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?

Many students are overly tutored in state schools.

Depends on your definition of 'many'. If you look at the DfE 2022-23 (and ongoing) research, or that done by the Sutton Trust last year, you will find the total number of secondary school pupils who ever receive tuition is put at about 30%. And not all of those will be overly tutored.

And no more state-educated children receive tutoring than privately educated children.

Well if she was interviewing for PPE then her charity work might be relevant. For Maths DS basically had to solve Maths problems and then discuss why he took a certain approach. For Geography a friend's DS had questions on Human and Physical Geography. For Computer Science the interview was all Maths and coding. For Classics it was Latin translation and interpretation of texts. None of these applicants had anything other than academics discussed or on their PS and all were successful. Small sample I know but it is widely known.

I am talking about Oxford only, but the website is very clear how interviews are conducted and there are a million You Tube videos about interview content.

Hi OP, You ask about 'choosing' between a grammar and independent school to 'game' Oxbridge chances. Well, only a handful of boroughs even have the grammar system so, for the rest of the U.K., this is a non-issue.

On independent schools - all that happens is, an applicant's grades are contextualised within the average grades of THEIR cohort in THEIR school. So, somebody with ten 9s applying from a super-selective independent school such as Westminster, may get a contextualised score of '0' because this is the average grade profile in that school. On the other hand, if they were applying from 'sleepy unselective independent school in the middle of nowhere,' the same applicant might get a stronger contextualised GCSE score because the average grade profile in that school might be 6666666666 or whatever.

Exactly the same happens for grammars - they know that some grammars are much more academic than others.

Exactly the same happens for all other type of state schools, They know full well that somewhere like Brampton Manor is hardly the same as your average comp, let alone a comp in a deprived or 'low access to HE' area - so they contextualise accordingly.

Nobody is trying to squeeze out 'private school kids.' But broadly speaking, around 28% of all A / A star grades achieved at A-level are achieved in the private sector. So all being equal, the numbers of offers made should reflect that. And they broadly do - at Cambridge about 25% of students are from the private sector.

Look at 'offer rates' on the Cambridge website. These are pretty much the same across all sectors - independent schools, grammar schools, comprehensive schools and sixth form colleges. The only schools with a slightly lower offer rate are FE colleges.

So no drama and it's the same contextualisation process, regardless of school sector.

I'm afraid I can't see the Telegraph's article as it's behind a paywall. The Critic piece you quote is just an article, it could have been written by anyone - in fact it's written by two people, one who is a leading advocate of private education in the country and one who is a former headmaster of Eton; forgive me if I don't consider them entirely neutral in this debate.

Here's what Oxford themselves say about the use of contextual data:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/decisions/contextual-data

Here's some research on how many secondary school children receive tutoring:
https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/tutoring-2023-the-new-landscape/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-tutoring-in-schools-and-16-to-19-providers/independent-review-of-tutoring-in-schools-phase-2-findings

? This tiny number of particularly disadvantaged students is being accepted onto a foundation year at university, not an undergraduate degree. If they don’t meet Oxford’s standards at the end of the foundation year, they don’t carry on to do the degree.

I whole heartedly agree re: grammar and private. They are undeniably both for the privileged in my area at least.

My pre secondary school child is talking about Oxbridge (!) and I am not sure if would wish that for her, even if she were to be offered a place.

As with schools, I believe the 'best' university is that one with the best for for the child, and I say this as a graduate, parent and former recruiter to graduate schemes.

From that 2019 article:

From 2020, 250 state school students will receive free tuition and accommodation as part of a multi-million-pound recruitment bid for disadvantaged students.

However, 50 students in the new intake - which will include refugees and young carers - will be eligible to receive offers “made on the basis of lower contextual A-level grades, rather than the university’s standard offers”.

Foundation Oxford will be open to 50 students with “high academic potential” who have personally experienced particularly severe disadvantage or educational disruption - as well as refugees and carers - and will last for a year. Students will have to pass the 'Foundation' year before being admitted to their undergraduate course.

FFS.

That is a specific widening participation scheme, not a blanket “lowered the criteria for students from state”.

I know two Ukrainian girls as one is my friend's daughter. One went for political studies and the other IT. Both secured the place. Both have done some voluteering in the field that they applied for. The one that studies IT also was asked about hobby at the interview.

@RedFluffyPanda my DS was specifically told (by a Cambridge admissions tutor) that only super curricular things are of interest...he is studying engineering at Cambridge and didn't have a single question on his PS. It was all maths and physics questions and problems.

