Private schools, times a changing?

[Bannock]

BoRED S2upid said:

Bannock said:

In a couple of years time I/we (at the behest of my their mother, against my objections) will have spent around half of one million of your English pounds on private primary and secondary education for my 2 children. Trying to look at it now objectively and without bias to my original feelings on the matter, and going on the results this has produced, I estimate that they have done marginally better academically than they would have in the state system, and are perhaps marginally more balanced and rounded (whatever that means). They are worldly and have a keen interest in current affairs for example, but I put that mainly down to us as parents rather than the schooling - there are some absolute non-entity kids at their school in this regard, which doesn't surprise me when I look at their monied but vacant-minded parents. I don't think they will achieve any greater level in Higher Education, i.e. the University courses they do or the institutions they attend, than if they had attended the local "Good" state school.

In conclusion, my one word review of private education is "meh". I'd rather have the half of one million of your English pounds in hand to give them to pay for University and buy themselves somewhere to live afterwards. Perhaps the biggest benefit has been that my children had superior sporting and cultural facilities to use (although one of them has almost entirely eschewed this opportunity, and they've had nicer lunches.

Wow. I wonder how your kids feel about it? Would you have preferred £250,000 each at 21 or your education?

I was Comprehensive educated and they've done a bit better than me. Not half a million pounds better. So what I'm saying is that I don't think it's been value for money. They'd have attained good educational qualifications at the local state school, certainly nothing noticeably inferior to the one that they have received, because they are able and motivated children with interested and motivated parents. So to me your question is moot.

[SweptVolume]

chemistry said:

gregd said:

Oxbridge is now much harder to attain for privately educated kids, and a good proportion of the ones who are offered places are from overseas (usually Chinese or HK Chinese).

I agree. I think there's a lot to be said now for educating privately up to GCSE and then moving to a good state school (supplemented by private tutors) for A-levels, so that any university application isn't from an independent school. I know several families that have done this in recent years.

Cheaper and more chance of being accepted by one's preferred university, as there seems to be an increasing prejudice amongst admissions departments against privately educated applicants.

Edited by chemistry on Thursday 9th March 14:24

My wife works in admissions for a postgrad university and much of her job now is juggling demographics; it's unashamed social engineering and if I mention meritocracy, eyes are rolled as if that's not the done thing anymore.

Not sure if it's been mentioned but look up the 93% club, which is aimed - quite nobly - at focussing on the state educated majority.

In post-grad education, the struggle seems to be to attract British citizens at all, and those who are tend to be from the public school system. I overheard a conversation only today where the gist was that the number of female applicants is too low unless they admit a disproportionate number of Chinese citizens, so the conundrum they have is whether they want too many men or too many Chinese.

Anyway, we are both state educated and I absolutely want opportunities for bright children regardless of their wealth, which is why I support the Grammar school system in principle, even if I don't support the 11+ nor the secondary modern system. I want state educated children to excel and I want them to have the opportunities to do so, but like so many social targets that are bandies around, I don't want that to come at the detriment of someone who didn't go to state school and who is equally or more able.

Denying someone who is objectively suitable an opportunity in favour of another based on the schooling that they had no control over influencing is as prejudiced as doing so based to their religion, skin colour, sex, or sexuality. Discrimination comes in all flavours.

[chemistry]

AstonZagato said:

Interestingly, the drop-out rates are rising. The state pupils are simply not prepared as well. One wonders if the affirmative action will damage the standing of those universities - not selecting on academic excellence and having to alter the teaching approach to cater to a different type of student body.

I am not against affirmative action per se but I do wonder what the privately-educated child has done wrong in this situation. It is the parents that have chosen (in most cases) to educate the child privately. The child is being punished for the parents' decision.

My daughter is in her second year studying medicine (not at Oxbridge) and says that the drop out rate is surprisingly high; roughly 15% to 20% of the first year didn't make it into the second year and she says that the drop out rate is particularly notable amongst those who were contextual applicants* (some of whom were/are her friends on the course). Apparently a number of contextual students find/found the workload, competitive atmosphere and general demands of the course way beyond what they were prepared for.

