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?

@goodbyestranger

Especially the ones banged up at boarding schools who can't do Saturday or evening jobs for money.

I remember it well and spent most of my time smoking, drinking, sneaking off site and generally getting up to mischief. Maybe that's what Bryony means.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've had both state and private 6th formers and the one at state absolutely coasted through doing the bare minimum without intervention. So it's perfectly possible to do if you are a lazy student. Of course my experience anecdotal and I don't have all the genius self motivated 4 x A star state students that seem commonplace on Mumsnet.

And if you think I'm going to list all the other things my privately educated kids were expected to do so that you can pull them apart you are mistaken!

At the end of the day I have said numerous times I have no axe to grind about Oxford as another poster says the greater acceptance rate probably correlates exactly with more applying which is a good thing.

And if you think I'm going to list all the other things my privately educated kids were expected to do so that you can pull them apart you are mistaken!

You can't come up with a single thing to back up your idea that the advantages of a private education are evened out by all the extra stuff that only privately educated sixth formers do?

a load of incredibly bright kids yes but many of these pupils at the top public schools have been educated to that level of attainment. They are not necessarily any brighter than some DC from less privileged backgrounds, simply more advantaged by dint of their parents' affluence and education purchasing power?

Surely being "educated to that level of attainment" is literally what schools do?

They may be very bright indeed if they pass entrance exams. There are lots of extremely bright academic teens at private schools of course in fact some siphon off the very bright ones from state by offering academic scholarships and bursaries. I'm sure noone intelligent would genuinely think there are no extremely bright kids at private school?

I am equally sure there are youngsters just as bright at state schools!

DS went to a state school, albeit one with a selective cohort. He has two of the 'top young scientists in the world to watch' at his school in recent years. They are already destined for great things and have won national and international prizes already!

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

I am equally sure there are youngsters just as bright at state schools!

Well of course!

Private schools are at the end of the day a business, and part of what they are ‘selling’ is access into places like Oxbridge.
It is ridiculous to suggest that children at private school are cleverer, money doesn’t mean you breed super humans.
Universities are subsidised by the government, of course they should fully reflect the nation that is paying for it. Not just who was able to pay for the best education.

It is ridiculous to suggest that children at private school are cleverer, money doesn’t mean you breed super humans

Who has said that private school children are cleverer?

If Oxbridge thought that private school teens were in any way LESS clever then they wouldn't admit any of them . Clearly they accept that plenty of private school students are more than clever enough for Oxbridge.

my personal opinion is that the private school kids are expected to do far more "other stuff" during their A levels so it evens out a bit in the end

On this point specifically (and not linking this to the Oxbridge admissions point, and whether it is fair or not etc), I think their is something in it.
From what I can see at my DS's private school, they spend an incredible amount of time on sports - at least 2 hours a day most days within lessons time, and then additional training sessions for specific teams etc alongside this. In addition to this, every child plays an instrument, with probably a quarter of the class on two - this is done outside the school time. If you add to this the fact there are a myriad of volunteering activities they are strongly encouraged to participate in, very professional school plays, etc....
Quite honestly, I look at some of these children/teenagers and think they are probably doing too much.
I am sure many in state schools are also doing a lot, but I have actually been surprised at how little the school (and this is a top academic school) focuses on the actual academics, vs the rest - to the extent that I would actually prefer it redressed the balance a bit.

@goodbyestranger

my personal opinion is that the private school kids are expected to do far more "other stuff" during their A levels so it evens out a bit in the end

Private school parents seem woefully ignorant about what the other half do. This statement illustrates that (and suggests a certain gullibility for the expensive marketing by indies).

This made me chuckle. I am state educated. DH was a private boarder. I honestly think for quite some time he thought my school was like a worse version of Grange Hill, despite us both ending up at the same RG uni, and me with better grades. When I told him that we had, shock horror, a school orchestra, and competitive sports clubs and Latin at A level, I think he was genuinely surprised. Oxbridge widening its pool and ensuring access by the genuinely brightest students, wherever they come from, is only a good thing as far as I can see.

Nevermakeit parents at incredibly expensive schools also pay vast sums for the schools to hand back the kids for very long school holidays, so that is another thing state school kids are cheating with of course: longer terms.

Oxbridge is also increasingly losing their grip on top U.K. private school students (by that I mean the ones which are at least as hard to get into as superselective grammars) because they are increasingly looking at the US and other worldwide top universities. Oxbridge increasingly seen as “geeky and boring” - obviously that isn’t the case. But it is spun that way in private schools. If the money leaves the country again it isn’t ideal. Sort of worked for the economy.

