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 )

“A case of what many public school do, throw enough shit at something and some is bound to stick”

What a vile way to refer to 17 year-olds. “Shit.” Really?

As to that poster’s other point - I have nothing to do with Eton nor any boarding school, but even I know it’s highly academically selective at 13+ entry. Or perhaps you think students just write a cheque and waltz in?

Well it's a bit of both isn't it, @casacat ? Eton may be highly selective but money and status also talk. After all Prince Harry studied there, and I know for sure I know a lot of much brighter young people than him!
Perhaps Eton is a poor example...

@casacat

“A case of what many public school do, throw enough shit at something and some is bound to stick”

What a vile way to refer to 17 year-olds. “Shit.” Really?

As to that poster’s other point - I have nothing to do with Eton nor any boarding school, but even I know it’s highly academically selective at 13+ entry. Or perhaps you think students just write a cheque and waltz in?

Poor choice of words, but very illustrative, only a cretin would infer I'm calling these student 'shit'.

It's a phrase for gods sake and its in reference to the huge numbers they send to apply, which must include pupils a more humble institution wouldn't even consider advising to apply.

The stats speak for themselves.

I don’t think it is “a bit of both” these days, no. Just because the royal family could waltz in in the past - so what? How is that remotely relevant to anyone except them? In the past!

Everyone else will have to get above a certain score in the Common Entrance Exam (which is fully transparent and independently marked by the CE exam board). Prep schools will not and can not put boys forward for Eton (or any other school) who do not have the requisite CE score for that particular school. There is no point. Different schools have different minimum scores so they have to apply accordingly, Even then, there is a competitive interview process and probably other tests to get through.

Many schools are more competitive at 11 plus entry than Oxbridge. I think many people like to spout off about these schools, but most people have absolutely no idea, to be honest. The competition for places is crazy.

I could list you at least ten independent schools near to me (London) where, year on year, there are 10-15 applicants for every place at 11 plus. At Oxbridge, only courses such as CS or PPE have that many applicants per place. The average ratio is 5 applicants per place across the two universities.

Some subjects like Classics or Anglo Saxon and Norse or something like that have an offer rate of 40-50%.

To get into some if the London Day Schools (and possibly some of the boarding schools), 1,500 apply for 100 places at 11 plus. It’s an extremely competitive process of exams and interviews and they need a lot of resilience because, the odds of a place are so tough, they will all be sitting at least 5 schools at the age 10!
Some kids are sitting about ten schools at that age! As I say, many people have no idea and seem to think they just glide in. No amount of money or influence will wangle you a place at these schools if you’re not in the top x% in the exam. Trust me on that!

And I can tell you for a fact (having many years of experience in a London 11 plus prep school), children with CAT scores under 120-125 in all areas simply will not get in to the most selective London Day Schools. For the most selective schools such as St Paul’s etc, the intake is children with CAT scores averaging 130. This puts them in easily the top 1% in terms of underlying ability in the U.K. We would track pupils through the school from age 4 to 11. If they didn’t have at least a track record of CAT scores of 125+, we would refuse to write them a reference for somewhere like Westminster, St Paul’s, Godolphin, CLGS or Latymer Upper. It is wasting everyone’s time and, most importantly, totally unfair and stressful to the child to have them sitting hours snd hours exams for schools they don’t have a cat in hell’s chance of getting into and wouldn’t cope with the academic pace or environment even if they did.

@casacat

I don’t think it is “a bit of both” these days, no. Just because the royal family could waltz in in the past - so what? How is that remotely relevant to anyone except them? In the past!

Everyone else will have to get above a certain score in the Common Entrance Exam (which is fully transparent and independently marked by the CE exam board). Prep schools will not and can not put boys forward for Eton (or any other school) who do not have the requisite CE score for that particular school. There is no point. Different schools have different minimum scores so they have to apply accordingly, Even then, there is a competitive interview process and probably other tests to get through.

Many schools are more competitive at 11 plus entry than Oxbridge. I think many people like to spout off about these schools, but most people have absolutely no idea, to be honest. The competition for places is crazy.

I could list you at least ten independent schools near to me (London) where, year on year, there are 10-15 applicants for every place at 11 plus. At Oxbridge, only courses such as CS or PPE have that many applicants per place. The average ratio is 5 applicants per place across the two universities.

Some subjects like Classics or Anglo Saxon and Norse or something like that have an offer rate of 40-50%.

To get into some if the London Day Schools (and possibly some of the boarding schools), 1,500 apply for 100 places at 11 plus. It’s an extremely competitive process of exams and interviews and they need a lot of resilience because, the odds of a place are so tough, they will all be sitting at least 5 schools at the age 10!
Some kids are sitting about ten schools at that age! As I say, many people have no idea and seem to think they just glide in. No amount of money or influence will wangle you a place at these schools if you’re not in the top x% in the exam. Trust me on that!

