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?

Not all state schools are quite as dim as being made out on here.

My DCs (at state grammar school) HAVE to do two foreign languages at GCSE, Latin is also available, three separate sciences, no daft subjects etc. They usually get 40+ into Oxbridge per year.

However, the point is SOME state schools are not offering the right GCSEs/A level combinations needed for top universities.

That DOESN'T mean the pupils aren't capable of taking them. This is what is so wrong with the education system. Just because people can't afford to pay they are being denied the chance of a place at a top university in some cases.

I agree it is a criticism of the state system as much as the private system. I just want people to admit they are paying for an 'advantage' and that it isn't ideal for those who can't afford to pay.

This is not a jealous rant as a) I can afford to pay but choose not to and b)My older DCs ARE at Russell Group universities and didn't want to do Oxbridge!!!!

MargotF - Not everybody has the option of a state grammar school either.

I'm certainly not suggesting state school children are dim. I think there is some evidence to show that high-acheiving parents who send their children to their local comp, don't disadvantage them. I'm sure this is because those particular parents have been university educated themselves and know the system. They feel able to say 'Oh no, don't do A level Film Studies, do English Literature A level instead because if later on you want to go to....' but not all state school pupils get that sort of advice at home.

Sutton trust universities are supposed to be the top 13, based on average of newspaper league tables.

I've found the report here (it was 2004 not 2006) and as far as I can see says nothing about the subjects of the A levels although it is based on HEFCE statistics which might (or might not) take some account of subjects.

But it's a different slant on the OPs original gripe - rather than independently educated children taking up the RG/ST places it could be more that the well enough qualified state candidates aren't applying for them for whatever reason.

Yes, Swedes, I completely agree with you. I think we are singing from the same song book here. What is so, so wrong, is that there is an underlying agenda in the admissions system whereby those 'in the know', i.e private schools, grammar schools, interested parents, some state schools, have a much bigger chance of getting into the top universities, for many reasons, too involved to go into here.

It is just so unfair on a bright child in the state system who does not have all the above advantages. Quite often they could fall at the first hurdle by dint of doing the 'wrong' GCSEs, let alone A levels.

Moving on from that, those same pupils with the SAME level of intelligence at a private school will NOT fall at the first hurdle, they will be eased along with all the 'help' in the world. Hence Russell Group universities being full of them. Which is different to private school pupils suddenly becoming super intelligent....that is the point I am trying very, very, very hard to make.

Obviously these are extreme examples but I think that is the basic premise of the OP's point, and one that I agree with (and breathe )

Interestingly, the report shows how many state school students with qualifications that would get them into more prestigious universities were going to post-1992 universities instead. Very few from the independent sector do this.

Are they "eased along with all the 'help' in the world" though, or is there just a harder working culture at those schools with more higher achieving peers that spurs people on?

There's an HMC study (from the other side of the fence) that even concludes that a good school can make you cleverer. I'm not sure about that, but I don't think you can rule it out any more than you can conclusively say better results are down to spoon feeding.

From the HMC report summary...

Finally, the report addresses the issue of whether independent school pupils perform so well because they are well prepared rather than because their education makes them better able to perform academically. Smithers and Robinson argue that intelligence is not fixed. That is, they believe that going to a good school can make you ?cleverer'. While it is true that exams taken at 18 reflect the extent to which potential has been realised, and so some will have unrealised potential that could subsequently come out at university, Smithers' research indicates that A-levels are the best indicator of classification of degree awarded. He argues that it is a myth that independent schools pupils overperform at A-level due to their intensive coaching and that at university state educated pupils catch them up. Smithers indicates that the academic advantages accrued by 18 remain through university and beyond. He states, "To be blunt, those lucky enough to go to good schools are likely to end up cleverer."

That's because those in the independent sector know that the post-1992 universities aren't seen in the same light, shall we say, as the older universities are by employers, law schools etc, and therefore 'encourage' their pupils not to apply. Those at sink state schools don't know and are fondly imagining their degrees will be seen in the same light as someone elses from an older, established university. Certainly in some cases it will, but in most traditional subjects, it won't be.

