Is it harder to get into a selective state school or selective independent school?

[FiveHoursSleep]

I'm guessing it depends on the area and schools?
In our area, Middlesex, the kids who went private are the ones who didn't manage to get a place in the selective state schools in the Sout West Consortium , QE boys and Henrietta Barnett.
The girls who went private ended up in schools like Goldophin and North London Collegiate but when reading posts on here it looks like the independant exams are much more complicated than the state ones.
Is there just more competition for State places as you don't have to pay?

Matzikula

A high street solicitor stuck doing conveyancing for 45k a year is not the same ilk as a high flying city partner in a magic circle or US firm on 1mln plus or a QC, same with a inner city GP vs. a leading neurosurgeon or consultant .......and like Shooting, I don't think of league tables of careers, though know there are certain cultures that do. In any case, so many of the parents who can afford private these days seem to have their own businesses of all and sundry types.

Shooting, I don't think it is a difference in the intake, although I do n't disagree that the private school exams and interviews can test for what you mentioned. However there are more very bright children in the selective state sector than private. I think the right private school environment does makes a huge difference even for the very bright as does the aspirations that prevail in the family and their school. The absolutely brilliant will always come through whatever.

Shootingatpigeons, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but, there is definitely a league table of occupations if you are the child of an immigrant parent from a poor country -like both my husband and I are. Doctors are usually top of the pecking order. And yes, I do also know that there is a huge range in the earning capacity of both lawyers and doctors.

My original intention was simply to point out that the fact that more children go to Oxbridge from Westminster than from Tiffin does not necessarily mean that they are either brighter, or better taught. What the elite private schools can give you is a sense that more or less any career aspiration, from popstar to Prime Minister, is attainable, and pupils will choose their degree subjects accordingly, hence loads more pupils from Westminster will choose something like Philosophy at Cambridge.

The example of my husband was meant to illustrate that if you choose a private school over a top grammar, your child might end up taking a less 'safe' route. Not necessarily a bad thing of course, but scary if you can't offer them anything much to fall back on.

Point taken matsikula

However Summerends Do you really believe that Grammar Schools are now selecting the most able? That the Head of OFSTED and all the statistics that show how unrepresentative they are of their local communities are wrong? I come at this from having gone to a very selective Grammar School, one that enabled a lot of peers from working class backgrounds to achieve their potential, but that was before tutoring became such an exploitative industry. It isn't just that the local Grammar Schools don't achieve that well in relation to the Indies, they don't even perform better than the top sets in they local comprehensives, which are filled with the pupils they rejected. I don't doubt that there are lots of bright children in state schools. I just don't think they are necessarily in the so called superselective Grammar Schools. Given that they are state funded then I think that having selection processes that favour those with the will, resources and money to tutor, moreover to tutor in way that have no educational value whatsoever, is morally wrong.

I believe so in at least two superselective grammar school I know of compared to a selective private I know. Interesting to know what teachers who have worked in both types of school think.

I meant very able compared to selective private schools. That is not to say that there are very able children who don't get through the eleven plus for all the usual reasons that are often aired, including what you have just discussed.

Shooting I'm glad you mentioned the achievements of the comprehensives.

I live in a mainly comprehensive area. The only two grammars are superselective and take pupils from far and wide so don't really impact on the calibre of the comprehensive intake.

There are some reputable indies, but parents tend to choose the superselectives if their children get a place.

At my comprehensive, we analysed the local indie (GDST) results for GCSE, A level and University entrance, comparing them with the achievements of our top sets. We won, hands down, even though our most able pupils were in groups of 30+ for GCSE and our A level sets were unstreamed. (V relevant when you are trying to teach across an ability range from potentially Oxbridge to C grade GCSE.)

So if your child does not get into the superselective and you can't afford indie, they may do even better at the local comp. But the fly in the ointment there, of course, is catchment sizes for the best schools.

I think one of the explanations for the difference in Oxbridge numbers, is the differing numbers of teachers from Oxbridge in the 2 types of school.

Both have teachers who have been at Oxbridge, but schools like Westminster have a very high percentage of Oxbridge educated staff. They are 'insiders' of the system and there is a very smooth Oxbridge machine running, with personal connections to many colleges, and a very developed Oxbridge programme.

Grammar schools, I think have lower Oxbridge educated teacher percentages. There will be many in those schools from RG type Unis too. For them perhaps, Oxbridge is something they are less familiar with and less committed to. They see value in the RG Unis too, that they went to.....so there is just less of an QOxbridge culture. There will be an Oxbridge programme for the candidates, but probably not in such a developed way. I really think it is this, rather than the fact children are less clever....they are often cleverer. The expectation, on the part of the kids, the parents and the staff is perhaps less.

Equally, I expect if we were to compare the %of parents with Oxbridge degrees, we would find more in the top independent schools. This too feeds into a culture of it being the norm, what one expects to happen etc.

This also explains why many Comps have a history of never sending anyone to Oxbridge, despite the fact they may have a handful of kids who are up to it. Many Comps have absolutely no Oxbridge educated teachers on their staff. Although the Oxbridge outreach programmes try to widen access, kids in these schools just don't have access to staff with expertise about the application process. This means they don't tend to even apply and if they do, they are often not as well prepared.

I often post this link so I apologise if others have seen it before but it demystifies and undermines some of the preconceptions about the Oxbridge admissions process. www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work quite rightly those students who attend schools that are good are cut less slack. My DD went to a very selective private school and the process of preparing them for the Oxbridge admissions process was definitely not one of being given the contacts and magic keys to getting in. It was more or less exactly the same as the process for the Tiffin girls. Some very bright candidates from both schools did not get in. And of course quite a few Tiffin girls who have only ever kept up via outside tutoring definitely didn't . The process in itself is intimidating and many prefer to apply to top RG unis that are often not far adrift , or actually higher than Oxbridge, in the tables. As discussed on other threads schools like Westminster are extraordinarily selective and take in a posse of very bright girls at sixth form, hence they do get a lot in, and some of those might have been applying for subjects like MFL which are not as competitive.

I entirely agree that there is a real issue in some of the comprehensives where students have no role models amongst teachers or past pupils to encourage them to apply, and no access to the cultural knowledge which would maximise their chances of success. Hence the success of mentoring charities like this one s490414095.websitehome.co.uk/acdiversity.org/?page_id=7. It is the biggest challenge facing university access schemes (not just Oxbridge) in levelling the playing field. It isn't assessing the candidates who apply, it is making sure that candidates are motivated and equipped to apply.

Comprehensive Oxbridge entry?

Yes, I agree. I went to Oxbridge and donate to a programme at my old college to improve access for comprehensive pupils.

At the comprehensive mentioned upthread, we got 2/3 into Oxbridge every year. There is no shortage of talent, particularly amongst asylum seekers, for some reason, and although I was the only Oxbridge grad on the staff, most of the rest were very well qualified academically.

But I could have done a better job teaching them if my 'A' level set had not been less selective than my top GCSE set. It was difficult to justify going off at a tangent which I knew would benefit only two or three out of the 17 I was teaching. And there was practically no preparation for interviews, nothing like what I know goes on at Westminster.

Fortunately, the colleges, at Cambridge anyway, are well aware of this and I think are genuinely trying to make allowances as Shoooting's link shows. It's in their interest, after all, to pick the most able.

The ethos of Oxbridge interviewers is to try to test candidates from schools like Westminster etc beyond practised interview skills.