How do we feel that private school kids fill Russell Group Unis?.... Controversial alert.

[faraday]

Yet I am increasingly finding that most of the people I know who have chosen private have done so because their DC just couldn't cope either socially or keep up academically in the local state schools (or a mixture of both!)- so they're individually hand-held, spoon-fed and tutored in the private sector- then emerge ready to grab those limited places from perhaps more clever but marginally less 'graded up' state school kids?

Agree with ra and PW that students from the best schools are not necessarily the best prepared for university.

The sort of teaching that prepares students best for A Levels is not always the sort of teaching that prepares them best for university

I have some questions, interesting thread.

Why don't state sixth forms prepare their brightest students for Oxbridge entrance then? If they aren't - which seems a bit lamentable - then I don't think it's the fault of the private schools.

OTH I tend to think AA a good thing if you need to change a culture - whether it be the tory party or SA national sporting teams. I thought AA in ivy league was about race though wasn't it rather than their public school system? I thought it sought to heal that divide? Might be wrong, will go and google.

I don't know whether the Oxbridge colleges or the Russell Group need that culture change. Do they? Or are they all prepared and keen but the state system is failing to deliver their brightest children to them? If so, why? It can't just be the fault of the private schools - unless there is a huge culture problem that needs to be addressed within the universities rather than the schools?

100x, you're right about AA being about ethnicity - I was using it to make the point that positive discrimination, of any kind, needn't have a negative effect on standards.

I think the top unis, however you define them, do need a culture change. We need (IMO) to move towards a position in which the 7 per cent of children who are privately educated take up about 7 per cent of Oxbridge places, rather than 70+ per cent (?), as it is at the moment.

I would agree with the comment that successful A level teaching (in terms of results) does not necessarily prepare students for university courses. Sometimes I wonder whether the opposite is in fact true

How can anything be the fault of private schools?

PW - I disagree with you so strongly.

I say let market economics work it out. I so abhor social economics. It makes me feel physically sick.

You are never going to get into a situation wher the profile of the top jobs is going to match that of the secondary school population. Jusst forget it, once and for all.

I would hate to think that we were to dumb down our educational standards so much.

It's not a fair point though PW, because why would more black faces in ivy league colleges affect standards? It wouldn't, right.

But if you take students who haven't had the benefit of an excellent education - which however you dress it up, a kid from private school who is considering Oxbridge, has had an excellent education, which isn't a bad thing per se, indeed it's a wonderful thing, though unfair that everyone can't have one etc - then Bloss's argument about standards and universities having to do the job of schools, is a fair one?

If there does need to be a cultural change, then they should use AA. But the state schools should be doing better by their brightest students too, no?

It seems trite to blame private schools if the state sixth forms aren't addressing the needs of their bright children, or if universities discriminate against state educated children.

How does anyone think these independent schools get such high percentages in (as per Winchester etc). They are highly selective at 13 years old, then they work them bloody hard for the next 5 years. The whole atmosphere of the schools is to aim for the highest. The pressure comes from the kids themeselves. No one is happy with mediocrity, they want to do well to prove to themselves they can.

As for being spoon fed, the teaching at these schools is based on encouraging independent learning, research into and around the subjects and lively debate in the lessons which can go way off the exam syllabus.

When the state schools treat their top sets in the same way, the same results will be achieved.

The teachers work bloody hard and are available at all hours too.

By which I mean, it seems that most selective private schools are doing pretty well in educating their children. As are grammar schools.

So surely the focus should be on the comprehensive schools which are failing their bright students? And why they are.

If it proves not to be the fault of the private schools, I think we should blame the bankers.

100x, the whole point about AA was that it involved admitting non-white students with inferior grades. In fact, I'd say it's a very similar issue - you're talking (very broadly) about students from economically deprived backgrounds who went to bad schools.

I have no idea whether state schools are letting their pupils down - I just don't know. But have another look at that statistic below: 'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school.' On what basis are people saying that this is the fault of state schools? What evidence (beyond anecdote) is there of that?

But an 'excellent education' at a private school isn't necessarily an excellent preparation for university. So admitting students with lower A-levels might NOT affect standards negatively.