As against the longer terms, and slightly countering the point about independent kids doing so much more in terms of extra curricular, the state school kids in this house not only had paying jobs from Y9 through to Y13, they also spent an inordinate amount of time messing around on the local beach, going to pubs and clubs, watching tv and box sets, playing on the xbox etc. All extra curricular pursuits which took heaps of time away from formal education. They also did all of the other stuff mentioned with the exception of playing a musical instrument.

Sunnyfreezesushi well they need to make a virtue of necessity :) The independents are seething about the slightly cooler shoulder that Oxbridge is turning on their more mediocre pupils.

@goodbyestranger - well more mediocre private school kids shouldn’t really get into Oxbridge anyway- I am sure some mediocre kids do get in though with all the tutoring going on and no assessment is foolproof.

From my limited personal experience my friends with kids at state grammars push their kids far more than those at independents. Take Eton College - most parents don’t have much control over what their kids are doing term time anyway and it is a huge place and not exactly spoon fed, rather the opposite. Our local superselective is more exam and grade focussed.

The parents of Etonians just in this village have been far, far, far, far more intrusive with their sons' education than I ever was with my own DC at the superselective grammar. I was astonished at how involved they were, given the fact of boarding and the fees.

That said, plenty of parents at the grammar were indeed incredibly controlling and pushy. I was by no means the exception though. In each cohort I would say that there were about four sets of parents who were completely batshit about homework/ coursework/ GCSE and A level choices etc, and the rest were pretty evenly divided between relatively pushy and normal. Obviously the school knows very well who the batshit parents are and does its best to calm them down, but not often with success.

Haha - would be great to see a study on batshit pushy parents and how their DC fare in the long run. Entirely anecdotal, but all the super successful people I know were genuinely self driven and a bit obsessive with largely laid back parents.
Oxbridge genuinely look for a love and passion for a subject. Not sure you can be “pushed” into that by a parent.

Entirely anecdotal, but all the super successful people I know were genuinely self driven and a bit obsessive with largely laid back parents

I know absolutely nothing about my successful friends parenting types. Most of them went to private school then Oxbridge though. Not many huge successes from my state school but it wasn't a very good one. I ended up living and socialising almost purely with private school kids and internationl kids (i was at Cambridge) and most of them ended up being hugely successful some ridiculously so. Sadly despite a really good degree I was a minor success in a poorly paid profession!

It is too complex and mixed a picture to generalise. However in the very academic state grammars (super selective ones like Henrietta B) and the very academic private schools I think about 25% get to Oxbridge even from there. There are schools where most people who apply don't get in as they do not get a high enough mark in the exam at 11 in state and private school. So I think for state grammar that used to be thought of as the top brightest 20% so if a quarter of those in areas with grammars and academic privates go that is the top 5% I suppose.

I don't know about parents' interference. I thought one reason to pay fees is you can leave it to the school, n ferrying about for hobbies, sometimes homework club so they come home with only music practice left to do etc. So in a sense you pay not to have to bother to be involved in way state parents who are middle class have to be. IN a sense I paid so as not to have to be on any kind of PTA and that kind of thing. Even more so with boarding.

@Nevermakeit

my personal opinion is that the private school kids are expected to do far more "other stuff" during their A levels so it evens out a bit in the end

On this point specifically (and not linking this to the Oxbridge admissions point, and whether it is fair or not etc), I think their is something in it.
From what I can see at my DS's private school, they spend an incredible amount of time on sports - at least 2 hours a day most days within lessons time, and then additional training sessions for specific teams etc alongside this. In addition to this, every child plays an instrument, with probably a quarter of the class on two - this is done outside the school time. If you add to this the fact there are a myriad of volunteering activities they are strongly encouraged to participate in, very professional school plays, etc....
Quite honestly, I look at some of these children/teenagers and think they are probably doing too much.
I am sure many in state schools are also doing a lot, but I have actually been surprised at how little the school (and this is a top academic school) focuses on the actual academics, vs the rest - to the extent that I would actually prefer it redressed the balance a bit.

What other 'stuff'? In DC's comp the other stuff often consisted of term time jobs (my two had a supermarket and waitressing job respectively through sixth form, as well as doing a bit of music and loafing about like teens do).

@Bryonyshcmyony

There's no evidence that I've read, on this thread or anywhere else, that people's backgrounds are 'used against them'.

Well, to be fair, we also hear a lot about kids from failing schools who get AAA must be brighter and more self motivated than kids at cushy private schools who get AAA. I'm presuming that's true although my personal opinion is that the private school kids are expected to do far more "other stuff" during their A levels so it evens out a bit in the end

Again, what 'other stuff'? Most kids in my DC's comp had term time jobs to save for university. That's real world other stuff to juggle