Innocent poll: Would you willingly send your DC to a so called poor school for the sake of.....

[fireflytoo]

...improving the standards of that school? There are often threads about all the issues revolving around so called good or bad schools. Many factors are blamed; class sizes, teacher child ratios, the middle class influence, sociological environments etc.

What I would like to know is whether anyone (especially anyone who gets cross at parents who move to good school areas or who pay for tutors etc) would willingly send their DC to a school where they know the DC would not nessecarily (sp?) get the best education....but where the school would benefit from having them there. (Presuming these said DC have supportive parents and the DC are quite capable of doing well.)

Hope I am not stepping on any toes here... I am genuinely interested in this question though.

but 5candles, surely you cannot deny that it is easier to get an Oxbridge place if you hav been given the best education possible, the figures don't lie, you are more likely to get an Oxbridge place if you are privately educated. Privately educated children make up 7% of the countries pupils but at some of the countries best universities they make up even more than 50%, take the royal vetinary college, 60% of students are from private schools at Oxford it's 46%.
Conversely the universities with the most state school pupils are not, at least according to league tables in the broadsheets, particularly good universities, eg Thames Valley = 2% private school. The average entry points is 240, thats CCC, not particulalry impressive. At North East Wales Institute its even worse, the average entry is 160 ucas points, thats just DDE at a level, they have 1% private school students.

From these statistics its clear private school students go to better universities, as I want my DCs to have the choice to go anywhere they can I am sending them to a private school. If they choose to go to TVU, then thats fine as long as they're happy. I will be happy knowing I did everything within my power to give them the choice and the opportunities to choose Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial, Kings or Durham etc.

Time to trot out my standard, irritating fact (I seem to do so every few weeks):

The balance of successful Oxbridge entrants (approx 54-46 in favour of state school) is, each year, more or less exactly in proportion to the proportion of applicants.

Of course, this is not in proportion to the ratio in the country as a whole (which is indeed about 93-7 in favour of state).

There are many possible reasons for this, one of which is that not enough state pupils are applying. And there could be many reasons, in turn, for that - not confident enough, not thinking it's their "kind of place", thinking it is full of snobs and "toffs", or prejudice from anti-Oxbridge teachers who steer them away from those and towards the redbricks.

The relationship between 'pure' intelligence and Oxbridge/Russell Group entrance is muddy, to say the least.

Bloody Oxbridge again. The obsession with Oxbridge is part of the problem of snobbery and class in our education system. With Oxbridge you're talking about a tiny minority of largely privileged students. These universities have no relevance to the majority of people in the country. And before you start, no I'm not saying that ordinary students from state schools shouldn't be encouraged to apply (they should. I do this) but Oxford and Cambridge WILL only ever educate a minority. That's what they're there for.

What I'm more interested in is how do we get the best possible education for the majority of our kids rather than how do we get a handful more kids from state schools into Oxbridge.

And Bella your post implies that the reason more kids from private school kids get into Oxbridge is because of something the schools do rather that because the vast majority of private school kids are ALREADY amongst the most privileged in our society with paretns who are supportive. So hardly a surprise then is it?

UQD - of your possible reasons you miss what I think is the most likely. State schools on the whole fail to advise students on their A level subject choices. They also need to get a mimimum of 6 A* grades at GCSE and they need to include the metriculation subjects (although I think Cambridge have recently dropped their requirement for a modern language). So students need to be aware of it in the fifth form. Independent schools do this very well, even with their marginal Oxbridge candidates. State schools can so easily sort this one out.

It's not unreasonable, though, to bring Oxbridge into the discussion on a thread about what you would be happy to do regarding your own child's education, particularly if you are in that privileged minority, as many MNers are.

But regardless of the reasons behind it you are more likely to be able to go to Oxbridge if you have had a private education. I want my children to know that they have had every opportunity available and, if in 10 years my oldest has the GCSEs and Alevels/IB/pre-u grades to consider Oxbridge then she won't be put off applying there for whatever reason.

UQD the redbricks too are filled disproportionally with private school pupils, and I bet a much higher % of the state school pupils will come from grammars such as Colyton or comprehensives in leafy surburbia where most of the parents have been to university and the academic standards are much higher than general rather than Bogg Street Comp or College

The problem with any system which has a minority of 'best' institutions (whether at university or school level) is that these are the ones that attract the most funding and the most applicants while the rest are considered 2nd best and treated accordingly. Increasingly, as I've said before on other threads, universities are becoming divided by social class and ethnicity as more students choose or are forced to stay at home for cultural and financial reasons.

