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.

It feels like there is a huge bias though user. It doesn't help matters when LEAs like Knowsley don't offer A level teaching.

Its not saying that unis shouldnt take people because theyve gone private.

Its about acknowledging that the playing field isnt fair and needing something in the system to acknowledge that.

Our school get lots of children into top unis. We actively encourage them to apply.

Fact remains that some of out kids would easily match some middling private ed kids who've had lots and lots of extra tuition and yet some will still claim that the kid who's been tutored within an inch of their life to pass an exam is a smarter child.

Curl - I'm not sure much persuading has to go on to offer a girl from a top private school a place with AAA predicted grades.

The unfairness comes into play when that girl was offered an interview/place over an equally qualified candidate from an unknown school.

I'm not sure why you're finding this so unbelievable - it was common knowledge at my school & at several other schools that if you applied to a certain college you would get a certain offer.

The teachers would prepare you so that you would do well at interview - it's not saying that these were total dunces winning places from genius state school kids.

The point is simply that state schools don't have those connections, so similar AAA candidates don't get the rolls royce treatment and are less likely to get interviews & offers.

Yes, Curl, I do know how well Westminster does.

I'm also pointing out that the top state schools in this country also do well and that Westminster's A level success is not the only reason why they get so many more Oxbridge places compared to say, Henrietta Barnett/Latymer/Tiffin girls. Those are all grammar shcools that do well with Oxbridge but not as well as Eton/Winchester/Westminster.

Why?

Private schools only education around 7% of all pupils. are you saying the accumulation of wealth makes someone's children more intelligent?

There is a correlation between high education of parents, wealth of parents, and high educational achievement of children.

A significant fraction of children in private schools are sent there because they have very high ability and their parents do not believe that the state schools can provide for them.

surely the most selective grammars should be topping the Oxbridge tables, as they are far far more selective than the most selective private schools.

Again - what is your evidence for both parts of your statement? Highly selective schools such as Henrietta Barnett do have very high success rates at Oxbridge. But what is your evidence that they are actually more selective than top private boarding schools that are moving to "needs blind" admission and can take children from a much wider geographic area? (DC cannot physically get to most superselective state day schools but they can get to selective top boarding schools.)

some academics attended top schools, many didn't.

In my (scientific) department, less than 5% attended "top" private schools.

alyosha Oxford make offers for interview having assessed a lot of data. All of which is perfectly transparent.

GCSE grades. Until recently AS grades ( including raw scores in some cases). Pre test scores.

If applicants have aced all those, they should be offered an interview and they will be offered one, wherever they went to school.

What would any tutor have to gain by refusing to interview?

it was common knowledge at my school & at several other schools that if you applied to a certain college you would get a certain offer.

Well, it wasn't common knowledge at my school (top girls boarding) or my siblings school (one mentioned upthread).

Actually one of my siblings was rejected on their first application to Oxbridge - then reapplied, was admitted, and came top of year.

BTW you do know that AAA is not enough to get an Oxbridge place these days, right?

When you compare the Oxbridge intake of schools like Westminster against private schools in the North which are also full of very bright children it's impossible not to conclude that there is a special relationship/bias.

Its about acknowledging that the playing field isnt fair and needing something in the system to acknowledge that.

But there is something in the system to acknowledge this - it's called academic judgement. People who actually look at each individual application in detail for selective courses, interview the students and make decisions based on decades of experience. Then their decisions are correlated against degree outcome to check for biases.

Knee jerk reactions such as private school = tutored, state school = good/not tutored are far too naive and would be incredibly unfair if applied literally.

cow which schools in the north are as selective as W?

Which schools have the same grade averages?

Which schools have the same average scores in say STEP?

Which schools have the same % of applicants in the cohort?

Cowgirls - then add into preferential funding for London state schools. Then look at underfunding of northern and coastal comprehensives.

Then look at the multitudes of threads on MN of people who are doing death by tuition because they want certain private schools to take their child and theyll still tell you their child is gifted and very academic in a way that no other child from a less well off background could possibly be.

People on MN will still tell you that its all level and fair though.

When you compare the Oxbridge intake of schools like Westminster against private schools in the North.

Name one comparable school in the North. A school that has a catchment with the same density of kids/highly educated parent as Westminster. A school that has the same reputation as Westminster. A school that has comparable average A level scores to Westminster.

There just isn't one, so you can't compare.

(And I am not a Westminster parent, nor did I go there myself.)

The schools may not be comparable to Westminster but I absolutely refuse to accept that the boys at Westminster are all significantly brighter than children in northern schools.

User - hahahaha! Private education is now so expensive in London that whole swathes of professionals can now no longer afford it.

Does that mean their children are now quantitatively thicker because they no longer attend private schools?

Please, enlighten us!

Evidence for grammers being more selective?

Latymer grammar school has over 10 applicants for every place.

SHHS has around 4 applicants per place.

SHHS gets more kids into Oxbridge than Latymer/HBS (or it did) despite having worse results!

User - and how many attended private schools, not just top ones?

Curl - come on. Lots of very well qualiifed people apply for Oxford/Cambridge but not all of them get interviews. When certain schools have excellent connections to certain colleges, their pupils get a leg up in the interview and selection process. It's really that simple.

Why on earth would I have got an interview at Hertford college with As grades of AABB and predicted AAB? Back then that wasn't good enough for an offer. Riddle me that!

Yes I know AAA isn't good enough, 2006/7 was a time before A* a level grades.

Cowgirl - exactly. Funnily enough it's the historically all boy schools which do better...I wonder why!

But the results are on average lower at the northern schools.

...the boys at Westminster are all significantly brighter than children in northern schools.

