Private pupils 55 times as likely to go to Oxbridge

Where is this post you keep referring to? Just summarise your main points because I can't be arsed to find it.

There is a system. Private schools and top state grammars will have a tradition of sending a few students off to Oxbridge. My school does. The applicants are coached for interviews to ensure a maximum chance of them getting an offer.

Look, the private application/offer rate might be accused of being elitist, but at the end of the day, Cambridge is still an academic institution, and if you aren't intelligent and enthusiastic about your subject, no matter how much money you wave in front of their faces, there is very little chance of you getting in (also, another misconception the girl I talked about in my previous post had. I think the days of bribing have gone, although in the news a couple of years ago, a don at one of Oxf or Cam did accept a £30,000 bribe).

Their chance of getting an offer has very little basis on this 'coaching'. You can't train someone to get into oxbridge. However, over years, you can teach them in such a way that they will develop some passion for a subject earlier than at state schools, and thus more likely to get an offer as they will have probably experienced their subject more than state school students.

Private pupils 55 times as likely to go to Oxbridge

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340605/Private-pupils-55-times-likely-to-Oxbridge.html

Children at independent schools are 55 times more likely to go to Oxford or Cambridge than the poorest state school students, a report has found.

I thought they were supposed to be thinking about it.

This idea that pupils on FSM have to learn by themselves and have no adult support from teachers or parents is far, far too stereotyped. Oxford seems to be doing a great job to level the playing field but when it gets to interview then surely the pupil who's worked really hard at private school shouldn't be penalised either.

Not sure why you think state schoolers might be rejected on those grounds alone, I thought it was the less successful independents who claimed prejudice now!

The problem is: Private school students are trained for interviews. I remember at my interview, my Dos kept mentioning how poor an interview technique I had and that he could tell a mile off that I was from a comprehensive XD.

You're completely right. The Headteacher of Westminster told the tutor responsible for history admissions that if Oxford looked for students who could stand on their heads, Westminster students would come to interview ready to do just that. But the tutor did also say that they're very conscious of the fact that some schools give intense preparation, so how much does it actually count? I suppose the Westminster success rate would suggest that it does.

I do not think they take into account the amount of preparation some schools get for interviews as you just have to take a look at my school. Our school did not prepare us well for the interviews (mostly their fault partly not) so we basically had to fend for ourselves. The result: one person in about 6 years getting into Cambridge. Bearing in mind that Oxford sent a letter to my school saying in a more roundabout way that they knew that our school didn't prepare us as much.

I can't see the point in devoting so much time and effort and so many resources into the access schemes if when it comes to interview tutors can't adjust scores to take account of the intense preparation that they know some schools are able to give and some aren't. Surely they do adjust to a significant extent?

I could so easily become a Daily Mail journalist.

ETON PUPILS 700,000,000 TIMES AS LIKELY TO GO TO OXBRIDGE

True though, our school thrashes them in A level results every year and we get way less (as a %) into Oxbridge.

But that's what happens when your parents wine and dine with the professors

True though, our school thrashes them in A level results every year and we get way less (as a %) into Oxbridge.

I'm not sure it's possible to thrash Eton in A-level results; they get some of the best results in the country.

As do we?

Not much room for manouver to do so much better as to be considered a "thrashing" is the point being made, I presume.

Essentially, don't blame Oxbridge, don't blame private schools, blame poor state schools.

I clicked on this thread, scrolled down, and wondered not if- but when I see would see you.

Why do you say that?

I don't understand the need for the Oxbridge bashing. Either you are good enough to go, or, you are not.

You say this, and it is true. But not all the people who don't get in are not worthy of a place, evidenced by the fact that every year many pupils re-apply and get offers. And I'm not just being defensive about the fact I didn't get in...well a bit.