The sister of ds's friend told me her A Level choices. She is a bright girl, with parents who came here from overseas so not 'in the know'. I tentatively said that I didn't think her subject choices were wise and she should keep her options open with more traditional A Levels. She and her parents thanked me, and said that the school had not mentioned that some A Levels were considered inferior.

I suppose a school can't say, "All dimwits sign up for Sociology, Law and Critical Thinking" but any institution worth its salt should have a quiet word in the ear of brighter pupils and warn them off some courses.

In my view there shouldn't be all these peculiar A Levels anyway, but I suppose there has to be something to occupy kids now they have to stay on till they're 18.

Also there's the teacher factor. If a teacher has Psychology A Level and a degree in Sociology and Leisure from JustFounded Uni they're hardly going to rubbish these options.

Exactly, Fircone.
There is also the problem of what to do with all the pupils being kept on til 18!

Children don't have to stay on until 18 as yet, it starts with the children entering high school in September 2010 (I know this as thats when my eldest starts)

The headteacher of the high school my son will be attending hasn't had details of how this will work yet, but he seems to think it won't be too different to how it is now, children take GCSE's at 16 then have a choice of either going on to A levels, taking a further education course in something that interests them (hairdressing, sport, childcare etc) or will have to attend workbased training such as an NVQ. Basically it means children can't leave school at 16 and sign straight on the dole with no intention of ever getting a job, if they're not academic they can at least do something work focused. I personally think its a good thing.

So why aren't schools clued up about subject choices and university pecking order, if they really are not? Bit of a smokescreen I supect.

Cynically, it's in a school's interest to boost it's league table position and an easy way to do that is to promote easier subjects. Perhaps league table positions based on university destinations rather than just A level results would help schools promote the 'better' universities (& the right A levels) to those who had the ability to go?

I agree with Mrs G. If I, just as an interested parent, know about the system and what type of a A levels universities are looking for, then the Higher educ tutor or whatever at a decent school will know perfectly well.

In an are where there are no Grammar schools, which I thought was most of the country, I cannot see why a comprehensive which sets its pupils is not getting a high percentage of that top set into top universities. What is the block to this? I'm not asking why they can't get a high percentage of the whole school in.

I think also, in a lot of state schools, they may encourage the traditional subjects but not insist. That's what used to happen at our school. The school made it clear to the higher achievers that dropping a language at 14 was a bad move, and that an A level in Sociology (which is about as wacky as it got back then) wasn't going to be valued as much as the tradaditional subjects. But some students ignored this. Similarly, some of the brightest refused to consider Oxbridge. The school put pressure on but they didn't have compulsory subjects.

Something similar might be happening with all these new subjects. Children want to do them. My niece (not the one going to build orphanages in Africa, another one) is doing all sorts of terrible (IMO) GCSE and A level choices. I cringe, she is wasting her time on useless pseudo-qualifications. But I know that her father knows perfectly well the implications and still she's doing them. I think a lot of students want to do these soft subjects, even when they do have an idea of the implications.

it is interesting because my degree and phd and subsequent study is all in the soft subjects that aren't acceptable at A level, I wouldn't have studied them then (knowing enough about university entry) and I wouldn't recommend them to a 16 year old now, yet I have spent my adult life studying them.

Fennel - Its funny you should say that about soft subjects. DS1 want to do Politics, Psychology and Sociolology at university. He is taking none of these, his school doesn't offer them. The top universities would probably not look too favourably on the candidate who had these 3 at A2.

I attended an oxbridge open day last week with some of my students and it became very apparent that my students did a mix of A levels that were not going to fit the desired criteria. For example if you want to do maths then you should study maths, further maths and physics - so the approach of having a 'fun' or other interesting A level such a Media, Pyschology, Business or Art was a no no. Our kids will not be offered a place on things like classics etc because they have no Ancient Greek background. The impression that we left with was that OB are seeking 'specialists' who can hit the ground running and will not did any booster sessions that some unis now have to run.

