Despite having the right grades, my child is not applying to Oxbridge because ....

[TalkinPeace]

• she wants to live in self catered accommodation
• she does not like the small sizes of the colleges / social units
• having to go back to college for lunch while doing a lab based degree does not make sense
• the whole gown and formal dinner stuff smacks of coat tails rather than standing on own feet
• she does not fancy fighting through hordes of tourists while moving between buildings
• having a tutor picked by which college they are based in rather than their research specialism seems very odd to her

Also, for what she wants to do, the course at Oxford is not that well balanced
and Cambridge, despite having a fab course was not a place that felt like home when she visited for 2 days.

So she will be putting other Universities on her form and taking a great deal of stress out of this house.

For what its worth, those of her friends I've chatted to are also ruling out Oxbridge in favour of other Unis because of the first four points.

What are other people's reasons for ruling out Oxbridge, despite having the grades?

What about selective education where the mc don't or can't game it TP? In theory at least?

early and flexible setting. Schools that don't set or put it off are placing their most able students at a disadvantage.

I suspect that the majority of schools do set, but in itself that isn't enough. It won't help, for example, if the more academic children are being creamed off by selective schools, so that those who are left know that they are not in the top 20 -25% of ability. It won't help if parents/teachers have a poverty of expectations - "Oxbridge is not for the likes of you/us, what was wrong with the local ex-poly/getting a job?"

Early and better careers advice - yes. Hmm, I think this has now been devolved to schools. Teachers advising children correctly yes. How many have sufficient knowledge? With the internet there is much less excuse for not knowing, but at the same time, first hand knowledge helps.

But at the same time, Oxbridge isn't always the be and end all - they are not the best places for all subjects, and the style of teaching suits a particular style of learning. For some courses, the local ex-poly may offer exactly the right course.

talkin I wouldn't suggest taking resources away from low ability children and agree that ensuring everyone has a functioning grasp of maths, English etc should also be a priority.

However, I do think able children often get the shit end of the stick in terms of teacher time. So much is sucked up, not by the least able, but by the least engaged.

I was watching Educating Cardiff and what struck me straight away was just how much effort and time was going into getting a disengaged pupil to just attend. Yet, the able student was considered a bit of a PITA (and I note had been steered into taking 13 bloody GCSEs). I understand that teachers are loath to give up on students, but there has to be balance.

Molio
Find me that system ......
Because I'll absolutely promise it does not exist.
Churches are sick to the back teeth of the "pray till the place is offered" stuff.
Tutoring utterly distorts who passes any sort of exam.
No exam is untutorable

Comps when they are truly comp with decent catchments then have the ability to sort the kids by subject so that each kids get to be with their peers for each subject.
Kids who happen not to be all rounders are penalised by selection at 11

and as Gruach says : select based on what they have achieved at 18

LaVolcan selection is a very difficult circle to square. Admitted.

The impact it has on other children cannot be ignored. And yet, selection is possibly the best way to ensure high ability students receive resources, priority, the right culture and decent advice.

However, I do think able children often get the shit end of the stick in terms of teacher time.

I don't think you can generalise from one TV programme! IMO the ones who get the rough end of the stick are those average pupils who don't mess around - they are quietly left to get on with it, and do well enough, but who knows what they could achieve if really encouraged?

shegot
what struck me straight away was just how much effort and time was going into getting a disengaged pupil to just attend.
I did not watch it DH has a tendency to throw heavy things at the TV during such programmes
Those kids should be at a PRU, addressing why they do not want to be in school and then the school can get on with teaching those who want to be there.
Its about better allocation and sharing resources - the antithesis of the Academy scheme.

LaVolcan of course, I'm not generalising from one program. I mentioned it because it was, for me, the stand out feature of that episode.

When I visit schools, the biggest gripe amongst young people is disruption. They find it the biggest barrier to their learning. We now have a culture where it's expected; teachers' skills are evaluated on how they manage pupils. Teachers who teach children that require little management are seen as inferior teachers.

with decent catchments .... and therein lies the fundamental reason why there will never be truly comprehensive education in this country. House prices!

My youngest didn't get into the grammar school that dd1 went to. Whenever she complains about school, it is always other people's behaviour that is the cause of her complaint. That's the main advantage of the grammar school imo.

And yet, selection is possibly the best way to ensure high ability students receive resources, priority, the right culture and decent advice.

Do you not think that all students deserve a good culture to learn in and decent advice? Why should the conscientious student who isn't going to pull down strings of A*s have to put up with poor teaching and disruption? Shouldn't they be given the chance to achieve to the fullest of their ability?

atia
Some schools will always be in richer areas than others : but pupil premium means that poorer schools get more money so have more resources.

The big problem in places like London is that are not enough school places : certain Boroughs pride themselves on keeping supply constricted
and after the eejit Brown made councils sell off the sites of empty schools rather than wait for the inevitable population upturn
there is nowhere to put the 20 or 30 big secondaries that are needed

that and developers get away with putting up the schools at the end of a building scheme, not before

If selective state schools were taken out of the mix and people had to all apply on distance and work with the schools in their area there would be more pressure from parents to make all of them decent

I'd love my local school to be good - but until it reverts to LEA control nobody who cares about their children darkens its doors.

Have grammar schools improved in behaviour then Atiao? The behaviour in mine was deplorable. IMO clever children find clever ways to disrupt.