Obviously that's anecdotal, but I believe her.

I'm not sure what the answer is. It may well be morally right and proper to give a bright but disadvantaged kid a 'better' chance of getting onto a competitive course or into a top university (say through an offer of AAB versus A*AA as standard) but if they then can't cope, are you really doing them any favours?

Perhaps a better option would be for kids from failing schools and/or disadvantaged backgrounds to get priority access to some sort of foundation year, to determine which ones genuinely are bright (as opposed to just disadvantaged) and to get them up to speed academically.

On a related note, I agree that it's unfair for admissions departments to 'punish' kids from independent schools, when they had no say in the matter.

* Edited to add that she and her peers suspect that 'Covid grades' are also playing a part in this (which affects both contextual and non contextual students, obviously).

Edited by chemistry on Thursday 9th March 17:17

Edited by chemistry on Thursday 9th March 17:17

[PhilboSE]

AstonZagato said:

There is indeed a bias against privately educated pupils in the Oxbridge admissions process. I have had an insight into the inner workings of both an Oxford and a Cambridge college. Privately educated students are essentially put to the bottom of the pile. That is not to say they stand no chance but they need both to be exceptional academically within that school (the colleges will ask where they sit relative to their peers - so straight A*s may not be enough) and to offer strong extra-curricular talents (e.g. grade 8 in a musical instrument, national level sport) in order to get out of the morass of other bright students. The same is not true of state pupils.

Generally if you get an offer from Oxbridge it will be AAA - you don't need straight A*, though some in-demand courses will ask for one A*. Basically if they make you an offer they expect the vast majority to get in.

The Oxford admissions tutor to which I spoke said that they give almost no credit to any activities not related to the course for which they are applying. So the Grade 8 music of DofE Gold is immaterial. They just want the best candidates for that course, and ones who show a genuine interest in the subject matter - knowledge around the subject beyond what schools teach is a key differentiator. They use the interviews to sift those with a flair for the subject from those that have simply been taught effectively

AstonZagato said:

My insider tells me that this bias it is purely self preservation - they are not trying to select the best students, they are trying to avoid negative publicity. Other universities are not held to account on their public/private ratio in the same way (ministerial threats, questions asked in parliament, newspaper article in all the broadsheets).

Also, the "private to GCSE, and state for A level" ruse is starting to be less effective. Oxbridge are now being asked how many students come from ethnic minorities, disadvantaged backgrounds, get free school meals, etc. The admissions department are starting to sort those kids into a different bucket.

Friend of a friend (really!) was a Cambridge admissions officer until recently. When asked how to optimise chances of getting an offer he said "don't be a public school educated white male".

[AstonZagato]

chemistry said:

AstonZagato said:

Interestingly, the drop-out rates are rising. The state pupils are simply not prepared as well. One wonders if the affirmative action will damage the standing of those universities - not selecting on academic excellence and having to alter the teaching approach to cater to a different type of student body.

I am not against affirmative action per se but I do wonder what the privately-educated child has done wrong in this situation. It is the parents that have chosen (in most cases) to educate the child privately. The child is being punished for the parents' decision.

My daughter is in her second year studying medicine (not at Oxbridge) and says that the drop out rate is surprisingly high; roughly 15% to 20% of the first year didn't make it into the second year and she says that the drop out rate is particularly notable amongst those who were contextual applicants* (some of whom were/are her friends on the course). Apparently a number of contextual students find/found the workload, competitive atmosphere and general demands of the course way beyond what they were prepared for.

Obviously that's anecdotal, but I believe her.

I'm not sure what the answer is. It may well be morally right and proper to give a bright but disadvantaged kid a 'better' chance of getting onto a competitive course or into a top university (say through an offer of AAB versus A*AA as standard) but if they then can't cope, are you really doing them any favours?

Perhaps a better option would be for kids from failing schools and/or disadvantaged backgrounds to get priority access to some sort of foundation year, to determine which ones genuinely are bright (as opposed to just disadvantaged) and to get them up to speed academically.

