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?

what about this then?

where has Xenia been for the last couple of months. I haven't seen her on here and this is the sort of thread that she usually excels in.
She'd love OP idea that private schools are full of kids who couldn't cope socially or academically at their state school!

Xenia was around yesterday - on a similar thread - in which UQD was continuing a lonely struggle to reintroduce the grammar school system - and she was arguing (simplistic summary) that parents had a duty to send their children to independent schools.

On the next thread I am going to argue for the abolition of independent schools vociferously. There is a danger in being too predictable ...

"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."

Isn't it strange that, when we normally have State v. Independent discussions, people usually say that State teachers are sooo much better than private teachers (who, it is implied, have gone for the soft option). All of a sudden it is 'unfair' that private schools give better advice about the UCAS system - let's not give them credit for being more informed than some State schools, let's try to pretend that somehow it's cheating to be better at preparing their kids for the next stage of education. What hypocrisy! We should be disparaging schools that fail their pupils, not those that succeed.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in teachers going for the 'soft option'. Also my children are absolutely fine. They are/have been at 'top' grammar school, go to Russell Group universities etc. I am well aware that they have had every advantage thrown at them (including being in an area with a free grammar school education and they are bright enough to be able to attend it).

But do all of you who educate your children privately really NEVER, ever think of those who do not have the advantages your children have?

Do you really, really think it is ok that some people can get a better education because they can pay?

Do you????

(And thank god Xenia isn't here to lecture us on how one can start up a small business or something in order to pay for a private education.)

Message withdrawn

Not really any more than I worry about it being unfair that some people afford expensive cars, holidays or houses if I'm honest Margotfonteyn. Or that some people live in catchment for great state schools & others don't. Of course it's not fair, but most of life isn't and at least it gives more people the chance/choice of a decent school.

margotfonteyn - I've only read your last post.

Yes some people get a better education by paying (unless they are incredibly wealthy they make a sacrifice elsewhere to afford the fees).

Some people get a better education by not paying or paying less (if they qualify for an assisted place).

If your children went to a top grammar school I don't think you are in a position to lecture people who don't have access to grammar schools and pay for private education.

If you regard private schools as better why not campaign for state schools to be more like private schools, rather than knocking the good private schools?

and by improving access to those schools too bloss. More bursaries etc maybe?

CD - your link refers to bias in favour of a really small minority of university, particularly RG, applicants I would have thought - looked after children, travellers etc. Both positions could be true, in that RG institutions could positively discriminate in favour of a small number of 'deprived' applicants while still maintaining a uneven distribution of independent to state-educated students.

Your post really takes the biscuit, margotfonteyn. You happen to live near enough to one of the 164 remaining grammar schools in the country and have taken advantage of it. Whose children were you thinking of when you chose an elitist, selective education?

I am not 'lecturing' anyone!

I have admitted my children are lucky!!!

I still maintain mediocre children get better results at a private school, and thus places at 'top' universities, and I, personally, feel it is unfair.

It is as much of a criticism of some state schools as private schools. I happen to think it is fundamentally wrong to have a system whereby paying gives a child a better education.

You are at liberty to disagree.

However, my children have/are having a fantastic state education, where they have the opportunity to compete with the best of private schools (yes, they even do Latin....)and I am certainly not complaining about their education. It doesn't mean I don't have a conscience about others.

I am also NOT in favour of dumbing down, as some posters seem to think I am. I actually think examinations should be harder so those mediocre students don't get the top marks.

You can't lecture us on paying for selective schools while enjoying the benefits of free selective schools, yourself! Why should our children not have the same benefits as yours if we're prepared to work very, very hard to pay for their education?

If my children had not got into the grammar school, I would have paid for them to go to a private school. Does that make everyone feel better?

The point I am making is that they probably WOULD have got better exam results from having a private education, than from a failing state school That doesn't actually make them brighter than those who may have also not gained a place at a grammar school but who cannot afford that education. So, therefore it is not fair! Obviously they will be brighter than some, but not all.