That's rubbish.

For the best day senior schools, many kids have been at brilliant pre-preps and preps that groom them to enter these schools since THEY WERE THREE or FOUR YEARS OLD! On top of that, many of the most privileged have years of private brilliant tutors (ironically many Oxbridge grads).

A bright boy at Primary school whose gone through some papers with mum and dad against a prep school kid whose been coached for years for entry in school and out by professionals and you think money and influence play no part ???

Are you that naive ??

@casacat

I don’t think it is “a bit of both” these days, no. Just because the royal family could waltz in in the past - so what? How is that remotely relevant to anyone except them? In the past!

Everyone else will have to get above a certain score in the Common Entrance Exam (which is fully transparent and independently marked by the CE exam board). Prep schools will not and can not put boys forward for Eton (or any other school) who do not have the requisite CE score for that particular school. There is no point. Different schools have different minimum scores so they have to apply accordingly, Even then, there is a competitive interview process and probably other tests to get through.

Many schools are more competitive at 11 plus entry than Oxbridge. I think many people like to spout off about these schools, but most people have absolutely no idea, to be honest. The competition for places is crazy.

I could list you at least ten independent schools near to me (London) where, year on year, there are 10-15 applicants for every place at 11 plus. At Oxbridge, only courses such as CS or PPE have that many applicants per place. The average ratio is 5 applicants per place across the two universities.

Some subjects like Classics or Anglo Saxon and Norse or something like that have an offer rate of 40-50%.

To get into some if the London Day Schools (and possibly some of the boarding schools), 1,500 apply for 100 places at 11 plus. It’s an extremely competitive process of exams and interviews and they need a lot of resilience because, the odds of a place are so tough, they will all be sitting at least 5 schools at the age 10!
Some kids are sitting about ten schools at that age! As I say, many people have no idea and seem to think they just glide in. No amount of money or influence will wangle you a place at these schools if you’re not in the top x% in the exam. Trust me on that!

Right, but at all of these places it's the same few thousand moneyed local kids sitting the papers. Both points [moneyed and local] are very important. The kids who do them are, bluntly speaking, a speck in the overall national picture.

Nationally, every year cohort has the thick end of a million kids in it, with Oxbridge open to every last one of them. So likening Oxbridge to even the top private schools is really comparing apples with oranges.

• by few "few thousand" I was referring the approximate size of the overall pool. I don't suppose any individual school gets as many as a few thousand applications.

@casacat

And I can tell you for a fact (having many years of experience in a London 11 plus prep school), children with CAT scores under 120-125 in all areas simply will not get in to the most selective London Day Schools. For the most selective schools such as St Paul’s etc, the intake is children with CAT scores averaging 130. This puts them in easily the top 1% in terms of underlying ability in the U.K. We would track pupils through the school from age 4 to 11. If they didn’t have at least a track record of CAT scores of 125+, we would refuse to write them a reference for somewhere like Westminster, St Paul’s, Godolphin, CLGS or Latymer Upper. It is wasting everyone’s time and, most importantly, totally unfair and stressful to the child to have them sitting hours snd hours exams for schools they don’t have a cat in hell’s chance of getting into and wouldn’t cope with the academic pace or environment even if they did.

Every single one of the schools you mention have private preps that feed them in large numbers.

Are you telling me 4+ assessment can predict a potential Oxbridge entrant? Jesus christ.....It simply identifies an outgoing, engaged child who has parents who can afford to pay , because I've never heard of a pre-prep that offers bursaries , have you?

A few years in those places at 7+ the ones who show promise cream off to the preps that have a great track record of feeding the great schools, which Oxbridge then over recruits and the school oversend - and the cycle continues .....

@casacat

And I can tell you for a fact (having many years of experience in a London 11 plus prep school), children with CAT scores under 120-125 in all areas simply will not get in to the most selective London Day Schools. For the most selective schools such as St Paul’s etc, the intake is children with CAT scores averaging 130. This puts them in easily the top 1% in terms of underlying ability in the U.K. We would track pupils through the school from age 4 to 11. If they didn’t have at least a track record of CAT scores of 125+, we would refuse to write them a reference for somewhere like Westminster, St Paul’s, Godolphin, CLGS or Latymer Upper. It is wasting everyone’s time and, most importantly, totally unfair and stressful to the child to have them sitting hours snd hours exams for schools they don’t have a cat in hell’s chance of getting into and wouldn’t cope with the academic pace or environment even if they did.

