Private schools 'handicapped by university targets'

[Sonatensatz]

Just read an article in the times commenting that new government targets for universities to take more pupils from state schools is putting those in private schools at a disadvantage, essentially because if their are two equal students the universities should prioritise the state schooled child with an addition that they should lower the grade boundaries for state schooled children. (sorry can't link it's behind the pay barrier)

The article got me thinking that surely the fairest way to select students for university would be to remove the requirement for them to put their school on the application form. Each student could be provided with a reference from their school or college on a standard form which didn't reveal the school on it. That way each pupil would be assessed on their merits and not on the type of school they went to.

Also if, as it seems part of the issue is the level of extra coaching private schooled children get to get them through the exams perhaps a scheme (supported by businesses or private schools as part of the requirement for them to benefit the wider community in order to gain charitable status) could be set up to identify the most talented disadvantaged youngsters from across the country and provide them with bursaries to access extra tuition.

What do others think?

No flatpack - I am advocating fairness. I'm
not suggesting that universities lower their entry requirements for state school pupils I'm just suggesting that all things being equal they favour the state school pupil as the privately educated kid has already had an advantage. I'm also talking about average state school pupils not pupils of Dr Challoners Grammar school or the offspring of the Milibands.

I gave my own example which was in part a failure of the school that I went to. My school was not typical of the average comp it was an appalling dump that should have been condemned years before it actually was. Thankfully state schools have moved on since then. The contrast between my 19 year old self and my colleague was not just due to the education that we received but also our background. My friend grew up surrounded by books and went to the theatre etc her parents were successful people . My background was completely different and I didn't reach my level until much later.

Anyhow I didn't even apply to university but if I had I would have compared unfavourably to someone from a privileged background despite having potential to excel.

I have to admit one of the reasons I am against lower grades for state school and more mentoring in schools is that I think it would go against state-educated kids. Uni can be a shallow place and they could be looked down on because they could be perceived to be lower level to the private school kids that had to get the higher results.

Also when I see a work applicant with a good degree from a really bad state school, it increases my perception of how that person will have worked and lifted them out of their normal surroundings. Whilst this could also be criticised for bias I look more to kids from rough inner city comps who go to Oxbridge (my old colleague's son has just gone from a very working class family - first generation to uni) and I am already impressed by the kid before I meet him. His parents left school at 16 but his mother did A Levels at night school and I respected her more for that than had she done them at sixth form.

Everyone has to get 3 As whatever school they attend, and we never make a lower offer. Once in my 14 years we took someone who had missed one of the As, but we really regretted it. :(

Totally disagree that we need to know a child's background. They are NOT children at 18, and it's none of our BUSINESS. I repeat that virtually no Oxford academics are Etonians and none of us can afford Eton either. We're on the other side of the class divide these days.

Let's face it there are two current Government ministers who have done the same degree at Oxford, one went to Eton (heavily moaned about for being elitist, one from an inner-city Birmingham comp. Just on those aspects - it is hard not to think well-done to the Brummie and 'you don't know us' about the Etonian. We don't know what class degree they had, one could have been a first, the other a third but the point is one is more easily accepted than the other. Therefore I do think in later life sometimes it pays to have done well from a comp than a private school, although no doubt I will be shot down for this.

I don't agree with this happening. Mine don't go to private school. TBH i don't think all the teaching in private schools is that wonderful.

In my the major academic indie schools, increasingly those with the most glittering results are opting for US universities, anyway, so if Oxbridge don't want them they'll go elsewhere, leaving Oxbridge for those that are happy to be selected on social engineering rather than academic grounds. ( I heard today Oxford is slipping down the global rankings). Little Englanders seem to forget that we are in a global market now, and the more swithed on ones will wiegh up all options, not just hose wallowign in past glory.

I wish them luck with those student fees. You are right though about international fees and I would certainly encourage mine to go abroad. I could not help them if they went to the US though but Europe is worth considering and would give kids an edge with the language as well. Certainly mine will get uni in Sweden free due to their father and some of the universities there do English courses and are higher than many UK unis. I just know DS is going to want to go to Aus and DD to the US though and DD is on her own with a student loan on that one. I need to retire at some point!

MrsSalvo, that is untrue. Oxford is second in the latest rankings. The piece in the Daily Hate to which you allude was about the decline of other UK unis.

And we don't do social engineering; where is your evidence that we do? Bristol does, and is proud of it...

Our local comprehensive had never sent anyone to Oxbridge. A new headmaster was appointed 5 years ago. He had been at Oxford. The school has now sent 11 young people to Oxbridge. It's no coincidence - he just made teachers and pupils aim high.
Most of the staff had been at respected universities but were, in his words, "in awe of Oxbridge". Most of the parents thought Oxbridge "wasn't for people like us". He put them straight.
He recruited as many graduates as he could get from Teach First.
The man's even more brilliant with "lower ability" children.