On a related note, I agree that it's unfair for admissions departments to 'punish' kids from independent schools, when they had no say in the matter.

* Edited to add that she and her peers suspect that 'Covid grades' are also playing a part in this (which affects both contextual and non contextual students, obviously).

Both Oxford and Cambridge are now offering Foundation years for disadvantaged students. My inside source is not complementary about their efficacy to date. I suspect that neither institution is set up to mentor those types of children. The fault lies with the state system and needs to be solved there IMHO.

[BoRED S2upid]

said:

Cambridge do an access year as an alternative entry route to your traditional AAA plus interview or entrance exam.

[u-boat]

AstonZagato said:

There is indeed a bias against privately educated pupils in the Oxbridge admissions process. I have had an insight into the inner workings of both an Oxford and a Cambridge college. Privately educated students are essentially put to the bottom of the pile. That is not to say they stand no chance but they need both to be exceptional academically within that school (the colleges will ask where they sit relative to their peers - so straight A*s may not be enough) and to offer strong extra-curricular talents (e.g. grade 8 in a musical instrument, national level sport) in order to get out of the morass of other bright students. The same is not true of state pupils.

This isn’t the case for my “publicly educated white male” son at all, he isn’t top of anything has no academic scholarships certainly not straight A* student mainly 8s in GCSEs and doesn’t do much extra-curricular activity, eg no sports or musical instruments.

Apparently he just had a high aptitude for the subject in the Oxford aptitude tests and did well in the next stage in the interview process.

As I said, he was the only one from his school that got into (got an offer anyway) oxbridge and is the only one from the group that applied who doesn’t have an academic scholarship.

I was a bit surprised when he said he wanted to apply tbh as he’s never been a top pupil but he was interested in his subject, thought Oxford would be the best uni for him and applied and got an offer.

I think the anti private school bias is overplayed tbh and it’s much more about aptitude for the actual subject now rather than being a top student or having lots of extra-curricular activities which tbh are usually irrelevant.

Edited by u-boat on Thursday 9th March 17:57

[PhilboSE]

Blib said:

Oxbridge chews people up at the best of times. Unless you're the very best of the best tutors just aren't too bothered about you as an individual.

I'm not sure that's a contemporaneous experience. Equity and pastoral care is generally much better for the current generation.

Blib said:

Mrs B, who, along with her sister, were the first kids to make it into Oxford from their Exeter school, actively discouraged our kids from applying there.

Instead, they ended up at UCL & Warwick, where they thrived in the far less intense environment.

Some Oxford colleges are significantly more demanding than others. Magdalen and Merton, for example, typically demand a lot more work from their students. Other colleges are more relaxed and less intense. You still all attend the same lectures but the support tutoring and assigned work varies, sometimes significantly. Nominating specific colleges (less high profile) on your entry form can improve your chances of entry as well.

[u-boat]

PhilboSE said:

AstonZagato said:

There is indeed a bias against privately educated pupils in the Oxbridge admissions process. I have had an insight into the inner workings of both an Oxford and a Cambridge college. Privately educated students are essentially put to the bottom of the pile. That is not to say they stand no chance but they need both to be exceptional academically within that school (the colleges will ask where they sit relative to their peers - so straight A*s may not be enough) and to offer strong extra-curricular talents (e.g. grade 8 in a musical instrument, national level sport) in order to get out of the morass of other bright students. The same is not true of state pupils.

Generally if you get an offer from Oxbridge it will be AAA - you don't need straight A*, though some in-demand courses will ask for one A*. Basically if they make you an offer they expect the vast majority to get in.

The Oxford admissions tutor to which I spoke said that they give almost no credit to any activities not related to the course for which they are applying. So the Grade 8 music of DofE Gold is immaterial. They just want the best candidates for that course, and ones who show a genuine interest in the subject matter - knowledge around the subject beyond what schools teach is a key differentiator. They use the interviews to sift those with a flair for the subject from those that have simply been taught effectively

AstonZagato said:

My insider tells me that this bias it is purely self preservation - they are not trying to select the best students, they are trying to avoid negative publicity. Other universities are not held to account on their public/private ratio in the same way (ministerial threats, questions asked in parliament, newspaper article in all the broadsheets).