I read an interesting article recently which argued that bursaries would be a much better way of spreading the talent across all our universities. I thought this was incredibly sensible. I see lots of good reasons why it would make sense for universities to specialise in certain courses or certain areas of research but no good reason why all the funding, expertise and applicants should focus on a handful of univerisites.

At least with private schools the parents who choose them are paying for them but with elite universities ALL of us are paying for them even though they only educate a handful of students.

I agree fivecandles about the obsession with Oxbridge. Or Russell Group. I went to Oxford (from a state comp) and enjoyed it, but since then I have studied and worked in various universities - Russell group redbrick, new uni (i.e. ex-poly), and now in one of the top 20 unis again stuffed full of ex public school students.

I really don't know which I would recommend out of these for my dc. Having been in all sorts of uni, can see advantages and disadvantages in all of them.

fivecandles - I think your attitude is shared by the majority and it's a shame as it means our finest educational institutions will remain the preserve of the minority.

I personally think that wanting your kids to go to Oxbridge is a really stupid reason to opt for private school. As UQD says, proportionately you're just as likely to get in from a state school IF you've got the grades. And what about what your child wants? Lots of my students choose not to apply to Oxbridge because their courses are very traditional and inflexible.

Swedes, I think you're wrong. Of course, schools and colleges advise students about appropriate courses. Mine certainly does. Howeve, it would be absolutely wrong to tell a student that she can't do the course she wants to at A Level or at university because the school wants her to look good on their prospectus as a future Oxbridge applicant.

I've actually counselled a student in tears at enrolment who was told she should be doing English rather than what she wanted to do (can't remember what this was) because of university even though she was a B grade sort of student. Ridiculous.

Of course, students need to be advised about Oxbridge and courses if they're Oxbridge material but ultimately I always tell a student to pick what subjects they most enjoy becasue these are the ones they're most likely to do best at. No point at all in a student dropping out or getting a rubbish grade in a course they don't enjoy. Because ultimately its grades that matter more than course choice anyway when looking for entry to top universities.

What attitude Swedes? I think you may have misread my posts. I'm very, very happy for students from state schools to apply to Oxbridge. When my lovely, lovely A grade student got into Cambridge this year I nearly cried with delight. But Oxford and Cambridge are TWO universities out of hundreds. Of course, they'll only educate a minority. And of course this minority is more likely to come from privileged backgrounds regardless of anything I or any other teachers do to change this (and we do). I would much rather see a less hierarchical system where EVERY student benefits equally from tax payers money.

Depends on the school. But I do think it's misleading to imply that state schools are not aware of the matriculation requirements and aren't informed enough to advise students properly on subject choice. I'd agree that if you have Oxbridge in mind you need to start thinking about it from "fifth form" (or Y11 as we call it here!). Maybe even earlier.

?Of course segregation breeds ignorance and snobbery just as it would if it was segregation by ethnicity or religion.?
Doesn?t segregation by postcode also breed ignorance? I couldn?t believe the insularity and small-mindedness of a lot of the pupils at DD?s secondary school. We live right on the edge of catchment, away from the main estate: we are only just over a mile from school but we might as well have lived on the moon as far as some of them were concerned!

Also, can we knock on the head this canard about comprehensive pupils going to Oxbridge. Any kid who is true Oxbridge material will get in, no matter where they go to school, because they are autodidacts. It is the next rung down, the bright-but-not-genius who are failed by the comprehensive system. They are the ones who (if mummy and daddy have money) will go private, get that ?extra something? and effectively buy their way into Russell Group.

Interesting question..haven't read the whole thread. I always thought I would (go for the local school) but struggled with this when found out it was bottom of regional league tables, heard bad things on the grapevine, and talking to neighbours found out no one was planning on even putting it as third choice. So was much more influenced by others than I ever thought I would be. Happy now with our school, though

But many state schools DO advise the wrong courses, especially at GCSE. I have spoken to people whose children can't do GCSE MFL because it is not offered at their school, people who can't take History, Geography, Triple science but instead one of those three and Leisure and Tourism. I have listened to careers advisors say Oxford and Oxford Brookes are equally good.
My children are more likely to get the grades at private school. They are more likely to make connections. I know its wrong but nepotism is rife still. My cousin is 18, she has just got into all 5 of her university choices, UCL sent her father an alumni donation form 3 days after they recieved her application, for the first time in about 20 years, she got an interview 1 week after he made a donation. Wrong? Of course but can you blame him? (of course it could all be conincidental...) At durham she applied for a course that another cousin graduated top in 2 years ago as well as representing the university at sports at an international level, they went round together on the open day and naturally it was a case of 'Oh hi Prof X this is my cousin X - she's applying for next year'
At one university our grandfather is very close friends with the admissions tutor from his boarding school days, he made sure he knew she was applying...
She is a clever girl with 12A and A* gcses and a string of As and Bs at AS level but knowing people can't have hurt her.

