Private v State & Oxbridge (& 11+)

[Morefreedomless11plus]

I read this and thought of Mumsnet... Interesting links to “11+ flawed measure of aptitude” and Cambridge University research on state pupils doing better than independent school pupils at university. Written to provoke.
www.telegraph.co.uk/education-and-careers/2020/02/11/need-protect-private-school-kids-places-oxbridge-stolen-disadvantaged2/

And yet, ZandathePanda, you’re doing a fair job of stereotyping every single non-privately educated school leaver in the country as incapable of appreciating a few old buildings, or eating the odd formal meal!

You say The outreach talk at Dds school discussed the formal dinners and balls and college system and choosing a college and the extra exams and different deadlines for getting in. Personally we thought the talk emphasised all the differences/ difficulties in getting in. As if these are negative things. What about all the non-privately educated who might actually relish the adventure of an Oxbridge application? Everyone is not the same.

@Morefreedomless11plus I think you have unreasonably jumped to an incorrect conclusion and several people including me have already taken you up on this and you have ignored those posts.

you have asserted that the fact that state school pupils do better at uni than private school pupils is in some way proof that the 11+ is not a good measure of academic potential. This is a false conclusion not based on logic. there are numerous other factors which previous posts on this thread have already discussed at length. you can't demand that people engage in a discussion based on a false premise without allowing the premise to be challenged.

I went to a state school. My parents are first generation immigrants and worked in very low pay jobs. They did value education but couldn’t afford private education. They knew very little about getting into Oxford. My school didn’t send people to Oxford. This was 20 years ago.

I did my own research and found Mansfield College at Oxford. I got an interview. It was for law. I didn’t get in - of the 8 of us interviewing I was the only state school kid, the only Asian female. The others were kind and tried to coach me the day before - in some ways I wish I hadn’t listened to them. I had got myself there - they gave me a ‘tip’ I wish I hadn’t said what they told me to say.

In hindsight I got into a RG uni - things went ok. I have done well for myself.

Now I will probably earn enough money to educate my kids privately but I’m in two minds as I think I can probably support them well at home with a tutor if needed. I also think I can introduce them to enough activities.

I’m not sure I would have coped at Oxford I had a tough upbringing and as an immigrant family I didn’t have the wider skills. Maybe if you had put me in a private school I would have had a different path back then.

@CinnnemonBeauty I'm glad you've done well for yourself and are thriving. Admissions to law at Oxford are so extremely competitive (and likewise were 20 years ago) that hundreds off well-qualified candidates who would have done very well if they had got in, are turned down. Simply because there are more people who are well qualified with the potential to do very well on the course than there are places on the course. You can't conclude that you wouldn't have coped - probably you would have really thrived and your tougher upbringing might even have given you an extra competitive edge against more privileged peers. when trying to select just a hundred or so out of a pool of many thousands, not every jewel can be taken, so don't do yourself down with wistfulness over the "might have been" - no one knows what would have happened.

for your own kids - don't assume anything. All schools are different and all kids are different, and you can't make decisions based on second-hand information. a couple of years beforehand start visiting schools, both private and state, and work out where your DC will be happiest.

Surprise I was stating what the outreach talk and literature was emphasising. Which I should have been clearer (typing whilst stuck in a medical centre at mo) that that was interesting for me because I come from a private/ public school background but I have mainly taught in the state sector and my children went to state schools.
I was used to formal meals, pupils in different colleges, old buildings, funny lingo, shorter terms, teachers wearing gowns, tutorials, balls etc.
So their talk took me straight back to familiar things from my private schooldays. Whether this makes the process more daunting/more attractive to a state school pupil is up to the individual.
What I am trying to say is that talk would not have been so alien to me which I find interesting, when there’s talk of outreach, as Oxbridge systems are similar to those at private school.
My Dd wanted bright lights, big city, self-catering accommodation, independence to work, clubs etc as well as a challenging modern course, somewhere within 4 hours of home.
Oxbridge just didn’t offer that.

Side point. I wonder how Oxford and Cambridge are thinking of ramping up the state numbers. Like if they have committed they must be looking at a plan, and also looking at for example, which subject they will let the state students ramp up with and which they won't. I do not know what is the answer to this, but perhaps they would let the increases happen in the subjects they are less strong at (if there is such a thing!) and have a more status quo approach for the top ones? Another question is which subjects are easier to catch up on when you are at uni if you haven't had such a "good" education in the state sector (I mean average speaking and without getting into this side of the debate). Is it easier to catch up in History than Maths, or vice versa? Don't know.

