Without meaning to sound smug.....

[alfiesbabe]

(well ok just a little bit!) I'm interested to discover that our local 6th form college has 9 students with Oxbridge offers, our local state school has 4 and the private school where dh teaches has....2. What's going on here?? Is the tide turning at last? State school quotas?? I'm intrigued. I've sounded out DH and a significant number of the private school students were turned down. He describes them as very much conventional oxbridge candidates - ie predicted straight As/appropriate amount of sport and music involvement etc. Having said that, I taught a couple of the 6th form college pupils when they were at 11-16 level, and they are extremely bright and predicted straight As. DH also said it isnt just an oxbridge thing - some of his pupils are getting a similar response from Durham, Bristol etc.
I don't want this to become a private/state debate - I'm just intrigued by this.

beg to differ

The Times November 2007 table of top 100 secondary schools which is not skewed is based on A and GCSE results and the top 20 schools are private with all the best ones you would expect in there and then 21st is Henrietta Barnett - the highest state school.The reason is it the most accurate table is it is based on how many A and B and A level and A and A* at GCSE.

As a teacher, I view average points score at GCSE or A Level as a more accurate way of judging a school's performance.

It depends what you're after. The Times list based on A and A* and A/B at A level is what parents of academic children are after, which is in core academic subjects. Obviously schools where the school is lucky to get 40% at A - C GCSE are in a different league. if you are choosing which schools do best for clevre children, get most to Oxbridge, are well known as good schools and genuiely get the best results then the Times basis is more accurate. If people want to con themselves that XYZZ comp because it had loads of children who achieve a C in woodwork must be better than say St Paul's Manchester Grammar Henrietta Barnett then continue to live in a fool's paradise but employers and universities know what really counts (at that top 15% level type of child who is good university material anyway). But what is sad is if a parent things that bad local comp is actually better than Eton because of skewed fake Government league tables.

In what way 'skewed'? I'd say that looking at A* and A/B is much more skewed in that a small number of students could achieve 11A grades while others are achieving mainly Cs or not achieving anything at all. An average point score gives a better picture of how the school is doing over all.

Anyway, we're back to your view of life which is that success =s a private school education, A grades and entrance to Oxbridge. This is such a narrow view of success and can only ever apply to such a tiny percentage of the population that I really find it desperately sad. I really wonder if you are suffering from a sort of obsessive compulsion Xenia. If your own children are already at university stage why are you so obsessed with repeating ad nauseum what you see as 'good schooling' and success?

Most parents want their kids to be happy and supported and challenged in their schools and go on to a university and career that makes them fulfilled.

The sort of parent who judges a school only on its number of A grades and entrants to Oxbridge (with presumably the assumption either that their child will only fit in with a school that achieves a high number of both or needs to be pushed into achieving these things) has to be deranged.

I am finding this thread really interesting and informative.
I, like ally, was state educated in scotland. Oxbridge or any english uni was never mentioned. Our careers advice was appalling. I have always felt resentful about not being given the opportunity to achieve my academic potential and still feel at the age of 37 that i really missed out. It was only when i completed an MSc at UCL that i felt better- but still angry. I would contest her statement about state school applicants getting better degree results - wasn't there a piece in the times about six months ago that said exactly the opposite? Also that there was a lot of prejudice against oxbridge particularly from state school teachers and that that was the biggest barrier to applications from the state sector? Who gives children the impression that oxbridge is 'full of toffs' - surely there lies the problem? You cannot blame the admission processes if, as UQD says, they select proportionally depending on applications. (although you are obviously motivated fivecandles i really don't think you can talk for the whole of your profession if these findings are to be believed)fivecandles you cannot have it both ways- if, as you say, you respect state school children who elect not to apply for oxbridge for good reasons, you cannot complain when the proportion of state school children getting a place is not to your liking.
Also a point xenia brought up is worthy of mention. Surely there should be some discussion on what people actually do with their degrees? The captains of industry need to come from somewhere. However distastful some of you found her comment to be, there surely is no point in an education which is not capitalised on later? Maybe the advice shouldn't be 'how can i get into oxbridge' but what do i want to do with my life and what university education will give me the most choices?

My view is that there should not be a hierarchy in education (or at least not one that is so pronounced) just as there shouldn't be in any other area of life. England is still much more divided by class and has less social mobility than most other countries and the importance attached to Oxbridge both reflects and exacerbates this. Oxbridge universities were established for the privileged and continue to be dominated by the privileged. If by 'toffs' you mean privileged then this is not an 'impression' which is given to state school children to somehow keep them in their place, it is a fact born out by the fact that over 40% of students there have had a private education. I personally do not believe that you should be able to buy a good education and that you are not entitled to a good education unless you have money.