I see @MitHolmes is still doggedly asserting that it's not fair, that private school children are being 'penalised' , and that all state school children are only getting in because they are being given lower grade offers ...despite being told by many people on the thread that private school pupils are still disproportionately represented and that none of the assertions made via hearsay are true... 🙄

To go back to the wider question, if you can afford to use private education and you think the school you choose is the right choice for your individual child, then choose it. But to choose private school at 11 or 13 purely on the basis of two universities which are tricky to get in to anyway, seems bonkers to me!

(We wrestled with the state v private thing, but have 4 children, so moved to a place with excellent state grammars...DS's year 1 teacher told me she thought he "could end up at Oxbridge" and I shot her down because it seemed so ridiculous. But she was right...and he got there from state primary and an amazing super selective grammar - but he still had to get stellar grades, pass the PAT and do well in 2 interviews to get in @MitHolmes 😉).

Ds1 is one of those kids from a bog standard comp who got in to Oxford. He’s 3 years in to a 4 year Masters in engineering.

I think it’s great that Oxbridge are doing more to support state school children and particularly those from comprehensive schools.

Private schools offer so much more than just academic results though!

I only know about Cambridge really, but it depends in whether they have a 'general' interview and an academic interview, or two academic interviews. It varies by subject and across colleges. In a general interview, it will be based on the PS ( because these interviews are with senior admissions staff who would likely not be specialists in that subject ). An academic interview will be just that. They shouldn't put 'hobbies' on the PS unless they can link it to the subject in some way. It needs to be all academic and relevant super-curriculars - eg. they could mention work experience shadowing an MP or being in a debating team if applying for PPE or HSPS or similar, but don't bother mentioning anything like that if applying for Computer Science or Maths.

Also, nobody is getting in with lower grades. Although Oxbridge contextualise all applications, they don't make contextual offers in terms of lowered grades.

About 28% of A and A star grades at A-level each year are achieved by students in the private sector and this is roughly the proportion of that sector who are now admitted to Oxbridge. This seems fair to me. If it was any different (as it was in the past) then clearly something would be wrong.

@Panicmode1

Well I do not need anyone’s permission to express my views.

You choose to pick up points from mine that suits you. It’s not that all state school kids gets lower marks to get in Oxbridge. In my neighbourhood many parents send their kids to highly selective and high performing grammar schools. They can easily afford private schools but they choose not to. Rather they spend on private tutors. Many state school students are highly tutored. Many come from very affluent backgrounds as well. Similarly not all private school students do well and don’t end up in Oxbridge for the simple reason that their results aren’t sufficient.
However where a private educated student has worked exceptionally hard to get the grades its really unfair to discriminate against them.
This politicisation of education isn’t good.
Now if you do not agree that’s absolutely fine but you can’t sush me .

I'm not trying to shush you - just asking you to read the responses people have given you which challenge your constant assertions that private school pupils are being penalised.

They have had a massive advantage for decades. Now, there are far more qualified pupils, including more state school pupils. And finally, they are leveling the playing field.

The entrance criteria must remain on merit - but it's also not fair that kids from private school have had priority for years, purely because they have had parents who have paid for their education.

As I think I said before, the number of places has more or less remained static, the number of qualified candidates has increased - and it is right that an elite education is open to all!!

In my neighbourhood many parents send their kids to highly selective and high performing grammar schools. They can easily afford private schools but they choose not to.

Parents choose the schools that suit their children?

You don’t know the ins and outs of people’s financial situations, so you don’t actually know if they can afford private.

And if you child gets a place at a grammar school that suits them and they achieve academically, why would you spend the best part of £100k for little or no additional benefit?

Many state school students are highly tutored.

Err, no they are not. A small minority might get private tutoring in particular areas, but the vast majority are not tutored.

However where a private educated student has worked exceptionally hard to get the grades its really unfair to discriminate against them.

Discriminated how? Oxbridge receive on average 6 applications for every place. All students work hard to get the grades, and most applicants will be predicted 3 or 4 A stars. Admissions tutors need to filter by who they think have the potential to continue that trajectory.

Many state school students are highly tutored. Many come from very affluent backgrounds as well

In your small sample size in one well off area, this might be true.

It isn't true for all state schools countrywide. If I remember correctly around 30% of state school kids have private tuition at some point in their life. Ime (again small sample size) this is in maths or English getting a pass grade.

