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?

Yes but only about ten took twelve of the reformed GCSEs Bryony so again: weak.

What's weak? We aren't having an actual fight are we 🤔

My point is that kids at Westminster should really all be achieving ten or eleven 9s.

Haven’t rtft but with one child in academic independent and one in very good state I guess I’ll see what happens with university entry

It was a tough decision for second as state has been v good for first and opportunities seem good.

A couple of points: children are children, things happen. Some children go through agonies as teens and will not get 9s or 3 A*s at Westminster or wherever because they have done well to survive being teenagers.

A teacher, who presumably went to university themselves, has a lot of privilege, simply from being well educated.

Lots of children who go to state schools are going to have very supportive loving well educated parents, why wouldn’t they do well? I think it’s great that more children from non-private schools are going to Oxbridge, it should improve more people’s lives, broader base means more ideas & more factors taken into account.

I think a lot of people don’t really understand what the Collegiate system means in terms of Oxbridge from the point of view of a director of studies.

If you are a DoS of - say - English at - say - Catz then, unlike every other university, you won’t have 800 kids and need to select 200. You will have 16 kids and will need to select 4.

You will then be stuck with those kids as you will be their director of studies for the next 3 years and how they do reflects completely on you. You picked them, you taught them, why have they all got thirds???? “I was trying to be diverse” is not going to cut it - if private school pupils are being rejected over state school pupils it is because the interviewer genuinely believes that the state child is better. It is a great story to say that kids from school X didn’t get in because they were rejected for someone weaker because they were more diverse - but it isn’t true. No academic is going to tank his or her career over a principle.

There is a huge desire to increase Oxbridge access but this isn’t a moral thing. It is because there are really clever people out there who currently don’t apply that Oxbridge wants to get its grubby mitts on.

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.

Indeed. In the UK, educational advantage maps onto socio-economic advantage from about the age of 3.

@goodbyestranger

My point is that kids at Westminster should really all be achieving ten or eleven 9s.

Why? What proportion of kids got 10 or 11 9s in 2019? They don't need 10 or 11 9s to get into Oxbridge anyway.

I have no skin in the game as I have one Oxbridge reject happily at a great uni and one who never considered Oxbridge also at a great uni both privately educated and I have absolutely no regrets. As I said earlier let Oxbridge improve diversity of course they should!

My daughter was at NLCS (day school girls)
Like the London selective grammars like Henrietta B it is very hard to get in so those who leave tend to get high marks, but of course not everyone - teenage hormones see to that with many a child from all sectors. Actually let m e see if I can compare those two private and state:
NLCS first private
"INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE 2020
This year’s results for the IB Diploma were derived from externally marked and assessed work submitted by our candidates. We were delighted that our students once again achieved so highly in this challenging and enriching qualification, achieving an average score of over 41 points. These results placed us again among the best IB schools in the world.

Three of our students achieved the maximum score of 45 points, something usually only achieved by around 150 students out of 160,000 candidates across the globe.

GCSE, IGCSE, A-LEVEL AND PRE-U 2020

This year’s results were derived from a combination of Centre Assessed Grades and a statistical algorithm administered by the examination boards.

The headline figure of 55% A* at A level and Pre-U represents the strongest performance of a cohort of students at this level in the School’s history.

Similarly, 96% of all grades awarded at GCSE level were at A* equivalent (grades 8 and 9).

The results from the 2020 series of examinations are truly exceptional, and we celebrate them alongside the qualities of perseverance, flexibility, good humour and intellectual curiosity that characterises our students.

To download a full break down of all 2020 Examination Grades..."

Now let us look at Henrietta Barnett.

"2020
A level Examination Results 2020

Huge congratulations to Year 13 on their impressive results. They were a brilliant year group who have led the school with integrity and kindness and we will miss them! We wish them all the very best as they head off to top universities to study a wide range of subjects. We want to thank them for all they have done to make HBS such a vibrant and caring community and we look forward to hearing about the wonderful things they will all go on to do in the future.

Over 50% of grades were A*

Over 87% of grades were A* or A

Over 98% of grades were A*-B

98 students (77%) achieved A* or A grades in at least 3 subjects

40 students (32%) achieved 3 or more A* grades

35 students into Oxford/Cambridge "

So 55% A* (NLCS) v 50% (HB) . Not a vast difference as they have similar academic standards at entry at 11+

NLCS cannot quickly see Oxbridge I suspect they merge the figures in with US as here:
"In 2020, 30 students took up places at Oxford and Cambridge universities, and Ivy League universities or equivalents (University of Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Stanford and UCLA)."

HB 792 pupils. NLCS about 1000.
Actually they are remarkably similar for results and destinations of leavers.

That's not surprising though is it Xenia, for a selective grammar in an affluent area to do well?

I mean I could compare our local high-flying indie sixth form, 2nd in the UK I think for A level results with 90% A star / A, with the comp down the road getting 33%. (Sorry if I am missing the point, I feel like I am 😬)

Xenia, the 2020 results were part of the farce last year with the so-called "mutant algorithm". People on here have used 2019 data as that was the last year of "normal" public exams. Do you have the stats for that school from 2019?