The point I am trying to make is that some state kids in non-grammars need more guidance in A level selection if they are interested in the Sutton or RG.

That's very interesting about your niece, Fennel. Perhaps it's difficult to persuade your teenagers away from A level psychology and film studies, when plenty of their friends are choosing it?

I think there would a be a marked difference in RG/Sutton 13 and Oxbridge state school application if state schools stopped offering soft subjects.

And the A level points score should be two-fold, the score they give now and the average points score per pupil excluding soft A levels.

Really, if you want to do almost any subject, maths, further maths and physics is the safest bet. Always has been. That's what I did, with French (and of course General studies). Because they were the "keep your options open" safe bet. Even back in the 80s in a state school these things were obvious, you didn't need to be that clued up to work it out.

But I am sure I would have enjoyed sociology, psychology, and philosophy A levels more. And they would probably have been more directly relevant. Those have been my subjects ever since.
So it is a bit ironic.

You can do the 'fun' subject as long as it is a 4th. Do state schools not have optional subjects on offer outside of the examinable ones. Can't 6th formers do an art or psychology or whatever option without taking a sodding exam in it, just to get a more rounded education.

It is also the case that the state schools offer a wider range of subjects and qualifications at KS4 and KS5. Most selective schools stay with traditional subjects at A level or offer IB.

I cannot imagine the selectives (indie or state) offering film, media, public services, BTECs etc Some of the BTECs are very good in spite of the slagging off they can get from some MNers.

Maybe we are just all too focused on Oxbridge and are failing to recognise that the world is changing and that the non RG unis offer excellent courses for the world of work today. The focus on RG is just another form of snobbery and we will be in danger of making our own children seem like failures if they fail to get in. Times have changed.

"For example if you want to do maths then you should study maths, further maths and physics - so the approach of having a 'fun' or other interesting A level such a Media, Pyschology, Business or Art was a no no. Our kids will not be offered a place on things like classics etc because they have no Ancient Greek background."

You see, that sounds perfectly sensible to me. Presumably, the university concerned thinks with good reason that if you have not studied those subjects to the required level, you will not be able to keep up with the course. What's sad and wrong is that a lot of children may not have the option to study these subjects to the required level. My brother who was state-educated until 16 had to leave and go private for A Levels because he wanted to do Further Maths A Level (he went to Oxford to do Maths after this). And I bet most sixth form colleges don't offer Ancient Greek. I'm not sure how you can get round this, given that the take up level for such subjects is likely to be an awful lot lower than for Psychology or Film Studies.

I think you're right, happilyconfused, I think a lot of the teenagers choosing these softer newer subjects might know some of the implications but weigh this against studying something which interests them, and knowing that they will be able to get into a university with these A-levels, though not necessarily every course in a Russell Group university.

I didn't enjoy my A levels. Chosen for pragmatic "keeping the options open" reasons. I can't believe now that persisted with A level Physics. Which has never been remotely useful. It was just a boring drag. Who needs to know about fluids going viscously or non-viscously through a tube? If I went back to 6th form now maybe I would do sociology.

Also, apparently, media studies graduates have a lower unemployment rate than physics graduates. another interesting statistic (I suspect the social skills of the average physics graduate might be the problem there).

"Also, apparently, media studies graduates have a lower unemployment rate than physics graduates."

That's very interesting. I wonder what kind of jobs they are doing, though?

DD probably chose the 'wrong' subjects for the degree she eventually ended up doing- she was convinced she wanted to study english at university - she was & still is more interested in the language than the literature, & wanted to do separate A levels in each (which is why she left her comprehensive for the 6th form college) She also chose History, with Psychology as her 'soft' option (though in fact it's not actually on Cambridge's original list of subjects which "are a less effective preparation for [their] courses")

However she decided fairly early on that she loved Psychology and wanted to study it further - something she would never have known if she hadn't done the A level. If she'd known when she was choosing, she would probably have done a science subject, - her tutor told her that several universities require or at least prefer a science subject for Psychology. In fact she was offered AAB by Exeter, which is where she is now but it could have been a fatal mistake.