Also, the "private to GCSE, and state for A level" ruse is starting to be less effective. Oxbridge are now being asked how many students come from ethnic minorities, disadvantaged backgrounds, get free school meals, etc. The admissions department are starting to sort those kids into a different bucket.

Friend of a friend (really!) was a Cambridge admissions officer until recently. When asked how to optimise chances of getting an offer he said "don't be a public school educated white male".

Your information is exactly what my son experienced except he is a white male from public school.

He ended up in a fairly heated debate during an interview about his subject. It was all about his aptitude and love of the subject rather than his general academic ability.

Which makes sense really, most people applying will have good qualifications and the same old stuff on their statements, oxbridge therefore want a real aptitude for the subject (which can’t always be taught) not just a load of people with the same qualifications and activities.

I expect it might depend on the subject though?

[Louis Balfour]

u-boat said:

PhilboSE said:

AstonZagato said:

There is indeed a bias against privately educated pupils in the Oxbridge admissions process. I have had an insight into the inner workings of both an Oxford and a Cambridge college. Privately educated students are essentially put to the bottom of the pile. That is not to say they stand no chance but they need both to be exceptional academically within that school (the colleges will ask where they sit relative to their peers - so straight A*s may not be enough) and to offer strong extra-curricular talents (e.g. grade 8 in a musical instrument, national level sport) in order to get out of the morass of other bright students. The same is not true of state pupils.

Generally if you get an offer from Oxbridge it will be AAA - you don't need straight A*, though some in-demand courses will ask for one A*. Basically if they make you an offer they expect the vast majority to get in.

The Oxford admissions tutor to which I spoke said that they give almost no credit to any activities not related to the course for which they are applying. So the Grade 8 music of DofE Gold is immaterial. They just want the best candidates for that course, and ones who show a genuine interest in the subject matter - knowledge around the subject beyond what schools teach is a key differentiator. They use the interviews to sift those with a flair for the subject from those that have simply been taught effectively

AstonZagato said:

My insider tells me that this bias it is purely self preservation - they are not trying to select the best students, they are trying to avoid negative publicity. Other universities are not held to account on their public/private ratio in the same way (ministerial threats, questions asked in parliament, newspaper article in all the broadsheets).

Also, the "private to GCSE, and state for A level" ruse is starting to be less effective. Oxbridge are now being asked how many students come from ethnic minorities, disadvantaged backgrounds, get free school meals, etc. The admissions department are starting to sort those kids into a different bucket.

Friend of a friend (really!) was a Cambridge admissions officer until recently. When asked how to optimise chances of getting an offer he said "don't be a public school educated white male".

Your information is exactly what my son experienced except he is a white male from public school.

He ended up in a fairly heated debate during an interview about his subject. It was all about his aptitude and love of the subject rather than his general academic ability.

Which makes sense really, most people applying will have good qualifications and the same old stuff on their statements, oxbridge therefore want a real aptitude for the subject (which can’t always be taught) not just a load of people with the same qualifications and activities.

I expect it might depend on the subject though?

It is my understanding that it is passion and aptitude for a subject that they look for. Though I am given to understand that the pro state school applicant thing is quite real.

[PhilboSE]

u-boat said:

Your information is exactly what my son experienced except he is a white male from public school.

Congratulations to your son on getting the offer. Being white male public school doesn't preclude getting an offer, it just diminishes the chances. You have to really stand out at interview.

u-boat said:

He ended up in a fairly heated debate during an interview about his subject. It was all about his aptitude and love of the subject rather than his general academic ability.

That's what they are interested in. People who can talk around their subject, show some passion, articulate an argument. They are not very interested in applicants who are highly educated in isolation - they want to see an active mind. The interviewers are all subject tutors - they want to be stimulated and even challenged by the work that the students produce.

u-boat said:

I expect it might depend on the subject though?

Possibly, though I expect that anyone applying for a course at Oxbridge ought to be able to articulate the reason for wanting to go and do it, and show interest and passion for the subject.