Educational achievement is not linear, however. The brightest 11-year-olds aren't necessarily the brightest 18-year-olds, let alone 4-year-olds.

There are all sorts of reasons for this, including (but not limited to): some children peaking at a young age but not necessarily pushing on from there; others only starting to do well once they can concentrate on a smaller number of subjects which really capture their interest; others still benefit from different types of exams which pertain in the older age groups; others might be dyslexic but brilliant mathematicians and so on.

The data shows that there is no direct correlation between 11+ scores and GCSE results, let along university results. So if the 'top' universities, including Oxbridge, are widening their horizons and putting exam results in some kind of context, that can only be a good thing.

There is no amount of teaching, prep, tutoring or whatever you want to calm it they will get a child if underlying ability into somewhere like SPGS. If you think that, you are wrong.

Yes @southbanklounger, it's bollocks. Anyone who tells you they can reliably predict this is talking rubbish. Pre-prep and prep schools might try to claim this because it plays into their narrative (and even, arguably, into their very existence), but it just isn't supported by the data.

@casacat

There is no amount of teaching, prep, tutoring or whatever you want to calm it they will get a child if underlying ability into somewhere like SPGS. If you think that, you are wrong.

can an average [i.e. 100 iq] kid be tutored to get into SPGS? highly unlikely.

but are most SPGS kids genuinely in the top 1% for smarts [crudely speaking the supposed Oxbridge cutoff]? highly unlikely.

I’m not talking about 11 plus predicting Oxbridge entry. I did not say that. I was responding to the poster who seems to think kids can just breeze into super-selective independent schools because the parents have money. Saying this is as ridiculous as claiming you can throw cash at Cambridge and wangle yourself a place. As if. It is simply not true.

@casacat

There is no amount of teaching, prep, tutoring or whatever you want to calm it they will get a child if underlying ability into somewhere like SPGS. If you think that, you are wrong.

That might be true, but you can't assess underlying ability at the age of 11, let alone at the age of 4, it's just too young to make definitive judgments.

But cash can buy you the additional coaching and access to opportunities that can give a significant leg up to a child of average abilities.

If it makes you feel any better my dc is exactly the sort that people think Oxford should be biased towards. Below average comp, terrible “progression” to HE postcode, the bottom quintile for deprivation. He’s even minority ethnic and from an immigrant background. He’s never had fsm or care experience but he ticks a lot of boxes and he did the uniq summer school. He was rejected before interview for a course that interviews 80% of applicants. He had 3A* predicts and all 8/9 at gcse. We’re assuming he messed up either the written work, or the test or has a crap personal statement. He didn’t have any suitable written work to submit so had to bang something out one lunchtime which his teacher marked but I’d put money on independent and grammar schools setting essays for homework that could be used for this. I also think that some schools will give advice on personal statements and even do “mocks” for the test, which I think will outweigh any state school bias. Just send your dc to whatever school you think suits him best. He obviously has a mum that really cares about him and his education and that, and a happy secondary school experience, will set him up for life.

Sorry I meant to say there is no amount of tutoring or magic formula that will get a child if average ability into somewhere like Westminster SPGS. This is the reality and it leads to a lot of disgruntled parents in Years 5 and 6 - “Oh just let them have a go.” But prep schools will not risk their professional reputation writing references recommending children for certain schools when they just know, through years of experience and documented evidence of which CAT scores result in which offers, that the child will simply not get in. It does a disservice to those pupils who are genuine candidates if schools just capitulate and agree to write references for anyone who fancies having a go for the hell of it. There are about 1000 applicants as it is and it’s an intense process for a 10 / 11 year-old. The first tests are like IQ style tests that assess underlying ability and this is very different to learned ability. Far better for kids to sit for 5 schools - one a “stretch” school (through still somewhere they would cope); three schools that they should get into on a good day, and one “safe option.” You have to be realistic with parents.

“Jovanka

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.“

@Jovanka

I am sure they may not be working harder than your children who are studying those instruments, and that may well be true of other similar children like yours at state schools. The work and commitment needed for music is huge, I know.

But I was speaking of the general level of work expected as a matter of course from able students at somewhere like St Paul’s to the general level of work expected in general from similarly aged children in state schools.
It isn’t generally the same.

The 11 plus has the abstract reasoning which needs practice, but also higher level of renal comprehension and problem solving skills for maths that children in private schools are already being taught. The base level they are expected to reach by eleven is an advantage for making the next stage easier.

Of course there are state school pupils reaching these levels too because of their own ability say in maths and reading, and many will be working very hard. As people pointed out they may have tutoring too.
I am speaking only about what generally happens.

