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 )

@SimpleShootingWeekend
I think what happened to your son is a real shame. In my opinion he was scandalously let down by his school. He is sure to do well wherever he goes though.

@pkim123

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

Any debate like this, the private school parents come trotting out at the mere suggestion they are in a position of immense privilege and somehow cheated their way to the top , that's so not the point of my argument.

No-one is putting these kids down, in fact its re-affirming the function of these schools, to get the kids to reach their full potential.

Many state schools can't compete to do this, and therefore like a poster has put earlier kids who are certainly Oxbridge material miss out. It's not rocket science.

For me the biggest issue is lack of support of working class bright students, i.e tuition free places and non-repayable grants.

At least in my day, I had a grant and no fees, this was in the 80's , but we also had Prince Edward get into Jesus with terrible A levels....oh the good old days

“intwrferingma

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...“

Prince Harry would have been an exception.

It is difficult to get into.

Kids like yours can ace any number of A levels and GCSEs. But that final hurdle isn't really fair

I think it’s probably not fair. There is a lot to do around an oxbridge application and a lots of kids/schools really aren’t aware. If your school doesn’t send a lot (or any!) kids then they don’t know how to prepare them or what they should be submitting as written work. They need to be working in their personal statements from about y10 but people are insanely patronising about it (oh, have they not already read eleven million books on the subject and attended the free exhibition that’s a £90 train ride away? They can’t be very interested in X subject then…- no they haven’t, they’ve got a job and have to help at home and play football on Saturdays). There are always rumours that some teachers practically write the personal statements whereas schools like my dcs will read through one version and that’s it. His feedback as “fine” which isn’t very constructive. I think they’ve done a lot at getting wc kids to apply, especially from deprived areas of London rather than arse end of arse areas in the midlands like mine to apply, but I don’t really think they “get” the impact of cultural capital, knowing educated people, having a dad who works in a suit, living in a town with a library that has “events” for kids older than 3 and a square with musicians on a Saturday instead of youths throwing greggs pasties at each other, not having to work in a pt job so freeing up time to do those extras you need, or even a teacher thinking in y12 “this student is going to submit written work as part of an oxbridge application, I’ll start setting appropriate stuff as homework”. Even the Oxford summer school was held in state school term time and private school holiday time so all the kids who attended (online, but it’s usually ftf) missed a significant amount of school. A private school would have caught them up. Anyway, there are plenty of boys from Eton and Winchester with amazing grades and every advantage under the sun who were also turned down, there is an element of lottery and it’s crazy competitive. The lottery element means it’s probably a bad idea to really consider picking a school on the basis that it might help. Luckily there are lots of other excellent universities and hopefully one of them will offer ds a place sooner or later (sooner for preference, my nerves are shot).

Anyone who is interested in the bonkers nature of admissions should watch the college admissions scandal on Netflix. Absolute batshittery.

I think if a pupil is from an independent school and makes the slightest slip in interview, for example where they could have been more nuanced/ thoughtful in a discussion, they are then out of the running.

Good tutors try to help disadvantaged students shine and use whatever they have managed to do in the way of interests and jobs to be a starting point for discussions, but there must be some very thoughtless and unimaginative entrance tutors too. Let us hope it gets better all the time.

Is that scheme still going, which I think Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford had, to take students with potential and give them a preparatory year ahead of starting on the degree? That seemed a really good idea.

I have checked with the financial side at Oxford. People with parents on low incomes can get a £5000 scholarship to add to the student loan for living and thereby make up the total amount Oxford have worked out as being needed for 9 months. Otherparents might give that £5000, ( no one can work part-time outside the long vacation). So poor students could be like the many ‘middle’ income ones who take out all the loans and get parental help on top to make up the short-fall.

It is such a pity that it costs so much to go to university here and now with Brexit the alternative of much cheaper European
universities has been closed.

@southbanklounger I agree with much of your argument. I also believe that money provides human beings with advantages literally from day one, and not just academic. There's no denying that. I think that any developed society should work towards providing equal opportunities to all its citizens. I also appreciate that you were not saying kids with money were cheating their way into good schools. Really, my only point was I do not believe tutoring can turn any average student into a top student. Similarly, I don't think anyone can be coached or use PEDs to become a world-class athlete. Does tutoring help students improve test results, absolutely. So, should we try and level the field between state and private students, for sure.

