'.

Not sure why you think it's already happening. Can't see St Andrews or Durham in the top 10 global universities yet. Indeed, not even in the top 10 in the UK.

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

After decades of teaching I know you're completely wrong about that. You're under the delusion that "disadvantaged" refers to income.

I didn’t say they should reserve. I said we should expect them to be over represented because of the type of homes kids at private school come from. I’m not saying 35% should be reserved for private school kids, I’m saying 65% should be reserved for state school kids.

In the sense that we should be given a leg up to people.

But you're complaining that private schools aren't being over-represented and that state schools are getting a fair allocation? That's what your post was about?

I’m saying that I’m laying so my kids get those things as I care about them.

OK, you've jumped the shark now.

For someone who obviously classes yourself as a high earner, your grammar is extremely poor.

Thank you very much @FaazoHuyzeoSix youve articulated my point much better than I have. We should be given kids non-selective comps a leg up (contextualised offers) whilst at the same time expecting kids from selective state and private schools to be over-represented.

people shouldn’t be getting angry at them being overrepresented.

It's GIVING, not given. GIVING

Noting scientific at all. I just picked those numbers out of thin air to illustrate that I expect students from state school to be a majority but should also expect private schools kids to be over represented. 65 - 35 seemed to be an okay amount. The percentage who go into uni is 80-20%

(Yes, there are other exceptional universities - Oxbridge used here as shorthand)

The issue is not about Oxbridge not giving first dibs on places to private students, it's about Oxbridge trying to reduce private numbers based on a totally fallacious percentage.

You need to drill down and look at the number of students who achieve appropriate standards for Oxbridge then split that number into private and not.

A privately educated child should have no more and no less chance of getting to Oxbridge than a state educated child of the same ability. Plus selective state schools should be included in this in some way other than as state - they are pickier about their intake than a lot of the top private schools.

The top private/selective state schools have already filtered out the "non-Oxbridge" candidates before they start school where non selective schools can't.

(Ignoring selective states now for ease)

You can allow for private school advantages by requiring reasonably higher grades from the private schools (but not crazy) to assess admissions standards.

VERY VERY simple example, (numbers chosen for clarity not because I think they are correct), but they show the effect of this filtering.

Imagine the following numbers:

Private Schools between them have 1000 pupils, 50% - 500 of whom reach the standard chosen for private schools.

State schools have 15,000 pupils, 10% - 1500 reach the standard for state schools.

If you give places to all the 2000 I've shown, you've got 25% (500/2000) from private school, vs the 6% (1,000/16,000) you should get if you go by number educated privately.

Or you could just take your 6% (60) of the private pupils, leaving you with space for 440 more state pupils who didn't make the grade - but then you as a university are missing out on 440 extremely talented students, and taking students who may well struggle with the curriculum.

Doing it with approx. 20% private at A level and same proportions of ability you get:

Private Schools 3000, 1500 at standard.
State schools 13,000, 1300 at standard.

Then you have 2800 students of the admissions standard -- 54% (1500/2800) who are privately educated! If you've then only got 2000 places you could give the first 1300 to the state students - but that's then purely social engineering (not discussing the rights and wrongs of that here). Making the private school requirements so high as to reduce the numbers to the "right" proportions would be the same thing - you can't realistically assume that a private A star is only worth a state B given the private students are already filtered by ability. Or you just say your intake should reflect the 54% that get the relevant standards from each sector.

The government/universities need to decide how to measure ability then aim for those percentages - or decide that social engineering is more important.

I think it depends on the circles you live/work in. For us it's either private, a faith education or an outstanding local school that selects by house price. The kids at all those will likely come from the top 20% of households with a few disadvantage largely coming from the faith school tho looking at their stats recently the percentage on free school meals is falling year after year. Therefore I do think it's unfair to say C from the private school shouldn't stand the same chance of admission as B from the outstanding state school or A from the faith school, as they have likely had the very same advantage it just the way their parents paid for it that is different. These are all local schools and the faith school actually use the facilities at the private, whilst all three play competitive sports against each other. Trip etc are very much the same with only slightly bigger class sizes 20 vs 25.

What they should be doing instead of saying state vs private is X percentage of pupils to come from school rated as requires improvement or below. Our local uni gives contextual offers to local kids based on a schools performance it would be great if that could be rolled out on a national scale.

I assume that English is an additional language for the OP

How do you prove they haven’t gotten intense tutoring? Simply because they went to a state school?

@FaazoHuyzeoSix, @mumsqna typical it took me so long to type I missed your answers! Well done @FaazoHuyzeoSix for finding that breakdown - I've been looking for something like that!

Turd polishing is an interesting way to refer to young children

I don't think so. Mixing up "given" and "giving" is something native speakers do, because it's based on how the words sound in conversation. Non-native speakers would usually learn the written word before hearing it in conversation.

Just like "would of" - you don't usually see people who learnt English as a second language making that mistake.

Those sorts of spelling mistakes are usually present in native speakers who don't read much.

Precisely. I’m the first to hold of my hand and say some of my post is driven by ignorance but some of the statements have actually drive me up the wall

Ignorance and lazy thinking as I didn’t take this very seriously.