Is it worth switching from independent to state for A level if applying for a highly competitive subject?

[rougheredges]

DS is in yr 10 in an independent school. He’s really happy there- we’re pleased with the academics and he’s got a lovely group of friends. He’s currently predicted grade 8/9 in 9 of his GCSEs (and a 7 in DT which he’s doing because he loves if!) He’s managing this pretty effortlessly.

Currently he’s thinking he’d like to study Economics at one of the tougher universities to get an offer from. He knows he’ll need lots of extra/ super curriculars as well, but his friend’s dad told him today that he might find it harder applying from an independent school. Apparently there’s less wiggle room and the bar is higher.

I’ve looked online and there’s a lot of conflicting information. Most of what’s out there seems to refer to contextual offers which isn’t relevant. I’ve read that it does matter/ it doesn’t matter/ they take where you did GCSEs into account so it’s too late/ they prioritise state schools/ it’s all about grades and PS.

I fear the answer may lie somewhere in the middle of all that but is there anyone who could give more guidance? His current school are keen to keep him (he’s currently an academic scholar with a princely 5% bursary!) so I’m not convinced they’d give unbiased advice.

(Local state school is great. He’d have gone there but it’s C of E and we didn’t qualify being disorganised atheists who figured it out too late. They remove the church attendance requirement at A level.)

Does anyone have any info?

Not all schools put where students are placed in the year ? Unis use data from the government as to what the average is at each school and benchmark against this. This doesn't always work with private schools as not all publish their results (& iGCSEs are not used in the data).
For most students the same grades are required whether you go to Eton or bog comp.

It would be better if we had more money (I'm a state teacher 😂). But you are never going to able to fund state as well as some private schools (that cost £30k a year). Realistically most kids who are hoping to go to Uni will do well in state and likely get similar grades as if they'd gone private - because schools know how to get the best out of them. Richer parents can pay for tutoring but many schools offer extra for free to their FSM/PP students (ours get to go in free revision days at a v v posh school).

SEN funding is a whole other bear pit of disadvantage.

My School used to relax admissions requirements for Overseas students, as the large majority of British universities, even excellent ones, still do. And I have historically had a disproportionate number if Overseas students, perhaps because I am an immigrant. (Not a complaint!)

Although our Overseas cohort in general also has equal outcomes to Home students, with knowledge of my tutees’ backgrounds I assure you that those with (noncontextual) weaker A levels generally struggle, and have weaker outcomes.

My School used to relax admissions requirements for Overseas students…

@poetryandwine in what way did they relax admissions requirements for overseas students?
Also, presumably the majority of overseas students studying at UK universities must come from well off backgrounds as their fees are higher.
Do universities ever make contextual offers to overseas students from disadvantaged backgrounds and waive the fees?

University of Greenwich does rather well for employability, student satisfaction, student support... I find it hard to encourage students to apply there because parents haven't heard of it, however.

And if the odd rich kid slips through then I think that's a small price to pay to help young carers/LAC etc.
@mumsneedwine yes it’s good that young carers and LAC are being helped.
However, if the young carer gets a place, does the local authority provide a carer in his/her absence?

“Not all schools put where students are placed in the year ? Unis use data from the government as to what the average is at each school and benchmark against this.”

I think @mumsneedwine this may be the oddity of some of the highly selective state sixth forms in London sending a lot of kids to Oxbridge. Because they have to justify why they predicted 30 or more kids (sometimes 70!) all A stars so they have to refer to all their data and historic cohort and rank them etc. And convince that it is a fair A star prediction for FM candidate No 30 at King’s Maths School type thinking. And the majority of them do not overpredict, if anything, it is underpredict.
So the oddity is if you come in with all 9s whether on context or not (eg London Academy of Excellence) you could have gone anywhere else and been that school’s celebrated one in a lifetime Oxbridge candidate, you are actually properly gifted, but you suddenly find you are just another data point in that cohort. And next year it gets even worse because there were now 70 who got in, so next year literally everyone is all 9s and the top of the top and the whole thing starts again. At least, that is my basic understanding of it all.

If we assume Astar is 90%+, a student hitting 95% in mocks is an undeniable candidate for an Astar prediction. Institutional factors like peer effects or school reputation really only come into play for borderline cases, such as those in the 89–91% range.
It can go either way in those instances. At a school like King’s Maths School, teachers might nudge an 89% upward based on sheer potential, or conversely, stay cautious with a 91% student to avoid the pressure of over-prediction. While these institutional dynamics are relevant, they are ultimately second-order effects. A student’s raw ability and the tangible resources provided by the school are of first-order importance in university admissions.

Yes.

Almost all UG STEM programmes run at a loss, minimised by the enrolment of Overseas students. Each university, indeed each degree programme, sets its own Overseas tuition fees.

I am not aware of any university that publishes differential entry requirements for Overseas students (though I would not bet against the possibility that some advertise lower requirements to their Overseas agents). However in practice only a very few universities, and select degree programmes or Schools at others, show no flex to Overseas students who miss their offers. This is true even when there is no flex for Home students.

When times were relatively good, this was about maximising tuition income and I found it hard to defend. Now it is a survival tactic. Not philosophically palatable until you consider the alternatives, which are all worse.

