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?

Nick my best friend in the 80s was Oxbridge material,always was.She seriously stood heads above every pupil in every way at my crappy comp.Everybody assumed she'd get in and she didn't.I think she had a rough time too.Twas very disheartening for all.

This thread is getting silly now so I think I will leave it here.

If parents think that they are disadvantaging their children by paying for private education and having less disposable cash than state school pupils, the question that springs to mind is why?

I can only assume that it is because they have been taken in by the manicured topiary gardens either that or they don't want their children to mix with the riff raff.

It really is quite amusing that people cannot accept that private education gives their children an advantage over state school children.

whistlestopcafe

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

Because you keep referring to it as 'fair' when it is anything but. It is a moral judgement but it isn't 'fair'.

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.

See? What's "fair" about choosing the state school pupil here? Why is it 'fair'?

Answer - it isn't. You're penalising 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.

I don't care whether you're a class warrior or a crazed nazi. What I care about is your relentless abuse of the word 'fair' to describe the caste system you're trying to create.

Who do you select Flatpack and why?

If they really were completely equal? I'd find room for them both.

Bonsoir - are there any comprehensive schools in Kent? I thought Kent operated a Grammar/High School system.

The vast majority of parents in state school have no disposable income? What, none at all?

Seriously?

Where are you getting that from, because I don't believe that to be true at all. It's certainly not my experience, or the experience of the vast majority of people living in my area.

Either way, the point is that there are too many variables that need to be taken into consideration when choosing between two students with identical grades, and it is too simplistic and inaccurate to automatically believe that the best student will be the one from the comp. And that's what we want right? The best student? Universities aren't charities for the disadvantaged.

I've had some brilliant students from Northern comps - and Southern comps, too.

But I agree about the shit advice some kids get, and it makes my blood BOIL. It's an absolutely criminal waste.

What can we do that we're not already doing?

How about mandatory training for one teacher per school in university admissions, including a shadowing scheme with an admissions tutor? This should be run by and from the universities.

I think it would also help if we had groups of subject tutors coming to universities for refresher programmes - most colleges have a visiting schoolteacher programme, but that could be extended a LOT. So too could the Sutton Trust's summer residence schemes.

Subject heads should be in regular touch with what is going on in first year uni courses in their discipline.

Finally, the government needs to commit RESOURCES to bringing the top 10% of the state sector up to scratch with what the private schools offer academically. This could be in partnership with private schools and indeed with the universities, and it needs to involve the kids' parents if they want to be involved. Everyone needs more HOPE and more support.

Utterly impressionistic and maybe valueless - my sense is that many state school kids are reluctant to try for an elite uni because of the risk of failure - if the world hasn't given you all that much self-esteem, why risk it? Private school kids are more willing to try and fail, often more than once. It's the private school kids who email me and ask if they should try again next year, or write to ask for feedback. More power to them, because they HAVE more power/confidence. The state school kids just feel their low sense of self has been confirmed.

I once very reluctantly turned down a very able girl who was Access, and I wrote to her to tell her to try again (it was just a ridiculously good year). She wrote back and said it had never occurred other even to think of it. She did try again and got in 2nd time round. By contrast, I know of half-a-dozen Westminster boys trying again this year.

Sieglinde - hmm It's about being able to afford to try again, gap years, especially in this climate, are costly.

Sieg interesting post and heartening to see you care.

The whole Ben v Alex thing is ridiculous because it assumes that Alex is at a particularly well regarded independent school and that Ben's school has a high number of children on FSM and with SEN and that it is in a deprived area.

When the reality is that Alex could be at a very mediocre private school that is non selective and basically caters for the non academic children middle income parents who just want to avoid their children going to the sink comp they have been allocated. And Bens school could be an oversubscribed comp where people have to live in properties that are worth over £350,000 and much much more to be able to secure a place.

Can't you see that minor flaw in your argument that actually makes what you think is fair, not fair at all?

I think Oxbridge should operate an interviewed once and you are out policy.

LittleFrieda

Bonsoir - are there any comprehensive schools in Kent? I thought Kent operated a Grammar/High School system.

There are plenty of comprehensives in Kent.

seig I think you observation might be right.

I know oodles of privately educated students who give it a whirl. Why not? They certainly don't worry if they're unsuccessful. Off they pop to Exeter or Ivy or wherever. Or they reapply.

Fear of failure is s huge drawback in life.

And they're encouraged to do so by school. Whereas no one (apart from me) has ever even suggested it to my niece who is predicted stellar grades.

