State school kids do better at university

[clemetteattlee]

here

Because of the old boy network, maybe, Riven?

The headline isn't quite what it says: the research says that, of students from the same backgrounds, state school pupils are more likely to get better degrees.

"When the results of all undergraduates are considered, those from private schools are more likely to get a first or 2:1, with 68% doing so, compared with 64% of those from state schools. But when students from the same family backgrounds, studying the same subjects at the same universities were considered alongside each other, it was the former state school pupils who got better degrees."

Interesting though. I taught a number of students whose parents made a decision to NOT send them to the local independent for social and ideological reasons. These students have done well throughout school and university, and also inspired many of their peers to go to university (the first in their families).

This is news? I've seen studies like this before - basically the state school children learn how to learn effectively with less guidance, but the private school children are used to being spoon-fed.

"basically the state school children learn how to learn effectively with less guidance, but the private school children are used to being spoon-fed."

I don't consider that a good thing at all, the state school kids basically do well despite their education not because of it ?
What about all those state school children that were capable but not quite so disciplined or determined.

Well, university education isn't well suited to people expecting to be spoon-fed, so you might argue that if private schools do this, then they let their pupils down. It depends if you see receiving lots of guidance or spoonfeeding as a good thing in itself or not.

I do think that it's important that students learn to learn by themselves as it were, before uni. I'm really glad I went to FE college as it was all our responsibility IYSWIM (further maths was actually self-study as they didn't have enough teachers for us!), compared to my very good grammar school where they were on our backs all the time.

I had a year out due to MH problems before college and did a few GCSEs by studying by myself. I noticed a big difference between myself and other college students as I'd got used to being in charge of my own learning. same again with uni results so far, I'm managing an OU degree with my 2 kids, there's no way I could do it if I didn't have the previous experience of teaching myself.

If it were true, why do so many Labour politicians like Diane Abbott send their children to private school? Maybe they don't believe it, maybe they read the Telegraph rather than the Guardian.

Private schools are for bad parents who want to pay their way out of looking after their kids. Bulldoze the lot of them.

Perhaps people just buy into the myth that they are doing the very best for their child...

Diane Abbott etc send their children to independent schools to guarantee the top grades at A levels.

The major point is that getting a top grade at A level (and thus entry into 'top' universities) is not indicative of being particularly super intelligent. Those in the independent sector are able to learn in smaller classes with no disruptive pupils, able to re-take modules to get up to the higher grades, have parents who can afford private tutoring etc etc.

So there are many pupils from independent schools who are getting top grades who are not that bright. It is quite easy to buy examination result but you can't buy natural intelligence.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest (having two state educated DCs at top universities).

I used to teach at a Russell Group university that had a high proportion of students from private schools. My experience was that there were quite a number who came with excellent grades who were, to put it bluntly, not very clever. They had excellent exam and essay technique and had clearly received excellent drilling. But they had no gumption, no spark, no originality of thought.

The ones who did really well were generally those who came from state school.

That may be so Niminypiminy but the A level grades required by Russell Group universities are now so high they favour pupils who have had their education spoon fed to them.

There are plenty of students who receive higher grades in their A levels that don't go to private school.

The fact that those state school pupils who do get through to the RG unis, perform slightly better than their independently schooled peers, does not take away from the fact that there remains a disporortionately low number of state schooled kids there at all.

And, as Riven so rightly points out, a disproportionately low number in the best paid jobs in the country.

Agree about the grades. That's why I was really glad to move to a non-RG university (actually one that has no formal entrance requirement for degree level study at all). The students are just so much more interesting and frankly a joy to teach.

Well, the report is only about how state v private schooled pupils achieve at university.

It is not about how a disproportionate amount of pupils privately educated manage to get into the 'top' jobs after university.

I am afraid twas always thus.

A bit depressing though.

I think twas ever thus is a bit of a dangerous line, tbh. Implies we can't do anything about it. Actually social mobility has been going backwards since Thatch and is worse in this country than many comparable nations. We can do something about that, we just choose not to. (Well, I say 'we', obviously most of those in power don't give a toss as the current system serves them and their offspring very well.)

Doing well at university is only part of the equation. Getting the top jobs requires not only a good degree from one of the best universities but the right (old boy) network, the right social skills, confidence etc. It is in these things that a private education gives children the advantage. There's a huge amount of snobbery in this country and people in top jobs have to be seen to "fit in". Being the brightest isn't going to cut it if social skills or connections are lacking.

I agree, it's a bit depressing.

This private school children have no originality, independent thought line is as unoriginal as it gets. A lot of clever children go to independent schools and go on to do very well indeed at uni, they are not all spoonfed namby pambies. A lot of intelligent children go to state schools too and also do very well, but that goes without saying.

What's important is having caring, motivated parents who encourage you to go to uni in the first place.

I certainly don't have dull children and they went to schools like Habs, North London Collegiate etc which are very academic, very mixed and not posh and are day schools with loads of relatively poorish children there with all family money from the corner shop usd to buy the place etc.

My second daughter at university in tutorials said it was amazing how little the state school pupils said. For a start many were not confident. They seemed to have little experience of debating. Many said um and ah and like and didn't have very good English language skills and they just didn't seem to enjoy debates. They sat dumbly there.

Secondly my 3 are leaving university and I notice that people from privage schools seem to be better all rounders, accent better, confidence, better and most of all higher expectations. The state schoolers think being a teacher on £30k a year is a marvellous achievement or a secure £20k a year Government job is truly wonderous. So they may well have a good university degree but they aren't much good at doing anything decent with it.

Gosh, Xenia, when I was at university (admittedly a long time ago, I had no idea who went to state school and who had been educated privately. Do your children really sit around discussing their co-students in this way? I have to say, they sound very dull indeed.