Misleading article - private schools vs state schools Oxbridge

[NotLactoseFree]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/state-schools-beat-private-rivals-in-race-for-oxbridge-offers-gsdrpvlgn

Argh. This drives me mad. We have family and friends at private school and they see these articles and start to panic that their little darlings might not have as good a chance of getting into oxbridge. Or even that their children are "discriminated" against. So just a few facts that are actually in the article, but not spelled out with the "so what" factor.

Facts in the article:
"More state schools than private schools were among the top 20 that counted the most Oxbridge offers last year, analysis shows."
"In total, there were five independent schools in the top 10 and nine in the top 20, while nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of Oxbridge offers went to state schools."
"Of the 80 schools in the full list, 29 are independent, 29 grammar or partially selective, 17 sixth-form colleges and five are comprehensives or academies."

So just to clarify this - of the top 20 schools getting Oxbridge offers, ALMOSt 50% of them are private schools.

Also, according to the government in January 2024, there are 3444 state funded secondary schools. So 11 out of 3444 is 0.3% of state secondary schools are in the top 20 for Oxbridge and 1.5% are in the top 80. The government figures for number of independent schools are not split by primary/secondary - they say there are 2408 independent schools. Let's assume half are secondary? So 1204. On that basis, the 9 schools in the top 20 represent 0.7% of independent schools and the 29 in the top 80 represent 2.4%. ie a significantly higher proportion of independent schools are in the top group for Oxbridge.

Similarly, 3.7mn children are currently at secondary state schools and 570k are at independent schools (at state level, about 42% of total children at school are secondary so let's use that number for independent, making total number of secondary school children at independent schools about 239k).

I don't have 6th form numbers so I'm going to use the above numbers for percentages which will be inaccurate, but I'm working on the basis that the overall ratio remains more or less right. On that basis, going back to the article:

"The university’s admissions statistics for 2023 reveal that 72.6 per cent of successful UK applicants were from state schools, a slight drop from 72.9 per cent the previous year. This means 1,895 state-educated pupils joined Cambridge this academic year."

But using my numbers above, independent schools represent just 6% of the total secondary school population, but are in fact taking up 27% of Oxbridge places.

Just putting this out there so that any state school families who are trying not to roll their eyes at privaate school families worrying that they're "disadvantaging" their children by sending them to private schools have the info to hand.

While I don't think it's particularly fair and I would very much like to see more state schools doing better, I actually can't get too worked up about universities like oxford and cambridge continuing to accept a high percentage of children from private schools. I do find it anoying when those familes feel discriminated or disadvantaged though!

I think you are missing the point.

Why would a parent pay almost 40k for Westminster School if they have a clever child anyway and can send them for free to Harris Westminster and get the same Oxbridge prep from Westminster School teachers themselves? Or in a grammar in Bucks and can attend Eton summer school to help prep for Oxbridge? Meanwhile tutor on the side etc on top and then get in as a state school student?

The cohorts in the top performing state schools in places like Cambridge, Winchester, top grammars etc are all as educationally privileged as those in many top private schools.

That is why more and more parents are choosing state and feeling disadvantaged.

Why would someone choose private for 6th form if they didn't think they were getting an advantage over using state?

(Don't tell me, better sport or some such other minor side reason.)

“But using my numbers above, independent schools represent just 6% of the total secondary school population, but are in fact taking up 27% of Oxbridge places.“

Also, that is entirely incorrect the proportion of DCs at private Sixth Form is much higher than 6%. It is more like 17%.

What Oxford and Cambridge need to be held to account for is not state vs private because that means very little anymore. Household income, level of education of the parents and if they went to high performing state primaries and state secondaries is far more relevant.
If anyone actually dwells into those figures, you will find a shocking social mobility failure. But then all our key MPs pretty much went to Oxford so nobody is going to be doing much about it?

More state schools than private schools were among the top 20 that counted the most Oxbridge offers last year, analysis shows.

