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 )

I thought roughly 20% olf sixth formers were at fee paying schools and they get about 30% of Oxbridge places. That sounds pretty fair to state and private schools if you factor in that private school parents tend to be in the SE and many children choose universities near them, that private parents are paying and also in general brighter parents tend to earn more and have brighter children. That pretty much alone explains what is only a 10% gap between state and private in my view.

So I don't think there is too much of a problem either for state or private school parents about which to worry.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn11711-smarter-people-are-no-better-off/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CEach%20point%20increase%20in%20IQ,IQ%20score%20of%20about%20100.

"in general brighter parents tend to earn more and have brighter children. "

Does that include instagram influencers, footballers and Love Island stars? Or our new King and the new Prince of Wales, all of them earn much, much more than many of my PhD friends who spent around 4 years doing a research paper living off air on a tiny stipend, only to earn not much more doing research in a lab??

The average salary 10 years after graduations for a PhD holder is 43K in this country. In my corporate company, we have office clerks on more than that with 2.1's from ex Polytechnics...just saying.

also in general brighter parents tend to earn more and have brighter children. That pretty much alone explains what is only a 10% gap between state and private in my view.

Apart from the erroneous assumption that richer = brighter, that also presupposes that brighter, higher-earning parents will send their kids to private schools, which isn't necessarily the case.

What a perfect summary of the very attitude which Oxbridge are being encouraged to address, and change. And rightly so.

@Xenia what very odd sweeping assumptions. Surely you know that society is not as cut and dried as that. I know many people who are intelligent, educated and wealthy who choose to send their DC to state schools. I know others more academically challenged who send their children to private schools. Some can't afford school fees but grandparents chip in. You must know that although genetics play a role in intelligence, there are many children who buck the genes, both ways. Your assumptions are also wrong at a statistical level. Don't forget that grammar schools are included in the state school percentage, which really distorts the picture. A number of grammar schools are significantly more selective than many private schools. This skews the figures. A much more meaningful split would be selective and non-selective schools.

One could argue that the more intelligent parents know better than to waste their money on private school fees when their children are no doubt bright enough to do equally well in the state sector.

Hmm. I'm always struck by the contrast between these sorts of comments, and all the comments on other education threads lamenting lack of resources, high teacher absence and turnover, unsupported SEN and behaviour problems in the state sector. Clearly that's not everyone's experience. But a sweeping statements about 'intelligent parents realise that bright kids can do just as well in the state sector' are just as generic and unhelpful as 'only the private sector can provide a good education' statements.

For the sake of clarity, my comment was intended to be tongue in cheek. I thought that the emoji made that clear.

Though I guess there was a grain of truth in what I said. I was confident that my dd would thrive in the state sector, and I wasn't wrong. She has advantage enough without me needing to buy more for her.

Ah, I'm obviously not intelligent enough to have correctly interpreted your emoji 😉. As for the more general point, obviously I don't know you from Adam, but it's possible you have already bought her advantage by the house you live in, the area you live, the food you eat, the activities she does, the holidays you take, the books you've bought..?

Private school students despite being circa 18 percent of A-level students make up circa 26 percent of top A-level grades.

So yes, when grades are taken into account the admissions gap for Oxbridge is narrower.

Yes, absolutely, she has benefitted from all of those things and many more. Private school fees would have been a complete waste of money in her case.

Fair enough, and I'm probably being over sensitive to inferred criticism that isn't there. But I do get fed up of the frequent implication on MN that private schooling is a totally unfair and immoral advantage, whereas all the many, many other advantages that parents buy for their children are totally legitimate and beyond reproach. In terms of advantages and life opportunities, the gap between (say) a single parent relying on benefits whose child has a poor diet, no after school activities, no holidays, no books at home etc, and a middle class parent doing 'state school plus' (ie lovely house in area with good schools, nice holidays, lots of meals out, theatre trips, private tennis and violin lessons, tutoring if necessary etc), is far greater than the advantage gap between the 'state school plus' parent and the average (ie non multi millionaire) private school parent. Both lots of advantage are bought with money, but MN often seems to judge the first as fine, the second as not.

As for private school being a waste of time in your daughter's case - well, fine. But it isn't in some cases, depending on the alternatives. And even if you think it is - it's still a way that parents might choose to spend money. You could equally argue that a beautiful 5 bedroom detached house is a waste of money compared with a perfectly nice 3 bed semi - in that the average family would do perfectly well in the latter. But there are still plenty of people who choose the former, or would do if they could afford it. People prioritise different things to spend their money on. And no, I don't mean that state school parents don't prioritise education - I mean that some people think that the bells and whistles of private education are worth paying for, while others don't. I wouldn't criticise someone choosing the 5 bedroom house over the 3 bed semi as wasting their money, even if I wouldn't make that choice myself.

