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?

@WinterMusings you clearly have no self awareness. A lot of others have pointed out things wrong with your comments.

I went to a private school and cambridge. At least I'm not twatty enough to think I didn't have a lot of help in getting there.

A lot of white men have worked hard to get where they are in leadership too but do you think they earned and deserved it more than say women or POC? Do you really think they work that much harder or are that much smarter? No it's privilege, and less deserving people are given a leg up.

Anyone who ‘doesn’t understand’ why comprehensive kids are in a much worse place to study both in and outside of school need to watch Sorry We Missed You. Great example of how parents in low paid jobs work long hours, meaning nobody to drive around to extra curriculars, nobody to help with homework, nobody to collect after school so long bus journey in the traffic it is, nobody to make dinner so you can get on with whatever work you need to do. It’s a different life and just ‘being motivated enough and asking teachers for help’ is laughably insufficient to get them on par with the private school children.

Selective private school students won't have to work as hard themselves. There is more "forced" revision from school, smaller class sizes (so more 1:1 feedback). Usually a quiet place to study at home that is well equipped and the advantage of a relatively wealthy upbringing.

A disadvantaged state student has to be a hell of a lot more proactive.

most of the population don't have access to a grammar school, only a few areas have them and in many of those, the number of 11yearolds who are bright enough to benefit far exceeds the number of places.

getting into oxbridge isn't the only goal of secondary education.

a reasonable ratio of state to private pupils at oxford would be for the numbers to be broadly in line with the number of A* grades awarded in each sector. this would have to be done on a per-subject basis because some subjects are rarely taught at state schools eg Ancient Greek. it's difficult to get the data to check these metrics but the changes in ratios aren't unreasonable.

There's a lot more inequality in education and oxbridge outcomes than just the private-state divide. of the state pupils who get places at oxford, the vast majority are from socially-selective schools which have negligible numbers of disadvantaged pupils, and have effective selectionby-house-price-and-ability-to-afford-tutors. the number who get into oxbridge from ordinary nonselective comprehensives which have a broad intake of pupils from diverse background circumstances is tiny.

"worth it" is very subjective and will be different for each family. the balance of educational goals achieved and other things the money might have been spent on will depend totally on circumstances case by case. We are paying for private as it is the best option for my DS who is academically able with ASD and anxiety issues. I have no expectation at all that he might go to Oxbridge, though obviously if he chooses to try then we'll be supportive, just as we would with any other choice as and when he is ready to make these decisions.

Contextual offers don't just mean "state gets lower offers". There is some unfairness in the postcode lottery approach granted, but at least there's some inequality being challenged.

I think it's a good thing. Ensures equity.

Hi, povvo here. Is there an exam for Oxbridge, so is it on merit, or is it on recommendation or what?

I haven't read all the replies, so apologies if I'm repeating some of the points.

Firstly, I wouldn't select a school on the basis of university (for all you know your child may not want to attend university after all).

Secondly, I do believe those children at private schools have far greater opportunities and are at an advantage. Yes, they will work hard to get the grades, but remember they have far more teacher to pupil time, a lot more support and generally come from comfortable homes (easy access to laptops/wifi etc).

There is a drive to help encourage those from disadvantage backgrounds to apply to oxbridge, and there should be. There is also a drive to help children from ethnicity minorities to apply. This doesn't take away the credit for the hard work of someone at a private school, it is merely a scheme to try and encourage and allow access to these universities.

Remember student from 'ok' local comp, achieving A A A at a level, is generally considered a better candidate than student from private school with the same grades. This is because student 1 had far more obstacles, had to garner the support themselves (usually) and quite possibly is the first from their family to even consider university.
Student from private school will have teachers supporting and training students for interviews/exams. They will have parents who are generally doing well and can afford more help (outside school tuition). That is why the difference - which has to be there to allow these opportunities.

It's a really, really good thing. Oxbridge is drenched in snobbery and privilege, and far too many privately educated mediocrities get there because their parents push them, hire private tutors, etc.

But, I want people from state schools to get there on merit and not because Oxbridge needs to tick certain boxes. I am firmly against positive discrimination. Far too many people now win book awards, or get publishing contracts, or win places at top universities because they tick a certain box, not because of talent or achievement. It has made me so distrustful. I never read contemporary fiction, for example, and I ignore the Booker prize. I no longer trust the judgements of critics and arts journalists, most of whom are woke and left-wing. Instead, I read the classics, and follow the advice of Harold Bloom.

@JoonT but how do you fairly judge ‘merit’ when one pupil has had such huge advantage over the other since day 1? How would you pick apart what is privilege and what is natural talent and work ethic?

A few people have commented on my pist & I've replied to them, stop fake backing up YOUR comment.

Nothing wrong with MY self awareness, but yours...

Your first comment was nasty & uncalled for. These are children you're talking about. Children who do work hard to deserve & earn their places.

they don't just get their grades because parents pay for their education.

I acknowledged there are advantages to private schooling (mainly class sizes) but they don't just get handed good grades, they have to work hard for them. To say otherwise is horrible & uncalled for.

white men in leadership is not what we're discussing.

Even with the recent changes Oxbridge still takes more kids from private schools than would be predicted by private schools' share of AAA, still.

And it's been known for ages that private schools improve grades by about one point on average, so AAA becomes A*AA, etc.

