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?

Message withdrawn

Yeah, it's a crazy notion that it is unfair when students do well, and the veiled advocacy that we should all be striving to be just average or even slightly below.

I went to Bristol University. I did not go to school in the UK and did not do O and A levels.

Even in the mid-1980s, when I applied, Bristol had a reputation for looking favourably and intelligently at applications from "alternative." schools ie outside the traditional UK system. Bristol was a pioneer university in that sense (many other universities were refusing non-traditional applicants point blank at that time) and, as a result, has today a high proportion of students with non-traditional qualifications who do extremely well there.

ST - 'tis typical of the levelling down' mentality in this country. Instead of looking at the other way round - ie IF indies are able to help students achive more than they could do otherwise - ie 'value add', why can't state schools do the same?
Admissions turors bend over backwards to help admit 'bright' students from failing schools, but if they require a year of remedial teaching before they can start on the degree level stuff ( eg maths, french are the two I know have friends)it is unwprkable, so they take those who are already up to the mark.A friend of mine whom I asked hen the children were small whehter we should go good state or indie, sadly replied that he woould have to say indie, for that reason. He does strive to take state pupils, but they have to runs special courses in french grammar for them, which costs, and slows tehm down

speaking for myself, we do see a lot of students who have excellent A-level results but who really struggle at university because they are not used to thinking

they are the type whose only interest in a question is "will this come up in the exam"

the type who think that getting an A at A-level entitles you to a First in your finals

the type who thinks a teacher's job is to make you enjoy every minute of the course- so when the going gets tough, or boring groundwork has to be done, they stop working and blame it on the lecturer

I have no statistics to tell me if these are predominantly independent, grammar or comprehensive products- but I wish they weren't all quite so successful in their university entrance

if they were my children I would have hoped that they could have found their way onto something more vocational course instead

little point in a university course that you're not getting anything out of

Policywonk - "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?"

I've already said the two grades higher thing is a red herring because they aren't comparing like with like. They are comparing state school pupils' A level results which include Meeja Studies, General Studies etc, whilst the results of the independent pupils are all proper academic A levels. Many universities just don't accept soft A levels as being of sufficient value and they make this very clear in their admissions details.

The only reason state schools sit General Studies is to artificially boost their A level points tarriff. So when a year or so ago, the press ran the story that selective state schools have now overtaken selective independent schools at A level attainment, it is only true thanks to the boost from General Studies and from soft A levels (which independent schools don't offer as a rule).

I don't really care about the no. of A level points my children get, I want their education to be thorough and enjoyable. And most of all, I don't want them ruling options out by sitting subjects that are disregarded by universities.

Swedes, actually it holds good even if you only compare like with like - History with History say.

No doubt you will come back and say there are special easy history syllabi for state schools.

(Admissions tutor in a highly selective university speaking, so I do know what I'm talking about).

Message withdrawn

campergirls - Please show me the evidence.

yes they do do lectures too - perhaps not in all subjects and more for sciences than arts. Lectures are university based and tutorials are college based.

In my subject tutorials were taken across several different colleges, you went to a tutor specialising in a particular area of the subject. But arranged by your college tutor. that was a while ago now.

Also a while ago, but when we did General Studies A level at my comp 6th form it was because they believed in a broad education, in general studies we debated politics, learned extra languages, discussed literature (for the science and maths students) and so on. The sort of thing that people further down this thread have argued that independent schools do and state schools tend not to. And in fact, the general studies A level (which I did as well as 4 highly academic subjects, so it was my 5th A level) was by far the most relevant to my Oxford course, and was quite similar in topic range to the General paper I had to take to get into Oxford for my subject.

(I liked general studies A level I was always good at general studies subjects, lots of woffle without needing to revise. excellent preparation for reading philosophy)

Message withdrawn

Fennel - Judging by their Oxbridge over-representation, independent schools are managing quite well without GS. My sons' school makes them all sit a GS A level past paper at the end of Lower Sixth (just for a laff, and even though it isn't taught) and the lowest mark ever recorded is 98%. Arf.

I'm not saying it's essential, but there are reasons for doing general studies classes, and even exams, without it being just about doing pretend subjects to hike the A level results up.

I do Oxbridge admissions.

Some facts:

1. It is definitely not the best place for all courses.
2. Students get in on their ability to debate and think through problems, etc.
3. We do look favourably on 'alternative' candidates and mature applicants if they have these skills.
4. We analyse the standards of the applicants' schools, and benchmark the applicants against this so we have a better understanding of their own abilities, not those of the school.
5. If people who fail to get in reapply the next year, we like that.
6. Lots of us were actually Oxbridge rejects but caught up later. At UG application level, it's a lottery in many respects.

Fennel - If the school gave students a proper well-rounded education, there would be no need for General Studies teaching. How is it possible that General Studies and Chemistry are equivalent? It would be impossible for DS1's whole school to pass Chemistry A level at A grade having never been taught its syllabus.

Well of course they aren't equivalent, I'm not suggesting that. We did it as an extra, as a way of doing the debating about current affairs, and extra languages, and so on. Noone did it instead of an academic subject. It's one way of building those things into the school timetable, clearly there are other ways of covering those broader aspects of education.

This is why I like the IB.

We have had similar experience of General Studies AS to Swedes. DS1, at selective academic independent, took it without ever attending a class (there were none)or previously seeing an exam paper (he was at a music lesson when the exam papers were handed out). He was a weak candidate as he only got 280/300. Many others in his year got 300/300. However, it is taught in local non-selective 6th Form College (the one you go to when you can't get into the selective college) and results there are very mixed.
I believe that the A2 General Studies is rather different.

Clearly it might be very different now, my experience of taking AS and A level general studies were a while ago.

But then, we had general studies classes, in which we discussed politics and current affairs, and helped at the local infant school, or learned bridge, or learned to cook, or all sorts of other optional classes. And the students who weren't doing an A level language took language classes. And then we did the exam, which wasn't really anything to do with the classes, and yes it was perfectly possible to pass the exam easily without going to the classes. We weren't being taught a syllabus for the A level general studies. I don't know what it's like now, though.

But they are equivalent, A level points tarriff-wise. And it makes stories like this misleading.

But they aren't equivalent for university entry. Surely?

I think of gen studies as like being in the debating society or running a school science club or similar, it's evidence of certain extra-curricular or more general reasoning skills, not part of a central essential qualification set.

No, not at all equivalent for university entry. IME, the points tariff is not much used at elite universities: we are looking straightforwardly for top grades in academic subjects. If you have those, plus some extras that give you a massive tariff score, good on you but it's largely irrelevant. If you don't have the core qualifications, your tariff score is again irrelevant.