State school kids do better at university

[clemetteattlee]

here

survey after survey shows that the greatest influence on a child's outcome is their parents.

statistically (not anecdotally), even in a 'bad' school, pupils with mc parents will do well. in a 'good' school, pupils with wc parents will do less well.

we all worry so much about the school, their teacher, the class etc BUT it is fairly unusual (though does happen) that a child is turned off learning for life because of a bad teacher, or the that the reverse happens.

as parents, we have the greatest influence - if we're hard working, career oriented etc then our children are likely to be.

even where children reject the values of their parents, they often retain the same ethos, e.g. children of career parents who choose an 'alternative' lifestyle, are as focused and perfectionist about that lifestyle as their parents were about their careers.

small classes & better resources can turn the mediocre into better achievers, hance private school can get high 'a' level results, BUT once that person is left to themselves, that influence diminishes considerably. those people who had to work hard to even have a teacher etc (as happens more in state than private schools) will continue to work hard & do well beyond school.

xenia i used to work in a very mixed state school & ran the debate club. i agree about the confidence of the private school pupils (we were the only state school who attended), and their accents were amazing, BUT they didn't all have the innate ability to work by themselves. Don't be fooled by appearances, the substance is more important & eventually will show through.

Kickassangel - very true, and many surveys also show that children of teachers perform extremely well academically, don't they?

I don;t think most schools do tell children they are future leaders in the private sectorl. I think the private schools use more red ink and tell people when they have lost a race etc - just the sorts of skills to help children compete later.

The thread is about state school pupils doing better in exams at university. I widened it to - so what if they then think an income of £30k is brilliant as their parents never earned more than £18k and their peer group are all leaving at 16 to be hair dressers?

More than half UK parents would pay fees if they could afford it, 6% manage it but that 6% do pretty well. The fact so many parents think paying fees for good schools is worth it indicates often it is worth it but of course if you pick a low paid career private school fees are pie in the sky so again like a lot of things on this capitalistic planet money talks

People choosing private school for their children is not actual proof that private schools are a good thing Xenia, it is proof that some parents think they are. Almost half of parents would not pay fees. What are your statistics for those of us who can afford it and choose not to?

PS I keep forgetting to add that a survey of another local girls' independent had 10% of the girls stating their ultimate ambition to be staying at home running a family. Nothing wrong with that, but it does bely your ill-founded assertion that private education gives people aspirations of corporate grandeur.

But look at any leaders in any field in the UK and most of them, male and female, went to privat schools. The proof of the pudding etc. Anyway it's a free country. We;re lucky. We can home school. We can choose fee paying schools, comps even state grammars in some areas.

You are just making up facts Xenia. Most MPs did not go to private school, Gordon Brown went to a comprehensive, almost half of the British Cabinet did not go to private school (and it is a Tory cabinet!).

Which fields do you mean because I am pretty sure that I can counter?

Xenia: The old chestnut about 'more than half of UK parents would pay fees if they could afford it' is a total red herring, as I've pointed out before on threads.

It's like asking someone who drives a two year old, perfectly functioning car if they'd prefer to have a spanking brand new car. Most people would answer 'yes', pretty much automatically. It doesn't mean their life will be better, or that they'll suddenly become instantly happier or more successful (or even that they will get from A to B faster!!)

Also, if you survey parents who already pay school fees, 99% are going to respond that they think it's worth it. Who in their right mind is going to say, 'Actually, it's a bloody shed load of money and we're not really convinced it's going to make a measurable difference'. People don't do that. If we purchase something, we justify that purchase to ourself, whether it's a new dress, mascara or schooling.

I don't know where you get this idea that state school pupils think 30k is 'brilliant'. Frankly it's quite weird. Surely it's more a case of looking at what career you will find interesting and stimulating, and going for that. Actually, given that one of my dc's had two friends in their tutor group whose parents are millionaires (state school) I really doubt that many of them think 'Wow! 30k! How amazing!!'

The whole basis of this thread really isn't that surprising. Most children are state educated. The state system contains very many bright children, who learn to be independent and self motivated, so it isn't surprising that they tend to achieve higher results at University level, where the ability to think creatively and independently is most pertinent. I guess maybe it just annoys some private school parents to know that?!

I was chatting to a course leader at Uni about this, mkainly in relation to a local school that whilst state is atypical and more reflective of privates especially when it comes to coaching

and in her particular experience, the failure of such well coached children not to be able to cope and keep up when at Uni.

I also sat through an open day lecture by a well known Uni where they happily said they prefer mature students becuase they get better degrees.

From both I can fathom two reasons:

1. the thing mentioned previously about being spoon fed or not;

and

1. The more you want it (and the further away it seems- from my experience as first graduate in family) the harder you will fight to get it

As for a state / private education surely it's what best suits each child?