Why? What proportion of kids got 10 or 11 9s in 2019? They don't need 10 or 11 9s to get into Oxbridge anyway.

Well Bryony simply because there's a lot of banging on about how outrageous it is for these kids from top top top indies who get strings of 9s and then can't bag their rightful places at Oxford or Cambridge.

So basically I'm just pointing out, with evidence from the topest of top schools, that even with the enormous advantage that these kids undeniably have, not nearly enough get straight top grades to make the claim that they are all exceptionally exceptional. The fact is that half of them or slightly less seem to be really fairly average for the selective sector, allowing weight for privilege. So fair do that they are losing out on Oxbridge places to those who are deemed to be intrinsically brighter with more raw intellectual potential.

Yes quite Malbecfan, that is exactly why I rowed back to 2019. Thank you :)

Mumoftwoinprimary in what way is the drive for diversity/ genuine potential 'grubby'? I'm very confused by your post. I wonder if you could please explain 'grubby'?

No academic is going to tank his or her career over a principle.

Actually, no academic is going to tank his or her career over a few undergraduate degree results to be honest. Certainly not a senior academic. And there is a huge grey area when it comes to admissions decisions. There a few clear cases at top, more clear cases at bottom, and then it becomes very difficult to choose. At that point "diversity" becomes a major factor for most academics these days. Both on principle and because those are the OFS targets.

“I was trying to be diverse” is not going to cut it

Actually I think it is.

Though thirds have almost completely disappeared.

@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.

Coincidentally getting into Eton for the academically mediocre got a lot more difficult after Harry left. Also the Oxbridge tide towards state had already started, so Eton figured that privilege was going to be more at a discount than in the past and if the were to maintain any of the Oxbridge success numbers, they needed to tighten up on academics and go down on the kids of the families that historically just sent kids there.

I still think Eton is a great school, so good that their entrance requirements are more egalitarian and less because daddy attended and grandpa too.

The graph @JohnSteinbeck posted shows the % from state & private admitted as a proportion of applications converging to be approximately even. What this shows is not a bias against privately educated applicants but merely a reduction in the previous bias against state pupils. The current ratios aren't quite yet fair, as this equal ratio point is only fair if two pupils of equal merit and potential, one at a state school and one at private, are equally likely to apply to oxbridge. I do not believe this will ever be the case, so a fair balance would show a slightly higher proportion of applications being successful from state schools than from private, as what should be expected if there is no bias whatsoever on the basis of the type of school attended and the system is successfully selecting those of best merit and potential without fear or favour to either sector.

Very very many more pupils get excellent A-level results than there are places at oxbridge. There will always be huge numbers of bright pupils who are disappointed. However, also remember that entrance to oxbridge is not some final outcome but the first chapter in a new endeavor. Not all members of a matriculating class into oxbridge are of equal merit. Some are destined to get respectable but fairly un-exceptional degrees and will go on to respectable but somewhat pedestrian careers. Others will be getting a first-class degree followed by an astonishingly ground-breaking PhD and a meteoric academic career. The colleges want to identify as many of those as possible in the latter category. Some of them will have shone out their potential since the age of 2 and may have won scholarships to highly selective private schools or been sent there by parents who felt the state sector couldn't adequately nurture such genius, others will have laid the foundations of their future success by struggling through against immense opposition and lack of support coming from a highly disadvantaged background. The admissions process has no desire to miss out on those who have that potential from either sector and so will be striving hard to seek for it without any preconceptions about where it might be found.

As a lot of other posters have pointed out OP, they can’t say ‘but we are best only because we take the top kids’. That will slaughter their brand.

@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.

But that will be incomplete information.

If two applications appear really similar to each other, making it hard to decide which one you should choose, the decision may well be based on the fact that one of the applicants achieved all of that going to a state school while the other went to a highly selective private.

Oxbridge aren’t doing this to promote social mobility. They must have the brightest if they are to keep their brand in the 21st century.

Trying to give everyone an equal chance is not penalising anyone.

This. Sadly, when any form of historic privilege is challenged, it's very common for the privileged classes to feel that they are being unfairly treated, when actually, it's simply the case that their unfair advantage is being removed. Their sense of entitlement is so deeply embedded in their view of the world that they aren't able to see the inherent injustice in the system, but their lack of awareness doesn't mean that the injustice isn't there.

Oxbridge aren’t doing this to promote social mobility.

Yes Oxbridge is doing exactly that, in large part.

@goodbyestranger

Oxbridge aren’t doing this to promote social mobility.

Yes Oxbridge is doing exactly that, in large part.

This is of course part of the branding. But I believe the motivation is to really do get the brightest in. If you level the ground, who do you think will likely be the brighter, more successful of the two in my example above?

I said in large part. I'm not clear why you think the two objectives are mutually exclusive.