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?

They do check. If you say you did your GCSEs at Bash Street rather than St Custard’s they’ll know.

Why?

Because your GCSEs are part of your application and weakly performing schools are flagged.

Exactly. If you think your privileged child is going to pull the wool over their eyes and game the system then you can think again.

Yes but why? Why is it a factor?

This is all news to me. Do they have similar discriminatory procedures for children with high IQs? LOL

If this really is the ‘system’, then yes I’d say game it.

This attitude is deeply offensive to state school students....it suggests as they go to state school they get an easier route to the top universities.

No they don't. My son went to a non selective state school and their TMUA support was a day off to revise before the test. He worked bloody hard to get amazing results, and his friend's dad's suggestion is he got into a top uni against over other students because he went to a state school is quite frankly insulting.

The truth is more kids from state schools are applying to the top unis so it is not such a preserve of private school kids. It is just more competitive now. Which surely is a good thing?

Appreciate this may not be your opinion and someone else suggested this route to you but it is patronising and belittles the hard work of all students.

Because it is well validated that it is harder to get good grades after poor preparation than after good preparation.

Sometimes this can be down to teachers not getting to teach because of spending so much time on classroom management. Some of it is the fact that the most promising job candidates prefer to teach in high performing and/or MC areas (often the same thing, but not always). Some of it is about classroom resources - a problem everywhere, but worse in poorer areas. Some of it is about family attitudes and pupil expectations. Etc

Both the factors leading to better GCSE outcomes and the factors leading to poorer GCSE outcomes tend to feed on themselves.

Exactly, I think this is just misunderstanding/some posters ideological wishful thinking. One of the few remaining good things the U.K. has its universities, I very much doubt they’d lower standards as some posters are describing.

Because a child who has been in a state school in an area of economic deprivation will have teachers who are not simply spending their time teaching their subject, they will also be trying to manage all of the significant pastoral issues that can come impact on the lives and school experiences of their kids. Some of their brightest most talented students will be living through that, some will not. These kids may also not have parents who are experienced in the system, or who helicopter, or who are simply able to devote time to actively support their kids (for whatever reason).

The result is clearly an incredibly unequal playing field. So, with two kids now in private school, I am 100% in favour of recognising that when you are trying to assess calibre and potential, A-level grades and supracurriculars alone are objectively going to be inaccurate. Does contextual offers solve the problem in a precise and always fair way? No. But it is inappropriate to have every child have to define their exact personal circumstances and so it is the best mechanism we currently have.

Because a smart kid attending a less than stellar school is likely to be of higher ability than a smart kid attending a brilliant one even if they get the same grades. Lots of reasons for this, including behaviour, standards of teaching, lack of contextual education and co-curricular activities, not thinking they're the sort of person a highly ranked university would want, that kind of thing.

After all, how smart is the kid who gets 8s and 9s whilst there are problems with discipline, bullying and aggression all the time with no specialist teachers (or even actual teachers at all) compared to one who has experts in every subject, a calm, safe environment with all the facilities they could ever need?

@poetryandwine - cross posted 😁 As always, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Social life is so important at sixth form I wouldn’t disrupt his friendship group on a gamble. In my experience the main benefit of independent schools is at 6th form. Longer hours can mean the equivalent of an extra day learning per week plus class sizes are smaller. Dc’s A level groups were 4-8 (maths was larger). They got a lot extra help with ucas form, opportunities to put on form were laid on / organised for you. They could do 4 full A levels if they wanted to keep options open. Art and dt classrooms open at lunchtime and after school to get coursework done. 1:1 language lessons with native speaker. Lots revision help. A lot of advantages over state. The most important thing is to get the grades. a good indep school will trade on the basis that they will add value and achieve higher grades at 18 than expected on the grades achieved at 16. There is also the soft skills more opportunities for speaking in class, presenting etc. my dc noticed at uni many high achieving state pupils were reluctant to speak in tutorials - they said there would be long silences when no one would speak. There is a confidence you get from being in a small class and having to actively participate for 2 years. They noticed this was the main difference between state and indi once they got to uni. I would say the advantage of state is that you have to put much more effort in yourself and that can mean you are better disciplined when it comes to independent study at uni.

the overwhelming majority of the state-school candidates who get oxbridge offers are from highly selective state schools

I don't think that's the case. There are more students at Oxbridge from non-selective state schools than from grammar schools. Unsurprising given that not all areas of the country even have grammar schools.

Ok. So why is it a factor for university entrance?

My dd1 had a contextual offer but only because her school for GCSEs was in special measures, dd2 attended a different state school, same area, and didn’t get a contextual offer. Unless you switch to a sink comprehensive (which I do not recommend!) you are too late for that, and btw my dd got 6 A’s and 6 a stars from aforementioned comprehensive so education wasn’t bag, it was the behaviour, absenteeism at 64%!! And shoddy management

Because otherwise, the universities miss out on some incredibly intelligent students because the crap they've already gone through makes it less likely they'll get through the application process.

Among that 15-18%, about 50% of grades earned are A or A but among the remainder of pupils, only 22% of grades awarded at at this standard so if you are selecting from the pool of candidates who are on track for 3 A-Levels at grade A or better, you would expect around 30-36% of those to be at independent schools.*

I’m not sure what point you are making here, but it seems to support my main point, which is that you stand a much better chance of getting to Oxbridge from a private school than you do from a state school. And therefore there is no point moving to state for sixth form.

There could be loads of factors. This is absurd, why bother with exams ? Just have a sad back story entrance criteria.

Is this a widespread thing?
No wonder this country keeps slipping year after year if we’re now hobbling university applicants, Absolutely crazy!

It depends where you live. Here the local state sixth form is one of the top in the country and we also have a top private school setting. Additionally, there's a minor public school. Lots of kids switch from the minor public school to the state setting. It's not just cost led. But it is a hothouse of stress that's not everyones cup of tea.

@Jeantheoldbeanwhy are you doing this faux ignorance routine? It’s very, very tedious and wastes time.

So skip the application process? Honestly, what are you talking about.

I didn't say grammar schools. Look at the data for which schools get students into oxbridge - they are mostly selective in one way or another - grammar is only one means of selection. Selection by house price is very common. Also selection by religious observance.

What are you talking about? Can you explain your objection to more able students from deprived backgrounds getting places at top universities in preference to less able students from privileged backgrounds?

We’re not comparing students who are predicted CCC with students predicted AAA here. We’re talking about students who are all predicted the top grades. How do universities distinguish between them?

Perhaps this will make it clearer:

Imagine two pupils. Both are predicted AAA and want to study economics at a top university. They both have similar levels of extra curricular and similar quality of personal statement. The university interviews both candidates and there is nothing between them. How do they choose?
Then it transpires that student A went to a top private school while student B went to a poor-performing state comprehensive, comes from a single parent family and receives pupil premium.

Who do you think has had a more difficult route to achieving these amazing results? Who has tried harder? The one with every form of scaffolding available or the one who has had none?

Is it fair that the standard they are held to is the same? Or should student B’s mitigating circumstances be taken into account?