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 )

As others have said, it's about redressing bias, not applying it. Approximately 70% of Oxbridge students are now state school-educated, which still means that 30% of the places are going to a pool comprising 7% of the entire cohort. That still seems like a pretty sweet deal for the privately-educated to me.

This article is very old (10 years!) but I think it's still an interesting insight into how the people who make the decisions a. think, and b. make those decisions. www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work

And this anxiety is nothing new. I remember vividly being at a party given by family friends at Christmas in 1984, just after I heard I'd got a place at Cambridge from my state sixth form, and being told by the mother of a boy at a famous, elite public school that "well of course Charles didn't make it, because they are so biased in favour of girls and comprehensives these days...." (My father, when I told him this story, gave me £5 to congratulate me for not swearing at her)

I don't have time to dig up a credible source right now, but I thought the percentage in independent schools at sixth form was closer to 20%. And 7% is the whole of the education years. Is that wrong?

Around 70% of Oxbridge applications came from state schools last year, pretty much matching the offers given, so while it should get higher, I would have thought it likely to top out at around 80%.

Choices @confusedmommy not sacrifices. Choices.

is there bias against privately educated kids? well, in 2018 (the most recent year for which the numbers seem to be available), state schools got 73.4% of the AAA+ grades and 60.5% of the Oxford places. do the math.

www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

Wow, some massive overreactions on this thread, even by MN standards. OP merely asked a question and wants to give her DS as many options as possible in the future, it's hardly "sickening" or "gross"! I actually can't quite believe some of the nasty comments on here.

@PinkForgetMeNot

I don't know about oxbridge, but I know bristol makes a lower offer to kids from schools in the bottom 40% for A level results. So most grammars wouldn't be in it

Bristol is always brought up as the famous example of a university which makes lower offers to kids from the bottom portion of state schools (just in the SW I believe). Frankly I see nothing. Wrong with that. My DC's school was one of those schools and those kids blimmin deserved it. As it happens my son applied to Cambridge and got in. And they give NO lower offers there. Just because Bristol does, it doesn't follow that Oxbridge do. The offers are the same wherever you go

the very latest data isn't available on the same like-for-like basis, but what there is suggests that the private sector's historic advantage has been further eroded a little.

the stat that they never release, maybe someone should FoI it, is the average grade score for admitted state vs private kids. my suspicion has always been that privately educated kids get in with a little less on average, because of the much higher propensity of only moderately clever kids in that sector to apply.

[quote puffyisgood]is there bias against privately educated kids? well, in 2018 (the most recent year for which the numbers seem to be available), state schools got 73.4% of the AAA+ grades and 60.5% of the Oxford places. do the math.

www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type[/quote]
Quite. The disconnect is largely bc the state kids generally no preparation for the entrance exams or interviews. If you pay then there are parts of the timetable set aside.
The likes of the schools OP mentions will also have Oxbridge entrance specialists on the payroll.

Bristol is always brought up as the famous example of a university which makes lower offers to kids from the bottom portion of state schools (just in the SW I believe).

It’s lower performing schools across the whole of the UK, as well as students living in areas where progression to tertiary education is low.

There is no fairness in the system and the emphasis upon state school admissions to Oxbridge favours those on low income, first generation university applicants and disadvantage postcodes. What happens is the the middle income groups miss out - those at high paying independent schools where class are smaller and more support is available etc etc continue to outperform whilst those in the disadvantaged groups gain reduced entry. Therefore those in the middle miss out.

I know I'm not the first to say it, but Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all. I went to Oxbridge from a state grammar. My kids are now at a private secondary. If I had to choose right now for them between the school experience I had plus a place at Oxbridge, vs the school experience they're having but with a guarantee of no place at Oxbridge, it's very far from certain that I'd choose the Oxbridge place.

@twelly

There is no fairness in the system and the emphasis upon state school admissions to Oxbridge favours those on low income, first generation university applicants and disadvantage postcodes. What happens is the the middle income groups miss out - those at high paying independent schools where class are smaller and more support is available etc etc continue to outperform whilst those in the disadvantaged groups gain reduced entry. Therefore those in the middle miss out.

What do you mean by the 'middle'? Because if you're at an indie you're not in the middle. The middle really doesn't miss out you know. And the lower income groups aren't favoured at all. Everyone gets the same offers; it's harder to make those offers if you're at an underperforming school. Moreover though it's harder to jump the extra Oxbridge hoops of tests and interviews if you go to that kind of school. It's about the preparation and uplift on offer. There is none at most state schools, and ample at independents. DS went to Cambridge from a below average state comprehensive. He met very few people like himself - loads of ex grammar and indies but few with his educational background. Whereas that's where the vast majority of kids spend their school years.

@bleuvert

I know I'm not the first to say it, but Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all. I went to Oxbridge from a state grammar. My kids are now at a private secondary. If I had to choose right now for them between the school experience I had plus a place at Oxbridge, vs the school experience they're having but with a guarantee of no place at Oxbridge, it's very far from certain that I'd choose the Oxbridge place.

You're totally right about that. It really isn't the be all and end all. I would say that DS's contemporaries who went elsewhere are doing just as well at 25 without that Oxbridge education.

@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 )

Congratulations on all the brilliant offers. You are correct that the trend is towards state schools (see chart). Another option that people pursue is go independent for senior school and switch over to state for sixth form. It totally works. Good luck.

The facilities at St Paul’s are absolutely phenomenal. And it produces incredibly driven, successful kids. Some of them do get in to Oxbridge. I can’t think why you wouldn’t want that if you’ve got the means.

