State school oxbridge bias

[confusedmommy]

Hi, come March 1st, we are very likely to be in the fortunate position to be able pick between a top independent boys school in london ( KCS or St.Paul’s ) and a grammar school ( Tiffin or Wilson ) for my DS. The choice will be a difficult one for us. We can afford the fees but not without some sacrifices. Meanwhile I’m hearing that oxbridge is beginning to favour state school applications more so in recent years. Is this really true ? And if yes, is this only true in Oxford or is this trend seen in other top Russell group universities too. Given grammar is a realistic option for us, I am wondering even more if independent is the right choice for my DS ( who doesn’t really have a strong point of view personally )

“southbanklounger

The system will always favour those with money as long as the Russell group uni's offer no real help for students from poor backgrounds.”

I may be out of date, but know that Oxford was offering massive help to poor students with special grants for living costs which could make them better off than some I the low-middle income group.

I agree @intwrferingma. There is prejudice against sending kids to the local comp by some MN parents because they fear they won't get into the best universities and the best jobs. I just don't understand the pressure they put themselves under.

I can't afford private school, and I loathe the grammar school system. I live in inner South London. One of my local comprehensive schools is on par with the local private secondary school for GCSEs and A level results. Some students have gone on to RG and Oxbridge uni's, and the teachers want their students to apply. Their intake is diverse, with many of the children coming from families whose parents were born outside of the UK. I wanted DD to go there, but lost out because of geography. I was completely smitten with the teachers dedication not only to the kids results but also their pastoral care. The only differences, that I could see, between this state comprehensive and the private school up the road was the private school had superior facilities, it had the prestige that some parents crave, and it cost £8k a term.

Now my DD goes to school in a good comprehensive just over the borough border. Although the results are not as good as the above school, it aims to push my daughter to realise her potential. She is constantly encouraged and told to go the extra mile. There is also a good extracurricular programme and good pastoral care. It's a diverse school, too. My daughter is happy there. She's expected to do well in her GCSEs. Again, the school doesn't discourage students from applying to prestigious universities. And why should they? The students have studied as hard as the kids in private schools, they should be given fair crack of the whip.

Being happy and feeling safe in school naturally leads to do one's best in my view. If you are sending your child to a top performing private school and they are miserable, they aren't going to get the best results. Sometimes children are happier in the state sector because it suits them better. Why put your child under so much pressure? It harms!

@SpikeySmooth
The students have studied as hard as the kids in private schools, they should be given fair crack of the whip. “

That may well be true in your experience , and be true of some schools.

But there is no way the amount of work expected of state school pupils and expected of them at independent academic/academic grammar schools is the same generally speaking. It begins at about age eight from when children will be doing sport, music, drama etc plus school work from early in the morning till well into the evening and weekends even by age twelve; then the work load increases relentlessly.

Why do people at state primary schools need tutoring for the 11 plus and for competitive exams if they are already working at that level? Some elements of scholarship exams for 14 year olds are AS standards. The very successful sixth form college

Posted too soon
Re: state schools have just as much work- I disagree generally speaking…

There is a successful London state sixth form college that asks pupils to sign up to the four hour a night after school, and all day weekend work loads, why would they ask for that if if is the expected norm?

@ScrollingLeaves

“southbanklounger

The system will always favour those with money as long as the Russell group uni's offer no real help for students from poor backgrounds.”

I may be out of date, but know that Oxford was offering massive help to poor students with special grants for living costs which could make them better off than some I the low-middle income group.

There is no comparison , no university in the UK offers to pay all your fees and give you a living grant, a proper one that covers accomodation and food.

All universities have hardship funds and Oxford has brilliant ones, but these aren't for covering fees, and their scope is limited, more emergency help, than long term, they certainly can't support you for 3 years.

I may be out of date and if so hopefully can correct me.

ScrollingLeaves parents paying for extra tutoring in state schools is no different to parents paying for all that extra tutoring and extra curricular offerings provided as part of the fees in independent schools. It’s just a different model.

[quote ScrollingLeaves]@SpikeySmooth
The students have studied as hard as the kids in private schools, they should be given fair crack of the whip. “

That may well be true in your experience , and be true of some schools.

But there is no way the amount of work expected of state school pupils and expected of them at independent academic/academic grammar schools is the same generally speaking. It begins at about age eight from when children will be doing sport, music, drama etc plus school work from early in the morning till well into the evening and weekends even by age twelve; then the work load increases relentlessly.

Why do people at state primary schools need tutoring for the 11 plus and for competitive exams if they are already working at that level? Some elements of scholarship exams for 14 year olds are AS standards. The very successful sixth form college[/quote]
I am wondering why a private school pupil is working so much harder than a state school pupil to get the same results? What does this achieve exactly? And many state school pupils also do sport/music/drama etc. And many private school pupils don't.

