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?

Maybe so, but it would be silly for society as a whole to disregard their honest acheivements in favour of mediocracy.

Unfortunately I do feel I have to justify it to some ( in fact quite a lot of) people. Friends have asked me "what is wrong" with the various state schools in the area. My answer is... " nothing" - I work at one of them. I love his confidence... I didn't have much when I was at school and maybe that was part of the decision making. He's adopted and we felt the school he is at served his needs as it has small classes and a family feel. It also has a great sense of tradition and being part of the ongoing history is nice for him. I am realising that I have gone off the thread slightly but what I am trying to say is that people have many different reasons for choosing schools and strangely enough, it's not always about academic achievement or status.

Its not disregarding 'honest achievements', it's giving everyone a fair chance. At the moment, if one is reasonably bright and have good teaching it is not THAT difficult to get 3 As at A level. It is more difficult if one is not advantaged by a good school/teaching.

But it is not fair to penalise the achievers for doing what is expected of them. They have worked hard and deserve what they get.

They are the future leaders of the country and we should not be putting them down.

If there is a problem with under-achievers, it needs to be dealt with separately.

I agree with whoever it was posted earlier - people can get too hung up on this, because to be honest, if your child is clever top set material, then there is likely to be very little difference between state and private schools anyway! Of course if you look at overall raw results, then a private school may have higher grades than a comp - well, hardly surprising is it, if the comp is catering for all-comers. What would be far more relevant is to take the average grades of the classes your child is actually taught in and make a comparison. For example, I know last year, in the top English set in my dc's comp every child achieved A/A. In Maths, there is a fast track set where the pupils do Maths a year early - this got straight A/A, and then in the two sets below that, everyone got A*/A/B.
Those are the statistics that matter to me. The bottom sets may well average E or F, which is obviously going to affect the overall school average, but why on earth would that matter to me?! What matters is the peer group my children are taught in, the quality of teaching they receive and the outcomes they achieve.

'they often want a First or a 2:1 from whatever university you attended.'

Hmmn. They know that a First or a 2:1 from Durham or York is worth far more than a first from the University of the South Downs. I know this because I sometimes write copy for the HR dept. of a big city consultancy. They recruit at Russell Group universities only.

'They have worked hard and deserve what they get.'

And boy do they work hard. I have children in both sectors at the moment and I can tell you that when he was in Year Six of prep school my son worked far harder, and at a more intense level, than friends who stayed in the village primary. Is this a good or a bad thing? I don't know.

My eldest ds is a RGU. He went to a private prep school, because he was not coping at the local primary school, he has aspergers, although I did not know when I made the decision to withdraw him from state school. He coped far better at private due to smaller class sizes etc. He then went to the local grammar school, where most of the other boys had been to private primary school. Now he at Reading, and most of his friends went to private school/grammar school.
But they do all work extremely hard, and most of them work full-time jobs aswell as being full time students.

York isn't an RG university though...

ST, isn't it the usual refrain on these threads that Life. Isn't. Fair?

Surely it's more fair to discriminate in favour of those who have not had every opportunity that birth and wealth can afford them?

Thought the trend these days was to benefit state schools? At Bristol, seem to remember more state school students were admitted based on value added something or other?

Is it not, Policywonk? Mea culpa--it has been a while since I looked at the RG list. I think York is still on the milk round for this particular consultancy, though.

I do not dispute that pupils work hard at private schools. Of course they do, as do many pupils at state schools.

The very bright will do well anywhere. They will get 3 As or whatever and their places at top universities. Equally there will be pupils who are NEVER going to achieve very much academically however much teaching, money is thrown at them.

But my problem is with the mediocre student who can, and do, get very high grades whilst not being that bright by being 'spoon fed' in the private sector. They then go on to get a place at a top university, and prob can't do the work there. There will be equally mediocre children in the state system who do not get these places. I don't think any of them should get the places!!!

I think only the brightest should have a top university place, regardless of where they are schooled. At the moment, with the present A level system, you can buy good results to a certain extent. I think A levels should be made harder if anythhing. Then lets see how many get 3 As.

Making A levels harder would disadvantage the state school pupils just as much as the private school pupils. Actually I'm all for making them tougher (I took mine in the early eighties when they were a gold standard) but I can't see it would make any difference to social equality.

What would is a GMAT type entrance test for universities, IQ-based.

I agree with margotfonteyn, and would also add that it is possible to 'buy' good results by living in the catchment area of a very good state school. In my experience, there is very little difference, either in social background, or in academic experience, between independent school pupils and pupils from the best state schools.

IF universities are going to discriminate in favour of state school pupils (and this does not happen half as often as people think it does - many universities have dropped this policy due to media pressure), it should be students from poor performing state schools, not state schools per se.

Abraid, can't people be coached for GMAT style exams, too?

There is no really fair way of doing this, imo. But if I were in charge of national admissions policy, I would probably lightly discriminate in favour of kids from below-par state schools - at the very least, it might encourage people to send their kids there....

Can they? You may be right.

I think people do discriminate already. The head of admissions at my old Oxbridge college told me there were one or two students there with lower A level results than he'd have liked because they came from a local comprehensive that ought to be doing better. But he realised that the students concerned were sharp cookies and couldn't not have them on the course. They were doing very, very well and he was extremely pleased with them. And the comp. concerned was sending more good candidates. For years, they hadn't had any at all. Even though the comp. was so near and the college has always been very unstuffy and welcoming and tried hard to attract state school candidates.

Meant to add that the tutor of admissions concerned was an old-style Labour supporter who'd himself gone to a grammar school from a modest home. He was disgusted with the regression in social mobility he'd witnesed: especially in the Blair years. He said it was one of his biggest regrets: that he was seeing fewer bright working-class applicants.

But, PW, it is very dodgy when you discriminate based on assumption, chips on shoulder, etc.

If the A-level system does not discriminate adequately, then change it! Tweaking results is wrong, wrong, wrong.

According to the other thread, the new elite is something called the Sutton Group? Which includes Oxbridge, various London colleges, various more and also York. See PW, you're better than RG ...

I do remember an exam called S levels - which were quite a bit more stretching than A levels Can't they reintroduce those or something like them? Help to sort out the sheep from the goats. What about IB which is all the rage in some circles.

Ooh, I'm very excited to have been elevated again

There isn't a qualification or test in the world that's going to distinguish between raw intelligence and good schooling. It's simply not possible. So if you want fairness (and not everyone does), IMO you need to discriminate in favour of children from bad schools, as HighOn suggests.

The Sutton Trust?

• University of Birmingham
• University of Bristol
• University of Cambridge
• Durham University
• University of Edinburgh
• Imperial College London
• London School of Economics
• University of Nottingham
• University of Oxford
• University of St Andrews
• University College London
• University of Warwick
• University of York

IME Oxbridge candidates stand out a mile and can be found anywhere, state or private. Oxbridge couldn't give a monkey's where you've been to school - they want the very brightest students. I also think some parents do fall into the trap of seeing entry to University as the end of the process! If a student hasn't developed self motivation and independent study skills, they are going to be miserable and at risk of doing badly or dropping out of Higher Education. You really are on your own once you go off to university, and I think the best schools are ones which acknowledge this and prepare young people for it.

I'd have thought King's College London would be on any list of elite unis. Aren't all these groups a little bit random?

No King's? Not surprised he he