I've not read the piece... but in statistics I've seen in the past with number of offers per school/sixth form, it never gives the size of the cohort! So yes, there will be large numbers from big sixth form colleges. If those numbers are literally 'number of offers per school' then they are almost completely meaningless.

“What Oxford and Cambridge need to be held to account for is not state vs private because that means very little anymore. Household income, level of education of the parents and if they went to high performing state primaries and state secondaries is far more relevant.
If anyone actually dwells into those figures, you will find a shocking social mobility failure”

This. And the same applies - sometimes more so - to the rest of the sought after Universities in the UK.

Exactly. Some of the sixth form colleges with good Oxbridge progression have over 1000 pupils per year group, bigger than the entirety of some of the private schools.

State grammar schools, which select on entrance exams need to be counted in the same category as private schools.

A minor point, but the Size of cohort is not necessarily relevant as schools will count gap year re-applicants within their numbers. Some kids choose to reapply with grades in hand which are then counted as offers for the current y13 groups.

Why?
My DD went to a GS, one of her uni mates on the same course went to Westminster. Her A level maths and FM had between 20-30 students (some of the maths ones had the FM girls plus the best of the single maths sets) . The Westminster lad had a class size of three

The GS had - entirely reasonably IMO - lower funding per pupil than other state schools in the area.

There really are so many factors but the types of privilege aren't all the same. Better to have more, somewhat meaningful categories than not. There's no 'need' to put private and grammars into the same category.

It may not be 100% accurate (though the gap year numbers may not vary wildly between years) but the cohort size is definitely relevant!

@ErrolTheDragon - I just looked up the A level results for Westminster School for 2023. blob:https://www.westminster.org.uk/de5ac392-a9fb-4b07-8c16-8c5870999dc4

There are 93 that took Further Maths in 2023. There is no way class sizes are 3. It is not in the best interests of children to run classes that small.

Did you perhaps mean a specific small Oxbridge set preparation class? So 3 trying for Cambridge Maths specifically?

Also, Westminster clearly has a lot of very bright kids if most take 4 A levels and so many get 3 A stars.
DCs grammars are similar in cohort ability and produce excellent results too. I am assuming the added value by the top private schools would be more, but it is difficult to tell. You can get excelllent teachers in the state sector too. Some of the boys’ at DS grammar had the most amazingly accomplished eg. Indian or Chinese tutors online at that stage. It is very difficult for a top uni to figure out who got how much help these days.

There are 93 that took Further Maths in 2023. There is no way class sizes are 3. It is not in the best interests of children to run classes that small.

Did you perhaps mean a specific small Oxbridge set preparation class? So 3 trying for Cambridge Maths specifically?
No, engineering - just top grade A levels required not STEP. Not really something kids with sufficient aptitude should need more than a normal level of good teaching for.

I assume they must have had the capacity to have small sets for pupils they thought need more individual attention for whatever reason. Something a state school couldn't provide. I don't think the friend ended up with a good degree classification... maybe, just maybe, that place would have better been taken by someone else.

Overtutoring isn't to the ultimate benefit of the student.

Ideally the students with the right aptitude get the oxbridge place, whatever type of school they went to. I'd expect privately educated(from selective schools) and GS/specialist colleges to always win more offers than merely in proportion to numbers in each sector, it'd be bizarre if they didn't! And on the other hand, ideally students who are inherently not quite at that level would do courses elsewhere - still excellent - more in line with their abilities. If the admissions processes at Oxbridge are moving more in that direction it's a win-win.

I'm not against private education BTW - if you've got money what possible better thing is there for you to spend it on than education?

It's the phenomenon the OP is commenting on I object to - distorted statistics and then a subset of private school parents epitomising the adage 'When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression'.

In its drive to make it less elitist Oxbridge has lost its shine and allure really.
Combined with the fact that recruiters are increasingly using 'university blind' CVs you have to wonder what is the point to be so obsessed with Oxbridge these days?