DS3 would get no better education that the SNU based in a council estate primary campus where he is thriving wonderfully

DS2 would thrive I believe in an all boy environment especially one experienced in bright kids with dyslexia

DS1 is on the applicants list for a specialist LEA AS school but if we had the cash we would happily send him to a fee paying school

DS4 who knows? But if you are NT and bright the local primary is astonishingly good. Certainly better than the nearest private anyway.

I don't think I made it up that the privately educated 6% holdmore than 6% of leading roles in this country whether it's C of E bishops or on the boards of our plcs or cabinet posts or MPs (Blair and others). Go to the top of most institutions I was going to say except local authorities and the NHS But even there I may be wrong and those privately educated do much better.

As I said it's a free country. Those happy with state schools can enjoy that.

I remain of the view that privae school pupils are more confident and polished and better all round educated and do better post university and those who aren't.

You know Xenia, I would agree with that confidence thing.

Certainly something I see in BIL's friends (privately educated bunch) and indeed with a close friend and ehr sister whoa re similarly intelligent but the one who wanted a scholarship place qualified as a Barrister and now has a prestigious job 9and I will say no more as oyu probably know ehr LOL) and the other sibling, my friend, has a very good admin job at the council.

Neither have done badly in real terms but it was certainly teh confidence over anything else. Esp. with BIL who has a poor third class degree on resits yet a great job and huge house.

"better all round educated" - depends what you mean by that? (Good sentence construction btw, I'm assuming you went to a state school? ).

I don't think my salary is brilliant at all - I think it's shit, and it makes me absolutely bloody furious that stock brokers, bankers, CEOs, etc can command huge salaries for sometimes being pretty shit at their jobs. However, I have no interest whatsoever in doing any of those jobs - wouldn't be interested in the work, or working with some of the people there either. I'm hugely satisfied with my career choice.

Oh, and I would never ever ever ever teach in a private school because I would not want to teach children who were looking down their noses at my career choice and sneering at my salary.

Yes, I laughed at the 'better all round educated' phrase too! Not a great advertisement for private education is it?!

I don't agree with the confidence thing. I think a private school schooling can produce a veneer of self confidence, but genuine self belief is something different, and comes probably mainly from good quality parenting.

I stand by my belief that having parents who demonstrate a positive, healthy relationship with each other, and who value learning, is probably the single most important factor in determining a successful outcome for children.

Xenia, I don't think 30K is a brilliant wage, however I want to teach more than I wanted to earn a wage you would class as "brilliant".

Surely that is success, someone getting to do what they want to do.

Of course if I were paid more money that would be fantastic.

I could afford to pay fees, at the moment I choose not to. I have taught in a private school and never felt as if the children were peering down their noses at me. I do have thick skin though.

I don't know where she gets the idea that state educated people think 30k is a 'brilliant wage' either! I have never heard any young person, whether from state or private school say such a thing! I usually enjoy Xenia's posts but I really think she's losing the plot a bit on this one.

As for ex-private school pupils getting the 'top jobs' - again, I think this is a bit misleading, because you're talking about a very small number of elitist schools such as Eton. There are thousands of middle of the road, not particularly great, private schools where this isn't relevant at all. And frankly, there are probably so many downsides to having attended somewhere like Eton that it's difficult to aspire to any of the possible advantages!!

I went to a private school, have two degrees from Cambridge, worked in the City, and now choose to stay at home with my small children. I wonder what Xenia would make of my low expectations?

My husband, on the other hand, went to a rough comp, but also went to Cambridge (got a 1st) and is now a barrister.

We're choosing to state educate our children- for ideological reasons- although with me at home we couldn't afford to privately educate both of them anyway. I think the survey as reported is depressing. But a lot of private schools are like mine was- nothing actually that special- except they offer small class sizes and the teachers can keep an eye on making sure everyone is doing their homework etc. There were no great extra curricular opportunities; no debating; etc etc.

I think Xenia is right that a disproportionate number of jobs are help by pupils from some top public schools. By which I mean Eton, Westminster, Harrow, Ampleforth etc etc. But that's an old boy network at play- nothing about superior intelligence.

Exactly Fayrazzled. The old boy network is nothing to do with superior intelligence or ability, it's quite a different thing. It's pretty shocking that in the 21st century the old boy network still has any place, but tbh, as I said in my previous post, I suspect there are so many downsides to having had that narrow educational experience, that quite frankly, it's not something everyone aspires to. There are many members of the Cabinet, C of E Bishops etc who are utter knobs - where's the success factor in getting those roles if you expound ignorant ideas, or don't have a great deal of innate intelligence, or indeed, if you have a messed up and miserable personal life? Success is measured by more than just income or whether you went to a school where the old boy network is still alive and kicking.

£30k is a good wage here; DH's old job paying that in Bristol pays £15k here in Wales, management job, so it varies

Pretty good back home as well acttually but at least the house prices here tally, back home it was expensive because of retirement couples etc

Well they would say that wouldn't they. The research in question was paid for by The Sutton Trust, which 'supports projects that provide educational opportunities for young people from non-privileged backgrounds'.

