Cambridge University discriminates against children from private schools.

[Marchesman]

MN threads persist in claiming that Oxford and Cambridge Universities do not discriminate against private schools. Now two "academics" have written a half-baked book that argues for further reductions in the number of Oxbridge students from private schools (to 10% of the intake).

In 2023 at Cambridge 19.9% of students from comprehensive schools obtained first class degrees (23.5% from grammar schools) compared with 28.6% from private schools - evidence of unequivocal discrimination against the latter at the point of entry.

Cambridge's own analysis shows that British state-educated students already significantly underperform relative to foreign and privately educated British students. If more of the latter are excluded, the inevitable outcome will be that at these universities the best students are foreign, while the best British pupils decamp to US universities.

Is this really what the Left wants? If so why?

@EmpressoftheMundane

I remembered it:

"When conditioning on a range of background characteristics and potential mechanisms for access to top occupations, networks are orthogonal to socio-economic status; the use of networks is not the main driver of these large gaps in accessing the top jobs by family background."

Who gets the Top Jobs? The role of family background and networks in recent graduates’ access to high status professions. Macmillan, Tyler and Vignoles.

http://repec.ioe.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1315.pdf

The public believe that private schools provide an advantage because that is what they hear from an educational establishment that nominally supports egalitarianism but personally hoards privilege. Journalists on the whole do the same thing - as the paper by Henderson illustrates very well. Look at where these people educate their children. It is profoundly unattractive.

But there is also an incentive for many people, usually the most articulate and pushy, to take this line because they are gaming the state sector successfully. Whether or not they are conscious of this (I believe they are), private schools represent competition that is not provided by most state schools; and perhaps more significantly, attacking private schools has proven to be an extraordinarily effective way of drawing attention away from inequalities in the state sector. It has become a national sport.

There is a paper that puts the differences between schools and sectors into context:

https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/access-to-advantage-university-admissions/

The only thing that fooling around with private schools may achieve will be greater social segregation in both sectors, and the rebadging of privileged private school pupils as privileged state school pupils. The result of Cambridge's efforts over the course of 5 years has been to reduce the intake of top POLAR4 quintile private pupils from 660 to 551, while increasing the number of top quintile pupils from comprehensive schools from 343 to 478. Perhaps someone can see the point in that but I can't.

Of course private school doesn’t provide a genetic advantage - it was tongue in cheek.

Intelligence and wealth are not strongly correlated. The factor most likely to influence whether someone (a) goes to private school and (b) ends up being wealthy themselves is - you guessed it - having wealthy parents.

Have a look into regression to the mean. You’re right that the stuff you spouted is an “uncomfortable view” - the last time it was in favour was Nazi Germany.

@Marchesman I haven’t read all
of your posts (sorry) but are you seriously questioning whether private education provides an advantage?

If it doesn’t, what are people paying for?

@JumpinJellyfish

Are you misquoting me on purpose?

Intelligence and wealth are not strongly correlated.

I did stress that I'm talking about income, not wealth. Income and intelligence are correlated. Google it

just wanting a school you think your child will be happy at? Why is that not a valid reason in itself?

that was literally foremost in our thoughts when we decided. We went though the pros and cons and for our eldest we decided single sex was better for them and the only school offering it locally was private. they are very sporty and we felt that they needed at least 2 hours a day being sporty plus weekends and found no state school that could offer that. That was the dealbreaker.

nothing to do with academics. Nothing to do with buying Advantage. We aren’t all micro managing our children’s futures.

If one considers the financial burden of non-academic facilities and staff, the only conclusion possible is that you are not alone in thinking like this.

However, educationalists believe that parents seek social exclusivity, and this is not articulated because "it is likely that revealing preferences for a certain social composition would be too undesirable to mention" to an interviewer. (Green et al 2017).

edit - sorry, blotto

Why are you making the distinction and why is it significant in the context of this discussion?