I don't know how I feel about this. I have children in both state and private. My private Dcs there on a scholarship with bursary and very small top up from family (Private school fees are higher than our take home pay) so they're not really advantaged in any other way.
We encourage them all equally and try to help them make the best of themselves but I would struggle to coach them on the practicalities of university entry as I never went myself.
Not sure I feel my Dc should be penalised for being in the position they are.

sieglinde thanks for your reply. I can see why students are put off applying from some state schools when it's very rare to get 3 top grades in academic subjects.

A friend of a friend of a friend missed her offer and rumor had it was going to be let in a B grade.

whistlestopcafe

No flatpack - I am advocating fairness.

You keep calling what you're doing fairness, but it isn't. It. Isn't.

I'm not suggesting that universities lower their entry requirements for state school pupils I'm just suggesting that all things being equal they favour the state school pupil as the privately educated kid has already had an advantage.

'Already had an advantage'? You are saying that it doesn't matter how hard someone has worked, all that matters is where they went to school. Your policy would explicitly punish privately educated pupils - and grammar school pupils, it seems.

I'm also talking about average state school pupils not pupils of Dr Challoners Grammar school or the offspring of the Milibands.

How would this policy even work? Would you pick and choose state schools on the basis of a particular quota system? So grammar schools would be penalised. What about comprehensives? What about places like Holland Park comprehensive, whose nickname is 'The Socialist Eton'? That's a comp, but its catchment area is - ahem - somewhat exclusive. What does an average state school even look like?

I gave my own example which was in part a failure of the school that I went to. My school was not typical of the average comp it was an appalling dump that should have been condemned years before it actually was. Thankfully state schools have moved on since then. The contrast between my 19 year old self and my colleague was not just due to the education that we received but also our background. My friend grew up surrounded by books and went to the theatre etc her parents were successful people . My background was completely different and I didn't reach my level until much later.

Anyhow I didn't even apply to university but if I had I would have compared unfavourably to someone from a privileged background despite having potential to excel.

You were failed by the state system. And instead of doing what needs to be done, your solution is not to push the state system to meet the standards of the private and grammar system, but to punish the private system.

This is really about you. You're using the guise of 'fairness' to deal with your own feelings of inadequacy and projecting them on to the education system.

I really think you need to look long and hard at your use of the word 'fair'. There is nothing fair about what you're doing. Yes, you're giving person A a place at university over person B. Person A might not have gone to that university otherwise.

The real message you're sending out is "What really matters is how the government perceives your social status. We have this form which decides where you can go to university." You are demonising the concept of working hard to achieve something. Think about the consequences of that. You are reinforcing the failure and the lack of aspiration already endemic within large chunks of the state education system.

whistlestopcafe

A final thought before I go to work. When you bring in your new rules, what do you think the consequences will be? Who will be the real winners?

I'll tell you. The real winners will be the aspirational middle class parents. What they'll do is pull their kids out of the local grammar or private school for sixth form and send them to the worst comp in the catchment area. And they'll have their kids tutored in their spare time to ensure they get the grades they need. Because, helpfully, your new system has just freed up a whole heap of cash for them by making it cheaper for them to hire a tutor and send their kids to the state comp.

The people you want to help with your 'fairness' won't get a look-in.

We need the best students at the best unis. Rather than dumbing down grades I feel we need to be more creative on how we help the high fliers of the state sector achieve their potential. By potential I don't necessarily mean going to to Oxbridge, but having decent careers advice, the option of studying three seperate sciences at GCSE or doing two modern languages and access to decent subjects at A-level.

Prehaps we need a gifted and talented programme at sixth form level with a meanful level of funding in deprived areas. Coursea offers fanastic online learning opportunities for the more able.

There is no excuse for not reading about your subject when there is so much on line. I am sure that tutors expect an insatiable enthusiasm for learning to be demonstrated, even at the lesser unis.

I'm not convinced we'll ever get the best and brightest into the most selective, because way before sixth form, probably way before GCSEs the die are being cast. Talent and brains are wasted long before.

Can education be the cure all for social inequality? I used to think so. I bought into Blair's education x 3 policy. But it didn't work. A record amount of money was spent on education. Great minds put there...great minds to it. The will was most definitely there...

Yet social mobility plummeted.

Hugely disappointing.

flatpack, I really can't see why my view is annoying you so much.

If I was suggesting that there were different entry requirements then I could see your point of view but I'm not, I'm just suggesting that all things being equal it would be fair to consider the state school pupil above the private school pupil.

Pupil A (Alex) Alex educated at Haberdashers (well regarded private school) 2 A 1 A at A level. Mixture of A and As at GCSE. Excellent reference and performs well at interview.

Pupil B (Ben) Ben is educated at Harefield Academy (state) similar grades to Alex also performs well at interview and like Alex shows potential.

You are the University admissions tutor. Who do you select and why?

Alex has been educated at one of the top independent schools in the country, there is a culture of achievement in the school. Virtually everyone succeeds and the children will come from privileged backgrounds and been afforded more opportunities than the average child.