TBH, the fact that more of my students don't get into Oxbridge (and quite a few do, I'm teaching one at the moment) is not really number one in my list of concerns about education in this country or life in general because I do not believe that an Oxbridge education is necessary the best education and does not necessarily equate to success. My bright students are bright enough to be able to make the right decisions about their future and be happy with them. I cannot believe they are sitting there mourning the fact they didn't go to Cambridge.

It's also not surprising that so many students at OXbridge have come from private schools since something like 50% of A grades come from private schools.

Unlike Xenia, I do not see this as a sign that bright students are being failed by the state system (I see evidence that this is not the case on a daily basis). I see this as evidence of the advantages of having parents with money and who support their kids' education.

This is what bothers me. The fact that children who do not have parental support and money (and a home environment that is conducive to academic study) are so unlikely to do well. Again, I don't see that this is the fault of schools. There is good evidence to suggest that 2 children with the same IQ at age 3 will already start to differ in terms of academic success by aged 4 according to their parents' wealth.

And this makes absolute sense to me. The daughters of teachers my kids have grown up from birth in a house full of books where we value learning and conversation. Of course, by the time they got to school they knew their ABCs and enjoyed reading and understood a lot about the rhythms of language etc etc. Of course, these advantages will be compounded as they get older when they're taken to the theatre and encouraged to do homework and so on... We'll be able to help with coursework and make sure our kids revise.So it's getting rid of poverty we need to be getting worked up about and supporting parents and early parenting in particular.

Not getting our knickers in a twist about getting another handful of working class kids into an elite university (which will only ever educate a privileged few).

And what I can't stand is the lack of awareness about the financial and social cost to many students of moving away from home to go to university especially somewhere like Oxford where rent is extremely high.

The assumption that if you don't go to Oxbridge you have failed or been failed if you are bright is absolutely wrong. If you are still feeling upset about this 20 years on I feel sorry for you.

I'm certainly not. I got mainly A grades at a comp and at A Level. I passed the exams for Oxford and failed the interview. by the admissions people. I don't feel that I was unfairly treated. I would have failed myself too. I was lacking in confidence and uncomfortable in interview. THat's the thing about interviews (in any situation) they assess your confidence and how articulate you are rather than your ability to do well (academically or in a job). And it's probably true that private schools do prepare students better for this area of the application process - interviews, I mean - which is not the same as them being better and is not necessariyl a sign of a better student..

I went to another good university, got a great education and went on to achieve my vocation of teaching. I am genuinely glad that I didn't get into Oxford. I didn't feel I fitted in because I didn't fit in. I didn't feel comfortable there. Not because I didn't feel 'good enough' but because I recognized there weren't a great deal of people like me. I didn't like the traditional and inflexible course. I wouldn't have liked the pressure. The onyl reason I applied ironically was because my state school encouraged me to.

And before you start, I am not arguing from sour grapes at all. And my point of view is not really influenced by my personal experience as a student (who was encouraged to apply to Oxford) although it is influenced by my posiiton as a teacher.

My twins are 9 (so not all my children are beyond that stage). I am just interested in it as a topic. i was married to a teacher for 18 years for a start. I've had 5 children. Education is just an interest of mine.

What I don't like is parents and children not having accurate information and I am not happy about the latest league tables of the Government. i think they take us back in some ways to the days when there were no league tables so only parents in the know could judge what was a good school (academically).

It rarely harms someone to go to Oxbridge. My siblings went and i don't think they suffered career damage. My sister later joined a cult, opted out etc all very very legitimate choices on the road to personal happiness etc which I would never really challenge. I don't want my children to lead British businesses unless they want to but I want them to have the choice of that and a good education gives them that chance. My sister by 30 had got "back on track" and has a good career (because of her Oxbridge degree etc).

As suey2 says it is interesting where people come from and how education is capitalised on later. Bedales, a relatively "free" in the life sense, not money sense, boarding school is putting children only in for I think 5 GCSEs in a recent move and giving them more time to work on the farms and do practical things which clearly benefits some types of children and may be parents who don't think exams are so important either. Actually I think the hobbies and interests my chiildren got at their good schools and peer group and levels of fitness and possibly even accent etc are as important a the exam results.

if you are quite clever and middle class and your children are in the top 15% by IQ etc (and that is a subset of people obviously as 100 is the IQ average and people are under that) then it's not surprising you want your children to fulfil their own potential in a good school suited to clever children. If I had a child who wasn't so bright then similarly I would be choosing a school appropriate to them and their needs.

