With Oxbridge taking less and less private school students, is it still worth it??

[SillySmart]

stats shows that the number of private educated students Oxbridge enrolled has dropped 1/3 in the past 5 years. Any thoughts?

Not being from the UK originally, I’m a little surprised it’s a such a big deal to go to Oxbridge. At the investment bank I work at (and except at the most “British” of institutions, I think this is true across the City), there is a wariness of Oxbridge graduates, they stereotype being they tend to rely excessively on being clever and lack work ethic and commercial instincts. While we don’t discriminate against Oxbridge graduates, empirically they’ve underperformed on average against graduates from other top universities - Imperial, LSE, Warwick, UCL, Edinburgh, Bristol, Bath - and they certainly get no advantage.

@Marylebonedad They have shorter terms at uni though and certainly do work at uni because of that. I’m bemused you don’t think they don’t try just as hard at work. Not been my experience.

Those sending their children to private schools are taking the load off giving their seats off to others.
Can’t understand why there is so much negativity towards private education? Isn’t it the parents’ choice?
Oxbridge will not keep their standards if they only offer places based on backgrounds and not on merit.

Oxbridge dont offer lower grades to students from state schools@MitHolmes, but they might favour a state school applicant with the same grades. Historically speaking there is robust data to support this, as state school educated DCs tend to do better than privately educated DCs with the same grades. It"s a generalisation of course, but true nonetheless.

It's the parents choice if they can afford it. Millions of people around the country can't afford it.
Oxbridge still offer a huge proportion of places to privately educated children.
Children from state education are capable of getting A stars, so no need to drop the standard.

The assumption by private school parents that state school children are only there to make up quota numbers and therefore standards will slip, is so offensive. My son got 11 nines in his GCSEs, 4 A stars at A level, almost full marks on an EPQ, had 2 interviews with 2 academics each time....the standards aren't flattening out, but perhaps the playing field is...and that's not a bad thing IMO.

(Many moons ago, I had an Oxford interview for law (went to a boarding school) and I knew I'd messed up the interview. My head said she would ring the admissions tutor and "get me in". I refused because I didn't want to use the 'old boys' network - if I wasn't good enough, I knew I'd struggle once there. I suspect that happened quite a lot back in the day...and it's a good thing it no longer does IMO!!)

Dss is the son of a miner. He ended up as lecturer at Oxford. They were chasing him to do it for ages. As were Cambridge.

Ofcourse there are very clever students in state schools as well. But can’t really support when clever but privately educated students are penalised. If its a fair selection process based on marks then it’s fine.

Strange to see a lot of negative vives here for students in private schools.

So it's fine that state school entrants were 'penalised' for years for not being the right sort for Oxbridge, but now it's happening to private school pupils to redress the decades of privilege, it's not??

🤔

The fact is far more qualified candidates now apply each year - from state, public, private and international schools, and the number of places has broadly remained the same. So a process that was always competitive, has become even more so.

They’re not penalised. They were massively over represented so that needed to be addressed. They are still over represented but not by as much. Taking away an unfair privilege from a group is not “penalising”
them 🙄

Also intelligence does not depend on class or education. As part of my job I have to explain a relatively complex thing to the general public. Frequently the “well educated” middle class cannot get their heads round it. Many of the working class particularly women get it immediately and asked spot on questions. They are innately cleverer. But Hugo in his pink shirt with his posh house and cut glass accent is assumed to have a superior intellect.

Many parents sending their children to private schools aren’t privileged. They work really hard sacrifices a lot and in fact many gets bursaries as well. There is nothing wrong in being aspirational. Not all children going to private are born with a silver spoon.

Social engineering isn’t the answer, unless the entrance is fair on merits.

The solution is giving the state schools more resources, more teachers etc and therefore giving opportunities to all.

Not all private schools are necessarily good as well. Those that do good results, its a lot on students as well, for these schools take bright students, who would have done well anywhere!

Many children attending private schools are though, and they don't 'deserve' a place at Oxbridge just because they had a private education. It would be very hard to argue that children attending SPGS, Westminster, Harrow, Eton etc, even on bursaries (as is pertinent to my cousins, who attended one of the above on 100% bursaries) are not immensely privileged. Places should be awarded on talent, not how much money one's parents paid for one's education.

The playing field has been so uneven for decades - a correction to give genuinely bright children from the state sector a chance at a first class tertiary education is long overdue. Private school pupils still take a disproportionate % of places compared to the % of children being educated privately at sixth form (well over a third of the places compared to a fifth of the cohort).

But from your responses @MitHolmes, I suspect you are not going to move from your 'it's not fair' stance, so I wish you well, but "I'm out" as the saying goes.

This premise that oxbridge place is offered on the basis of private education is totally flawed. One cannot just buy a place to Oxbridge by sending their children to a private school.

Students get it on merit from private schools too. Therefore it’s unfair to penalise them.

I stand by the statement that the entrance should be strictly on merit which you seem
to agree as well.

it just seems like you got an ideological issue nothing else. I am tired of this negativity., sorry its not good and therefore I rest my case.

I don't know where to start with the idea that private school students aren't privileged. Wow.

They are privileged with small class sizes, privileged with family support for education, privileged with a socio economic background that can afford private school.

Entrance is strictly on merit.

Under privileged children are just as clever, however they don't always perform as well in exams for a variety of reasons. When they get into oxbridge, under privileged children tend to do better. What does that tell you?

The thing around this area is private until sixth form then last two years in a (very good, house price selective) state to get into oxbridge as a state candidate.

PLaying the system big time.

Not really
Universities know everywhere you have been educated since age 11 as per ucas firm
Why do people think this is a wise move?????

I think contextualised offers only apply to the bottom 20% of state schools? So I don't think you'd be any advantage in applying to Oxford from a decent state / grammar anyway?

And contextualised offers is what you mean you when say it's getting easier to get in from state school/ harder from private I assume? Or is there some other type of discrimination going on?

I think people make too much of private versus state when it comes to Oxbridge offers. They're going to take the best of the best candidates, wherever they went to school - they don't discriminate AGAINST private school pupils, but they are trying to level the playing field - and rightly so.

Plus - contextual offers are given in context of the overall cohort a candidate is coming from, and people seem to forget that. It's not as simple as state versus private. It's not like kids from Camden Girls or Dame Alice Owen's are going to be given 'easier' offers over kids from Highgate or Westminster - Oxbridge is also pretty clued up about state schools in middle class areas (or schools that demand a lot of tutoring to get kids in!)

However, if candidate were from a school in a deprived area, where results are historically not as good as from those schools in more obviously advantaged settings (private or state) they would be given a contextual offer. This is obviously a fair system - can't see how anyone would argue with it!

@mumyes "The thing around this area is private until sixth form then last two years in a (very good, house price selective) state to get into oxbridge as a state candidate.

PLaying the system big time."

You do know that's not how it works, don't you?

Contextualised offers usually only apply to the bottom 20% of state schools too, decent comps and grammars will need to same level of results as private

They apply to everything. Theres the stuff on the websites, but there’s also the one that students fill in.

@CurlewKate That is exactly how it does work. We are not talking about the contextual offers which are justifiable. The universities have been told to increase the % from state schools. Therefore when it comes to a decision between candidates from Dame Alice Owen, Henrietta Barnett, Hills Road , Durham Johnston etc and the candidates from the independent schools, they will go for the former group. This ticks the state box and , at this stage in admissions process, it doesn’t seem wherever they took their GCSEs.

Seem to matter