I should also point out that an awful lot of private school parents tutor for 11+. Which does beg the question of what they are paying for in their school fess.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

ScrollingLeaves parents paying for extra tutoring in state schools is no different to parents paying for all that extra tutoring and extra curricular offerings provided as part of the fees in independent schools. It’s just a different model.

That's an old chestnut. Very very few parents pay for extra tuition in state schools. Not in my experience anyway. But it's a well worn MN trope

“southbanklounger

ScrollingLeaves
“southbanklounger

The system will always favour those with money as long as the Russell group uni's offer no real help for students from poor backgrounds.”

“I may be out of date, but know that Oxford was offering massive help to poor students with special grants for living costs which could make them better off than some I the low-middle income group.”

“There is no comparison , no university in the UK offers to pay all your fees and give you a living grant, a proper one that covers accomodation and food.

All universities have hardship funds and Oxford has brilliant ones, but these aren't for covering fees, and their scope is limited, more emergency help, than long term, they certainly can't support you for 3 years.

I may be out of date and if so hopefully can correct me.“

What I was speaking of in Oxford was not for fees for which most students have a loan, but living, and it was not an emergency fund. It was so generous it easily matched what reasonably well off students were given by their parents for food, books, rent, travel to and from home etc- which was the intention.

Perhaps I am out of date, or only some colleges have it. This was about twelve years ago and there were better state funded grants for poorer students too.

Most people face loans for fees. They thought at that time at least they would not be paying them back until and if they were earning enough. Poor students will have the same opportunity to pay them back ( or not) as anyone else post degree.

Oxford does not want people to work during the term and short holidays because of the work load expected. I agree with you completely that students from poor families need help with living costs if they are to go to university and thrive.

intwrferingma Fortunately the options for my DC were either state or independent, no grammar schools, so I have no experience of tutoring.

I remember some rather ambitious parents coaching their 4 and 5 yr olds to get them into the local independent though.

I am not a fan of the grammar system at all. I’d much rather resources were put into state schools so that parents can choose from a range of equally good schools that can develop their children to realise their full potential.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason do you really think that the measly budgets of the few grammars schools that are left are going to be enough to miraculously transform the current state system into a range of equally good schools across the country?! This is just a platitude that gets banded around on Mumsnet and is nonsense. Maybe have a look at the funding that these schools actually get before making such statements.

They don’t “over recruit” from those schools anymore than they do from Hills Road, London Excellence Academy, Brighton & Hove, Harris Westminster, et. al.

All these schools whether state or private are selective. Which is the underlying reason why there are so many able children in one place.

www.locrating.com/Blog/oxfordandcambridgeoffers.aspx

Grammar schools are state schools.

I'm not a fan, personally, of the grammar school system but let's get the facts right.

[quote Greygreygrey]They don’t “over recruit” from those schools anymore than they do from Hills Road, London Excellence Academy, Brighton & Hove, Harris Westminster, et. al.

All these schools whether state or private are selective. Which is the underlying reason why there are so many able children in one place.

www.locrating.com/Blog/oxfordandcambridgeoffers.aspx[/quote]
er, according to the sutton trust they do, it's common knowledge.

www.suttontrust.com/news-opinion/all-news-opinion/8-schools-send-as-many-pupils-to-oxbridge-as-three-quarters-of-all-schools/

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46470838

[quote HerdingBats]@TheAbbotOfUnreason do you really think that the measly budgets of the few grammars schools that are left are going to be enough to miraculously transform the current state system into a range of equally good schools across the country?! This is just a platitude that gets banded around on Mumsnet and is nonsense. Maybe have a look at the funding that these schools actually get before making such statements.[/quote]
Why do you think it’s grammar school budgets that would be used? Why can’t the government get its act together to invest properly in education for all schools - then there’s be no need for a hierarchy of state schools.

Platitude you say? Wanting all state schools to be equally good to make the system fair and equitable, rather than grammar schools skimming off the brighter kids and leaving other schools to sort out the rest?

Funny how other countries manage to adequately fund their state schools though, isn’t it?

@ScrollingLeaves

“southbanklounger

ScrollingLeaves
“southbanklounger

The system will always favour those with money as long as the Russell group uni's offer no real help for students from poor backgrounds.”

“I may be out of date, but know that Oxford was offering massive help to poor students with special grants for living costs which could make them better off than some I the low-middle income group.”

“There is no comparison , no university in the UK offers to pay all your fees and give you a living grant, a proper one that covers accomodation and food.

All universities have hardship funds and Oxford has brilliant ones, but these aren't for covering fees, and their scope is limited, more emergency help, than long term, they certainly can't support you for 3 years.

I may be out of date and if so hopefully can correct me.“

What I was speaking of in Oxford was not for fees for which most students have a loan, but living, and it was not an emergency fund. It was so generous it easily matched what reasonably well off students were given by their parents for food, books, rent, travel to and from home etc- which was the intention.