No, I am not aware of any system of contextual offers for Overseas students. Nor financial aid - students who come here can almost always be educated more economically in their home countries. They come to the UK because their families are looking for added value.

Many degree programmes routinely offer smallish merit scholarships to Overseas students, both individual and cohort. We do this. But it doesn’t make a huge dent in the fees.

@poetryandwine
Thank you for taking the trouble to write a detailed reply.
One more question and then I’ll shut up:

British public schools are very popular with Asian families but their families definitely live overseas (though quite a few have London properties). Although the children were educated privately in UK but have overseas addresses, are they regarded as overseas applicants?

Depends. Each Uni looks at of differently. I've seen kids get 3 home and 1 overseas offer.

Thanks for answering while I cooked, @mumsneedwine . I agree.

There is guidance on this. Some of it is clear but there is some ambiguity and some room for university judgment. It happens in reverse when British families move overseas. Sometimes the DC remain eligible for Home fees, but not always.

I am glad you are interested, @38thparallel . We need British voters to have a better understanding of what is happening in HE so they can (preferably) affect or (at minimum) understand the difficult choices that are coming.

Home student means something like studying in the UK for at least 3 years without student visa.

And I’ve seen uni assess as home and SLC as overseas.

Same criteria for home/overseas, but SLC’s investigation is stricter.

@poetryandwine - is anyone in HE concerned about Germany poaching the high fee paying Asian students or do they actually attract a completely different demographic of Asian student?
I really cannot get over the fact that my DC could go study for virtually zero tuition in several EU countries, yet here we are as Brits paying extortionate marginal tax rates plus our DC 9% extra for much of their lives for the foreseeable future for uni debt, yet it is still not enough to keep unis actually whole. None of it makes any sense.

Three years’ tuition at Oxford costs about the same as one year at an average London private school. To me, that’s a real bargain. There is nothing to complain about.

I don’t think Germany will poach many high‑paying non-EU.students at all.
The UK is English‑speaking, and UK universities rank much higher globally than German ones, especially for courses taught in English. Compared with top 50 US universities, UK universities still have a clear price advantage for international students.

If you still think UK university fees are too high, even after enjoying free primary and grammar school education in the UK( I believe as a taxpayer you’ve already benefited greatly from free schooling), you can always send your DC to top German or French universities for almost free higher education instead.

The thing I like about UK university fees is that Oxbridge charge the same tuition fee as low-ranking universities. Whether it's ranked number one or ranked one hundred plus, it doesn't matter.
This kind of equality is stunning, especially compared with the huge fee gaps between top and low-ranking universities, as well as between private and state universities in the US.
From this perspective, it really is a subsidy for talented and high-achieving students.

plus our DC 9% extra for much of their lives for the foreseeable future for uni debt @Araminta1003

I think “9%” sounds scarier than it actually is. In reality, if your DC is earning around an average London salary, they’d be paying roughly £100 a month. If they earn less, they pay less, it just scales with income. It’s not like a normal loan hanging over them.

My DD borrowed £58,000. She will repay over £250,000. It's a lot of money every month that could go towards a house deposit. Not sure this is fair. Especially as kids with rich parents will repay nothing.

To actually pay back £250k, your daughter would need to be earning an average of nearly £100k a year for 40 years straight. If she’s making that much, the 9% contribution is a small price for that level of success. If she earns less, the debt is wiped clean after 40 years anyway. For example if she only earns the average London salary, she won't even pay back the 58K of the original loan.
People see the '£250k' figure and panic, forgetting the inflation rate. Keep in mind that you're comparing 2026 debt with 2066 money. It's like looking at £58,000 in 1986—back then, that could buy you TWO houses outright! In 40 years' time, £250,000 will likely have the same modest purchasing power.

I suppose that Germany, like other countries with minimal tuition fees, supports its (excellent) university system through taxation.

The UK used to do it. Scotland still does. I was not living here when tuition fees came in. What was the rationale?

Germany is a significant, but not huge, destination for Asian students. The UK is the top destination, followed by America and Australia - I am not sure in which order. Being educated in English, and in an Anglo culture, is a big draw.

In America, the dichotomy for public university fees concerns the question of whether you reside in-state (eg for The University of Virginia, are you a resident of Virgina?) Everyone from out of state pays the same higher rate of tuition fees. Private universities each have a flat tuition fee rate. Thus there is no category of ‘Overseas’ tuition fees. Australian Overseas tuition fees are lower than ours, topping out near the mid range of ours.

My husband teaches at a "post 1992" University. He told me that when the current fee system came in there was serious discussion of whether they should position themselves as a "budget" institution but they didn't want students and parents to make value judgements regarding the quality of the education.

Any economist could have predicted that if you set a price cap in an oligopoly situation, prices (fees) will cluster around the cap and you will get non price competition instead. Which is exactly what happened.

One could equally argue the flat fees are exploitative of students who go to the less elite institutions.

I think when it comes to international fees, there’s a massive gap between the top unis and the lower-ranked ones, which reflects their real market value and supply and demand. I guess the post 1992 uni you mentioned charges roughly half what the top ones do.
And since the cap for home student fees is way lower than even the cheapest international fees（close to true free market price), all the unis just stick to that cap.