@JumpinJellyfish

Isn't this really obvious? Life circumstances play significant role in context of wealth (inheritance, divorce, etc). Income is mostly linked to one's own achievements. Again, of course there are outliers, but this is the case for significant majority of people.

Anecdata - in my experience of PS, all parents I know of are in professional roles and don't rely on grandparents, contrary to many beliefs.

And why is any of that relevant to whether there should be a cap on privately educated kids at Cambridge?

It seems like you are saying that if the parents pay for private education out of income as opposed to inherited wealth then their kids truly deserve to be at top universities, having inherited brains from their hard working clever parents. And their expensive education should be entirely ignored for these purposes.

But if granny is paying the fees then that’s a different story?

I didn’t mention academics - I just said “advantage”.

You have listed the advantages of private over state for you. Those advantages are only available to those who can pay for them. So you bought them for your kid.

I quite agree that not all advantages are academic. But everyone who chooses private school for their kid is paying for something - “happiness”, sports, small class sizes, better SEN support, nicer facilities, no poor people - take your pick.

@JumpinJellyfish using your definition you can say that about anything money can buy you. School is but one part of a child’s overall life. There is not one size fits all for anyone and what is best for them and what gives them an ‘advantage’.

Yes of course you can say it about anything money can buy you.

And yes school is one part of a child’s life. But it’s the part that this thread is about so I’m not sure what your point is here.

This is post shows such a lack of comprehension and analytical skills that any further discussion is pointless

Probably my state education…

But of course, claiming I’m too thick to understand you would also be the easy way out if you were in fact unable to explain or justify what you’d said.

Let me help balance that out by my own anecdata- I know heaps of not particularly bright people who send their children to private school, in some cases grandparents pay and some times a lottery win or a well paying nonacademic job

People are unnecessarily wringing over private schools. It is a red herring.

It is all about cultural capital and experiences. Money can buy that, but an internet connection can as well. This is why we are seeing case studies out of the poorest countries of children elevated simply with an internet connection and good dedicated parenting and a bright child. How you manage your DCs screen time is now the biggest parenting question. There are amazing resources including online museums vs use it as childcare/let their brains rot and let them be addicted and see their mental health decline.

@Araminta1003 couldn't agree with this more

And grandma was an immigrant, 6th grade education. She worked multiple jobs to have better situation for her kids, still working, she saved, bought & rented properties … just to provide private education for her grandkids … bad bad bad
What those boomers are did - disgraceful

@JumpinJellyfish

It is not a question that educationalists would ever ask, because they prefer to believe that parents are seeking exclusivity (and it would not reflect well on the state offering), but I'm sure that the commonest reason for choosing a private school is the absence of a single available state school that is doing its job properly.

Here's a fun question. Given the "advantages" that you believe they provide, why do 40% of the richest families in the country (98th centile and above) choose not to send their children to private schools?

@Marchesman I’m sure there are lots of reasons and I’m not sure why there is any point in me speculating.

Not all rich people send their children to private school but all of those whose kids are in private (except those in receipt of bursaries) are rich.

Unlike some posters I don’t believe that rich people are automatically more deserving of places at top universities, which is what their overrepresentation at certain universities suggests.

You haven’t shared any source for the 40% stat. But putting that aside and assuming it is correct for a minute, this research from UCL suggests one possible reason, namely that some wealthier parents find choosing state education at odds with their values. Of course there will be other reasons such as living in the catchment for a grammar where similar advantages can be gained for free.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/mar/parents-traditional-values-are-more-likely-send-their-children-private-school

I’m really not sure what you hope to prove with that post. It certainly does not demonstrate private schooling confers no advantage on pupils.

This is as hilarious a proposition as it is tragic. So you are suggesting that sufficient cultural capital to adequately compete with the privately educated can be gained solely through policing your kids to watch less Nickelodeon and visit more museum websites.

if it really is that simple PS parents must be utterly dumb in spunking tens of thousands on fees. Does that include you?

Because some of us live in accordance with our moral values.

Indeed. I could afford to send my DC to a private school but I choose not to because I wish to see them abolished.