While their published figures conclusively show independent school students performing better, "a statistical analysis was undertaken to control for a range of factors - including individual university studied, the geographical region of the university, the social background and ethnicity of students, and the degree subject studied - and then to compare the differences in outcomes between one student educated in an independent school and a similar one educated at a state school."

Which sounds like voodoo to me. No surprise given their goals that they came out with the conclusion they wanted, and that The Guardian then chose to write an article about it, ignoring the indisputable fact that independent school students perform better, but focusing instead on an essentially unverifiable claim that 'like-for-like' independent students do better.

So they do a report and get the results the sponsor wanted by fiddling with the raw data to get an entirely opposite conclusion, adding "In many ways this report provides further evidence for the importance of improving the enrolment onto degree courses of those students from non-privileged backgrounds in the first place", despite the fact that the only verifiable evidence they've provided shows that privileged students do better and are therefore being discriminated against.

Good point. It's a bit late to put things right at 18 anyway and it's not fair on univerisities to make them subject to any rigid rules. Obviously the BBBB candidate from a sink estate school where everone gets DDDD in A levels has always been given a good consideration by good uniersities and I doubt any independent parents would objet to that but institutionalising discrimination is very unfair if it goes further than that.

Saying if your parents went to university even against all the odds and even from a really bad comp you will have that held against you as is planned or if your parents went to a state grammar not a comp that will hold you back is just too unfair social engineering.

We are waiting for Lord Brown's views on future funding for universities whichmay change things futhter. There is much more unfairness than in my day when no one paid fees.

Xenia - your staggering generalisations about private schools are almost as daft as your staggering generalisations about the pointlessness of living anywhere other than London which I saw on another thread I was on the other day!
I went to the local comprehensive. My DH went to the local comprehensive. We are both very successful and highly paid lawyers - he a partner in a major firm and I am a barrister. I wouldn't want to be a teacher for £30k a year - but I know plenty of people who really want to be teachers (a very worthwhile profession), and the fact is, that is what teachers are paid. I think your comments are sneery and foolish. I can only assume that you live in some sort of London private school bubble where you think that anyone who lives a life different to yours is inferior, lacks ambition, and will amount to nothing. This is simply wrong, and if you actually worked in a leading profession (which I strongly suspect you don't) - you would find yourself surrounded by successful, articulate socially adept former state school pupils. My cousin (partner in magic circle law firm, educated at top London private school and Oxbridge), has just declined her daughter's spot at St Pauls for the next academic year precisely so that she doesn't grow up with the sort of ludicrous attitude you display. No doubt you think this means her daughter will amount to nothing and she is a bad parent!

Am going to tell DS2 theres no point being outside London for wok

'Course, he wants to be a naturalist an drun reserves like Skomer but heck lots of those in london, right?

Thing is, growing up in Somerset it did seem London offered more chances- how many bands, actors etc come from the sticks (Wurzels are Devon btw )

Reality s though that everywhere has pros and cons: yes we didn't have much theatre or easy access to the V&A but my career (I worked with rural poverty) and many others faired far better there than they might elsewhere. And absolutely if you want an Indie school where we are now (semi rural) offers a limited choice OTOH that''s a great deal linked to the fact that the state schools are so good nobody much bothers anyway.

Tis all swings and roundabout. Dh's careere would benefit from a move to London one day (theatres being a huge employer) but it wouldn't suit us; plenty of ways to work around things though and he'' be concentrating on another aspect of his trade / art (architectural design) instead (will mean some commutng but lots that can be done from home). C'est la vie.

EmmaKate Xenia does have a good career: indeed not far off of your own.

then she ought to know better than to make the comments that she did!

The report should have said 'private school kids do better at university'. Because they do. They get better degree grades, those are the facts shown by the report.

It's pointless to adjust for social background or whatever: if universities are aiming to admit the students who stand the best chance of getting good degrees, then they need to admit proportionately more private school students and fewer state school students.

Universities don't work on the basis of income or ethnicity or whatever other nonsense this report is based on, they just look at prospective students and decide whether they think they would do well. It's well known that universities will take lower grades for someone from Peckham High School than from Eton College, and this is justifiable if the results after 3 years show that (say) a BBB from Peckham High is as good as an AAA from Eton. But whatever formula they are using has clearly been weighted too much towards state school students, because they are getting worse degree results than the independent school students.

The very simple fact is they are admitting too many state and not enough private school students.

It might seem surprising that the report writers can get away with this sort of nonsense, but they can because it suits the biases of much the public sector and of The Guardian, and it will in future be used to shape public policy, people will say 'private school students have an unfair advantage', and cite this report, which has gone unchallenged because although it is nonsense, it is nonsense that affirms the prejudices of most of the report's consumers.

Of course had they come out with the opposite conclusion from the one they did, the report would have been ignored or a hatchet job prepared on its authors.

Things must have changed a great deal since I was at university redridinghoodie. I was one of only 2 people from a state background on my course.