I'm connected to a local independent school for a role I do, and what I've observed is that what would previously have been the Oxbridge cohorts ten years ago are simply moving en masse to other excellent universities such as Durham, St Andrews, UCL, Edinburgh, Leeds, Bath, Exeter etc and creating their own well-connected networks there.

It's only the parents who went to Oxbridge themselves who care - there is more of an anti-Oxbridge sentiment amongst the students who don't want to be labelled as privileged, so play it down!

I'm probably imagining a whiff of sour grapes there.

Oxford and Cambridge have limited capacity, there have surely always been many bright, privately educated students going to the unis you mentioned (you missed Bristol, that's another.)

And those unis are themselves working on fairer access. Well, hopefully the private school kids will (and probably do) not behave like sheep who have to flock together, and will spread themselves around our many good unis, to the benefit of all and our society at large.

(I'm sure you didn't mean to imply the private kids want to establish exclusive 'well-connected networks' amongst themselves whilst also wishing to avoid being labelled as privileged? That seemed to be the logic!)

Yes @ErrolTheDragon exactly. Honestly, if we could afford private we would do it for both our DC, albeit for different reasons. I have no issue with private. I just have no sympathy for the "woe is me, we're being penalised for going to private school" hand wringing!

No sour grapes from me, although I AM partial to a glass of wine or two!

I was simply commenting on what I've observed from my interactions with students and parents in the independent sector. It seems to me that, unlike in my generation in the 80s, Oxbridge is no longer the aspiration for most privately-educated students, in fact quite a lot are actively opposed to the idea and it's mainly just former Oxbridge-educated parents and those of international students who are still highly invested in the idea.

There IS an irony in the fact that privately-educated kids wish to avoid being labelled as privileged, yet their background means that at university they often tend to fall in with those of similar backgrounds due to their available resources. This isn't a deliberate 'I'm actively avoiding the oiks' thing, it's simply because money is still a barrier to many university activities e.g.

• Want to join the University Ski Trip - that'll be £1500 please for the March trip
• Want to take a show to Edinburgh Fringe - you'll need to pay £1200 for accommodation and food for a week

I guess my point is that a lot of the elitism of Oxbridge was tied up with money and resources and some of that is simply moving elsewhere now.

The year group for ‘24 at Westminster is 201. 56 are off to Oxford and 30 to Cambridge. Obviously this also includes an element of reapplication from the class of ‘23. This info is publicly available on instagram if anyone wants to have a look.

I meant sour grapes from these displaced students, Norma

I have some exposure to Oxbridge admissions through a role I do in my spare time.
What PS parents do not realise is that for years they benefited from state schools being wholly underprepped for Oxbridge. This has levelled up with some absolutely brilliant state schools making Oxbridge a focus and thoroughly prepping their kids for academic achievements in A levels and also getting into Oxbridge itself.

Oxbridge (the bits I'm exposed to) are super clear, their standards have not dropped and they have no bias other than for academic potential. They comment that the state pupils coming through are absolutely top notch so the playing field is more level ( but ofc not level as PP commented) and some colleges are trying to ensure that funding etc is not a stopper foe academic kids so offer bursaries etc to encourage pupils from poorer backgrounds to apply.

If you educate your kid privately you should be thinking that you're giving them a good chance for Oxbridge if they are bright but thse sort of stupid articles imply they are at a disadvantage. They are not. They are just fighting for small numbers of places and there are now way more equally qualified people in the fight.

My kid is PS educated and wants to go to Oxbridge. I've told him to look elsewhere as he may get in but he may not and don't pin his hopes on it. He's predicted 3 A stars. If he doesn't get in and some other state school kid gets in, I'll be absolutely fine with that because the best kid got in on the day.

