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!

Yes Harris Westminster. It's selective and not a typical state school.

All applicants can get pooled in the winter pool at Cambridge. (The main one that evens out if a particular college has too many applicants and another college not enough.) Colleges will all only take applicants that are up to standard. And they will only put a candidate in the pool for someone else to consider if they assessed them as good enough to be admitted to their own college after exams and interviews etc.

The summer pool is different and much smaller (basically a small number of places because some kids don't meet their offer). This prioritises kids in care, social and economic disadvantage measured by robust indicators - you'd have to look up the specifics).

Westminster Harris and Westminster share teachers for the more niche subjects such as Music, Russian etc. Westminster Harris is a selective entry 6th form. Where lessons are on a shared programme and timetabled for a Saturday, Kids are expected to attend Saturday school just like their Westminster counterparts. Just like Brampton manor, the school day is longer and more crucially, the facilities like the library are accessible outside of the school day. Tbh, I think access to quiet study areas combined with access to the correct study materials is the biggest advantage all schools could give their young people.

Oxford operates a pool system also. You can also apply by open application which does not define which college you apply to. Plenty of private school kids are pooled every year.

There is no advantage to a parent having been a graduate of Oxford, I know plenty (at least 5/6) who were not offered places and fall into that category. I don’t know about being an academic.

@Netaporter - I did not mean it to be a legacy advantage like some US unis. I meant it more as a combination of nature and nurture given to a child which exceeds the advantage any school could ever offer. Of course there is significant added value in schooling itself, but it is of greater and more significant added value if a child is given the least via nature and nurture from home.

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.

Yes, this.

But I have directly heard from more than one private school parent that they worry their child is being disadvantaged. It's mindblowing.

I've heard friends/ acquaintances saying along the lines of kids having a better shot at competitive courses if they shift them from the private sector to our local state 6th form.

Personally i think they will be in for a shock if they do. Its large! V little spoon feeding, no parents evenings, certainly no prize givings or other events that those parents may be used to attending.

To to point on college admissions and issues with that. Afaik Oxford don't operate the same way as Cambridge so it's handled by the department not the college, which I do think is a better system as the offers are done centrally not down to individual colleges

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.

A bit daft of them to believe outdated media stereotypes! But the result is probably overall healthy.

I have several friends who are private school teachers and I am afraid they have said exactly the same and some have even moved their own kids into state for that very reason. It is not just parents making these statements.

I do think we have to remember though that the Covid period screwed with results so there were far more children than usual getting top grades which makes it much harder for top unis to differentiate.

Oxford and Cambridge have less complete reliance on just exam grades than other unis because of their extra tests and interviews though.

But @ErrolTheDragon they are also under immense political pressure to tick social mobility boxes. Which is fine if the method applied is consistent and transparent. Clearly there is much discussion in that regard.

The methods used by universities in general and Oxbridge in particular are more transparent than they've ever been. Transparent enough that you no longer need to have had a massively privileged education to discover them, if you've got the ability to do a bit of online research and some critical thinking abilities. (Unfortunately there is still a lot of misinformation, some propagated by schools)

As to consistency... depends what you mean. As far as I'm aware, their admissions processes aren't supposed to be a simple sifting by exam grades (as it is, far too much, elsewhere). They're looking for students who have sufficient ability for their courses who they think will benefit from their teaching methods. Kids they want as part of their colleges. I don't think they are under any obligation (and nor should they be) to accurately determine the objectively 'best' students academically and cream all of those off.

I’d agree about transparency for Oxford but it only goes up to a point. The decider does seem to be the interview which is not objectively scored as you might have in a workplace interview. Thus you may well have a student who has outstanding grades, has scored well in the aptitude tests, has a genuine interest in the subject and does not obtain a place based upon an online interview which does not have standardised questions. It is also the case that some (but not all) colleges provide no feedback as to why the student was not successful which might help a YP understand what they might work on in the future.

I don’t think the teaching style suits everyone and for many YP the student experience is as much part of attending university as the course itself - hence why many students choose other establishments.

Well yes, but I think it's completely transparent that the interviews are variable and subjective. I can't actually imagine how they could be 'objectively scored' tbh.