(My DC go to a comp but St. Paul’s invites them to the odd conference where they go round with their eyes like saucers at the spa-hotel vibe.)

@twelly

There is no fairness in the system and the emphasis upon state school admissions to Oxbridge favours those on low income, first generation university applicants and disadvantage postcodes. What happens is the the middle income groups miss out - those at high paying independent schools where class are smaller and more support is available etc etc continue to outperform whilst those in the disadvantaged groups gain reduced entry. Therefore those in the middle miss out.

I don’t think you get it.

If everyone who got top results (and there are hundreds of thousands) was equally deserving of a place at Oxbridge then they may as well pull names out of a hat.

Why don’t they? Because it’s about more than grades. That’s why they interview. They want to find out about you, about how your mind works. They want to know how passionate you are about your subject, how you deal with problems and whether you look at things differently.

That’s why it doesn’t matter one bit what school you went to. But historically there has been an imbalance: it is easier for privately educated pupils to gain high grades because they are likely to have access to more support - in all its forms. Plus, more privately educated pupils apply than disadvantaged state pupils (I was actively discouraged from applying by my grotty state school). So they take these things into account.

If your son is not just academically gifted but also shows something else, they will spot it. So I think you can chill and let nature take its course.

Of course, the other point is that in 5 years’ time when you ACTUALLY need to be thinking about this, he might have other ideas.

Oh, and @RandomUsernameHere - people think it’s sickening because if you are a state school pupil who fought against the odds to get to Oxbridge, it’s a bit galling when someone with means is trying to game the system to take that place.

It's not fair that some children have loving and supportive parents and some children have bad parents. Regardless of wealth. Life is never going to be fair unfortunately. That doesn't make someone a bad person for trying to do the best for their DC.

A further comment. In the 'old days' I think it was easier for people with connections to make a better application on paper. They could get work experience at Dad's law firm, or to see an operation at Mum's hospital.

These days there is more understanding that kids who don't have those connections can't be expected to have such sparkly work experience, and that visiting law courts or helping in a nursing home is equally as valid.

I went to Cambridge from a 'top' independent school. I suspect I wouldn't get in these days, and that would be right and proper.

@Mumoftwoinprimary

Ok - to understand how Oxbridge works you need to understand the Collegiate system.

If you apply to (say) Caius College Cambridge to study MML , you are not one of 1000 kids applying to Cambridge trying to get 150 places. You are one of 24 kids who applied to Caius to try and get one of the 4 places.

Once the four get there the same admission tutors will have to teach them for 3 years before they sit their finals and the admission tutors / personal tutors are judged on the results.

So what they care about is getting the most able four. And they invest huge amounts of time and effort in working out who those four are.

They know that someone from Eton who performs equally to someone from a sink comprehensive in the midlands is actually far less able.

They also know that a school like Tiffin is far closer to Eton than it is to a sink comprehensive in the midlands.

Oxbridge academics are, by definition, really quite clever. They know how people try and game the system.

There is no guaranteed way to get your child into Oxbridge except by him being of the correct level of ability and having a true love for the subject.

The last time I checked - it is still believed that proportionately there are far more highly able state school kids not going to Oxbridge than highly able private school kids. However, a big part of that is that too many state school kids don’t apply. The admission tutors are pretty good at getting the best of the applicants.

This!! Great post.

I think Oxbridge are wise to the fact that that there are state schools and then state schools.

Tiffin and Wilson are (I am sure!) the kinds of state schools with an illustrious history of sending kids to Oxbridge and RG unis. I know this as if they weren't, you would absolutely not even be thinking of sending your lad there!

They are not the kind of state schools that Oxbridge might take into account when making offers I am sure ....

They have a heavy bias towards state educated pupils.

For institutions that are supposed to contain fine minds, it's a very basic analysis to conclude:

state = poor, underprivileged, deserving of place
private = rich bastard, overprivileged, undeserving of place

The OP herself can go into either category - her child is the exact same child whichever she plumps for. Illustrating the flaw in the analysis above.

My friend's ds just got rejected. He passed the exam, had all top grades, loads of relevant preparation, experience, genuine love for the subject etc etc. Crime = going to private school. Irony = he went there because he was extraordinarily clever and got the highest possible scholarship, with no preparation, having attended a state primary.

There is a good public school near me and instead of getting several in to Oxbridge, they got 2 in. These 2 candidates were BAME, which I imagine may have negated their crime of attending public school. Not a single white kid got in. Despite one having won a national prize in their subject.

I also know someone who went to Cambridge, "salt of the earth state school pupil". Oh, but did I mention her dad is an A level examiner in the subject she got in for. Big advantage, no? But never mind, at least she isn't a "public school white boy scum of the earth" type.

I know someone else who went - daddy was a lecturer at another uni in the subject this person got in for. Mummy was a SAHM in a lovely 5 bed home making life perfect. But "state school salt of the earth". No privilege there, no not at all.

How bout the kid at the private school who had 2 dead parents and is boarding off their estate because there is nobody to look after her in a family home. Privilege? For the love of God.

It's all a load of horseshit OP and I'd send your child where you think they will fit in the best, with the school meeting their needs.

I don't think it matter if it's a private or state school. What matters is the school's average attainment and your home's and the school's post code.

There is currently a huge bias to private school pupils on Oxbridge admissions.

There is an attempt to reduce the bias which may work a bit but is unlikely to make it an even playing field.

Unfortunately.