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 we may be missing some good private school pupils in the current aim for more diversity but they will do fine. I don't think my lawyers daughters have suffered in practising law in London from not having tried for Oxbridge where only 25% of their very academic day schools go. In fact had they been at a less academic school it is possible they might have decided to have a go at Oxbridge and they might have been top of their school as I was (not so academic private schools) rather than middle of the class.

My twin son when to a day private school where most people are not white. One son was the only white boy in his class eg one year. I only mention that because of the diversity issues. It has 100% failure rate for Oxbridge entrance the year their friends applied (my sons didn't try) which will be much worse than the other local state schools. Now that might just be the children were not bright enough in that year but may be there was anti-private school bias? Irrelevant to my lot as none of them tried. Plenty of those children have 4 parents working in corner shops and other relatives working very hard to fund that one set of school fees (and may be we should say more fool them because there are lots of academic selective sixth form London schools in the state sector).

Why should Oxbridge penalise for that?*
Maybe these kids need to mention at interview that they were able to attend their schools through bursary and parental sacrifice.*

This suggests that Oxbridge are using a student's background as one of the entry criteria, and that they are turning away privately schooled children who are able and suitable in favour of less able and suitable state educated children. But is there any evidence for that? Or are they simply better at identifying and encouraging able and suitable state school educated children, having realised that it's not as simple as waiting for them to apply and then comparing grades or scores on an entry exam?

I think that Oxbridge take exactly who they want - the students they want to teach and that they think will do well in that environment. If someone doesn't get in, it's because they wanted someone else more. They have realised over recent years that they weren't necessarily getting the best people and now have strategies in place to fix that. All power to them.

Hmm I would say that the fact they have the identity of the school on the forms in front of them is evidence that they are using a student’s background to influence decisions about places. Otherwise, they’d leave this covered up, and rely on their judgment to identify and encourage able students.

@MinervaMcGonagall45
Don't assume that all Sixth Form Colleges are "highly selective". Peter Symonds in Hampshire secures 50+ Oxbridge places each year, and is open-access, requiring only five GCSE passes at grade 4 and above to access Level 3 courses. The A* students are in the same classes as those targeting lower grades. It also has around 2,000 students in each year group, and so its success rate is proportional to its size and breadth of ability among its students.

I am aware though that there are some sixth form colleges that are as selective for sixth form entry as the grammars, independents and, indeed, some comprehensive schools, where the bar for starting A-level courses is much, much higher, resulting in no mixed ability teaching.

@JohnSteinbeck

Hmm I would say that the fact they have the identity of the school on the forms in front of them is evidence that they are using a student’s background to influence decisions about places. Otherwise, they’d leave this covered up, and rely on their judgment to identify and encourage able students.

Do you think Oxbridge are turning away privately educated pupils in favour of state educated pupils who are less able and suitable?

I don't get what the problem is with Oxbridge using information about a student's school (NB not their background). One assumes that parents of privately educated children think that it's better than state, otherwise would they be paying for it? So what's wrong with Oxbridge factoring in that some applicants have had a better education than others? They are looking for students with particular characteristics. A level grades aren't always the best way to find them when some children have so much more support than others.

Agreed. I work in education and can attest to this. There are many parents who assume that money buys everything, including ability!

Didn't Garry Lineker have a hissy fit about his son not getting into uni? Apparently it was all the fault of the school.

Yes, you’re right, @Bovrilly. The point I was making was that not all private school parents are there through privilege, some kids have earned their place through a bursary. The criterion of schooling as a characteristic for selection is not always a reliable one.

The attached suggests that yes, Oxbridge are turning private-school pupils away in favour of those from state schools.

@sashh

Agreed. I work in education and can attest to this. There are many parents who assume that money buys everything, including ability!

Didn't Garry Lineker have a hissy fit about his son not getting into uni? Apparently it was all the fault of the school.

…but not every parent who pays for their child’s education believes that money buys everything. On the contrary. Some forego normal household extras to pay for the opportunity to experience particular types of teaching - e.g. an ASD child whose needs were not met in a state school environment, or those who want their kids to experience other subjects, like Latin or Ancient Greek. Why should those kids be penalised for having worked their socks off to win bursaries to get themselves an enriched learning opportunity?

I went to a comprehensive with some seriously bright kids. 1 got into Cambridge. Had loads of extra stuff like Guides, Duke of Edinburgh, etc super articulate. Frankly an amazing achievement given the terrible teaching at my school in that era. A kid getting into Oxbridge from a state comprehensive will be very bright and pretty resilient. It is easy to be bright went you are surrounded by support, money, influence and experiences.

But @JohnSteinbeck Oxbridge have identified private education as the unfair advantage they need to manage. Not income or privilege. The kids who are at private school on bursaries or scholarships have just the same educational advantage as their richer peers, when compared to those who are state educated.

The attached suggests that yes, Oxbridge are turning private-school pupils away in favour of those from state schools.

