When parents are slagging off the local comp...

[Everyoneafter3]

I've posted before about my concerns over the local secondary, which, thanks to comments on this board and an excellent recent Ofsted, are very much allayed. I had a very good read of school newsletters etc and am much happier. Dd1 (Y4) is musically gifted and will also audition for a specialist music school.

The area in which we live is very affluent: many children round here go to fee-paying independent schools. These dc are going to school and telling my dd (and others) that the local secondary is rubbish ("my mum and dad say..."). One particularly stupid parent has said at home that "no child of mind will set foot in x school" which of course is coming back home with our dd.

Dd1 has now got it into her head that the local school is terrible, that she's really upset to go to not a good school, that she wishes we weren't poor (we're not! But no, we can't afford independent school fees without having to sacrifice other stuff we prioritise as a family). She's been researching exam results and all sorts.

For our part we've said well look at any local school she'd like to, although as we live across the road from the school in question it'd be unlikely that she'd get in.

I'm heartily sick of parents telling their dc how awful the local school is. It's simply not fair. My dc won't receive a 'lesser' education. They aren't going to a 'rubbish' school. If this continues I'm tempted to speak to their current primary school tbh. What else can I do? I've told dd to not listen, we've looked at the school website, talked about results (!) but I'm at a loss.

the top Grammars mentioned will have no problem attracting very well qualified members of staff.

Only partly true.

Private schools often pay more and offer much better working conditions (in house training, accommodation, no Ofsted, no working to government targets).

Many PhDs from my field have gone to work for schools such as Eton.

I don't know a single PhD from my field who is working in the state sector.

The data doesn't bear it out though.

The data shows that similarly qualified candidates are equally likely to get offers. Note the important phrase "similarly qualified candidates". If 10 grammar kids apply and 10 private schools kids apply, but the latter do far better in pretests and aptitude tests, then they are not similarly qualified.

Why have self declared admissions people on this thread first denied connections and then said they do exist, but it doesn't matter because they know the pupils they are sent will be the best?

Nobody wrote that, as you know well.

I wrote that top schools often send their best candidates to the old, prestigious colleges.

I did not say that these candidates automatically get accepted (as they certainly don't). On the other hand, again, should colleges turn away exceptionally strong candidates just because they do come from certain independent schools. Why?

I would have absolutely no problems at all with removing the information about schools from the application form. I am pretty confident that it would make virtually no difference to the outcome. (Actually, this would if anything disadvantage candidates from some state schools, for whom allowances are made ....)

alyosha you've presented untruths as fact in several of your posts.

When called out on it, you haven't offered up any explanation/excuse,simply banged your same drum.

No doubt readers of this thread will make their minds up about what else you might be making up.

However, for anyone interested, the facts remain.

Westminster is routinely the most successful school at obtaining places at Oxbridge. It doesn't take a genius to work out why. No leg ups or old boys network necessary (academics from Westminster are rare as rocking horse shit TBH).

The schools scrupulously selects its intake in a way that most schools do not/cannot.

It then offers those selected pupils a shamelessly academic education where resources are no problem. Which results, unsurprisingly in pupils that do well both in public exams and the pre tests.

Whereas the grammars mentioned are being subjected to the worst onslaught to state education funding in living memory.

In addition the pupils at Westminster are very much encouraged to give Oxbridge a go. Twice if they fancy it.

End. Of.

Oh and why has no one ever tried to bribe me with a helicopter or a suite at the Ritz? I feel a bit robbed...

"It's selective to begin with, and has an even more selective sixth-form. It is more selective than Eton. It is possibly the hardest secondary school to get into in the world. You seem unwilling to accept this. "

I'm unwilling to accept it because it's not true. Far more applicants apply to HBS & the other top grammars in London. And they are of similar quality too - most will also be applying to private schools.

"It's not 50-50 when you consider the scholars have a much higher chance than the average W population."

An odd definition of 50% - 50% of those in Westminster's 6th form get offers, please explain how this isn't actually 50%? Is this some special public school maths?

"The data shows that similarly qualified candidates are equally likely to get offers. Note the important phrase "similarly qualified candidates". If 10 grammar kids apply and 10 private schools kids apply, but the latter do far better in pretests and aptitude tests, then they are not similarly qualified."

