A*AA offers from prestigious unis means state school students will suffer?

Because it's an absurdly difficult course? The Cambridge courses are disproportionately harder than even other top universities. You simply can't compare a certain degree classification at Cambridge with other courses. People getting 2:2s at Cambridge have transferred to other universities and seen their marks shoot up.

Also, the Cambridge admissions process is rigorous enough to differentiate between that have an actual aptitude for the subject, and those that just learn the exam technique and manage high marks after much graft.

I understand what you mean. I find it insulting that people think this will have an adverse affect on state students. I'm a year 12 student who didn't have any tuition or anything that private schools have as an advantage to learning. The stutent:staff ratio is around 20:1 as well in comparison to 1:1 in private schools yet I can still match up to private schools exam results. A levels were made easier by the government so rather than making it harder and bridging the gap to uni better they add an extra grade to accomodate those with better exam technique but not those who are more intelligent. Won't affect anything in terms of achievement besides deterring people to go university who can't get those grades.

That's even MORE disadvantageous to people from poor backgrounds, surely? It's kind of hard to get an awesome list of extra-curriculars when you can't afford expensive music tuition; sports/fitness coaching; go to a school where extra-curriculars aren't available or encouraged;and on top of that possibly have to work a part-time job thus reducing your ability to build up your list of extra-curriculars.

The US is WORSE than the UK in terms of social mobility, you realise (or it was last time I checked).

I don't think so, if you get an offer from an A* uni, then you should able to make it.

Why are they assuming state school kids can't make it yet public/grammer school kids can?

And on what do you base that opinion? The US does not have such a defined class system as the UK does... I think to an extent the lines are blurred in the US, unless you are talking about the super rich...

For example a family earning ~ $45K could be considered middle class, because regardless if they were blue collar (working class) or white collar (middle class). In the UK depending on their profession, they would still be considered working class...

I also don't understand why that phrase is even still used in the UK...

So you feel your personal experience is the average or token experience of a state school student...

Agreed. If the UK university system was anything like the US', then I'd be screwed. I do absolutely NO EC's in college since there's not really a wide range available. The only reason I have a chance of going to uni is due to my academic ability!

I'm from a disadvantaged background and I don't see why this means state-school students will suffer. You wanna work hard and get A* then go and get - I can't see how private-school students have any better mentality than what anyone else can potentially have.

Of course not. I'm not the only person I know who's capable of an A*. All the state colleges I know of produce A* students (obviously we don't know if anyone is an A* student yet, but we can reasonably guess if they're of that standard). State colleges do not have the issues that GCSE schools have as it is only the people who want to be there, so there generally isn't the disruption you can get at GCSE level. Also, even if someone did have a bad teacher, with all the resources available on the internet, someone who has the ability and drive needed to get into top unis such as Cambridge should still be able to get an A*.

That is the point, the state schooler on average will not be offered a place... and I think the 50 -50 stat some are claiming illustrates the point. If there is a 50/50 split of state school to public school, then if 7% of the students in the UK attend public school but are taking 50% of the Oxbridge places, then explain why public school pupils have a greater propensity to end up in Oxbridge... is it that they are intrinsically smarter/more intelligent?

Also, even if someone did have a bad teacher, with all the resources available on the internet, someone who has the ability and drive needed to get into top unis such as Cambridge should still be able to get an A*.

Unis are for intelligent people. Not a tool for the government to pat itself on the back and say "Look how diverse we've made the country!" It's kind of insulting to state school students that people think they're completely incapable of achieving anything of their own merit and need a 'helping hand' every step of the way.

But again, that's not the universities problem to fix, it's the governments. The universities should be able to take the people with the best grades, irrespective of education, upbringing, wealth etc.

This. I sympathise with those who have had poor teaching, but considering how accessible information is thesedays, there's little excuse. People need to be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves, rather than being allowed to blame everything and everyone around them.

A greater emphasis on extra-curriculars is one of the staple selling points of elite schools.

10 A*s at GCSE from the worst comprehensive is surely superior to 10 A*s from a public school.

I've been state educated my whole life. My primary school was ranked 82 out of 83 schools in my area. Most people in my class still couldn't read when I went to secondary school. My secondary school was probably mid-range when I started, but went down hill a little whilst I was there and in my year of 150 only half a dozen got more than one A*. I go to a state college that just requires 6 Cs at GCSE. My offer is for A*AA and I'm pretty confident I'll make it. Last year I got the equivalent of 5 A*s. I wasn't put off from applying due to the A*, and nor were 60 other people from my college of 700. More people were put off from applying to places such as Oxbridge because a) it'd never been mentioned at school b) they didn't have the confidence in their own ability c) they wrongly assume that the system is prejudiced. It's not that state school pupils can't get the grades, it's the whole atmosphere in which they're educated.

A Levels aren't so difficult - and I'm a firm believer that if you work hard enough and work in the right way, then you can get what anybody else can get. Okay so state school pupils may have to spend longer looking for the resources that their schools couldn't provide, or they may have to work a bit more on their own to get the job done - but they're the kind of things you have to do at university anyway. It's okay saying that the system is unfairly discriminating agains state school pupils by asking for higher marks, and I agree that to some extent you have to take into account somebody's background, but there's only so far that you can take provisions for positive discrimination. Some would argue that by repeatedly telling state school pupils they're less likely to achieve and are disadvantaged, they'll play to that and feel constrained by limits that don't necessarily exist.

Plus, as the A* is being introduced as a product of grade inflation, asking for A*AA or more is only the same as asking for AAA a decade or so ago. Maybe not even that far back. This isn't a new problem. Instead of blaming private schools or university admissions, more should be done to improve the standard of education in the public sector, particularly at an early age.

I've been state educated my whole life. My primary school was ranked 82 out of 83 schools in my area. Most people in my class still couldn't read when I went to secondary school. My secondary school was probably mid-range when I started, but went down hill a little whilst I was there and in my year of 150 only half a dozen got more than one A*. I go to a state college that just requires 6 Cs at GCSE. My offer is for A*AA and I'm pretty confident I'll make it. Last year I got the equivalent of 5 A*s. I wasn't put off from applying due to the A*, and nor were 60 other people from my college of 700. More people were put off from applying to places such as Oxbridge because a) it'd never been mentioned at school b) they didn't have the confidence in their own ability c) they wrongly assume that the system is prejudiced. It's not that state school pupils can't get the grades, it's the whole atmosphere in which they're educated.

A Levels aren't so difficult - and I'm a firm believer that if you work hard enough and work in the right way, then you can get what anybody else can get. Okay so state school pupils may have to spend longer looking for the resources that their schools couldn't provide, or they may have to work a bit more on their own to get the job done - but they're the kind of things you have to do at university anyway. It's okay saying that the system is unfairly discriminating agains state school pupils by asking for higher marks, and I agree that to some extent you have to take into account somebody's background, but there's only so far that you can take provisions for positive discrimination. Some would argue that by repeatedly telling state school pupils they're less likely to achieve and are disadvantaged, they'll play to that and feel constrained by limits that don't necessarily exist.

Plus, as the A* is being introduced as a product of grade inflation, asking for A*AA or more is only the same as asking for AAA a decade or so ago. Maybe not even that far back. This isn't a new problem. Instead of blaming private schools or university admissions, more should be done to improve the standard of education in the public sector, particularly at an early age.