And I absolutely understand that an Oxbridge education opens doors for you and some of my students could do with a few doors being opened but why should this be the case? This is just another aspect of our class-ridden, snobby society where it doesn't matter about your ability to do a job or what class of degree you actually got if you went to a posh university or school.

Life is unfair as my mother always said and the earlier we all learn to accept it the better. Attempts to make everyone equal - communist Russia, China under Moa, North Korea, Cuba have hardly succeeded have they?

People who are clever or pretty or hard working or nice or whatever are born with advantages and they will always do better in life (better meaning more money, more success etc).

By the way you can't get into Oxbridge if you're thick however clever your parents are (only example I can think of is Prince Charles and that was a long time ago. Prince William wouldn't have got in. Also in the City or journalism although you might get work experience if you know people no one will hire you in a month of Sundays unless you are really good and if a mistake is made you'll be out on your ear quickly if you don't cut the mustard even if your parents are rich and well known otherwise you'll damage the business. I know people earning several hundred thousand a year in London who got to those positions from comprehensive schools and working class homes including many with strong regional accents. We have a reasonable meritocracy in the UK and that's a good thing. Despite that it helps a child and makes life easier if they have a good education because it's not quite such a battle to get to those positions.

The interesting question is how much you should smooth the way. Children who don't have to work because of wealth rarely do very well. So although my oldest 3 will graduate without debts (my choice to pay) they will not be supported after that. So university life was easier for them in a sense. They did take on some jobs but they didn't have to. They could take interesting but not quite so well paid work abroad in holidays or revise without having to work too. They won't necessarily get better results than friends whose parents don't pay but the path was a bit easier for them and I'm glad I was in a position to pay for that. My choice.

I do not feel angry about not going to oxbridge. I feel angry that i never had the opportunity to apply. That I was not shown more options for my tertiary education than i was given. To elect not to go is one thing, to not know it existed is quite another

Fivecandles and Xenia - I think you both make good points.

I wish our society was more egalitarian but people everywhere are driven by heirarchy and status - it's part of human nature (you can stop reading if you don't believe in human nature but it's my field of study). That doesn't mean we should just abandon all hope of creating more equal opportunities but it does mean recognising just how difficult that is going to be and that we will probably never get rid of some form of inequality and heirarchy because the drive to create it over and over is very strong in many people.

I have, alas, worked in a profession where I did observe an Oxbridge clique that affecting hiring. Some professions are more like that than others.

I have observed that students from private education tend to have higher expectations wrt salaries and that puts them off some jobs. There were a lot of state school students in scientific research when I was in that area and I have wondered if that is partly because they are more easily reconciled to the disappointing salaries.

With the greater supply of top grades it's even more the case surely that good students are not going to Oxbridge. There're just too many of them. Also, I think a major factor that keeps Oxbridge afloat is being a magnet for wealthy overseas families.

Suey - to suggest going to Oxbridge when I was at school was like suggesing studying on the moon. As for advice, I was left to it - could have just stuck a pin in a list of courses and another on a map.

yes Xenia you all ways quote the TIMES tables i quote the ones used by government

Yes, a labour Government which skews the figures etc. Anyway use any tables you like. I know the ones which show the best schools.

The fivec post is interesting. Of course some children have advantages at home. It i s jus as unfair that fivec's children have parents who talk and read to them as it is that I earn so much I can afford 5 sets of schools fees (plus I spend a lot of time talking and reading to my children). That doesn't mean we should take children away from parents like fivec or not let parents choose the best schools so they are all dragged down to the worst there is. What we need is to try to solve things at an earlier stage.

It is true - children in some families, sometimes poorer families, know fewer words at 3 because their patents do not have such a wide vocabulary. I read my mother's baby diary of our childhood in the early 1960s and what comes over so well in that was our early vocabulary - she lists what words I was saying at age 2 and 3 and some of our funny little sayings. We know those words because our parents were well educated and spoke to us and hopefully my children have had the same. We were also helped by our private schools too.

I have never given a second thought to not going to Oxbridge. I didn't try and might not have got in had I tired. But I do think children need to try to pick the better universities and some are conned into thinking because Middlesex University has a good course in XYZ employers will be beating a path to their door - they won't - it's second league and easy to get into and like everything the more competition the better the people etc.