Ben goes to an academy in a demographically mixed area on the outskirts of west London. 40% of children achieve 5 or more good GCSEs. The school is improving with good leadership and dedicated staff. The school is non selective and has a higher than average number of children who qualify for school meals and a higher number of children with SEN. Harefield Academy will not have been able to provide it's pupils with the same cultural enrichment as Haberdashers, not many children for example can afford the 2 week cultural excursion to Italy and the majority of children will not have had their learning supplemented at home with trips to the theatre etc.

I select Ben for obvious reasons. If that makes me a class warrior or gives me a chip on my shoulder then so be it.

Who do you select Flatpack and why?

I think you make a very relevant point flat pack. But that seems to be what goes in 2012 using the guise of 'fairness' to grind your own agenda when you feel life didn't quite turn out the way you wanted it to.

make it rotten for some kids because their parents may have worked hard and scrimped and saved to send their dc to private school. maybe they go without other things that people not paying school fees have.

or maybe the grandparents pay the school fees and the parents are not well off. it has all become very silly.

wordfactory, I think everyone here is really committed to making things work better. You are right that the die is often cast before we at Oxford even see a kid, but on the other hand we also try hard to look beyond polish to discern a hunger to learn, and I have been lucky enough to find this in applicants from all over the place.

The problem is that it is indeed unusual to get 3 top grades in the state sector - though grovel's story does give a good deal of hope! - but we are trying to find the unusual. In the old days of the entrance exam, independent schools benefited even more because they coached for it. So that was no good. Clearly, the state system needs to put in the hours/resources/monies for the able top end just as it does for the less able lower end. If we were to start taking people with Bs, the result would be misery - you NEED to be a high flyer to make much of the course.

anyway whistle isn't Harefield academy ok. I know of someone who has just got a 2:1 in a difficult subject who was placed there. His parents were not happy him going there.

also not everyone who goes to Haberdashers is from a priveleged background. I know some quite ordinary people who went there.

many of you are talking about schemes that help high flyers or kids with the poorest parents at state schools. Don't forget about the kids that are (or could be) in the top 20% who probably would have gone to a grammar in the old days and then onto uni. these may not be classified as high flyers or have really poor parents but many are currently being let down by the state system (i have one myself). Many of these kids are brighter than better qualified kids who went to private schools and who've been spoonfed.

Help with personal statements is one example. oldest son (grammar school) had his reviewed and improved by 2 different teachers; middle son's class (comp) were just told to write about themselves - that was it - no reviews, no tips.

something needs to be done to make it a fairer playing field so all bright children have access to degrees. if the only way that can be done is varying the grades a bit then so be it.

Sieglinde - why the reference to the 'daily hate' - whatever that might be?There was a guy on radio 4 yesterday representing Oxford - admitting it had slipped, whining saying that it was not because Oxford had deteriorated, but that other countries are 'funding' their universities better . Of course Oxford still has a strong brand, and will continue to attract those for whom that has cachet, but the 'brightest and best' now have many more optios, and are better informed to make decisions based on the course and the research, not on sentiment. if my own DC choose to go to Oxford, I wouldn't stop them but would just ensure that the decision they are taking is founded on rational assessment, rather than 'dreams'

I think Harefield is ok Almeci although it never used to be. I was just trying to think
of somewhere fairly average. I'm sure there are pupils at Haberdashers that aren't fabulously rich but they are still more privileged than the average state school pupil.

If private education doesn't provide children with an advantage as lots of people on here seem to suggest why bother paying for it? If that's the case you may as well use the money to gamble on a horse.

The only list I know of that was published yesterday is the THE list. On which we are second. The only list I know of on which we had slipped one place is the World Universities Ranking. All UK unis are down on the Shanghai list. The Daily Hate is mumsnetspeak for the Daily Mail.

Yes, spin guys will be spin guys .

I'm wondering if those rushing eagerly off to the Ivies are really the brightest? What's the evidence for that? My own DS is 18, and his brightest friends are all applying for Oxford and Cambridge. A slightly less able boy was approached by Yale because he is a champion rower :). Nobody last year or the year before rejected their Oxford place to go off to Harvard instead.

If they are all heading for the Ivies, they may be surprised; undergraduate classes are far bigger - 18 is considered small.

Sorry I don't see a problem with private kids being at a disadvantage at all as if parents are really bothered they can just pull their dc out of their private school with tiny classes,extra facilities,zero social issues etc and put them in the local comp with huge classes and all that comes with a mixed collection of children.Easy peasy.

But of course they won't as obviously said private kids will find it far easier to get better grades at a private school for the privileged.

Sooooo instead of having everything handed on a plate private kids are experiencing disadvantages and we're expected to feel sorry for them.Sorry it's life,we all have to face disadvantages at some point in life.

Perhaps said privately educated kids need to work just that bit harder to get even better grades.Comp kids have to move mountains to get into a top uni why not private kids?

I think it used to be John Penrose. I do take your point Whistle but even if the DC didn't go private then the parents may pay for a tutor and still ensure their offspring got good grades at a comprehensive school.

Of course private education is advantageous. I think it is more than good grades.