Why, Little Frieda? Don't think this would help much. Often applicants find later interviews easier to cope with - it probably gives the shy a better chance.

Agree about the price of gap years, though no reason not to get a job straight from school and do or redo an A-level at the local FE or 6th form college.

and prarie, I do bloody care, a lot.... Thanks for seeing that. Let me know if I can help more. That goes for any of you...

There is no doubt that the educational system between state and the best private schools is unequal. As a comprehensive school girl with 2 DC at very good public school I can see that their educational experience bears no relation at all to mine. BUT it is impossible to say that my DS2, who is on an academic scholarship might be less good than any child from a different state school. After all, he passed the scholarship test to get in there in the first place!

FWIW I dont really care if you put my children at a disadvantage in UK university admissions. I am far more interested in getting them the best education I can. If the best UK universities dont want them because of governement policy, then I will send them somewhere else in the world. Ultimately they will just become part of the brain drain from the UK.

We need to improve access to great secondary education for all really bright children, not paper over the cracks by fiddling with university admissions criteria.

LittleFrieda - yes, there are comprehensives. I think there is every sort of school known to the United Kingdom in Kent, actually!

Sieglinde - Well of course interviews second time round will be easier to cope with, familiarity with the whole process will also be hugey advantageous. So it's actually a policy that favours those who can afford gap years, ie mostly independent school kids.

Bonsoir - Ha, yes, so it seems. I assumed it was entirely grammar/high school.

It's actually very interesting and curious to observe the Kent schools situation. It's certainly not the worst place to have children at school, that's for sure.

Seig I might take you up on that.

Ds saw something about Oxford or Cambridge on TV,was fascinated. He's very driven.Rest assured in 8 years time if he's still so keen I'll do everything I can to get him in or somewhere else he's equally pleased with.I like the fact the whole global market has opened up for kids as regards uni.

Interestingly my dsis got into Bristol in the 90s with errrr dubious A level results from said crappy comp(but better different 6th form) and life experience. She'd done a lot and impressed them at interview.

LittleFrieda*, my DS's gap year cost me nothing. He worked for 6 months and then went travelling on the proceeds.

I applied to Cambridge for History with 5 A-grade A-level predictions, back in the days when most people only did 3 subjects (it was unusual enough that I got into the national press when I did get them all). Plenty of extra-curricular activity etc. From a grammar school with a good record of Oxbridge success.

I did appallingly at interview; looking back I really had no idea about historical theory, which was what we discussed. I think this goes to show the difference between A-level and university study, and why you really need to have a genuine interest in your subject if you want to get a place; just knowing the basic facts of your A-level syllabus isn't good enough. I didn't get offered a place either by the college I applied to, or by the two places I had pool interviews at, but my teachers encouraged me to try again if I felt it really was the right place for me to be studying.

I deferred the place I'd been offered at another uni, had a hastily planned gap year (think £3.50 an hour jobs, living at home) and applied again, to a different college. Having done lots of reading over the 6 months between summer and interviews, I was more "ready", able to engage in a properly thought out conversation, and much more confident about my own opinions and beliefs about history as a subject. I ended up staying on to do a PhD.

Not sure exactly what this says; either the interview process is unrealistic for most 17-year-olds and means Oxford and Cambridge (as I think the only two unis who still interview every single candidate) miss out on people who have potential to go on to bigger things. Or 17-year-olds who really have a passion for their subject need to prepare themselves by reading around it and not just sticking to the A-level syllabus. That's something anyone from any school can do if they really want to.

Hey ho every year it's the same discussion - stuck up thicko snobs get into oxbridge, taking the places that should rightfuly belong to alll the super bright disadvantaged state school pupils.

Maybe we need to abolish private schools and have an eduaction system so standardised that it's the same across the whole country.

IMO we also need to stop treating Oxford and Cambridge as if they are massively superior entities. They are not and once you get there nobody gives a stuff what school you went to.

Moving onto the comments about privately schooled kids being spoonfed and less able than state educated ones, if we are going to talk about the educational background of the of privately educated student at Oxford I think we should look at just which schools they went to. The cream of the academic crop of privte schools are at the top of the league tables. They have been through a really rigorous selection process, educated in large classes, expectd to intelectually curious beyond their years and to put in a huge amount of work. They are definitely not spoon fed. If 7% of privately educated students end up at Oxford or Cambridge, I would bet that most are from this cohort and absolutely deserve their place.

A fair % of the Oxbridge students from "top" independents were at those schools on scholarships and bursaries. Many of them would otherwise have been educated in the state sector.

This surely balances the argument a bit?