I like the fact I've bought higher expectations for my children. Of course that can be a burden - most people don't want a worse standard of living than they grew up with on the whole and I know my siblings and I all wanted basically a detached house and to be able to afford school fees which was the norm as we grew up. And we've all replicated that, perhaps in very dull fashion. That will affect job choices for some children at university stage but I think they all know whether they're from state or private schools what salaries are and what jobs mean XYZ lifestyle and what means ABC lifestyle and a good few girls know marrying one boy means loads of money and another doesn't not that they will all be picking partners on that basis - but in general the rich businessman is likely to get more dates than the dustbin man I am pretty sure.

I think high salary and lifestyle expectations can be a burden. We can't afford a detached house or private school fees (well perhaps we could do the latter if we were really determined) but it's not a burden and I am therefore able to pursue a career for interest rather than financial reward. Of course both would be nice but it must be perculiar to feel that you just couldn't live below a certain high income (of course everyone wants certain minimum). can't imagine what I would do for a living that wouldn't drive me demented if I felt like that.

I'd be very happy to earn more though

Xenia, referring back to my earlier post, I did say better paid job not better ie. more interesting and of more benefit to society. Almost all the people I know

Everyone, Ac, has some minimum level. For some it will be state benefits in a council house. For others they want to own their own home. For others it's holidays abroad and then for some like me it's a detached house, private schools and for others again it's Ms Mills' standard of living. So I don't think it's peculiar. It will be the same for you but at a lower income level. You will still have some kind of threshold.

I certainly could live below this income level as the things I like are books from the library, walking etc which don't cost anything, but I don't choose to because I love the work too which is why I'm doing some on Good Friday by choice and I like the money and a job I love.

And why I am working today too - but for a pittance (with the occaisional mn break...).

Xenia and the Times figures are accurate?

You would make me larf if i did not think you actually believed your own hype

sorry, toddler interrupting my attempts to post. As I was saying, I said that the people that I know that went to independent schools have better paid jobs not better jobs IMHO, ie. they are nearly all accountants or in the financial sector whereas the bright state school pupils that i know tend towards vital public sector jobs such as teaching and medicine, creative jobs or research (and some entrepreneurs too). This is what happens when any type of educational establishment places too much emphasis on earning potential. You may not think that this is a bad thing but in my experience (amongst family and friends) ind. schools tend to be quite forceful about funneling children into a limited range of professions, which is limiting their choices rather than broadening them. Having taught art for a year in a scottish boarding school I can say that this is on top of their very limited experience of life for anyone outside their immediate circle.

Not so sure. My brother is an NHS psychiatrist and went to a private school. I know female surgeons who are. I would think it's more a particular kindo f parnent who pushed children toward high page jobs (typcially actually the rather common nouveau riche builder made good sort who see private education as about buying A level grades etc, not necessarily those with family money where the money doesn't really matter from the wages).

I remember doing careers' evenings with loads of choice fo all kinds of careers and dragged t
my stall would be all the Asian and Jewish girls whose parents had 3 careers only - doctor, lawyer, accountants as if that were it but I didn't really see these day academic private schools pushing children into earning a lot of money. They're taught by teachers. Teachers tend to be poor, rather resentful of their law pay and quite left wing in all sectors so they don't tend to be pushing jobs in the city very much.

Children are private schools have more choice, not less.

The league table debate is a non starter. The Governments tables are a joke as anyone who has been anywhere near a good school knows.

Well if you have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds over the years on privately educating your 5 children you are jolly well going to want to reassure yourself that it was money well spent!

Numerous friends of my parents whose children are now my age (early thirties) are sighing at dinner parties that it was all an utter waste of money.

Very anecdotal but DH is from a working class background, no one from his family had ever been to university, he went to the local comp, then Cambridge and now works in the city. One of his many hobbies is reading the classics. There are lots like him. The idea that a private school education is necessary for you to live a fulfilled and "successful" (in conventional terms) life is arrant, snobbish nonsense.

Not necessary at all but if you can afford it it tends to make things easier for teh children was all I said, increases the chances of them speaking well, having nice friends, getting better A level grades but it should never be done no the basis I am paying therefore the children have to turn out like this exact model of child that I have ordered from the factory. All children differ and I'm sure all mine will do very different things. Only one so far as got to the point of finding a job.

I think 47% of parents would pay if they could afford it (and 6- 8% do pay).

Well for us the private school option is the fall back if dd doesnt get into the local state primary. Dont fancy walking miles and dd having non local friends if class sizes mean we are allocated a state primary in another part of town and the private school is at the end of our road. We would definitely prefer state if possible.

Spluttering at the speaking well and having nice friends comments! How rude!