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/

@LondonJJ - there's exceptions to that - the obvious is the number of people who did PPE at Oxford who end up in the Cabinet, though it's not the whole story as half of them knew each other beforehand; also the contacts made via Cambridge Footlights, or various science labs (not that there aren't great science labs in many places, but the Golden Triangle of Oxbridge+London is an excellent incubator of science talent).

Someone said upthread that if Oxbridge toned down the emphasis on traditions, it would be the same as any other uni - hardly. The THE ranking of world unis has Oxford and Cambridge invariably in the top five (1 and 3 this year here - Imperial and UCL also make the top 20.

I've done a bit of work in getting kids from non-uni backgrounds to apply to good unis (not necessarily Oxbridge, but trying to get them to consider it and reject it based on facts not hearsay). The fact that rent is cheaper than most places should be advertised more, along with the fact that there are less ancient colleges which don't do the dinner thing or even have oak-panelled halls, that there are lots of book grants and bursaries and hardship funds and it's much easier to get a good job for the summer if you can work 13 weeks rather than 10. And you won't even need to pay for a bus/train pass to get to lectures or to go out of an evening.
Also explaining that yes, there are balls that cost £250 for a night, but the people who pay are mainly either thrid-years doing it as a one-off, or alumni doing it for nostalgia, and that the vast majority of epople attending get in by doing work for the event (before, during or after) and getting a discount or free ticket.
And that yes, rich people exist, gobby rich people exist, but if you've got in you've got just as much right to be there as anyone (and rich people get as insecure about their achievements as anyone else).

Apart from the ones who were certain they wanted to do particular courses, reasons for rejection included 'I want to be in a big city' (usually from London/Birmingham, usually wanting certain types of music club night - some liked the idea of it being easy to set up their own nightclub event), lack of options for a year in industry (true, though in many fields a summer placement and feeding into a final year project is just as good), 'it's too far south/north/east', and wanting to stay at home (or parents wanting them to). 'Too many white people' was one way some would express discomfort with it being not-London, and yes, a mainly-white uni is a huge contrast to Southall or Peckham or Walthamstow, but I was shocked how many of them thought that all of Britain had a similar ethnic mix to London and it must be racism that meant you didn't see BME students or people on telly so much.

One side-effect of higher degrees becoming more common is that students are often more ambitious second time round - bit like in the US where many people go to their local community college for two years, then if they do well, are brave enough and willing to pay for a more prestigious college.

I've just had to choose a secondary for ds, state as he couldn't cope with an exam despite being bright, and got to compare the contenders with a couple top public schools. The facilities are remarkably similar; the difference is more teachers at the privates, and some extra academic subjects (but no BTECs etc). And large dedicated inclusion teams at the comps. Will have to see how it pans out - ask me in five years time...

If you watch University Challenge regularly you often see that all four members of the Oxford/Cambridge college teams are London/Home Counties born and bred.

Though University Challenge teams are not necessarily representative of the general student body...?

Firstly, given A levels are public exams, I would really like the government to invest into a website where an excellent teacher covers every part of the syllabus in all subjects so children in any schools who have had to had lessons or just have rubbish teachers, at least have a chance. Then there could be extra tuitions from oxbridge to describe what books to read, what the papers are like, how you can show your talent to them even if you come from a disadvantaged comp. At least put all the info online in this day and age so your motivated pupil can watch it.

Sorry “who have had to miss parts of the syllabus due to disruption/illness/other issues etc”

And another idea would be to get your top indie to contribute as well - for example, watching a good lesson and children discussing things. At least to give a bright child who is genuinely disadvantaged an idea of how intellectually stimulating it could be to go to Oxbridge.

True but I'm pretty sure it's been researched and documented that the majority of Oxbridge students are from SE England (which fits in with where many of the best public and state schools are clustered).

See this article

And another idea would be to get your top indie to contribute as well - for example, watching a good lesson and children discussing things. That type of collaboration is already happening in some of the London boroughs.

Yes, but if you look at the original figures, they show that although London and the South East are still over represented, it's not massively out of line with the percentages achieving top grades at A level. So the problem might be partly under performance of schools in the regions, as well as disproportionate admissions by Oxbridge? www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/nation-region?wssl=1

I am also sure I've read that DC in private schools perform up to two grades higher in their A Levels than they would do in state schools. Presumably, this isn't about inherent intelligence but how they're taught, resources available to them and the size of classes. In which case, it doesn't surprise me at all that state school pupils outperform them at degree level.