I may be conical but the only thing I am sure of is they are looking at it somewhat this way, and looking at the impact that the changes will make to their own stats down the line.

Rocky I was reading on another thread (unless it was earlier on this one) how Cambridge has divvied up the country between colleges, so each college has 'responsibility' for outreach in a particular area, or something. I think the thinking was that a college could get to know an area well and forge more meaningful contacts with schools to be able to provide good quality information to aspiring candidates.

I really don't think it is about 'letting the state students ramp up', but ensuring that students with potential are identified early enough and given support in preparing and applying.

I think it's important not to be too binary about state and private. IME there's as much variation within the state system as between it and private schools. Ditto some private schools are crap - I should know I went to one, unqualified teachers, mixed ability, large classes etc.

There's a danger on this thread of making massive generalisations about how hard state school kids have to scrabble to get there when in reality I suspect that the vast majority of those from state schools have little to distinguish them socio-economically as well as culturally from their private peers. My two nephews, for example, are at Cambridge, both have teacher mothers. One comes from an under represented area of the country, but his mother went to Cambridge herself and they live in the manor house of this area.

Another example. My neighbours took one look at our local primary, 70% FSM and opted for private. On the back of the smaller classes, 11+ focus, their kid got into a London super selective grammar school with 3% FSM (i.e. nothing like the general average). Do they count as more 'state' than the girl from my kids' school who got a bursary to a private secondary?

It's crucial that all universities widen access, but just taking a load of posh grammar school/faith school/leafy etc state school pupils isn't the way.

I wonder how Oxford and Cambridge are thinking of ramping up the state numbers.

Have a look at their Access and Participation Plans if you want to find out.

@Rockylady you don’t look conical to me 😄
@KirorivePeyowa not at all. My child is waiting for offers from both state and primary at 11+ and our decision has not been made one way or another - hence opening up the discussion to gather insights. I also think the 11+ link is a really helpful take - if my child is successful with all schools it doesn’t signify they’ve ticked the academic box for life. If unsuccessful for all schools it doesn’t mean they haven’t ticked it. This may seem obvious to some but I really don’t think we as parents emphasise it enough for the long term particularly when they do well. I suspect most of us with children doing the 11+ are more used to doing well than not.

My Dd wanted bright lights, big city, self-catering accommodation, independence to work, clubs etc as well as a challenging modern course, somewhere within 4 hours of home.

Zanda so you think Oxford university should change how it runs itself just to fit in with what your daughter wanted?

OP I can't read the article because it is behind a paywall but this topic of connection between school type and degree result has come up on here a lot in the past. If you want to look at it further this is a good paper to start with dera.ioe.ac.uk/19811/1/HEFCE2014_03.pdf. Broadly speaking the data, including that paper, seems to show that at the top end of the attainment level then there is no difference in uni performance. Lower down the achievement tables then students from independent or top achieving schools perform marginally lower than studetns wiht the same grades from a standard state school. E.g. a student with BBC at independent/high schieveing might get the same degree result on average as a person with BBB at standard state. I have always taken this to mean that state schools are less good at getting the students to their maximum potential at A-level but that this does not have a sustained impact at degree level.

The difference is marginal and there are far more important impacts on an individual child's future. There is no way that I would be basing a decision about my child's high school on this data.

Ilovewhippets lol. I am not sure Oxford could physically enlarge and geographically move itself as a city, although Philip Pullman may disagree.

My point was Oxbridge just isn’t what some bright people want out of a university experience.

Dd liked the idea of Oxbridge and was told she should look at it. She researched many universities online, looked round 5 including Oxbridge, then applied to 2 universities that fitted her criteria. She got her first choice. Newcastle. Incidentally she found out most of her flatmates have all A stars and As too. None of them applied to Oxbridge either.

sorry my example should have been the other way round. I mean E.g. a student with BBB at independent/high schieveing might get the same degree result on average as a person with BBC at standard state

@Morefreedomless11plus my point is that you can't assert links between disparate facts which are not causative.

Yes, obviously, a child that doesn't get a place at a selective school having taken an exam at 10 or 11 may nevertheless work hard in a non-selective school and go on to university and thrive there.

Yes a student that gains AAB at a poorly-performing state school is probably going to do better at university than a student who got AAB at a selective and well-resourced private school, because the former student needed higher intelligence and harder work to get that AAB and might well have got A A A if they had been granted greater educational opportunities, whereas the latter student might have ended up with BCC grades if they hadn't been nurtured and challenged by the private school.