You are correct @Hercisback, and if you scroll up the page you will see that I quoted recent research from two different authoritative sources which come up with a similar figure. I'm still waiting for that poster to provide links which disprove that research or support what they said.

Sorry - had to board a flight so had to stop typing....I meant an elite education should be open to all those who are suitably qualified, regardless of the educational establishment they attended.

Does anyone know how eg Harvard and Yale deal with this?

Westminster School in London (private), for example, is a school for gifted children. So most will be properly academically gifted anyway. If it really is the case that only those who rise even higher above the rest there are now getting in, then we do have a problem. Why should it be how you compare to your cohort? Surely it should just be about how you as an individual compare nationally in your subject? I am not sure whether at the top of the game schooling/teaching even makes that much difference. Gifted kids are gifted regardless of what school they go to?
If a kid with an IQ of 150 from Westminster is not getting in over a kid with an IQ of 130 from a state school is that ok?

Assuming they are equally passionate about their subject and equally hardworking. Do we accept a) that principle is ok because iq150 already had an elite education so doesn’t need more of it? b) is that even happening? (I fully acknowledge IQ is a bit simplistic but I mean inherent intellect and ability if we could accurately measure it).

Switched on parent with gifted child and some resources - is it really better now to just send them to the local comp and get really good tutors in their favourite subject? I am talking here about exceptional children who probably want to do phds in their subjects eventually.

And finally, Oxbridge has always failed to cater to all round gifted children who have hunger for a vast array of subjects. And this is often why parents with truly exceptional kids of that nature do look US way now for scholarships.

There aren't enough 'truly gifted' kids to fill oxbridge though. The kids you're talking about are few and far between.

The privilege and advantage of a private, grammar or even very good state school, needs to be accounted for somewhat. Otherwise you miss able students that just didn't get the same life chances. A levels aren't a measure of IQ.

If a kid with an IQ of 130 from Westminster is getting into Oxford, but not a kid with an IQ of 150 from a state school, is that OK?

Westminster is not a school for gifted children, it’s a school aimed mostly at bright children of parents with type A personalities who mostly live in London. Obviously, such parents have a vested interest in arguing for retaining their dominance and pretending this is for the public good, regardless of whether or not this is true.

“If a kid with an IQ of 130 from Westminster is getting into Oxford, but not a kid with an IQ of 150 from a state school, is that OK?”

Yes, that is a problem. And the system should spot the IQ 150 state school kid and support their educational need.

You did not answer my question. If it is now happening to Westminster pupils it is a problem. Because all talent should be nurtured and retained in the country regardless of background, either way. It isn’t about the parents, it is about the child and future society. This is where adults are getting themselves very confused.

There was a Pakistani girl in the press recently from Henrietta Barnet who had done something like 40 GCSEs and was working her way through multiple multiple A levels. I bet she is looking to the US for uni. She clearly has a very switched on mother too.

I didn’t answer the question because I don’t accept the premise. Westminster is highly successful at getting its most able children into Oxford and Cambridge. I note you ignored my point that it is really the parents that are causing a stink, not the children. There are a lot of moany, whiny, wealthy type A parents around, willing to claim all sorts when their children do not get the places their parents think they should have by right. In any event, these children miss out on nothing, as they are bight, wealthy and well educated, so likely to have the resources to stay in academia and go to Oxford, Cambridge , or wherever they else they want at a later stage in their academic career. So the real argument is whether we are losing the wealthiest, best connected and most powerful to universities overseas by trying to attract bright children from all backgrounds, not really whether we are losing the brightest. All children who get into Oxford and Cambridge are plenty bright enough to be there.

As for taking 40 GCSEs - that is all very performative. Since so many academic private schools think GCSEs are a waste of time, I wonder if paying the fees to enter all those exams is time best spent?

@Intergalacticcatharsis

You did not answer my question. If it is now happening to Westminster pupils it is a problem. Because all talent should be nurtured and retained in the country regardless of background, either way. It isn’t about the parents, it is about the child and future society. This is where adults are getting themselves very confused.

But this is based on the false premise that Oxbridge are the only adequate universities to cater for talented young people.

Which isn't true at all.

Are you suggesting talent isn't nurtured and retrained at universities like UCL, Imperial College, LSE, Durham, Manchester etc?

Future society certainly isn't harmed by less children from Westminster attending Oxbridge.