Interesting discussion. I don't know much about Cambridge but ds has just had an Oxford offer and he attends a normal comprehensive albeit in a leafy area. His 6th Form underperforms at A level, average grade C. Here are his and my observations.

Oxford are doing a lot to encourage more applications from state schools. DS applied for UNIQ and although did not get on a summer school, did get on a tutorial day where it was explained exactly what Oxford wanted and gave him the opportunity to experience a taste of the Oxford style. Interview preparation days were also organised. After attending he was certain he wanted to give it a go.

His school were not able to support preparation for the admissions test but individual teachers took an interest and gave ds resources and encouraged him.

The Oxford faculty website was very helpful in terms of wider reading/resources and past aptitude tests with mark schemes.

I genuinely think Oxford are trying to increase participation and encourage a wider pool of applicants. DS was perhaps disadvantaged by the lack of support for the admissions test compared to local Indies (he meets a lot of local indie dc at local competitions) but that's it. There may be differences in subjects but for Maths state school students make up nearly 75% of successful applicants.

There may be differences in subjects but for Maths state school students make up nearly 75% of successful applicants. Possibly because maths requires innate ability and cannot be 'coached' in the same way as other subjects?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of successful applicants to Oxbridge by subject, to see where the private/public school bias lies. I suspect Natural Sciences and Engineeering may also favour state school pupils.

And, I wonder how many of the successful state school pupils have parents/siblings/relatives who have been to Oxbridge?

You need innate ability and high quality teaching to well in all subjects...

Private school pupils are over represented on courses like Classics as many state schools don't offer the required A-levels.

State school students apply in the highest proportion for law and math

@Morefreedomless11plus I’d welcome some views on the points that aren’t Oxbridge: state pupils doing better at uni and 11+ a misleading indicator. (Perhaps I should have explained I’m at the 11+ end of the secondary spectrum, not the uni application end).

I'm working on a TV show about Oxford at the moment and myself went to Cambridge so have been compiling a lot of anecdotal research on this issue (state/private entrance and experience once there) through interviewing people.

Personally, I found that I did actually have a much easier time academically than a lot of my privately educated peers. I had never had a tutor, I had pretty rubbish teachers (a lot of powerpoints and DVDs) and my dad was the first in our family to go to university (my mum didn't go). I'd also self-taught a lot of my A level subjects because I'd been in an inpatient unit during sixth form. Those skills meant that the very self-starting approach to learning at Oxbridge suited me perfectly. For those who had been hand held a lot and had tutors etc, they really struggled at times. I ended up coming out with a first.

That said, there were obviously other people who got firsts who HAD been to private school. But they were also supremely intelligent and hard working. I think the difference I felt (again, anecdotally) was that there were a lot of privately educated people who knew how to pass their A Level exams and smash their Oxbridge interview through being well trained, but weren't actually that smart in the kind of free-thinking way Oxbridge rewards. Whereas I don't think I met a state school student who wasn't either incredibly hard working and self-motivated OR highly intelligent, often both.

There are also other factors - you can have gone to a state school but have very well off parents, tutors, grow up in an environment where Oxbridge is a normal thing.

I know nothing about 11+ having not done it and my child not being old enough! But I find the discussions around Oxbridge and this current fear among those sending their kids to private school that suddenly they might not get their children in so easily...

@titchy
State schools need to advise kids better too btw - there's a HUGE issue there with lack of aspiration from teachers, and downright ignorance in some cases: eg the really bright kid that wanted to be a medic advised to do a BTEC inHealth and social care for example).

And where's your evidence for this urban myth then?
My experience of state school, where I have taught for 30 years, is contrary to your comment. Overwhelmingly, teachers I have worked with have pushed those children in their care frequently against societal pressure that tells them education is a waste of time, that there's no point in going to University, that it's just for rich kids. This from parents and peers alike. The issue goes far far beyond how schools educate and motivate their students.