Where does it show this?

The data actually shows that similarly qualified State pupils are less likely to get in: www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/UniversityAdmissions.pdf

"● The proportion of university entrants going to Oxbridge from the top performing 30
independent schools was nearly twice that of the top performing 30 grammar schools – despite
having very similar average A-level scores.
● At the 30 top performing comprehensive schools, only half the expected number of pupils are
admitted to the 13 Sutton Trust universities, given the overall relationship between schools’
average A-level results and university admissions.
● At the 30 top performing independent schools, a third more pupils are admitted to the 13
Sutton Trust universities than would be expected given the schools’ average A-level results."

Please explain why it's OK that Westminster's results are around 36% better than HBS, but 200%-300% more likely to go to Oxbridge.

And what about Christ Church and their well acknowledged link to Eton & Westminster?

"Westminster is routinely the most successful school at obtaining places at Oxbridge. It doesn't take a genius to work out why. No leg ups or old boys network necessary (academics from Westminster are rare as rocking horse shit TBH)."

Right, please explain why:

50% get into Oxbridge
Which is 3-4x, say HBS
But their results are only around 36% better
And most HBS pupils will be applying to Oxbridge
And the data (sutton trust) shows this across the sector

Is that me telling porkies or you unwilling to look at the facts?

But the Sutton Trust data does not look at pretest and aptitude results as it does not have them.

And it is based on information from > 10 years ago.

alyosha you've presented untruths as fact in several of your posts.

Like what?

But the Sutton Trust data does not look at pretest and aptitude results as it does not have them.

If you have better data, by all means show us it.

Curl - no one is saying you are getting rich off bribes!

It's a more strutural problem - you are biased in favour of public school students, because you believe they are better.

This is clear from your laudatory posts re: Westminster school.

I'm 100% sure that if you no longer had information on the school applicants went to you would offer fewer places to Westminster school.

I'm sure admissions tutors don't intentionally admit lots of private school kids; but the well known nature of these schools and the fact that lots of you think you only get the best of the best from them means you hold an unconcious bias towards them.

I'm sure editors at scientific journals don't think they favour men, but they do.

I'm 100% sure that if you no longer had information on the school applicants went to you would offer fewer places to Westminster school.

And I'm 100% sure that this would not make a difference.

The kids who would be more disadvantaged by us not knowing their backgrounds are those from families with no tradition of university education etc.

BTW repeating what I said many times upthread - many of those interviewing for my subject are not British, were not educated in Britain and don't know much about UK schools. They just don't look at the UCAS form information much -- and still score the candidates very similarly to the rest of us. The candidates they score lower are the ones from low performing state schools.

So why does the data show that there is a disproportionate advantage that accrues to private school kids, if it doesn't matter?

And the data all shows that you are wrong about the amazing quality of Westminster pupils - actually if you admitted fewer kids from private schools your college would probably be getting more firsts, as that's also what the data shows.

Again, it's great that you're not consciously biased (although your clear belief that all Westminster 6 formers are amazing seems to show that you are...).

But I'm sure editors at scientific journals were confident there would be no change to the % of papers admitted by women...but they were wrong.

No one is aware of their own biases...that's why it's so hard for even top Oxbridge state school grads to get jobs post-graduation. Even then their academic achievements aren't enough to break through the public school bias.

alyosha you've been called out on untruths by several posters. You've ignored each time. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

I don't know 100% that there is no nodding and winking going on- I suspect very little if any. But I could write you a short essay on why private school kids are more likely to get to Oxbridge than state school kids, if you like.

Again, it's great that you're not consciously biased (although your clear belief that all Westminster 6 formers are amazing seems to show that you are...).

Again you seem to be misconstruing my comment (FYI I don't work in admissions).

My point about the 'amazing' sixth-formers is that they are selected at 16 (I think?), so it's hardly any surprise that they spike the Oxbridge admissions. If the top schools all selected at 16, they'd have 100% Oxbridge uptake.

It's not 50/50% for the general W population because scholars, who comprise about 10% of the W body, will receive offers at much higher rates.

