More children got three As at A-level in the country’s fee-paying schools than in the entire population of children at comprehensives."

[AubergineKenobi]

Says Toby Young in today's Telegraph:

Article

Does anyone know what percent of A-levels are taken by children in fee-paying schools?

Our state comp gets two or three pupils into Oxbridge every year, many have three As and in sciences. Many more go to Russel group, but a good proportion also go into farming or tourism, which is also encouraged by the school. Non selective schools are supposed to cater for all abilities and ambitions.

These figures do not make me want to take our dcs out of state into private, if they want to achieve academically, the school will enable them to do so.

The same Ho6 also apparently encouraged all the lower achievers to the same extent as the Oxford and Cambridge applicants too.

Well I think half the problem is that the state sector is still pretending that A's at A-level really mean anything when in fact the range of ability denominated by that grade is so wide as to render it meaningless.

Many of the better (admittedly usually selective) private schools teach the A-level syllabus almost in passing as they teach a more challenging, wide ranging and intellectually rigorous syllabus. I got an A at history A-level (state school) as did many of my peers at Cambridge. Their knowledge compared to mine was astronomical.

Would a very bright child be more stretched in the sixth form at St Pauls/ Westminster or the average comp? Clearly the former. Let's not pretend otherwise or indeed fall into the trap of using A at A-level as a barmometer of a school's quality/pupil's level of competence.

In many professions it's almost getting to the stage where 3 A's is minimum requirement for them to even consider you.

Actually I think it starts earlier than that, with many comprehensive schools simply having low expectations early on.You read it all the time on theGCSE options threads.If ds had been at some of these schools in year8 he would have been condemned to a "pathway"of foundation levels and BTECs, as it is he has 9As and A*s and a B and is predicted As at A level.

His school made it clear that he was expected to work,he also was a typical boy who worked harder when he had something concrete to aim at,he also "grew up"

Does the article take into account the large number of independent schools that have abandoned A Levels in favour of the IB?

Norman - it's ludicrous to equate financially selective with academically selective. There are huge numbers of low ability children from affluent homes. Schools like Bruern Abbey, Kingham Hill, Milton Abbey and Shiplake specialise in taking children with mild to moderate learning difficulties. Plenty of others such as Stowe, Bloxham and Bradfield are easily accessible to low abiity pupils too. IF those schools achieve staggeringly high A Level results (which I doubt) then it is due to resources and class sizes not naturally academic children.

Personally, I don't think you can beat the independent system for bringing out the best in a child and stretching children to achieve what they wouldn't elsewhere. An academic child will of course do very well anywhere but I still think they'll get the best learning experience in a good independent.

Does the article take into account the large number of independent schools that have abandoned A Levels in favour of the IB?

The number of schools which has 'abandoned' A levels is not large. and one of the most successful, Kings Wimbleson is reinroducing A Levels.

I mean Wimbledon and reintroducing

I think that the number of A-level choices available at academic indies are very narrow (pretty much limited to the list that RG published of "proper" A-levels) so the amount spent per subject will be higher.
I think that private schools' biggest weapon against making high results happen is that they can make children who are disruptive or incompatible with the school leave. As disruptive children will be asked to leave the teacher can focus on teaching and not have to waste time managing behaviour.

How much do you think the RG uni's take into account the academic background? Do you think they try to take from comps?

It is a worry to a mum with a quite bright child, doing very well in his comp. but may just miss those very highest A' grades at A'level when we get there. Do the uni's insist on A/A/B as I've seen listed? Do they give an offer on something lower if they see student has potential? How competitive is it? And will the uni fees have an impact on less competition?

Who has ideas?

University fees won't have such a significant effect on children in independent schools. If you're already stumping up £33000 PA per child then frankly university fees are a walk in the park.

What about successful schools which have abandoned a'levels for PreU?
Actually I would like to know the numbers, and where they come from, and which year they refer to.

Sadly happygardening the £27000 is just the tuition fees,we have been advised to budget at least £ 12000 for living expenses and if you can afford independent the amount of the maintenance loan won't even cover the hall bill.

andisa most uiversities in our experience have standard offers eg AAB or AAA to get anything other than this you would have to have a lot of contextual data points eg "looked after child" a just below average will not make much difference I susupect

Thats £12000 pa

mrswoodentop I think you misunderstood what I said. Those at independent boarding school are currently stumping up £33000 per year per child. Universities are going to charge a max £9000 a year for fees and even if the living expenses are £12000 a year that's still only £21000 PA therefore children from independent boarding schools whose parents are currently paying the full whack will as I've said find universities fees a walk in the park.

Well we are paying day fees for two and boarding for one and although I take your point another 4years is not going to be a walk in the park

Very pleased though that the early repayment penalty is going ,allows one to reassess once it is clearer where their career path is likely to be ,ds1 is currently very unworldly likely to end up scratching away with his pen in a garratt so I am reluctant to pay completely upfront ,we also have two others to come alongdifficult decisions and scary

I agree if you've children at day schools then its not going to be easy but imagine if you have 3 children at boarding thats £100 000 PA! Mind you if you've got that kind of money maybe your not that bothered.

Fees are already having an effect in that students are seeking the most for their money, so the competitive end of the market is set to get more so. I'm not in a position to pay fees up front for mine; none are deterred by the fees.

Plenty of highly successful schools are staying mainstream with A Levels rather than opting for the Pre-U mummytime.

Yes but plenty are also changing, therefore top private school are producing pupils with IB, A'levels, and PreU. State schools are mainly sticking to A'levels, although I know a few do IB.

and its all completely navel gazing in the big scheme of things because when I mark down my qualifications, nothing below the FCCA has any real significance now

The trouble is talking that you now need these excellent grades to get to the next step. It's not than an employer cares what you got in your A levels but he may care where you went to uni. And you'llonly get there with excellent grades if it's a competitive course.

Things have changed hugely since our day.

Seems a bit of a non-story to me!
Venn diagrams and all that...

I got a third in my degree
I was not accepted by Arthur Andersen on a training contract, not because of that, or that fact that I'd had to take my A levels twice
their problem was - and they said it to my face - was that I was not 'maleable into their mould'
but I'm still working and they crashed and burned!

I get the point that when I was at uni only 5% got degrees and straight As meant you were top 10% X top 10% x top 10%

but what I LOATHE about Toby Young's attitude is its protectionism for those who do things 'his' way - rather than looking at future employees as books with chapters still to write

talkin when I applied for my first job in the city anyone with a 2.1 and no visible tattoos got an offer. These days it's massively more competitive.

DH just turned down some kid from Westminster with a first from the LSE because he perfered a young woman from India. Tough times.

Do you think that as soon almost everyone will be getting A's at level that employers in particular will Be looking for something else? I also suspect more and more will opt out of uni especially now anything less than a 2 1 is going to be worthless. £60 000 uni fees debt is alot for a pretty worthless qualification.

This article about the Cambridge admissions process makes interesting reading on the issue of how far universities can take into account candidates' backgrounds when deciding whether to offer them a place.

They are obviously keen to get in more students from state schools, particularly from more deprived backgrounds, but seem to acknowledge that there is a limit to how sensible it is to admit people whose results to date are not up to scratch - they are more likely to struggle and drop out.

I will try and find a link, but I also read a study recently - can't remember if it was carried out by Oxford or Cambridge - which found that the most accurate predictor of academic success at university (in terms of degree results etc) was A-level grades.

Though personally I am sure that some mature students and younger students from deprived backgrounds, who have had to struggle and work much harder for their university place, are likely to be more motivated than some middle-class students who have had a relatively easy ride through good schools.