Tutoring in private schools is less likely among the ablest pupils. Able pupils from either state or independent schools aiming for top university places are the subject of the OP.

To be clear, nowhere did U talk about about 4+ or 7+ . Ours was a non-selective prep at age 4. Nor am I saying 11 plus can predict Oxbridge potential. I am talking about how how we guide parents to select realistic school options for a child at 11 plus. They would take the exams in Dec / Jan of Year 6 for entry the following Sept. Only the ones with a track record of CAT scores of 125+ get into the most selective schools and this is the reality if it. We see this time and time again, year on year. For children with CAT scores of 110 etc, we recommend different schools. Some children obviously have spiky profiles and this is something to factor in when considering schools. But even scores of 130+ are no guarantee and every year, children like this may well be rejected from several schools. Some children sadly do not get a place anywhere because parents have unrealistic expectations.

@casacat

There is no amount of teaching, prep, tutoring or whatever you want to calm it they will get a child if underlying ability into somewhere like SPGS. If you think that, you are wrong.

I don't think anyone is saying that, rather a girl who gets assessed at Falkner House 7k a term and starts in Reception , then tries out at Bute at 7+ ( 7k a term), gets in, all the while she has received private tution at home for years from a professional geared to get girls into SPGS.

I think we can all agree she is BEST PLACED to get into SPGS. (assuming Bute don't find out she's getting tutored)

AS opposed to a girl equally as smart who spends all her time at a local London Primary and whose parents have no experience of the selection process at SPGS, or even de-select her because they assume (incorrectly) that you need 25K a year to pay fees at SPGS although the same family could have potentially qualified for a large bursary .

No-one is saying these prep girls aren't smart, but by Christ , if you were even a smidge over average you'll be stretched on that route that you might just get to somewhere like SPGS.

The quality of education and support at Eton, it would be interesting to see how BoJo would have got on if he had gone to ordinary state primary and ordinary comp, with working class parents, who didn't go to Oxbridge like his real dad and mum, in theory he should have still made it, with his IQ, but do you believe that?

@SimpleShootingWeekend

If it makes you feel any better my dc is exactly the sort that people think Oxford should be biased towards. Below average comp, terrible “progression” to HE postcode, the bottom quintile for deprivation. He’s even minority ethnic and from an immigrant background. He’s never had fsm or care experience but he ticks a lot of boxes and he did the uniq summer school. He was rejected before interview for a course that interviews 80% of applicants. He had 3A* predicts and all 8/9 at gcse. We’re assuming he messed up either the written work, or the test or has a crap personal statement. He didn’t have any suitable written work to submit so had to bang something out one lunchtime which his teacher marked but I’d put money on independent and grammar schools setting essays for homework that could be used for this. I also think that some schools will give advice on personal statements and even do “mocks” for the test, which I think will outweigh any state school bias. Just send your dc to whatever school you think suits him best. He obviously has a mum that really cares about him and his education and that, and a happy secondary school experience, will set him up for life.

That's tough because had your child had preparation for that Peaky entrance test s/he may have been coming st the application from a more level playing field. I am convinced this is the problem - that schools like yours can't or won't prepare pupils, while fee paying schools absolutely do. We saw this in action with our children and the neighbouring private school (not even super selective). Kids like yours can ace any number of A levels and GCSEs. But that final hurdle isn't really fair

@southbanklounger your statement that, "No-one is saying these prep girls aren't smart, but by Christ , if you were even a smidge over average you'll be stretched on that route that you might just get to somewhere like SPGS." So a smidge over average would be a student with a 105-110 CAT score. You really think a bunch of tutoring is going to get that child up well into the 130's? A tutor can add +25 CAT points? THAT tutor I'd like to meet and pay them plenty of money because they were worth it LOL

[quote pkim123]@southbanklounger your statement that, "No-one is saying these prep girls aren't smart, but by Christ , if you were even a smidge over average you'll be stretched on that route that you might just get to somewhere like SPGS." So a smidge over average would be a student with a 105-110 CAT score. You really think a bunch of tutoring is going to get that child up well into the 130's? A tutor can add +25 CAT points? THAT tutor I'd like to meet and pay them plenty of money because they were worth it LOL[/quote]
Er, no I didn't mention your bloody little CAT scores, I simply said a kid smidge over average intelligence entering the system at 4+

Plenty of rich kids who are above average intelligence who get stretched in the system as opposed to same level of intelligence who enter the state system at reception.

SO @pkim123 I'll ask you Boris has non-oxbridge parents, attends a so so primary and secondary, still makes it ot Oxford yes or no?

sorry, i'm not really into politics. if you'd enjoy a discussion about education, then i'd be happy to chat @southbanklounger