"mm, not sure I really agree with that. not when so many pupils get A's in so many things, A in your chosen subject or something like it should be a given, but A*s in other things are clearly relevant too, not least because advanced degree modules can take you in quite a few directions, e.g. in your example a few bits of degree level physical geography [and most of say degree level economics] can start to get quite maths-y in a way that A level geography or economics doesn't."

Sorry this is nonsense. DD1's NatSi offer from Cambridge was 2 A stars, 2 As in 2017. She "only" achieved an A grade in Chemistry, her passion, but it was the 1st year of the revised syllabus. So what you are saying is that she shouldn't have gone there...? Well because she achieved her offer, she went. She coped fine with the Chemistry. She achieved 1sts in her Part I, Part II and Part III exams and is now studying for a PhD there which has quite a lot of Chemistry in it. The difference between an A grade and A* grade can be simply omitting one key word in an answer.

To the OP: my DDs were both good mathematicians and musicians at 10/11. One did GCSE Music, the other didn't. Both did A level Maths/FM. Both have studied science degrees. Did we know what they would do at 11? Not a chance! Send your DS to the school where he will fit in best. A lot can happen in the next 6+ years.

[quote pkim123]@southbanklounger I agree with much of your argument. I also believe that money provides human beings with advantages literally from day one, and not just academic. There's no denying that. I think that any developed society should work towards providing equal opportunities to all its citizens. I also appreciate that you were not saying kids with money were cheating their way into good schools. Really, my only point was I do not believe tutoring can turn any average student into a top student. Similarly, I don't think anyone can be coached or use PEDs to become a world-class athlete. Does tutoring help students improve test results, absolutely. So, should we try and level the field between state and private students, for sure.[/quote]
Agree with you completely. I'm not even anti-private.

No, The real solution is what Harvard are doing and some Ivies, needs blind applications and once in , if your family income is low, you pay no fees and get a grant (not a loan) for accomodation and living. This would raise the amount of working class bright children applying, confidence if they win a place they pay nothing and don't go into 'debt' ( Although it is grad tax in real terms- many DC see it as debt they cannot afford to have around their necks with no parental bail out options)

Like the Harvard system it should be open to all, even international students. Oxbridge can afford this, many Russell group uni's can too, they certainly could get sponsorship to cover the cost, this would hardly be huge amounts of kids each year anyway, as very bright is not the norm in any class.

@southbanklounger“Like the Harvard system it should be open to all, even international students. Oxbridge can afford this, many Russell group uni's can too, they certainly could get sponsorship to cover the cost, this would hardly be huge amounts of kids each year anyway, as very bright is not the norm in any class.“

This does seem good. I have heard though that there are sections of Ivy League students who get in because of their parents who went, plus donations.

Then in America at large ( I don’t know about Harvard) there are many people who have to have loans and the system is brutal. Even if you become ill and cannot work they come after you. The same after your death.

Also, I don’t agree that Oxford can ‘easily afford this’. They are fund raising all the time to get the money for the grants they do give out. You say very bright is not the norm in any class, but it is in certain universities and they are trying to help the poorest financially at Oxford (any others?).

And I don’t agree that all the students who have to take out loans who are not working class, or who didn’t have free school meals, have parents who can afford to bail them out even though I agree that for some the thought of the debt does not seem like a graduate tax but just awful debt. In fact for everyone it is beginning to look like awful debt these days.

[quote ScrollingLeaves]@southbanklounger“Like the Harvard system it should be open to all, even international students. Oxbridge can afford this, many Russell group uni's can too, they certainly could get sponsorship to cover the cost, this would hardly be huge amounts of kids each year anyway, as very bright is not the norm in any class.“

This does seem good. I have heard though that there are sections of Ivy League students who get in because of their parents who went, plus donations.

Then in America at large ( I don’t know about Harvard) there are many people who have to have loans and the system is brutal. Even if you become ill and cannot work they come after you. The same after your death.

Also, I don’t agree that Oxford can ‘easily afford this’. They are fund raising all the time to get the money for the grants they do give out. You say very bright is not the norm in any class, but it is in certain universities and they are trying to help the poorest financially at Oxford (any others?).