So, yes, if private school is very affordable to you and a good cultural fit for you, then if you care about Oxbridge a lot it's still a no brainer. Whether it's absolutely the best investment available for the price, that I couldn't tell you.

@WinterMusings You've spectacularly missed the point.

They work hard, but not AS hard as their state disadvantaged counterparts. Years of disadvantage takes a phenomenal amount of self led hard work to achieve at the same level as those with a privelidged (private, grammar & state) background.

Contextual offers at least try and counter this.

I don’t think parents are hoping for contextual offers when they opt for state schools (be they grammars or comps) over private. The criteria for contextual offers are more complex and can’t be fudged.

It’s your chances of getting an offer in the first place that can be damaged if you’re schooled at Eton. Plenty of evidence to suggest that the bar is set higher for these chaps, at various stages in the selection process… a) because of widening participation and also b) because, given the same academic profile, they know the Eton chap had more help getting there than the girl from the comp. So she’s likely to be brighter, and could go meteoric at a good uni.

Unless the Oxbridge people are astonishingly stupid (seems unlikely), they will be watching out for people who game the system by switching to a state sixth form. Be careful, people!

@user1477391263

There was a study a few years ago at Cambridge that proved people who ‘game the system’ have a higher chance of getting in though (1 in 3 versus 1 in 4). Though I don’t think everyone who chooses state sixth form is gaming the system - many will have moved for a genuinely better 6th form or their current private school doesn’t have one etc. but the point is your chances of getting in are higher if you apply from state 6th form having done GCSEs privately than if you have been privately educated throughout. Why is that?

I think it must happen when you have 2 candidates with the same grades at GCSE from private school and maybe not much else to choose between them.

They may be more likely to pick the one who had 2 years of state school at 6th form and it also allows them to tick the ‘state school’ box (I believe this is the case although someone earlier suggested they would still be considered a private school pupil in the stats so maybe I’m wrong).

So if Oxbridge are aware of people gaming the system, the stats suggest they haven’t done much about it.

Here’s the exact quote from the study:

Students who attended a private school for L2 but are recorded by the University as a state-school applicant because of their L3 education are the most successful category of applicants. Examining acceptances as a percentage of applications, students in this category have a success rate of 33.9% across all colleges, compared to an average success rate of 26.4% for all applicants.

www.varsity.co.uk/news/19783

This is one reason many people I know switch to state school at 6th form.

Oxbridge are aware of it and it’s maybe not that important in the grand scheme of things. They rightly want to concentrate more of their efforts on attracting students from disadvantaged backgrounds who’ve never been to private school than worrying about middle class parents’ efforts to game the system.
But to say that ‘gaming the system’ is completely not possible is incorrect I think.

The leafy middle class states don’t get contextual offers. In our small city of 5 comprehensives only 2 do. So how edgy are the private school game players prepared to go for Alevel 😀?!

Also the Oxbridge obsession is weird. As my relative who works there (fellow and tutor in a well known college) says other universities are better for some courses or the place just isn’t right for many short intense terms etc. My Dd could apply but isn’t going to

The application process assesses several things. GCSE and A level grades, interviews, and many subjects (if not all) have their own subject specific tests as well. So going to private school helps because they know what to expect on these tests and interviews and can pass that knowledge to students in a way that many state schools can't, and the double whammy is the students in private classes have smaller class sizes and often only take e.g. 8 GCSEs compared to the 15 some state students do, so they have the added advantage in the grades too.

Er ... Cambridge educated primary teacher here with a Masters on top. But thanks for the casual insult @Dotcheck

OP. Save your money. Go state.

I absolutely think the Oxbridge thing will make some parents hesitate over bothering with private school. I also think it will start feeding through to a lot of employers too - again I think they should try and recruit as widely as possible. The fact remains that a lot of people are expecting these schools to increase the chances of Oxbridge/certain jobs, and quite soon we'll get to the point that it actually harms them. I think social mobility in this country needs a serious kick up the arse though, so I can't say I'm sad about it. But we could probably stretch to private, and are the sort of people who would have done a generation ago, but I increasingly think we won't bother.

@Hercisback

NO I have NOT missed the point at all!

i have said private school can give kids an advantage (mostly smaller classes) and parents having money can help (better quality resources such as better calculators)

but there is still NO EXCUSE to say children going to private school don't work hard, don't deserve it earn places at university.

they do NOT get their grades just handed to them on a plate!!

it's a nasty thing to say about children who have put in the hours and worked their arses off to get the grades required.

mostly with excessive pressure to do so because their parents are paying a lot of money for their education.

There was a study a few years ago at Cambridge that proved people who ‘game the system’ have a higher chance of getting in though (1 in 3 versus 1 in 4).

Presumably those in charge of Oxbridge admissions will also have seen this study and set about making sure they recognise those who game the system.

Unless I'm missing something that's not a useful comparison. There are four options:
A: private GCSE and A-level;

B: state GCSE and A-level;

C: private GCSE and then state A-level.
D: state GSCE and then private A-level
The two stats you/the study quote are comparing B to (A+C+D). What you want to know are the stats for A, B, C and D separately, and more importantly whether B is significantly different to C.

Completely digressing but why did he struggle and find it stressful? Was he always academic and/or very hard working from an early age?