In finance/banking/law in London, unfortunately, graduating with top grades from top University is a real deal. They look great in their CV and makes it so much easier for an entrance start( majority of these students then still have to go through 5 very competitive entrance rounds of tests, interviews, group discussions etc.). And majority of times, with a great start, these people carry on working really hard, being competitive and eager to grow in their career.
I think the arguments here discounted so much of hard working. To get into top selective schools( grammar or private), majority of these children work really hard, have their parents support their hard work. They have right attitude, right working ethics then the schools help to carry on driving them to the direction they want. Ofcourse, there are some less successful people who came from top Univ compare to some other less popular Univ, there are many factors to it (personal choices due to personal circumstances, luck, networking etc.) of which carrying on working hard in their life is still the biggest factor.
Higher education( than undergrads) could open another door however might not be as valuable as some professional qualifications in law, accounting or finance which are preferable from employment perspective and majority of times, people who become qualified in their field study for their qualification WHILE working.
Due to political/social correctness, these top Univs decides to give children who dont go to (entrance) selective schools some boost by going easier in the interview, requiring lower grades. Who calls this is fairness. Then ofcourse, the selective will then switch to (post code) selective. Only wealthy people could then afford for some of these “state/none entrance selective” schools. What is the fairness here?
I came from a foreign country, in our country there is a national policy dividing their entrance requirement to the area of the postcode and also their income. Children who live in the big city have to achieve the highest score to pass, smaller city/province has 1 mark bonus, out reached mountainous area with 1 mark bonus. Children who come from family with benefits also have 1 mark bonus. Personally, I think this is better fairness.

This dumbing down of entry requirements based on class/income/postcode or whatever, will eventually lead to a gradual decline in standards overall. Left wing social meddling lacks acknowledgment of one key component that can transcend and exist within any ‘class’, and that is aspiration. Many poor immigrant families have had huge aspirations for their children, and on the back of that, have done very well indeed. Just as many more comfortably disposed families, have had little or less academic aspiration, and don’t feel the need to drive their ambitions quite as much. It’s not rocket science. Yes a degree of intelligence is required, amongst many other traits or qualities that can impact a child’s academic success. Coming from a large family that has a hugely varied distribution of wealth & academic success, that has certainly been the case. I myself had quite a difficult childhood, and went to an inner city state school, yet having a drive to do well, and rise above that poverty, was what drove my own ambitions. My husband had the opposite, a privileged childhood and attended a prestigious university. Inherently very clever, and that’s what won him his place. We have family members who have attended Oxbridge from poor upbringings and state school educations, and wealthier privately educated family, who have done the same. And we also have family who being very successful in business, have children who have attended private schools; one inherently clever, but lacking motivation and a hunger to excel..and the other who is not so clever, but works insanely hard to do the best they can. It’s a very mixed bag; and wealth and type of school, have had little to do with it. As it is, we have never harboured any Oxbridge ambitions for our children. It certainly hasn’t been an obvious defining measure of success within our wider family and friends.

I went to oxbridge and would say it does give you a massive advantage. Partly just academically when I started my PhD we'd just covered alot more to greater depth. In very competitive industries it definitely helps get an interview. My husband works in finance and often they'll only look at candidates with top degrees (first class from oxbridge or imperial if from the UK probably with masters/PhD too). They have a huge volume of applications and just can't be bothered to interview them all. Once you have a job it's all about how well you do and no one cares where you went.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=2ahUKEwjsx4Gv1dbnAhXBoXEKHTxNCCUQFjADegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk%2Fapply%2Fstatistics&usg=AOvVaw3rAczJeduN_TtPklBK_7g8

There you go for Cambridge @NewModelArmyMayhem18, P16 gives you the latest cycle breakdown for state/private by subject.
Sure Oxford has similar freely available with a quick look on Google.

Oh thanks @hobbema!

PermanentlyFrizzyHairBall is 100% spot on. This probably only is true in London and very competitive industries.

And where's your evidence for this urban myth then? My experience of state school, where I have taught for 30 years, is contrary to your comment.

Why do you assume your experience is mirrored across the entire state school sector?

Sutton Trust state: Many young people are not getting the right advice when it comes to A level options. Students need more support at an earlier age, that can help them to make an informed choice on their A-level choices.

Here if you're interested: www.suttontrust.com/our-research/access-to-advantage-university-admissions/

www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/Admissions%20Report%202019.pdf @NewModelArmyMahem18 here you go for Oxford. The proportion of state school admissions has risen slowly and steadily over the past 6 years. The data also has breakdowns by subject and ethnic minority type which make interesting reading.

Page 17 is interesting - state school applicants for the most oversubscribed courses outnumber independent (Medicine, Maths E&M, Law, PPE) but it is the reverse for the least oversubscribed (includes Classics, Languages, Music). There is a similar correlation in the numbers of offers/admissions (high proportion of state educated in Medicine, Maths) . Not surprisingly Classics stands out for it's small number of state school admissions)