However, those that are able to pay will probably get better GCSE and A level results, and better advice etc etc (although mine don't need it because we know about not doing meeja studies etc)and thus a place at a 'top' university.

Why is this deemed me 'lecturing' people? Surely it's just telling the truth and that is why people pay.

Doesn't make it fair though.

Was Margot's comment aimed at my post?
My DD is getting a 'better' education because I care. She went to the local comp for KS3&4 and I was dissatisfied with it so we moved for sixthform. She could have stayed at the comp which is crap at getting their kids to any Uni, never mind a good one. Instead, we looked around and got offers of a sixthform place at four different schools/colleges (all State). This course is available to most people, although I admit that we are lucky to be able to pay the commuting costs.
Like someone said a while back (scienceteacher?) pupils will flock to good sixthform so it's not surprising that entrants to RG tend to come from a small pool of schools/colleges.
If I was in admissions I would ask someone who came from a bad school, "if you are so bright, why did you stay at that place and not go somewhere decent for sixthform?"

What a funny discussion! It doesn't seem to have dawned on many people that education is not about selecting the brightest pupils and giving them the "best" education. It is about selecting a social elite - so naturally those with money look to buy their children into those positions. They are then given an education that equips them to be academics or to debate how many angels belong on a pinhead. It doesn't necessarily equip them to manage a business effectively and even less to actually make anything useful.

Oxbridge teach a limited range of subjects and although the russell group may go a little further it is still those "hard academic" subjects. Why don't we value those who achieve high standards in other areas? We should value excellence.

Message withdrawn

bloss - I value excellence, just don't see that the education produces it. It produces arrogance, good debating skills and in some limited areas high standards. But those areas are not the only ones that have value. The only reason we value a particular set of skills so highly is because a social elite wish to maintain their position.

I've seen your arguments before. They are well expressed but not convincing.

The only way to make private education unappealing to those who can afford it is to offer a similar standard of education in the state system. And to hell with the sports fields etc. Most of the teenagers I know do very little extra curricula stuff anyway.

people should stop complaining about private schools doing the job they are supposed to do.

It is not rocket science to know your way round the university admissions system. This does not constitute cheating or 'spoon feeding'. It is simply encouraging and guiding their pupils through a system to achieve the end result which would suit them best. Plus whilst giving them a rounded education ensuring that the relevant grades in exams are met in order to achieve the end goal.

'a social elite wish to maintain their position.'

Back in the eighties, my Oxbridge English course had an over-preponderance of the children and grandchildren of Irish working class immigrants to Liverpool. They'd been to grammar schools. Only a few generations, if that, between them and the boats across the Irish Sea.

I think you need to give us some cold, hard facts , tatt, So far it seems like unsubstantiated opinion.

And margotfonteyn ... if you could afford to pay for an independent education ( as you say) were you not then depriving at least 2 other, poorer children of a free grammar school education? That would have been true altruism.

Message withdrawn

And frankly, wouldn't you WANT one of the elite operating on your very sick child?

Message withdrawn

I have a friend who is an Oxford don who does interviews of prospectve undergrads every year. She is very pro the idea of state school kids getting in. She makes strenuous efforts to make allowances for bright state school interviewees but described the following problem to me and notes it is getting more and more difficult every year to deal with it.

She says she always faces a dilemma of picking a good state school student who is poorly schooled, not fully ready to start the coures but who shows a flash of brilliance versus picking a fully finished articulate private (independent) school pupil who will hit the ground running and pretty much guaranteed to get a 2.1 degree even though they are clearly not have the inate spark of brilliance the state school pupil has.

In some cases, she says she simply doubts that the state school pupils can ever catch up enough to be handle the pace of the degree course she teaches on. She has to turn down state school pupils who show a flash of brilliance but who simply can never make the grade because their education is simply not up to level they need to do the course.

This is perhaps a big practicl part of the reason private school kids dominate the Russel Group universities. The private schools focus on churning out the finished article and prepare them well for interview -even if they do not have innate brilliance.