And I don’t agree that all the students who have to take out loans who are not working class, or who didn’t have free school meals, have parents who can afford to bail them out even though I agree that for some the thought of the debt does not seem like a graduate tax but just awful debt. In fact for everyone it is beginning to look like awful debt these days.[/quote]
Sorry by class I literally mean within the working class, middle class etc.

Agree the American system leaves a lot to be desired, the Harvard aid is in response to all the legacy thing and Federal Aid is a world apart from our Student Loans system.

This Aid is a relatively new thing too.

I think if Oxbridge announced this and looked for partners to fund it, they'd find it pretty quickly for the kudos of helping the poor help themselves.

Completely agree the middle class will not like this, rich parents can pay their DC through uni, the very poor don't have fees and a grant. The squeezed middle , squeezed more, but this happens in private schools now, a family turning up at Westminster on 30K family income pay no fees, but one in London on 90K, hardly high rollers, probably get nothing.

There needs more funding to universities to provide cheap housing and lower fees, but that's a tax issue. We need to reverse fees to 2012 levels. But post covid, the war, that's not going to happen.

The OP's first post reminded me of the one friend in my peer group whose kids went to a high flying and expensive independent, while our kids all went to their local state comps.

Lovely guy, but when it was first mooted that universities should try to address the disparity between offers to private and state educated young people, he sounded off about how unfair it was that he had spent all this money to advantage his kids, and it might be for nothing. He was met with silence. Then someone changed the subject.

Of course despite the fact that his kids didn't get the best grades in our group, the connections, the training on the social stuff, the ability to get work experience at fancy schmancy big London companies, meant that they still got the 'best' jobs and are earning vastly higher salaries than all our kids.

It's not all about Oxbridge.

In addition @saraclara I've had stories retold times me by friends with children at independents who tell me the schools themselves wail that 'it's not fair'; that children at comps are given an easy ride in terms of contextual offers (not a thing at Oxbridge btw). So the parents are fed this line (or lie) by the schools who are trying to manage disappointment when pupils get pipped to places.

Of course despite the fact that his kids didn't get the best grades in our group, the connections, the training on the social stuff, the ability to get work experience at fancy schmancy big London companies, meant that they still got the 'best' jobs and are earning vastly higher salaries than all our kids.

This is why firms shouldn't offer unpaid internships, and all paid internships should be properly advertised and not just word of mouth.

Just reading this and, to be honest, post like “I’ve heard stories of parents whinging...” just some across as spurious and petty.

The fact is, of 24,000 or whatever it is that apply to Oxford, only 4,000 of those will be successful. That’s a LOT of disappointed kids and their parents in all sectors. All these DC will have top grades or they wouldn’t have applied in the first place!

When your child doesn’t get a place, it’s, of course, totally natural to try and fathom why. For some this may take the form of blaming other groups - eg. “all the privileged “Hugos” with their magic schools and tutors,” or conversely, “All the WP kids pushing our kids out.” This kind of “whinging” (as the poster above refers to it) takes various forms and comes from all sides as this thread shows. It’s just human nature in the face of disappointment to want to ‘blame’ something.

Ultimately, you just need to get feedback from the college they applied to before speculating. The system is far from a perfect science.

Your child was not being measured against “the private school kids” or “the WP kids.” If they applied for say, History at Kings College Cambridge, and there were 20 other History applicants to that college for 5 places that year, that is who they were assessed against. Who knows what schools or what circumstances these 20 students were applying from. Regardless, everything will have been contextualised - not just in the basis of school, but also on POLAR / ACORN data, special mitigating factors, etc. As I said, it’s far from a perfect system snd they inevitably have to turn down DC who would have thrived in that environment.

What I don’t see mentioned in this thread is that quite a few applicants are not successful first time round (in Year 13), but reapply post- A-level and are successful second time around. Your child will have been up against some of these too.

From my direct perspective, independent schools are not specifically “whinging” about the impact of WP. Not yet anyway! Yes, fewer offers have been made in the last two years snd this has been noticeable, but I think most people are “blaming” Covid for this. Oxbridge have openly stated they have made less offers across the board in the last two cycles.

@m0ch1

Just reading this and, to be honest, post like “I’ve heard stories of parents whinging...” just some across as spurious and petty.

The fact is, of 24,000 or whatever it is that apply to Oxford, only 4,000 of those will be successful. That’s a LOT of disappointed kids and their parents in all sectors. All these DC will have top grades or they wouldn’t have applied in the first place!

