Decision time - state grammar school or quasi-selective independent school

[Quattrocento]

We truly don't know what to do about DD's secondary education. She has always been in the independent sector and is in year 6 at her prep school. The independent school into which the prep school feeds is nice enough. But we entered her into the 11+ for a state grammar school, and we learned today that she'd passed the exam with a high enough mark to ensure a place. So we don't really know what to do. DD says she doesn't much mind what she does and wants to abdicate responsibility leave the decision to us.

I've made a list of the pros and cons for moving to the state grammar school

1. She gets to mix with a very broad range of backgrounds in terms of wealth BUT it's far less ethnically diverse. I like the idea of DD being able to mix across a broad social/racial spectrum.
2. The state grammar has slightly worse exam results BUT the intake is slightly brighter so the difference might be bigger than it appears.
3. The state grammar school has nothing much happening in the way of sporting stuff and DD is super-sporty.
4. The state grammar school doesn't seem to do much in terms of other out-of-school activities
5. The state grammar school seems to have lower standards of behaviour - lots of children quite badly dressed and swearing etc in a way that made little DD's eyes go round as saucers.
6. The state grammar school is going to save us around £80k on independent school fees. The fees are not an issue now but they would be if I were made redundant (looks nervously at global economic environment).

What do you think?

It has been said many times on this thread, it is treated as some kind of sacred cow.

It would be very unethical for universities to prioritise an actual lower grade on the assumption that they have had a difficult past.

Any positive discrimination is between independent schools AND grammar schools versus 'sink' schools and children from obviously disadvantaged backgrounds. Nothing more sinister than that.

I'm not sure that I'm looking for validation actually. One positve step we've taken is to arrange to have a drink with some people whose children already go to the state grammar - basically just to see what they think of it from the inside.

I'm really not bothered about the quality of the uniforms incidentally.

Interesting the point made earlier about why DD isn't clamouring to stay where all the sports stuff is going on. I asked her that tonight and she said that she didn't want to put any pressure on us (gulp - she is wise beyond her years) if the fees were going to be a problem, but her (marginal) preference would be to stay where she is ...

More food for thought.

Thanks for all the responses.

I'm sure Universities don't prioritise lower grades on the basis of any assumptions about a 'difficult past'.

What they do do is look at average points scores for the school attended to put the candidate's grades in context - which is entirely sensible.

I bet we've all known of people who have ended up with inflated grades because they've been hothoused in a particular way - it shouldn't happen but it does. And it helps nobody - the candidate's grades don't reflect their innate ability, which could potentially be disastrous for them if they wind up on a course that isn't right for them, and it's not helpful to Universities who want to know what the candidate is capable of on their own merits.

Is there any evidence of this though, Violet?

I haven't been able to find anything. I suspect it is more of a case of wishful thinking.

It didn't happen at all when I did Admissions five years ago, though things may have changed. All we were interested in was existing GCSE results, predicted A-level results and, if it came to it, evidence of other interests as well. I'm not sure we ever really looked at the name of the school.

Violethill - who's talking about hothousing?

QC - your DD is a wise and thoughtful girl. Go for your - and her - real preference!

Why would it be wishful thinking scienceteacher?
Is it really so difficult to believe that Universities want the best candidates?

In my profession I talk a lot with University admissions tutors.

The 'other interests' thing is highly over-rated too. So all that lacrosse-playing may be a waste of time

How can you assume that the best candidates have lower results?

How do you know that individuals did not have the odds stacked against them despite being at an independent school?

The only safe, and ethical, way to go is via the UCAS points system and the personal statement. It is really very dodgy to start reading between the lines.

It would be right for univerisities to consider the potential of their applicants, but that would really require a very different system to the one we have now (eg introducing an Apititude Test). The current UCAS system does not measure potential.

I played lacrosse at school and didn't think it was a waste of time. I much preferred it to hockey, and it helped me to be a team player and kept me fit.

Not a waste of time at all.

I don't think anyone has said Universities should assume that the best candidates have lower results.

Simply that the University will want to look at the whole picture, in context, so that they can be sure of selecting the right people for the course.

I'm sure lacrosse-playing isn't a waste of time if that's what floats your boat and keeps you fit and healthy. I was just pointing out that it's unlikely to be a major factor in getting you into University!!

What are you saying then, Violet? You have consistently said here that universities take the name of the school into consideration ahead of grades.

The UCAS system we have at present is not appropriate for selecting on anything other than grades and the personal statement, and for in-demand courses, an interview.

If you want to select based on raw intelligence and potential (a worthy thing, btw), then you need to have an intelligence test (for example, the SAT test they have in the USA).