My point is that It is possible to objectively score a workplace interview which has candidates with different backgrounds, different qualifications, different employment histories and talents. I’ve never hired without this process. Applying the same sense of fairness I think It is not beyond the realms of possibility to do the same in this scenario. Oxford runs the process at a college level. Cambridge runs theirs via a department level - which to me seems fairer because they have oversight of all of the subject applicants and they might be less likely to let an able student drop through the cracks. Or it might be less likely that a student is not on the rejected pile because they don’t’gel’ in the interview process. Some Oxford colleges offer detailed feedback regarding the interviews. Most do not. It is a process which does favour applicants with access to interview practice or mentors to guide them…and this does place an advantage for a privately educated student who is more likely to have access to all of those supplementary factors.

I rather suspect if they published 'objective' criteria they'd have lots of parents whining they were unfair.

And the fact is there are too many able applicants for the number of places. It's not really about some dropping through the cracks, loads are inevitably not going to get Oxbridge offers, it's the likeliest outcome for any applicant. Going to a different uni isn't a disaster.

Luck is never going to be eliminated. They do things like the pools to try and reduce disparity where they can, but in the end, it inevitably comes down to whether the questions asked at interview happen to click for them or not.

I sometimes wonder whether it would feel fairer if there were officially a lottery - perhaps give some places to those who are most clearly suited, and then put everyone who seems "good enough" into a lottery for the remaining places. It would take out the feeling of being rejected.

Since that's never going to happen, I think we need kids not to see it as failure not to get into Oxbridge, and to recognise that they may do just as well (and maybe better) by going to another university.

It's those with SEN that miss out from state sadly - why I chose private for dd. I'm now paying extra for that on top of the extra because the local Grammars don't have provisions and the state primary allowed the cohort who went there to bully her, so she didn't want to go when she passed 11+. If she gets better grades than that lot I'd expect her to get to a better Uni.

It is also misleading as it doesn't state if the students had bursaries to these schools - assuming privilege when schools fund poorer bright students doesn't help them either.

Pupils receiving a bursary to a private school have still benefitted from a privileged education though, which has put them in the position to apply.

They probably haven't had to deal with classmates taking ecstasy in registration then being taken to hospital during their subsequent maths lesson, having hydrochloric acid putting water bottles during chemistry, the suicide of a much loved teacher, followed by that of a classmate 3 weeks later or a primary school classmate stabbing their ex girlfriend in the queue for snacks at break. They are unlikely to be sitting alongside students aspiring to receive a grade 3 in their history or geography classes of 30 pupils, or where less than 30% achieve 5 good GSCEs including maths & English.

A typical year group at Peter Symonds is between 2000 -2200 pupils. Achieving offers for 30 -50 pupils sounds less impressive in context then.

Universities (especially Oxford and Cambridge) are held to account for targets relating to those things and produce data monitoring them. When tutors make admissions decisions they have lots of information on school performance, entitlement to free school meals, socio-economic characteristics of applicant postcode (they don't have individual level data on income or parent education). All policy changes and initiatives are evaluated with those targets in mind.You will find detailed information on targets and outcomes here. University of Oxford Access and participation plan 2020-21.pdf .

It's just the press that prefer the simplistic state v private stuff!

Student finance has all data on parental income. It is very relevant. There is no reason the data should not have to be inputted on the UCAS in a fair and accurate manner and a statement signed to that effect.

Educational achievements of the parents are also most relevant and not just tick one box e.g did your parents have Higher Education here or abroad. Is it 1 or 2 and what level of Higher Education. Is it to Masters or PhD level etc. - again should be inputted on a mandatory basis on the UCAS form. Not “prefer not to say” type stuff.

All of the above information should be recorded and taken into account in all access plans.

Wrong thread

I actually thinknit is quite relevant here too though. So many of the grammar kids we know have parents far richer than those at DDs primary, yet aren't penalised for 1:1 tuition in every subject.

If schools are mixing potential oxbridge candidates I to classes with pupils aspiring to a 3, they have bigger problems with education frankly. Assuming people in private school have not experienced death or pain or trauma is nonsense.

These are the two unis who look at each applicant as an individual to the greatest extent.

They're not lumping GS in with poor 6th form colleges.

It's impossible for the data to capture the nuance of every applicants background. But at least they look at them all and talk to many! I'd worry more about the unis where - however they use the available data it's more 'computer says no'