When your child doesn’t get a place, it’s, of course, totally natural to try and fathom why. For some this may take the form of blaming other groups - eg. “all the privileged “Hugos” with their magic schools and tutors,” or conversely, “All the WP kids pushing our kids out.” This kind of “whinging” (as the poster above refers to it) takes various forms and comes from all sides as this thread shows. It’s just human nature in the face of disappointment to want to ‘blame’ something.

Ultimately, you just need to get feedback from the college they applied to before speculating. The system is far from a perfect science.

Your child was not being measured against “the private school kids” or “the WP kids.” If they applied for say, History at Kings College Cambridge, and there were 20 other History applicants to that college for 5 places that year, that is who they were assessed against. Who knows what schools or what circumstances these 20 students were applying from. Regardless, everything will have been contextualised - not just in the basis of school, but also on POLAR / ACORN data, special mitigating factors, etc. As I said, it’s far from a perfect system snd they inevitably have to turn down DC who would have thrived in that environment.

What I don’t see mentioned in this thread is that quite a few applicants are not successful first time round (in Year 13), but reapply post- A-level and are successful second time around. Your child will have been up against some of these too.

From my direct perspective, independent schools are not specifically “whinging” about the impact of WP. Not yet anyway! Yes, fewer offers have been made in the last two years snd this has been noticeable, but I think most people are “blaming” Covid for this. Oxbridge have openly stated they have made less offers across the board in the last two cycles.

The difference though, is that people from backgrounds privileged enough to send their kids to private school don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to "whinging" about fairness in the system.

I went to private school btw but even I can see that!

I think it's great if more state school kids are applying and getting places even if that is at the expense of "poor private school kids". It is still grossly skewed in favour of private school kids as evidenced by the numbers applying and it's been well explained by pps on here.

As I understood it from recent stats, 23% of 16-18 students attend fee-paying schools. Most will be selective to some extent (but some will be a lot more selective than others obviously).

The other 77% attend state schools. A proportion of these will be grammar schools.

Colleges at Cambridge make between 70-80% of their offers to the state sector.

So on the face of it, WP criteria are being met, in terms of proportions of applications to offers per sector. The problem is, that behind the headline stats, a large chunk of state school offers are going to those applying from grammar schools and selective state sixth forms.

I noticed the 2022 course info for Cambridge has been updated. There is now a “Foundation Year” that students from very under-performing schools can now apply to and the A-level requirement is BBB.

Where are you getting those stats from please @m0ch1? Even if you're right, it is not unfairly biased against privately educated applicants if it is only just now becoming representative of the general population, instead of as before when privately educated children made up a disproportionately high percentage of undergraduates at Oxbridge.

Sensible post @m0ch1

I agree completely.

The 70% stat is a recent one. In 2016 it was 58% state school. The only stat I can find easily for over 16s attending private / fee paying schools and colleges says 17%. So at least until very recently, private school students have been disproportionately represented at Oxbridge. For any sane person to now be complaining about unfair bias against private school children seems extremely misguided. So it isn't sensible to compare like for like the complaints of the parents of state school children to the complaints of the parents of private school children who object to this levelling up.

As I said, I went to private school, (but not Oxbridge - they can't perform miracles and I was never likely to get those grades). The unfairness of private education is so clear to me, even though it doesn't paint me in the best light. It is possible to still be fair and objective even if you think levelling up may mean that the advantages you previously enjoyed due to privilege may no longer be available to you. So I do object to parents crying "reverse snobbery". There's a bit in Little Fires Everywhere where the mum, (Elena?), congratulates her son for getting in to a good college "even though he didn't get bumped up by being from aa different ethnicity or less privileged background" (paraphrasing, but that is the gist). It is meant to be so abhorrent and thick headed on her part that the audience is meant to be appalled. So it isn't a good look to parody that IMHO.

SoberSerena - if you just Google “Cambridge Admissions Stats,” there is full breakdown year on year. You can look at ratios of applications to offers for different school types - not just ‘state schools’ and ‘independent schools’ - it’s broken down further than that into grammar schools, comprehensives, FE colleges etc.