I am saying that Universities look at the average points score for the school.
That is clearly not the same as saying that anyone is assuming that a candidate with lower grades is going to be better. Just that the University will quite rightly consider the candidate in a 'rounded' way. Three As at A level does not necessarily in itself indicate huge intelligence or potential to excel at degree level in a subject.
Likewise, a candidate may gain slightly lower grades than this, but have a great intellect and enormous potential.
And of course, it is in the interests of the University to select the right candidates. University is the point at which the students have become adults. They are there out of their own choice, not because their parents have decided to send them there. Good Universities are absolutely totally committed to selecting the best students for each course.

But do they really look at average points for the school?

Do they also look at what subjects the points came from?

Not a robust process, I'm afraid.

Well I don't think the admissions tutors I speak to are lying!

I'm sure they use a process that they find selects the right candidates for each course. Why wouldn't they?

Yeah, they may say that, and then they opt for the best grades.

If they want to look at the whole school's grades, then fine. As long as they don't start making up fudge factors. Look but don't touch.

Well I don't see why Universities wouldn't want the best candidates for each course!

But I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you of that st!

They don't have a methodology for assessing who is the best, outside of the UCAS system. The UCAS system is not designed for delving into the background of the school. It really isn't, nor should it ever be used in this way.

If you have a tie between the candidates for your last two places, you look at their personal statements and their teacher references. If somehow their grades do not show their full potential, this is where the explanation should come from. The university should not be inferring anything about people they only know through a piece of paper.

Violethill: I'm sure the admissions tutors you talk to aren't 'lying' - but in the nicest possible way, you really can't claim to know how universities admit students unless you do it yourself. Even then, you would only know about that specific university!

Universities use a whole host of criteria for admission. If a student is applying from a school that generally performs poorly, his/her teachers will tend to point this out on the UCAS form; often, this will provoke an admissions tutor to ring them for further information. However, I never, ever came across any evidence of universities looking at a school's average points score. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it may, though, mean that it's not common practice.

BTW, universities are odd places. The assumption being made here is that all universities want the students with the best potential. Ideally, yes! However the truth, for a lot of departments, is that they want bums on seats, as their funding depends on it...

I am talking about well resepected Universities Dottoressa , and courses which are oversubscribed. I agree that needlework at the University of the north east corner of Grotsville is going to be more concerned about bums on seats.

BTW, I don't agree with your implication that one can only know about something if one has done it oneself. We all gain understanding of things though a variety of means: researching, talking to people etc etc - if we all had to actually do something first hand to know anything about it, we'd be ignorant of all sorts of things. I've never stood as President of the US, but I have a fair understanding of how the election process works!

I've done admissions work for clinical courses and we did look at a school's average point score. This was for our own WP research (we had a target of 25% applicants rom WP backgrounds) and was one of about 6 factors that were looked at. An applicant being assessed as "WP" (ticked yes for 3/6 of ur criteria) didn't make any difference to whether they got through to he interview stage though. Majority of those offered places were from state grammars.

I may be wrong, but I don't think universities can actually see which school the pupils attended. There is a box the school referee ticks to say what sort of school it is, eg grammar, comprehensive and a box to fill in re the numbers from the school who go on to further education. Thus the universities can infer from this info what sort of education the pupils have received.

Also if pupil has got GCSEs in Latin, Greek etc and certain other subjects which are USUALLY only taught in the private, and possibly grammar school, sector they can guess that they have not been to Sink Road Comprehensive somehow.

However, all of this is not specifically designed to stop clever children getting their well deserved university places. It is just redressing the balance slightly for a poor child who may come from a crap background, attend a crap school who just might be as brainy as someone with every advantage given to them all through their lives, and who, in the past, may have got a place at Oxbridge or good university because their father/uncle/second cousin once removed went there. I really, really can't see why anyone would actually object to this.

It still doesn't mean they are going to automatically get a place, it may just get them an interview where they can actually speak for themselves.

I may be wrong, but I don't think universities can actually see which school the pupils attended. There is a box the school referee ticks to say what sort of school it is, eg grammar, comprehensive and a box to fill in re the numbers from the school who go on to further education. Thus the universities can infer from this info what sort of education the pupils have received.

Also if pupil has got GCSEs in Latin, Greek etc and certain other subjects which are USUALLY only taught in the private, and possibly grammar school, sector they can guess that they have not been to Sink Road Comprehensive somehow.

However, all of this is not specifically designed to stop clever children getting their well deserved university places. It is just redressing the balance slightly for a poor child who may come from a crap background, attend a crap school who just might be as brainy as someone with every advantage given to them all through their lives, and who, in the past, may have got a place at Oxbridge or good university because their father/uncle/second cousin once removed went there. I really, really can't see why anyone would actually object to this.

It still doesn't mean they are going to automatically get a place, it may just get them an interview where they can actually speak for themselves.

Don't they speak for themselves in their personal statement?

When did nepotism last count for Oxbridge places?

Exactly bags. I really can't see why anyone would object either, unless they think that they have some right, by virtue of having parents who chose to fork out more money, to get into a good University!