Not all kids from Westminster get into the top selective courses they apply for. Some will indeed be declined in favour of kids from other schools. BTW Westminster is mixed in the sixth form and entry to the sixth form is itself very selective, far more so than in private day schools outside London.

It makes no sense as a country for us to decide that Oxbridge simply shouldn't take them just because they went to private schools.

So, my son went to a well regarded private school. Of course that gives him an advantage in many ways but not the back handed handshake kind of way. He also has an SpLD and I read on here oftentimes that that means that your child cannot achieve. He has. DS went through all the exams / entrance exams / interviews etc . I think ( and more importantly the interviewers think ) he had the aptitude to do well. He is in 2nd year and getting on well. I am not sure that his place was entirely due to his independent school place. I think he was actually just quite good, by which I mean he had no tutoring for university , he had good teachers and he tried. Now I do understand that ( and this is something I have learned from reading on Mumsnet) his school could pretty much recruit teachers for the subjects they wanted. That is an advantage. I get that. So they never suffered from not having a Maths teacher or other subjects.Where a very good independent school may have an advantage , not by saying - give a wink and we can get you into Balliol , but they can attract good teachers. ( Those who do not object to working in such schools , of course - and indeed not all officially qualified ) . BTW DS was not at Eton which I believe was one who in previous years had a " relationship" with Balliol. However, and I may be overly sensitive, just because my son has been to a good independent school does not mean to say he has only got there because of the school, he's actually quite good at what he does and current tutors seem to think so too. Of course the school and all that led up to it will have helped. I'm not stupid Not a genius , but he is good and competent.

*Latymer grammar school has over 10 applicants for every place.

SHHS has around 4 applicants per place.*

Come on, you know that this means nothing, as in the state sector many kids will take exams for multiple places. In the private sector kids tend to do less exams, because their prep schools advise strongly on which ones they are likely to get into.

BTW I only know of 4 members of staff in my department who attended private schools. Many staff members are not British, as I said many times above.

If you wish to believe that Oxbridge is biased on the basis of no evidence, I really wouldn't care - except that you are unnecessarily putting people off applying.

user7214743615
I'll accept that at times due to strong feeling its possible to present things oversimplistically. Some private schools are more like some state ones (privately educated parent praised our school because he siad he could ask for more as we were offering as close to private as we could - which was nice because we are trying to make things more even).

But, and this will always be my 'but' its much easier for a privately educated average student to get further. E.g. i have a friend who got a D in Eng/Maths GCSE. They had class sizes of 10, home pushed for extra tutoring from school and got a tutor. They still have a D. Theyve not resat and wanted to work in a competittve job area. From contacts and wealthy parents to fund 3 years of odd 6 week internships and a shoet course at a local college they are now established in the industry they want.
Would a state student with no money/contacts and Ds in core subjects have that? Not a chance. There are people from my year at school who got top grades at A level, topndegrees at top unis and still cant break into that sector.

"A school that has the same reputation as Westminster"

Well there we have it - finally, someone admits it's not just about raw meritocratic information - the reputation of the school counts.

which schools in the north are as selective as W?
You don't have to go to the North for this - just look at south.
Latymer Grammar School

Which schools have the same grade averages?
Henrietta Barnett School

Which schools have the same average scores in say STEP?
Tiffin Girls

Which schools have the same % of applicants in the cohort?
Tiffin Girls/HBS/QE boys.

Why don't these top grammar schools get the same % of oxbridge acceptances despite being more selective and having great results?

In fact, why don't they do as well as minor private schools - like SHHS, Habs, NLCS, UCS?

The regional differences is a complex issue but for me, it's not really a huge surprise when a bias in funding means that London based children get better access to theatre, the arts and so on.

User - I am saying that Oxbridge is biased based on my own personal experience of getting an interview with lower predicted grades & only OK AS results.

You have to admit there's a problem before you can fix it.

State school pupils should apply, but we should also be aware of the disadvantage they are at and try to fix it.

Come on, you know that this means nothing, as in the state sector many kids will take exams for multiple places. In the private sector kids tend to do less exams, because their prep schools advise strongly on which ones they are likely to get into.

What? How does that change the fact that there are 10 kids who are applying to Latymer, almost all of whom will take a place if offered?

In London you don't have the option of taking lots of state tests. You can only apply to Latymer with a realistic chance of entry if you live in North London. Those kids won't be applying to many other grammars! The girls to HBS maybe & the boys to QE boys.

But you're mainly wrong - in London at least the grammars are some of the most selective schools in the country. And they take lots of kids from prep schools too, not just kids from state schools.

Just because your colleagues arent' from the UK doesn't mean they didn't go to private schools you know...

And in London those 4 applicants for SHHS are probably applying through the school consortium, so may well also be applying at at least 3-5 other private schools.

Possibly their students don't want to go to Oxbridge? They may prefer Imperial or LSE? Or UCL, medical or vet schools, or...... Not everyone wants Oxbridge. You can only answer this by asking the schools what their applications to Oxbridge are and compare it with the success rate.

Around here it is the state grammars that have links with Oxbridge colleges!

Stats show state grammars do less well than private schools as regards Oxbridge entrance so I doubt that is true.

I find it had to believe that HBS, Latymer, QE boys, Tiffin girls - schools that basically have private school demogs - don't have pupils that apply to oxbridge.

In fact it's interesting, these are the tippy toppy state schools, the state schools with the most privileged intake (almost the same as private schools), and yet they still can't match mediocre private schools for oxbridge entrance.

Not Westminster/Eton, but Habs, NLCS, UCS, SHHS etc. etc.