[gangzoom]

u-boat said:

Sure you’ve made a lot of money and could (easily) afford private education but do you think your kids will have the best chances to fulfil their potential (however you define that) at local state or private school?

Given every parents wants the best for their kids I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious.

Pretty much all of our friends send their kids to private school though so clearly we are the 'abnormal' ones.

[u-boat]

gangzoom said:

u-boat said:

Sure you’ve made a lot of money and could (easily) afford private education but do you think your kids will have the best chances to fulfil their potential (however you define that) at local state or private school?

Given every parents wants the best for their kids I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious.

Pretty much all of our friends send their kids to private school though so clearly we are the 'abnormal' ones.

It depends really, you might have some kind of ideological reason for not using private schools or you might think that as you did ok they shouldn’t have a leg up or something. There’s all kinds of reasons someone might not want to send their kids to private school especially if they didn’t go themselves or have a traditional education.

I was just wondering why you’re against it when it’s obviously nothing about the fees etc and it seems likely that private school, for most kids will give them opportunities that the state sector unfortunately can’t.

My dad came from a very poor background and poor schooling but ended up fairly well off, his view was that he wanted his kids to have the opportunities he didn’t. He was very bright though and ended up going back to college etc to get some qualifications to further his career later on.

[gangzoom]

u-boat said:

it seems likely that private school, for most kids will give them opportunities that the state sector unfortunately can’t.

As I've said I couldn't speak or read a single word of English aged 9, went to state school, currently at just over 40 I only report to our MD/CEO directly in an organisation with 17k employees.

I cannot see what opportunities state education didn't give me that has held me back in life. My wife is the same.

[Louis Balfour]

gangzoom said:

u-boat said:

it seems likely that private school, for most kids will give them opportunities that the state sector unfortunately can’t.

As I've said I couldn't speak or read a single word of English aged 9, went to state school, currently at just over 40 I only report to our MD/CEO directly in an organisation with 17k employees.

I cannot see what opportunities state education didn't give me that has held me back in life. My wife is the same.

The opportunity to be the MD/CEO?

I am ribbing you obviously, but in some firms that would be the case (historically anyway).

[gangzoom]

Louis Balfour said:

The opportunity to be the MD/CEO?

I am ribbing you obviously, but in some firms that would be the case (historically anyway).

I'm 41, and loving my job more than ever........so plenty of time, been lucky enough live in the UK for me was/is the biggest 'legs up' my parents gave me .

Edited by gangzoom on Thursday 9th March 19:24

[okgo]

One thing that does puzzle me is why some schools seemingly feature NOWHERE in exam results but are seemingly very expensive and sought after nonetheless?
Is there a lot of unspoken cache in the name of the school vs the output?

I note that Oxford is behind some of the London universities now on some of the rankings I’ve seen but it still is seen a clear cut above…

[NomduJour]

Presumably because chasing exam results isn’t the sole objective of education.

[ntiz]

My experience of public schools is that it’s not the headline kids getting straight As that is impressive. It’s the amount not so bright kids that they drag through sometime kicking and screaming to good grades and good Uni spots.

I was bottom set everything at public school and in the early days really far behind thanks to falling through the cracks at state school.

I found that the friends I had like me that went to state school left with a handful of GCSE at C and BTEC in sport. To do a low level Uni course just to waste another 3 years. Absolutely nobody at my public school did that absolutely every single student left with good grades and the option of a good university spot.

Considering I entered not knowing the alphabet, days of the week, times table etc I left 9 A and 1B my parents where absolutely flabbergasted.

Smart kids are smart they will make it one way or another it’s what you do with the rest that matters.

I left in 09 don’t know how it is these days.

[GiantCardboardPlato]

okgo said:

One thing that does puzzle me is why some schools seemingly feature NOWHERE in exam results but are seemingly very expensive and sought after nonetheless?
Is there a lot of unspoken cache in the name of the school vs the output?

I note that Oxford is behind some of the London universities now on some of the rankings I’ve seen but it still is seen a clear cut above…

… rankings are bks