Top private schools losing their grip on Oxbridge article

[Nevermakeit]

on.ft.com/3hnt4iG
Interesting article from the FT today . I don't understand why there never seems to be any nuance separating the top private schools which are incredibly hard to get into, and therefore select very bright children, and the more mediocre ones where the main discriminator is the ability to pay the fees...
If I were head of one of the top schools (and not just a parent!), this is what I would be arguing, that the children are not simply hothoused (though of course they undoubtedly are), but they were exceptional to begin with!! Yet, they never seem to put this across (either in the media or to the Oxbridge colleges themselves, where they supposedly have such great relationships), and agree to be lumped together with all the other private schools.
I just don't understand it, especially as then they could get their kids in more 'under the radar' , as at the national level, the state school intake would still be looking good....
What do others think?

I think Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all and every child I know who failed to get in (one of mine included!) ended up at really great universities, did very well and got good jobs afterwards.

“Dear World,

We are nothing special whatsoever. We just take kids who would get 4 top grades at A level at any old failing comp and indeed get them 4 top grades at A level.

Lol

Top Private School”

Can’t think why they don’t want to say that!

I think Oxbridge is perfectly aware how top public schools select their kids. I think they need to be seen to improve diversity and that's what they are doing. I think its absolutely fine (and I say that as private school parent!)

I agree that the system is getting fairer, I am not challenging it - and I agree with the article.
The bit I can't get my head around is why some of the heads (or boards or whatever it is) of the most selective private schools are not doing a better job at protecting themselves against this to minimise the impact to themselves - at least in a first instance.
I work in general management / marketing and if this were a 'brand', or a business losing share, this is exactly what the people running it would be strategizing about and doing...

As I said above - they are in a very difficult position.

Either they are making “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear” in which case Oxbridge doesn’t want them or they are starting off with a load of incredibly bright kids, doing nothing special and getting them the grades that they were always going to get - in which case - why would you spend lots of money sending your kids there?

One of the things that put us off our local private schools for dd was that they were not getting the results that you would expect considering the level of selection involved.

This might surprise you but not every course in Oxbridge colleges is keen on the Eton and Harrow pupils. They’re not inherently brighter, just inherently richer.

Our private school gets top results but that's not enough, they are all expected to do lots of extra curricular as well. I think that shows they can educate kids to a high standard while also trying to develop them as people. I love my school but my kids aren't interested in Oxbridge. Its full now for 2 years in advance so clearly its doing something right. A lot are going to the USA instead of Oxbridge.

I think it’s true that many of the children going to top private schools are high-performing, with IQs and exams to show it and there’s no reason to discriminate against them.

Neither of my children applied to Oxbridge so I don’t have a personal stake in this game.

Oxbridge’s loss is other universities’ gain.

And more arrogant 🙄. Dh did law at Cambridge from a comp all his friends from university from his law course were women when I queried this the answer was “the men were all utter knobs”. Hopefully this has changed over time…

I think it’s true that many of the children going to top private schools are high-performing, with IQs and exams to show it and there’s no reason to discriminate against them

Of course they are. They are doing it to improve diversity and look better. Which as I have said, I have no real problem with and as you say, its other universities gain!

@SalsaLove

This might surprise you but not every course in Oxbridge colleges is keen on the Eton and Harrow pupils. They’re not inherently brighter, just inherently richer.

That is not quite true - only those with very high Cat scores get to apply to Eton Harrow etc and only very high ISEB scores get them in. Privilege, of course, helps with better preparation, but money can’t just get you into these schools automatically.

@Bryonyshcmyony

I think it’s true that many of the children going to top private schools are high-performing, with IQs and exams to show it and there’s no reason to discriminate against them

Of course they are. They are doing it to improve diversity and look better. Which as I have said, I have no real problem with and as you say, its other universities gain!

Well - no - they are not. They are doing it because they want the best minds in the country. The problem is - statistically - we know that not all the best minds are going to Oxbridge because some of them don’t apply.

If you are brilliant and at Eton - you will apply. But it takes a certain level of courage (and a certain“fuck you” mindset) to apply to Oxbridge from a comprehensive that has never had someone go to Oxbridge before.

What Oxbridge wants is for everyone who is expected to get 3 As (or whatever the top grades are nowadays) to apply. Then they can choose.

I don’t know what the stats are now but when I was involved in this (a very very long time ago) the number of people getting 3 As at A level was roughly 67:33 state:private. But applications were roughly 50:50 state and private. And acceptances were 50:50 state:private.

So the big aim was to get more state applications with the expectation that that would lead to more state acceptances.