“If he doesn't get in and some other state school kid gets in, I'll be absolutely fine with that because the best kid got in on the day.“

I don’t buy the whole “best” think. I believe a lot of luck is involved. As you are directly competing in whatever course you chose for whatever college you happened to chose, you are either lucky or not. You may come up against several geniuses in one college and a more average bunch in another.
Therefore, removing the emotion out of the process is best advised.
It is far better that many other unis are giving equal employment prospects now as Oxford or Cambridge.
In our days you went there because employers would give you an “in”. That has changed now.
And I think the very posh kids always chose Edinburgh/St Andrew’s over Oxbridge anyway. Why work extra hard if you don’t need to?

Oh, OK. But no, I don't think so. It's not that they're 'Oxbridge Rejects' who then choose to go elsewhere, they're students with strings of A*s who simply have no interest in applying in the first place as they see so many negative media stereotypes painting the privately-educated + Oxbridge as braying, over-privileged gits, so naturally they want to avoid it.

The problem with places like Bristol is that the rents are so extremely high - is it really worth encouraging poorer students to go somewhere like that and get into so much debt? It would be far better to level the quality of education provided across all universities to the students so that every course yields equally good preparation for the working world. Seeing that all student are paying the same for the actual course, a level quality would be the best.

British people are far too obsessed with class and where the rich go. It is quite unheard of in most European countries and most unis are equally well recognised. Elite unis are just as bad as private schools when you actually start thinking about it. So whilst we need the best researchers there to do the actual research work, the teaching should be equally good across all unis and the opportunities provided the same. It is frankly quite awful that both our state schooling system and our uni systems are so unequal. Private schools are just the excuse people point at so they do not have to deal with the actual underlying issues.

The pool system at Cambridge in theory balances out the risk of too many able applicants applying to the same college in a particular year. I don't know how Oxford works.

My daughter went to a non-selective state school with a range of funding issues and got pooled when she applied to Cambridge (and got a place). She's going because it's the course she likes best in the UK and wants to work hard at her subject - hopefully with much better quality resources and teaching than she's had at school. Their school struggles with broken equipment, does bare minimum practicals, and she's been on very few trips - even day trips. Eg not seen a single play in five years of doing English.

My friends and colleagues with kids in private schools and at good grammars seem to have no idea what school is like for most kids. Behavioural issues (punch ups in the classroom, teachers getting basic facts wrong, supply teachers for months, sixth form tutors refusing to do a single mock Cambridge interview 'because they don't know how' - and presumably don't know how to google?

And don't get me started on the disparity during the pandemic. I don't think she had any work marked.

Anyway I'm sure there is an element of luck with getting in but if you've been at a really good school it helps an enormous amount. Not least in terms of getting the grades. A state school near me had a decent amount of Oxbridge offers and all but one child isn't going because they didn't get their grades.

I agree with the poster who said it isn't easier for state school kids. It's usually a lot harder. It's just no longer quite as easy as it was for private kids (though have a look at the admission statistics for Classics and then look up how many state schools offer Latin and Greek A level)

Also Westminster school (state) is selective and all kids have to go four A levels and they have a longer school day.

@formerrefluxmum - do you mean Harris Westminster? I thought they get lots of Oxbridge prep from Westminster School (private) and even some subjects like Latin taught by the same teachers as the private part?
Oxbridge does not want to cut Clasiscs and Music courses but it is the advantaged kids who are more likely to apply for these. Unless they drop all requirements of prior knowledge how exactly can this possibly change? And for Music, that would need proper funding from Central Government.

I thought private school kids do not typically get pooled? Is that another myth? that is probably why they reapply.

I thought Cambridge came out last year after Toope left to say state vs private divide is not what they will be following in the future. It is far too simplistic. My kids could go to the worst state school in the country and be taught by the worst teachers, they would still be advantaged compared to eg some poor sod bursting a gut to send their DC to an average private school in the more deprived regions somewhere.

The biggest advantage to getting into Oxbridge is having a parent who is an academic themselves or went to Oxbridge themselves.