I want my children to have every advantage, its only natural, for us that means privately educating them.

Fivecandles - "it would be absolutely wrong to tell a student that she can't do the course she wants to at A Level or at university because the school wants her to look good on their prospectus as a future Oxbridge applicant" I wasn't suggesting a state school should tell a reasonable Oxbridge prospect they "can't" do an A level subject - merely make sure they are aware of having ruled certain options out by their choices.

A much loved teacher of mine told me to keep as many educational options open for as long as possible. I think that was tremendously good advice.

I would be concerned if children were always advised to make enjoyment their main criterion for choosing subjects. Obviously if there's a high chance of them dropping out or failing, this would be great advice, but there are some subjects that are pretty dull early on and only really get fun once you reach the higher levels, so I would want my dcs to be encouraged to stick at them.

The reality of university admissions is probably somewhere between what Bella and Fembear are suggesting. Admissions tutors these days do bend over backwards to ensure fairness, but teachers with an inside knowledge of the system (and realistically this is more likely in some schools than others) are always going to be able to give students advice which helps them play to their strengths in the admissions process.

Xenia on Wed 02-Apr-08 22:38:54
"I have never had any problem with relating to all kinds of people."

Xenia on Thu 03-Apr-08 10:33:09
"I am afraid I find people very very dull whose brain moves slower than mine"

Swedes, I think you'll find that this is what the majority of schools and colleges DO.

At my own college we identify Oxbridge potentials on enrollment. We have an Oxbridge programme for them. We also have a programme in every subject for A/ B students thinking of applying to do that subject at university to raise aspirations.

I cannot stand the way people smugly assume that the reason that more kids from private school get into Oxbridge is because the schools are so much better and that state schools and colleges are all somehow misadvising and discouraging and failing their students.

I have a friend who is closely involved with the Oxbridge admissions process, as a tutor who has interviewed several years running. He says he's only once had a "quiet word" from someone who was implying he should give a particular candidate a place, and it was someone who was good enough on her own merits anyway.

Obviously "the plural of anecdote is not data"... So counter-examples from equally reliable sources are welcome.

Not being able to offer a particular subject at GCSE is not the same as telling a child they can't do it, or that they don't need it.

As for the careers advisor equating Oxford with Oxford Brookes... well, a politician would say "I don't know the particular case you refer to", but I imagine there is more to it. I imagine there are some subjects for which the former polys are more appropriate for some people.

Kathy, enjoyment is the decider. So, if a student has a fairly clear idea what they want to do eventually, has chosen subjects that work well together etc etc and then can't make up their mind between x and y enjoyment should always be the decider. No point any student doing a subject they don't enjoy post GCSE. They are almost certain to do worse in it (if they stick at it at all) than one which they enjoyed more. Unfortunatley there are some students who don't enjoy any of their subjects and they're a nightmare.

fivecandles "I cannot stand the way people smugly assume that the reason that more kids from private school get into Oxbridge is because the schools are so much better and that state schools and colleges are all somehow misadvising and discouraging and failing their students." I'd be interested to hear the reasons why it is then that the 7% educated in the independent sector take up roughly 50% of the places at Oxbridge? If it's not the subjects, not the quality of advise and not that they are being discouraged what is it then? Is it because their vowels are too flat?

In some subjects at Oxford, the courses were and probably still are utterly turgid to the point of being irrelevant (certainly when I was there, and I don't believe it's totally changed since).

I am still working in the field I did half my degree in and the Oxford syllabus was quite a disadvantage in some ways, having to learn from scratch at postgrad level what should IMO have been taught at undergrad level. Yes the courses are rigorous in some ways but certainly not always best in all subjects.

Well, I come back to my possible answers from before. Under-confidence, prejudice... There are established links with some schools and Oxbridge, a tradition of sending people there... there's undeniably anti-Oxbridge suspicion in some quarters of the state system... the schools aren't equipped to offer the extra coaching... All of the above.