None of these facts are valid arguments against the 11+ exam itself. The vast majority of children in the country don't take it at all - it is only taken by those living in the now fairly rare state grammar areas, and those whose parents are hoping to get them into private school, so a vast number of state schools will contain a significant proportion of kids who would have passed the 11+ if they'd taken it.

Certainly any child who doesn't get the school offers they are hoping for following an 11+ test should not be discouraged by that. We have just come out of this uncertainty ourselves and what I told my DC was "All that matters is that you do your best, and whatever happens I am going to be proud of you, because trying your best to achieve something difficult and not managing is just one step in a long journey which will have lots of ups and downs, so one thing that goes wrong or goes right isn't a big deal"

Good luck to you as you wait for your outcomes - I know it is very nervewracking!

@Ali86 the telegraph barrier isn't a paywall - you can register for a free account and read a limited number of articles (I think 3 a week?) - I read the linked article without paying. However it's a badly written article full of hyperbole and third-rate attempted humour by someone with a massive chip on their shoulder. So no need to bother really. It's a poor attempt at a satirical response to this article which certainly merits a response (just not that one). So if you register I suggest you use your limited views on the latter article instead, and note the obvious flaws in its logic.

Amen! I’m not looking for arguments against doing the 11+. It’s been a positive informative eye-opening experience either way. And no I’m not basing our decision on one article or a mumsnet thread! But thank you all a very informative discussion in many ways. Thanks for the support.

And good luck all. Be kind on yourselves and others.

@titchy my focus is not what they are doing about it (and admittedly I have not studied their plans in detail) but my point is more I am wondering about the true thinking process they are putting behind it, what are their true objectives and the intended pace and effectiveness of the plans? As everyone knows about the well publicized rows within academia to gain power and influence that the Oxbridge institutions suffer from. Sorry if I am cynical (not conical!) but their plans will be also influenced by the effect it will have on their own status quo, before putting the objective of expanding access first and rightly on the agenda.

The rub is though, that the Oxbridge USP is, that it is elite and has old and quaint traditions. If it ceases to be elite, and get's rid of it's quirks and traditions, it then becomes like everywhere else, and then what's the point of going there, you might as well go to any other "good" university.

my focus is not what they are doing about it

Sorry I must've misread your post that said:

I wonder how Oxford and Cambridge are thinking of ramping up the state numbers

But seriously, look at the plans. Frankly, stating that their plans will be influenced by the status quo when you haven't even bothered to read them only serves to highlight the large chip on your shoulder.

Is it not ( and those who know better than me ) the likes of Oxbridge - they want to keep their ( academic ) reputation - and this is exams / research - not chaps running round like it is Brideshead revisited. DS was at a private school ( I think a good one ) very many positively chose other places so e.g. London colleges or US or Warwick , Scottish universities , or , or or. Some private schools are pretty rubbish ( I went to one many years ago) Oxford ( inter alia ) I think does much outreach but the only way not to go to Oxford ( and not all do want to go - I know that ) is not to apply. Person who got the best degree on my son's course when he graduated , was from a northern comprehensive who had been told - well not your sort of thing by teachers. But all of this is said time and time again. Oxford is not full of rich braying thick people - they are by and large nice ( I mean most people not any braying people )

oh @titchy don't get too upset and righteous about this. I was honestly wondering. I do not really have an agenda. Life is not black and white, and their plans will be influenced by LOTS of things. Just trying to bring all the variables to the table, trying to think what are they as clearly there are many..... that's the way it goes.
and yes, there is lots of politics running through the core of the Oxbridge institutions, as we regularly read in mainstream media. Who knows what else that we don't know!
Just goggled for some recent news:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/30/oxford-university-loses-landmark-legal-case-ageist-policy-forced/
and if you have a subscription to the FT, this article is very very interesting too:
"Scheming spires: trouble at Oxford’s Christ Church"
www.ft.com/content/2cb52a3e-eaad-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

I think retirement age is a thing whether private / public companies or universities or whatever. So not the point here.

I think that is different to entrance requirements for undergraduates.

But hey - never knowingly under conflated in many cases.

In the real world, going to Oxford or Cambridge makes very little difference to your future career path. I went (admittedly 25 years ago) and myself and 99% of my friends (from both state and private education backgrounds) have pretty standard decent jobs. None of us are CEO’s, politicians, high ranking civil servants. I know way more ‘successful’ (if you define that by wealth or career ‘status’) people who didn’t go to university at all!