You can also look at differences in state / independent applications to offers within the different colleges. It’s all there. Male / female ratios for different courses as well. Admission rates re- various contextual data other than school type is also there (POLAR quintiles etc). You can see how application to offer rates vary by region. There are also interactive graphs where you can see how many applicants apply for different subjects to different colleges over the last 5 years. How many were made offers; how many pooled; how many taken from the pool etc etc.

Thanks; I did look there but couldn't see where you were getting 23% from. Not that it matter especially. I won't agree with you that parents of state school applicants complaining of unfairness is anything like parents of private school applicants now complaining of the same, due to a very recent levelling up after hundreds of years of clear bias in their favour. Especially as the 'bias' would only just make it about representative, even using your own figures.

To explain it another way; if parents truly believed it was a level playing field and that state school applicants stood every chance of getting into whatever university or career they wanted, based on exactly the same amount of work, why would they go to the trouble of paying the substantial fees to send their dcs to private school? It is so clearly unreasonable to complain that life isn't fair towards your child because they have the perceived disadvantage of attending private school. That is bordering on gaslighting as it seems so far reached. State school is available to everyone. If there is an unfair advantage there, then parents are able to take it.

Again, I went to private myself so nothing against private education at all, but I can't get on board with people complain about this (not that any are irl tbf - it's only on MN) or anyone who defends them with "well state school parents complain just as much" . It isn't the same thing.

Because @SoberSerena they'll
Say 'oh we chose the school because it's the right environment/ is more diverse/...' etc.
It's literally never bc it gives their children an unfair leg up. And to be clear it's not that that I object to - it's the concern that having made that choice there's an accusation they could be discriminated against.
You have to laugh...

SoberSerena - I think you are misinterpreting me. I didn’t go to an independent school (far from it)! nor Oxbridge and neither did my husband. But we are totally irrelevant because things have obviously changed a lot since the 80s. For the better! It wouldn’t have occurred to me to apply to Oxbridge. I was the first in my family to get to university at all. Same with my husband.

My point was, we all have our anecdotes and it’s too easy to come on here and talk about things you have supposedly “heard” and present it as fact. Eg. “I’ve heard through a friend if a neighbour that mums in a private school are all whinging” - as if this somehow has a bearing on everyone who uses independent schools!

I came on to say that we do have kids in three different independent schools and I personally, have heard nobody whinging whstsoever Yes, I think Oxbridge success numbers have been lower in recent years but, as I said, if I’ve heard disappointed parents or teachers “blame” anything for that, it’s the impact of Covid.

As I said, people will always moan a bit if they or their kids don’t get an offer somewhere that they should, on paper, have received. We are all human! It’s easy to “other” unknown
people and perhaps even temporarily “blame” them in the midst of disappointment, but the best thing is to get feedback from the individual college you applied to.

As to whether WP initiatives in recent years will have a significant effect on offers to those applying from the private sector - who knows? Only time will tell and so far, restricted offers due to Covid have meant it’s impossible to discern.

My experience of a DD who successfully applied to Cambridge this year (after being rejected on her first attempt) is that the school told them all to consider it as a long shot and that a raft of 9s and A*s are a guarantee if nothing. I think this was the best advice really.

@m0ch1 I agree with you. I've never heard any parent complain of this at my daughter's independent school either. I would also agree that a suite of A's is a guarantee of nothing, and it never was. 2 of my brothers had 4 A's a A level, in the same subjects. Both applied to Oxbridge. One got in only.

The facts demonstrate that for the last 2 decades more than half of Oxbridge places went to state school applicants, this increased in the last 2 years. This suggests independent schools aren't the advantage people may think they are...? I have no evidence to back up this hypothesis but I wonder if this trend could be interpreted as indicating a reduction in independent schools being truly selective and conversely an increase in state schools (grammars and sixth forms) being selective.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00616/

I also do not believe an independent school is capable of making a brilliant student (that is not to say some parents might feel they are ''buying'' a certain outcome..). It's inarguable private schools have greater resources and capacity to nurture talent, expand beyond the curriculum etc however you cannot make a fish fly. Nor can endless tutoring. Not everyone is destined for ''academic'' excellence and most importantly, not everyone wants it. If money to pay the fees is the only selection criteria then yes, it's much like paying for business class on a place - you get a more comfortable seat, more looked after, a better meal, more space but you sill end up in the same place as everyone sitting in the back of the plane.