I'll just await your comment that W scholars aren't too terribly exceptional.

actually if you admitted fewer kids from private schools your college would probably be getting more firsts, as that's also what the data shows.

Not true.

College is top of the college league tables (which measure undergraduate results), but doesn't take the highest proportion of state school students of all colleges.

Get your facts right.

Go on Carl :) (sorry I've been calling you Curl! It was the Hair in your name) - where have I lied?

I have given my personal experience of getting an undeserved interview
I have related the accounts of my friends at same & different schools (inc. Westminster) getting offers that they knew in advance of applying would be a certain level (BBB st. hugh's for history - every year)
I have given examples of excellent Grammar schools getting similar results - not identical - but similar - and not getting anywhere near the same level of pupils into Oxbridge

But no one can really tell me - leaving aside Westminster scholars, etc. etc. - if Westminster only gets 36% better A levels than HBS or other elite Grammars, why do they get 200%-300% more offers?

If scholars only comprise 10% of the school, how can they account for 50% of Westminster going off to Oxbridge?! They can't go to both Oxford & Cambridge simultaneously :D

I simply do not accept that all of HBS are applying to STEM or aren't applying to Oxbridge at all. Unless someone can prove this - HBS intake is very similar to private schools like SHHS, Habs. SHHS is the backup for not getting into HBS!

The sutton trust data, which no one has provided an alternative for, corroborates what I'm saying: it's harder to get in with similar results from a state school.

*Not true.

College is top of the college league tables (which measure undergraduate results), but doesn't take the highest proportion of state school students of all colleges.

Get your facts right.*

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11976195/State-school-pupils-likely-to-do-better-than-private-pupils-study-shows.html

It is true, actually. Just because your college has a lower % of state school pupils & gets good results, it doesn't mean that if you had more state school pupils you wouldn't get higher results.

Your college might have better tutoring/supervisioning (not a word) - there's no way to tell what your results would be with more state school pupils unless you remove school data from your forms.

The study does not apply specifically to Oxbridge, who already do their own pretests/interviews etc. It's not that surprising that across the whole of the RG state schools coming in with the same grades as private schools might do marginally better. But Oxbridge is selecting from the top of the top, using many methods to judge potential.

The research was done by Cambridge, and they don't say that Cambridge/Oxford are special cases. Do you have any evidence that they are special cases?

www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/news/state-school-pupils-do-better-at-university-cambridge-assessment-research-confirms/

The study makes clear that it covers all the RG universities. (It is BTW just one study - other studies look at slightly different questions, with slightly different conclusions.)

Of course Oxbridge are special cases amongst the RG universites: they don't just use A level grades to select, but academics spend a huge amount of time interviewing, doing pretests etc. Many/most RG courses select only on the basis of A level grades.

Why keep quoting things that don't actually support your arguments?

It does support my argument.

The research is done by Cambridge. It covers all RG unis, including Cambridge.

Cambridge have not said "oh, btw, we are different", and they would have a real incentive to do so.

Unless you have any evidence to back up your assertion, the only data available supports what I am saying.

Upthread you & others were arguing that Westminster et al get lots of kids into Oxbridge due to their amazing A level grades.

Another, more recent study for you:

" 58% of HE applicants from the 30 highest
progression comprehensive schools (with
average scores for students exceeding 3As
grades at A-level) were accepted into the 30
most highly selective universities; this compares
with 87.1% of applicants from the 30 highest
progression independent schools and 74.1%
from the 30 highest progression grammar
schools."

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sutton-trust-he-destination-report-final.pdf

"In some of the leading schools, there appears to be
a particular link with one of the two universities. At
Eton, for example, 133 students went to Oxford over
the three years, but only 78 to Cambridge. At Queen
Elizabeth’s School, in Barnet, north London, 59 went
to Cambridge, but only 29 to Oxford.
Independent school pupils are more than seven
times as likely as those in comprehensives to
be accepted at Oxbridge. Some 5.7 per cent of
independent school pupils went on to Oxford or
Cambridge over the three years, compared with 0.8
per cent in non-selective state schools and 3.4 per
cent in grammar schools. "

And if you look at the study you can see the most elite grammars in Britain get half the % into Oxbridge, so it's not just about numbers.