LaVolcan of course. As I say, it's a difficult circle to square.

But I was asked what I think would make a difference in helping more state schooled pupils able to access the most selective university education.

Frankly, I'd settle for decent advice as a starter!

You could add Talkin that Local Authorities aren't even allowed to build their own schools, even when they know the demand is there. They have to persuade either an existing school to expand, which isn't always possible, or get an academy chain interested or get someone to start up a free school.

Frankly, I'd settle for decent advice as a starter!
YUP

But here's a fun bit

At the Symonds open evenings, the two Oxbridge ladies are there in their room and there is always a massive queue of people to see them.
Earwigging is great fun.
Mostly ex private school parents expecting the college to be able to "sort it" so that Tarquin can go to a Grandpas college and play rugby.
Their faces fall when its pointed out that grades come first.
But the nature of the people in that queue - and the totally different application timetable for Oxbridge - perpetuate the myths.

I know that Bristol is far higher private school than Oxbridge, but at least it goes on a standard UCAS form and does dot demand that you cannot put certain other Unis on the form

But when I look around my area TP, houses which can be advertised as being in certain schools' catchment areas cost more. People will move to get their kids into what they perceive as a better school, rather than demand that the nearest school improve. I agree with you in theory though, for sure.

LaVolcan I obviously have no idea about other grammar schools! The two that my dd and ds go to seem to have good-to-very-good behaviour. That's why I said "the" grammar school in my post; I honestly think my youngest would be happier there than she is at her 'leafy' comp.

atia
I fully accept that : the difference in price between Thornden and Toynbee catchments down here is 35%
BUT
only about 1% of the housing stock turns over each year.

Its an absolute myth that lots of parents are able to move into catchments : all house prices are far too high for all but the very wealthy to move.

My house is in a shitty catchment and I could not afford to buy it in a month of Sundays.

Lots and lots of houses in any catchment are inhabited by the parents of former pupils
and if you have a comp system that ensures there are enough places for all anticipated pupils in an area, the boundaries will flex in and out as the demographics change.

I live 1/2 mile outside the catchment boundary for DCs school ; even though its 12 miles across
if my house was 1/2 mile north it would be worth nearly double - and thus utterly unaffordable to me and the vast majority of people in the area.

I don't think it's quite as extreme as 35% between Thornden and Toynbee (I have family in CF). Houses which are next to each other around the catchment boundaries in Hiltingbury/Valley Park are worth very similar amounts. The premium for Thornden catchment for such houses is apparently only 10-20k or so, according to an estate agent friend of our family - this surprised me as Toynbee is a very different school. But of course if one compares Hiltingbury houses with houses on the other side of Toynbee's catchment they do have very different values - although that's not just because of the schools, it must also relate to the different environs too.

I have a friend who bought a house next to Southampton Common for around 200k in 2000. At the time they could have bought a house in Thornden catchment for the same price. Now the house next to the Common is worth around 400k but the one in CF is worth over 600k.

BTW in my family's street apparently about 6/20 houses have turned over in the last 3 years, all with the new families moving in because of Thornden. The rate of house price increase has apparently been very high?

disq
certain streets will have high turnover in any area
but mahoosive chunks of a catchment will not

One of my clients lives right on the boundary and the twin to his house (same floor plan) in a dead cert Thornden bit is nearly 40% more than his, 200 yards away in dead cert Toynbee

Fact is, both house are lived in by parents of former pupils and both sales fell through for various reasons

BUT
Getting back to the point

house prices will make differences between schools
but if all admissions were on distance
and there were enough places
bad schools would keel over she types hopefully close and be reinvented
and good schools would fill up and then the motivated parents would wash out to all of the schools, not just a few

and then Careers and curriculum advice could be evened out a bit
and more kids would have chances to irritate the heck out of Oxbridge dons

There's been uproar in our town in the last few years, because the catchment area of one of the 'best' schools changed, meaning that a lot of people living in a rather nice area were now in the catchment of one of the 'worst' schools. (To add to the confusion, both schools are in one LA, and the houses are in another ) I had one woman rant at me that her house value had dropped by £X thousands, and she has now moved from her nice house in a nice area to a not-so-great house in a fine-if-you-like-that-sort-of-thing area to be in the catchment of another good school. I have tried to express the opinion that surely if all the 'naice' kids now go to the 'bad' school, it will improve, but I don't seem to have been convincing!

^Mostly ex private school parents expecting the college to be able to "sort it" so that Tarquin can go to a Grandpas college and play rugby.
Their faces fall when its pointed out that grades come first^

In my world the private school parents and DCs are very realistic about the academic meritocracy required for the better British universities. The selective school pupils know that hard work is required as well as being bright or very bright. The parents certainly don't expect their background to count for anything unless it is as a negative.

In the world of Ooh we can save on two years of fees and still get them into top Unis its a lot less realistic. Quite a few parents mistake the good GCSE results they get in molly coddled non selective private schools with the high standards they will need in the real world

Ideally selection for certain degree courses would occur only when the students have embarked and shown they can do well in independent university style study. Difficult to manage the numbers though as the French system shows.

Unfortunately post 18 selection would n't solve the problem of pupils who were hopelessly disadvantaged by an education that has n't taught them to write or think by 16 and are very unlikely to be able to catch up.