All that to one side it is unfair and immoral. It is and we all know it is however much you may try and justify it to yourself. It’s not comparable to buying a house.

You are making out it’s a choice but for the huge majority it’s not even an option. I’m not being holier than thou we bought a house near a great single sex state school but as a concept private schools are problematic..

They’re indefensible.

They don’t need to be defended. It’s still a free country. We are free to raise our children as we wish, free to associate with whom we choose, and free to spend our money as we desire.

But genuinely, why is it different from buying a nice house? A lovely 5 bed detached in a nice area is 'not an option' for most people either. But only the most left wing would generally argue that it is immoral for anyone to buy a house like that on the basis that other people can't afford it.

And particularly when you acknowledge that you bought a house near a great school. The argument against private schools is normally that they make it harder for other people to access a good education. But moving house deliberately to live hear a good school will directly contribute to an increase in house prices near to the good school, which will make it harder for poorer families to get a place at that school. Why is that morally different from paying school fees?

Anyone that lives in our area can go to the school. It serves a mixed area. There are all social classes there. Only people with enough money can go to your school. It’s very different.

Yeah you can do what you want of course. But it’s a free country as is said so I’m entitled to my view and I think it’s essentially divisive. Interestingly private education doesn’t seem to be such a thing on the continent.

And we didn’t move intentionally just for the school. We moved cities and bought in a decent area. Most of the state schools here are decent to be fair.

@confusedmommy, all I can add to the above is that you know your son, and you need to choose the school which will suit him best, whether that be independent or state. You're lucky in that you have choices which most people don't have. I wouldn't think too far ahead. I'd think about the here and now. Is the school a lovely, warm, kind, nurturing place? Will it enable your son to become the best version of himself? Will he be cared for as an individual? Will the school treat him as if he's as special as you know think he is? Will he shine for being who he is, rather than being expected to fit a particular mould? All of those things are far more important than thinking about university at 11/13.

FWIW, my son is at Oxford now. His educational background doesn't seem to have been a disadvantage.

(Actually our school has a big bursary programme, but I won't bother with that argument as I appreciate it's still a minority of the pupils who don't pay.)

That's great that you live in an area with a great state school serving a socially mixed area. But that's not the case in lots of areas. And anyway, my argument was about the comparison with buying a nice house. Not everyone can afford to buy a lovely house - in fact most people can't. But people don't criticise those who do.

Plus, there's the usual contradictory MN argument. 'People who use private schools are wasting their money - my bright kids will do just as well at their really good state school.' But in the same breath, 'private schools are divisive and unfair'. So if they don't confer any advantage (especially now that the university entrance advantage is increasingly being reduced, which was the subject of the thread), why does anyone care that we're wasting our money paying for them?!

@diar People can and do criticise those who live in big, nice houses. Maybe you don’t have direct experience of that because your children go to private school, so you have surrounded yourself with people who are not inclined to be critical of such things. Inequality is inequality - it gets noticed and it does get commented upon and it is divisive. The unaffordability of homes for vast numbers of people is a massive issue. Unlike with state education, however, there is no state provision of housing available to all, so it’s not something people can opt in or out of in the first place, even if they wanted to.

Other than that, you of course have a point about choices - when you have enough money to make choices that involve considerable expense, but not enough to choose every possible advantage, choosing a private education is not always the most effective use of the money you have in terms of advantaging your children, although I should imagine private schools are almost never chosen without the intention of gaining some kind of advantage over the state alternatives.

Yes, of course everyone paying for private school is looking for advantage, but not necessarily in any different a way from someone who chooses one primary or secondary school over another - they want what they feel would be the best school experience for their child. That was certainly our goal, pure and simple - I wanted them to have lots of opportunities for extra curricular activities as well as good teaching, plus freedom from the disruptions (both behavioural and staff-related) which were problematic in primary. I was able to buy that. Others seek to achieve it through school preference where they can, including by moving house if they can afford to.

As for the point about houses, you may be partially right, but I still think there's a huge difference in attitudes. I live in a very ordinary three bed semi (it wasn't a random example). I'm quite sure that if I bought a 4 or 5 bed detached, I can't imagine anyone I know (state or private parent) saying or even thinking that I was making an immoral choice because lots of people can't afford the same. I'm pretty sure they'd just think - nice house. Perhaps - I wish I could afford a nicer house. But not - you are an immoral and divisive person for buying that house. Private education seems to be seen in a totally different way from everything else that people spend money on (including private health, which I find odd).

Incidentally, most of my friends have their kids in state schools.