Do those ratios make sense? If only 15% of kids are privately educated

@MsTSwift

And more arrogant 🙄. Dh did law at Cambridge from a comp all his friends from university from his law course were women when I queried this the answer was “the men were all utter knobs”. Hopefully this has changed over time…

I don't know when your DH was there but I did law at Cambridge in the 90s (also from state comp) and was left with a very similar impression.

They are widening access because more pupils from state schools are getting places. Nobody can argue that widening access is a good thing.

However true widening access would see places being given to pupils from all over the country. From what I can see this isn't happening. If you look at the top 100 schools, many are grammar. There are also a high number of places going to specific state schools e.g Brampton Manor Academy. Dig deeper and you will see the advantages these pupils have. It may not be about money, although arguably grammar places are generally about money, but it is still about sharp elbows and frankly lazyness from Oxbridge admissions.

D- must try harder.

More people seem to be getting 3A* these days than I remember when I was in School. Applicants to places are so skewed these days. This leave many regardless of school, feel they have been short changed despite getting the grades. May be the top institutions should be more discriminatory and ask for 4 A levels, some additional qualifications.

I also went to Cambridge in the late 80s from a comp. I think what I thought was arrogance was confidence in a lot of cases. All my housemates in my 2nd and 3rd year were public school educated and all absolutely lovely.

Nobody can argue that widening access is a good thing.

You'd be surprised. I've seen people on threads like this argue against WP. It's very disheartening .

To answer your question OP on why highly selective schools aren't shouting about their brilliant intake - it's due to the risk of hurting their 'brand'. They need to show themselves as inclusive as well, and not alienate a huge chunk of the population who would see them as a hothouse with WP. Some of the 13+ public schools have hired very expensive brand agencies this year to change their image to one of inclusion, diversity and well roundedness, and to shout that they are not just focused on grades. This is a new direction for these top schools - they are showing that Oxbridge is not the only thing to aspire for. So they can't shout about their purely academic intake.

Well - no - they are not. They are doing it because they want the best minds in the country. The problem is - statistically - we know that not all the best minds are going to Oxbridge because some of them don’t apply.

If you are brilliant and at Eton - you will apply. But it takes a certain level of courage (and a certain“fuck you” mindset) to apply to Oxbridge from a comprehensive that has never had someone go to Oxbridge before.

What Oxbridge wants is for everyone who is expected to get 3 As (or whatever the top grades are nowadays) to apply. Then they can choose.

^^ absolutely this!
My DS is an Oxford 1st year from an ordinary comprehensive. From what I see Oxford (can't speak for Cambridge) are doing a lot of outreach to encourage more applicants from the state sector - and doing a pretty good job as their numbers are rising steadily. But there is still a problem of aspiration in many schools. At DS school there were only 4 Oxbridge applicants - all 4 got interviews which I think was pretty good going) and 2 got places.
I couldn't access the article but 'top private schools loosing their grip' is a bit sensationalist. Funny that you rarely see articles about widening participation schemes.

@Bryonyshcmyony

Do those ratios make sense? If only 15% of kids are privately educated

Well - it is a 20+ year old statistic so may not be true any more. I was given it by the university to quote during target schools talks in the late 90s / early 2000s and I’m good at remembering numbers so I think it would be right then.

Looking at if it is reasonable......

A quick google gives me the split from the government of A level grades by institution - 27.3% of A levels taken by independent school kids got A* and 12.9% of A levels taken by state schools kids got As.

So (using your figure of 15% private school - no idea if that is right!)

.15 * .273 = 4.1%

.85 * .129 = 11.0%.

So of all the A*s about 27% are from private schools and 73% from state.

Which makes my 33:67 ratio not ridiculous.

In my experience parents of pupils at the top independents frequently seriously overestimate just how bright their children are.

and agree to be lumped together with all the other private schools.

With respect, it's not the schools who are calling the shots; it's Oxford and Cambridge.

@goodbyestranger

In my experience parents of pupils at the top independents frequently seriously overestimate just how bright their children are.

Really? Even if they've passed the entrance exam and got a string of 9s at GCSE (normal for top independents)? I'd assume my child was quite bright as well. Only on Mumsnet do people have this absurd attitude that somehow 10 x 9/8 GCSEs and 3 or 4 A* at A level is masking the fact that the student is somehow an academic interloper who will be found out by Oxbridge!

@Bryonyshcmyony

I think Oxbridge is perfectly aware how top public schools select their kids. I think they need to be seen to improve diversity and that's what they are doing. I think its absolutely fine (and I say that as private school parent!)

I agree.