There is no evidence that admitting more kids from weaker state schools or poorer backgrounds would 'dumb down' educational standards.

I challenge anyone to find evidence that this is the case.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school.'

--That is a very puzzling statistic, given that admissions tutors devote most of their energy to distinguishing between an excess of students all with straight A-grades. Does anyone know anything about that statistic?

bloss, it was from this link. I'd think that things like matriculation scores are a matter of record? Anyway, nobody can argue that Ivy League colleges haven't assumed pre-eminence, globally, in the last 20 years or so (can they?)

As to preparedness - yes, I was admittedly thinking about humanities, any my own long-lost two-hour undergraduate working week . But I still think that a clever, well-motivated child, wherever s/he comes from, will cope perfectly well with first-year undergraduate demands.

That's just a bollocly statement.

I am going through the UCAS process for the first time as a parent. DS1 is in an independent school and is on course for 4 A grades at A2 plus an extra 2 A grades at AS.

How on earth can anyone trump this by 2 grades?

My DS is targeting top universities (Imperial etc). Even his insurance offer will be AAB.

I think there is a problem with the term 'spoon fed'.

Most independent schools (and grammar schools) teach the pupils to pass the exams, and pass them very well. They teach how to write essays, how to cover the points needed, they have endless lessons on What to Expect in the Exam, How to Do Coursework. (I don't have a personal agenda against this, my DC have/are all at 'top' state grammar school).

But I can see it is completely unreasonable that ALL bright and academically inclined children do not have the opportunity to PAY for a good education, and it is also completely unreasonable that those who do get the top university places. I honestly cannot understand anyone who does not agree with that.

I understand that my DCs will get top grades BECAUSE of the school they attend and because they are reasonably intelligent to start with. They all had to pass an extremely competetive test to get into their school. How come those who didn't pass the test BUT go to a fee paying school then get top grades, but those who didn't pass the test,DON'T get top grades and thus into top universities. It certainly isn't because the former are 'brighter', it's because they have had huge advantages in their teaching. End of story (bangs head against wall).

No-one is saying it is fair, least of all me.

So I think that those from 'failing' schools with slightly lower grades should be given a leg up into the top universities, to put it very, very simply. And those who get the top grades from a highly advantaged position should realise that it is not because they have suddenly become super brainy.

Message withdrawn

Sorry, I mean my older DCs DID get top grades because of school they are at. They are both at Russell Group universities now!!!

Um, I'm sorry you don't like the page, bloss. It's quite simple, though. The Ivy League has been using AA for decades now. At the same time, its institutions have become globally pre-eminent. AA has not turned Harvard into Wolverhampton Poly (with apologies to any Wolverhampton Poly graduates out there ). There's no evidence - from the USA, at least - to suggest that discrimination in favour of disadvantaged candidates has an adverse effect on universities.

I wish I knew what your point was from your 20.41 posr, MF.

When they bring in the A* hopefully it will sort out the top grades.

Just from my DCs contemporaries there is a pretty big range of intelligence from those who get As at A level. I imagine there is a huge difference between students from different schools/backgrounds.

Are you serious, MF?

A* at A2 is just admitting the failure
in adhering to standards,

I am pleased that my DCs (son in l6, but also my students) are able to access this level but it is just very worrying that we introduce a new level rather than tackling real achievement.

Science Teacher: The point is, mediocre students do better at a private school on account of being spoon fed. OK?

Unfortunately, you will never agree with me as you think it is because they are Much Brighter To Start With. I disagree.

There seems to be a lot of anxiety among some MNers that state schools are not enabling their brightest students to access Oxbridge!

IME, state schools are doing huge amounts to raise awareness and enable access to top Universities.

I still don't get why some people tend to lump 'state school' into one broad category, when the reality these days is that comprehensives set by ability, in a lot of cases from the word go, in Year 7. If your child is in the higher sets, being taught in a class of A*/A students, then the experience is not a lot different from the private school experience many people describe. My ds who has experienced both private and state education says the only difference is that his state school top sets are bigger, and that if anything, the brighest kids of all are brighter than those he came across in private. Just doesn;t seem vastly different to me.