This isn't what I asked. I know that more state school pupils are getting in, but do you think that Oxbridge are turning away privately educated children in favour of state school children who are less able and suitable? Because if not, if they're still letting in the best people they can find, what's the problem?

Why should those kids be penalised

This is the thing - I believe that Oxbridge are attempting to make the playing field more level because they want the very best people, wherever they went to school. Trying to give everyone an equal chance is not penalising anyone.

financial sacrifice that some parents make to give their child then gift of an education that was not afforded to themselves.

What on earth would that have to do about the pupil's ability and their suitability for an Oxbridge place?

@Bryonyshcmyony, the grammar school @goodbyestranger is discussing is well outside London. The London scene appears to be very different. Goodbye is correct; most students at that grammar school are not tutored. My DC weren't, nor were hers and that's 10 DC in total. I work there and can spot the tutored children easily. They lack the flexibility of thought, the ability to make connections between different sources or types on information and the lively and enquiring minds that many of their peers have, possibly because they have been spoon-fed methods for passing exams.

To those who doubt that people get strings of 9s: one of my students is in receipt of FSM and PPG, managed 12 straight grade 9s in 2019 and is sitting on an offer from a Cambridge college. My own DD1 achieved 12 A*s at GCSE and graduated with a first class degree from Cambridge this week. We haven't paid a penny in school fees and my DD received a bursary throughout her time at Cambridge due to our low family income.

I can't get my head around the bland assumption that bright kids from private schools are being penalised 'in favour of' those from the state sector, as though nobody would educate a clever child in the state system. The vast majority of state applicants do not get an offer. Nobody jumps up and down about that.

Why should those kids be penalised for having worked their socks off to win bursaries to get themselves an enriched learning opportunity?

Because they have had that opportunity, even if they had to work to get to the school they are still far more advantaged than a child who has been labelled 'LAC' at school and has been living independently from age 16.

@DahliaMacNamara

I can't get my head around the bland assumption that bright kids from private schools are being penalised 'in favour of' those from the state sector, as though nobody would educate a clever child in the state system. The vast majority of state applicants do not get an offer. Nobody jumps up and down about that.

Agree. As far as I can see, the state school Oxbridge numbers are going up, either because

A) Oxbridge are deliberately lowering their standards to let in state school students who are not as good as some of the private school rejectees, which nobody seems willing to argue. Or,

B) thanks to various initiatives, they are finding more state school students who out-perform the private school students, in which case don't they deserve their places?

Cannot get my head around people complaining that trying to make it fairer is somehow penalising privately educated children. It's as if they are really annoyed that one of the things they thought they were buying is no longer available, and they wish we could go back to the good old days when state educated children knew their place and were denied an Oxbridge education in favour of the less bright privately educated. 😤

Top private schools do NOT only take the brightest of children; Harry Charles and Diana are all classic examples of dim pupils at top schools, who are academically mediocre or worse.

Roughly 70% of undergrad entrants to Oxford and Cambridge, come from state schools.

@2bazookas

Top private schools do NOT only take the brightest of children; Harry Charles and Diana are all classic examples of dim pupils at top schools, who are academically mediocre or worse.

Roughly 70% of undergrad entrants to Oxford and Cambridge, come from state schools.

Yes, there's still quite a discrepancy when only 7% are privately educated.

Probably better to compare undergrad figures with the number of students in each setting that get AAA, or the standard Oxford offer. Those figures show a discrepancy in favour of private education too, but things have improved a lot over the last few years and hopefully will continue to do so.

Good. I think it's great that the 'top' schools aren't dominating Oxbridge to such an extent anymore. It's simply not the case that the brightest and best children just so happen to be the ones with the richest parents. Oxbridge was barely on my comp's radar at all.

Still a long way to go though - only 7% of kids go to private schools, whereas 30-40% of Oxbridge students did.

@thecognoscenti

Good. I think it's great that the 'top' schools aren't dominating Oxbridge to such an extent anymore. It's simply not the case that the brightest and best children just so happen to be the ones with the richest parents. Oxbridge was barely on my comp's radar at all.

Still a long way to go though - only 7% of kids go to private schools, whereas 30-40% of Oxbridge students did.

@thecognoscenti I agree with you entirely. I also hope to see more graduates educated in the state sector occupying the top graduate schemes. According to the Sutton Trust the broad trajectory of private school over- representation in elite jobs appears to be heading downwards, but change is happening slowly.

It's actually 15/17% privately educated at 6th form level, fwiw

I think being privately educated before sixth form is also relevant - Oxbridge look at data from the school where a candidate sat their GCSEs, as well as where they sat their A levels. If anything the GCSE school has more impact because they use FSM info from that school as well as exam performance. (Oxford do anyway, not sure about Cambridge.)

I didn't say All 9s! I don't think many did that in 2019! I said a string of 9s.

That response is also frankly quite weak.

I think 5 students in the whole country got more than 12 9s at GCSE @goodbyestranger

Clearly one was @Malbecfans student!