Perhaps I am out of date, or only some colleges have it. This was about twelve years ago and there were better state funded grants for poorer students too.

Most people face loans for fees. They thought at that time at least they would not be paying them back until and if they were earning enough. Poor students will have the same opportunity to pay them back ( or not) as anyone else post degree.

Oxford does not want people to work during the term and short holidays because of the work load expected. I agree with you completely that students from poor families need help with living costs if they are to go to university and thrive.

Oxford has a range of non repayable bursaries from £500-£5000pa based on household income. These are paid automatically if you have a maintenance loan. Also up to £500 travel grant depending on how far you live from Oxford. (D1 gets £500, we are 300 miles away). On top of this are dept book grants, college hardship funds, other scholarships etc. They are very keen that your financial situation should not be an obstacle.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying @TheAbbotOfUnreason. I wholeheartedly agree that state schools should be adequately funded so that there is no hierarchy. I was simply referring to your comment "I am not a fan of the grammar system at all. I’d much rather resources were put into state schools so that parents can choose from a range of equally good schools that can develop their children to realise their full potential." that the issue here is much bigger and would take much more resources than the tiny grammar school sector which gets crazily low state funding.

[quote Greygreygrey]They don’t “over recruit” from those schools anymore than they do from Hills Road, London Excellence Academy, Brighton & Hove, Harris Westminster, et. al.

All these schools whether state or private are selective. Which is the underlying reason why there are so many able children in one place.

www.locrating.com/Blog/oxfordandcambridgeoffers.aspx[/quote]
Are you seriously suggesting Eton are able to hand pick potential at 13 ? Or the more likely case is they aggressively send boys forward that a state school wouldn't encourage, even your own link shows it, 208 boys sent forward . A case of what many public school do, throw enough shit at something and some is bound to stick. Also their 'B' grade material are taught by sometimes brilliant teachers within brilliant facilities with an ethos that anything and everything is possible.

208 Eton boys, 69 offers

Newham college in East London, one of the most deprived areas in the UK

100 applied, 22 offers

@JulesJules

That's pathetic compared to the US Ivies offer for poor students, come on!

@intwrferingma that's not true regarding tutoring.

www.suttontrust.com/our-research/private-tuition-polling-2019/

The data suggests in London over 40% of state school pupils in secondary school get private tutoring and its a major source of educational inequality.

[quote ConfusedaboutSchool]@intwrferingma that's not true regarding tutoring.

www.suttontrust.com/our-research/private-tuition-polling-2019/

The data suggests in London over 40% of state school pupils in secondary school get private tutoring and its a major source of educational inequality.[/quote]
I'm nowhere near London. My experience and that of friends here is that no one has been tutored. I agree it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy tho as soon as it's available and starts to be used.

And of course the figures don't tell us how many kids at indies are also getting tutoring on top.

The students have studied as hard as the kids in private schools, they should be given fair crack of the whip. “

That may well be true in your experience , and be true of some schools.

But there is no way the amount of work expected of state school pupils and expected of them at independent academic/academic grammar schools is the same generally speaking. It begins at about age eight from when children will be doing sport, music, drama etc plus school work from early in the morning till well into the evening and weekends even by age twelve; then the work load increases relentlessly.

Why do people at state primary schools need tutoring for the 11 plus and for competitive exams if they are already working at that level? Some elements of scholarship exams for 14 year olds are AS standards.

I have 2 DCs who go to a state school - a comprehensive in a deprived area. They play 5 instruments between them and spend a significant amount of their spare time on musical activities. I would challenge you to find any privately-educated child who works harder.

And one of the reasons why state-school students ‘need’ tutoring for the 11+ etc. is because the content/format of the tests are not covered at state schools as part of the national curriculum. Verbal reasoning, non-verbal reasoning are skills which need to be practised. Prep schools will cover this as part of their school day as they know that is what the kids need for entrance tests and (most) state primaries will not. It’s a system which feeds into itself.

@HerdingBats

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying *@TheAbbotOfUnreason*. I wholeheartedly agree that state schools should be adequately funded so that there is no hierarchy. I was simply referring to your comment "I am not a fan of the grammar system at all. I’d much rather resources were put into state schools so that parents can choose from a range of equally good schools that can develop their children to realise their full potential." that the issue here is much bigger and would take much more resources than the tiny grammar school sector which gets crazily low state funding.

Ah, my apologies. I should have said I’m not a fan of selective state schools.

[quote ConfusedaboutSchool]@intwrferingma that's not true regarding tutoring.

www.suttontrust.com/our-research/private-tuition-polling-2019/

The data suggests in London over 40% of state school pupils in secondary school get private tutoring and its a major source of educational inequality.[/quote]
There is nothing in that survey that says it just looked at state schools.

@RedskyThisNight, you are right, it may be the figure for all pupils including private school students not just state school pupils.

Before going back to the original publication source, I found it in a newspaper article which stated the figure is only state schools but the article may have made a mistake.