'Don't discriminate against private schooled applicants or we'll boycott' - heads.

after reading the whole thread I do wonder why the most sensible post so far (the one I'm now quoting) has been pretty much ignored.

I think the problem is that this doesn't even treat the symptoms, it merely masks it. I think your suggested treatment will do more harm than good. Punishing academic institutions for accepting pupils who have better academics than pupils from whatever group is flavour of the month is a farce.

It completely undermines the pupils that it sets out to help and more importantly leads to a further decline in standards making the cause itself even harder to treat.

When my surgeon botches my operation because someone thought it was unfair that we didn't have enough black, Muslim, lesbian, disabled, hermaphrodite surgeons with learning difficulties who went to state school in the profession, even though they happened to get DDD at A Level, I'll bite my tongue and happily skip along on the other leg that they didn't wrongly amputate, safe in the knowledge that we are making a fairer and better society.

People like discussing state schools vs private schools



Does it merely mask it? It certainly gets a higher proportion of non-rich kids into the top jobs than would otherwise occur, even if a higher proportion of private schoolers still do get there. It gives state schoolers a more realistic hope that they can get somewhere, meaning they're motivated to try rather than give up.

One's ability at degree level is not judged based on their background, so your surgeon will have had no favours in passing their exams.

I've noticed, I've also noticed that in these discussions only awful state schools and wonderful public schools seem to exist.

The state school I went to performs roughly equally as well as the only private school in the local area. (there are a few others a not that far away if people want to make the journey). I didn't do that well at A level, apparently that would be more likely to be overlooked than if someone from that private school got the same grades that hardly seems fair

People like discussing state schools vs private schools



Does it merely mask it? It certainly gets a higher proportion of non-rich kids into the top jobs than would otherwise occur, even if a higher proportion of private schoolers still do get there. It gives state schoolers a more realistic hope that they can get somewhere, meaning they're motivated to try rather than give up.

One's ability at degree level is not judged based on their background, so your surgeon will have had no favours in passing their exams.

No they can't do that; it would be the logical thing to do.

<3 x

Public schools showing a petulant sense of entitlement, what a surprise. The entire system discriminates against state school applicants, where can we boycott? At my Oxford interviews last year I met ONE other person from a comp in a college which is 4th highest for state school intake. I'm finding it difficult to believe public school kids are suffering

In general, fee-paying schools will be better than free schools because they have to justify the extra cost. There will be exceptions, and I'm especially surprised at your state school being on a par with a nearby private school, but in general it will be true so it makes sense to consider those cases.

It is true that Oxbridge and other top rate unis are being more fussy about independent (particularly public) school students....because yes they are under pressure from the government and most of the population to let in more state school students. Just being at a private school certainly does not mean you get into the top rate institutions, in fact i think often they have to prove themselves even more to the university because they have come from a good school - compared with those who haven't.

It's not only independent schools. There's also been a decline in numbers at my school, from a peak of around 40 to roughly 25-30. I think it's because the school you go to no longer determines how well you can do in exams compared to a decade ago. For example, there are so many resources available on the internet now that motivated people can overcome shortfalls in their schools. These people are likely to get into good universities, because they have the necessary self-discipline and determination.

I didn't accuse Oxford of discriminating against state school students, the fact that I knew of only two comp students in my time there including myself is evidence that there is no great conspiracy against public schools, that's all. And I don't get how the **** you've got insulting people who don't get into Oxbridge from what I said but w/e

Yet again, it shows absolutely nothing of the sort. The only thing you can (anecdotally - I personally know 3 from my state school got into Oxford in the year I graduated alone) interpret from that is there is no conspiracy against public school students at Oxford - not remotely what the Private schools were saying (and I think the idea that any school would ever "boycott" (whatever that means - they ban their students from applying!?) Oxford is ludicrous anyway!).

Because people (not necessarily you) go on about how it's such a devastating tragedy that not enough state school students are getting into Oxbridge. The clear implication being that Oxbridge is particularly special and those who don't attend are being failed.

Other Russell Group unis are much the same, their public school intake is far higher than the 7% of the population receiving an independent education. What exactly are these schools looking for, when the disproportionate number of independently schooled students at top universities is a consistent reality?

Oxbridge is particularly special. That doesn't mean people who don't get there have failed

They are looking for the academically brightest in the country, which Private schools obviously contain much more of proportionally than the state schools (the entire point of their existence). Of course they aren't necessarily more intelligent than others, but they irrefutably perform better in exams - the key to getting into good universities.

That's exactly what it means. If it doesn't matter that they didn't get in then there would be no fuss. The fact that a fuss is made means that people think it is of serious detriment to them - not a complete failure, but some form of failure none-the-less (or, perhaps more likely, just another case of "I hate the rich"...).

I go to one of these big public schools, £30k a year type... our head of Oxbridge entrance...

Yes nail on the head for me, nice comment.

It was the same at my brothers Oxford interview. He was state school, some of the best grades I'd ever seen and was rejected. In fact, everyone I've ever known who's been to a state school has been rejected at Oxford, and I only know one person that got into Cambridge.

We need a system in which these universities understand that just because you went to Eton and are polished, posh and well presented, that doesn't mean you are better than somebody from a state school with the same grades. It probably means the kid from the state school is better, as he's achieved those grades in a harder environment.

One of the problems is the lack of preparation. My brother's college hadn't told him about the Oxford interview. He thought he was going for a chat, he didn't realise it was a test. It was so rare for them to put kids in Oxford, that no one helped him. At private schools, you are coached into it. It must be an embarrassment to go somewhere like Eton and not get into Oxford.

It needs radical reform for me. Problem is, Blair, Thatcher, Cameron...turkey's don't vote for Christmas, they are not going to change a system that benefits them.

I think it needs so much reform that if I was PM, I'd simply be willing to abolish the admissions departments at Oxford and Cambridge and take a week doing it from Number 10, if that's what it takes to get more state schools in there. It's a sham and many that oppose it, do it because it benefits them and their close circles.

Other Russell Group unis are much the same, their public school intake is far higher than the 7% of the population receiving an independent education. What exactly are these schools looking for, when the disproportionate number of independently schooled students at top universities is a consistent reality?

Oxbridge is particularly special. That doesn't mean people who don't get there have failed

The number of private schoolers at these unis is actually relative too the numbers of applicants too these top unis. Its morr a case of not enough state schoolers applying proportionately than any discrimination.

Is that not down to what people think they'll get in their A Levels, so they don't waste a space applying to top unis? That in turn is down to being in a state school.