Do University's discriminate against Private School applicants?

I recently applied to study Law at a well-known Scottish University. I got 4 A's and a B in my SQA Highers, which I thought would have been enough to get an offer, but as I recently found out, this was not the case and my application was unsuccessful.

I was at an Open Day a few months ago, and started talking to someone who had applied for the same course as me at the first University mentioned. He had 1 A, 2 B's and a C in his Highers, yet he was given a conditional offer, while I was rejected straight away.

The only difference I can see between us is that I go to a private school and he goes to a state school. I was wondering if anybody else has had a similar experience, or knows why a University would favour a pupil with lower grades over one with higher grades based purely upon their education?

It might seem as if I'm jumping to conclusions, but I have put a lot of thought in to this and I honestly can't think of a reason why I would have been rejected in favour of an applicant whose grades were quite a bit worse than mine.

I'd like to add that it isn't a case of "I got rejected, therefore Universities hate Private Schools".

I know of several people with 4 A grades who were rejected straight out, and I've come across maybe two examples of people from state schools with 1 A who were given offers (there will be more, I'm sure)

There does seem to be a pattern emerging, and I wanted to know there was a reason behind it - or if it was just a (very big) coincidence.

Of course they do!! The Government just appointed a new minister whose made it his aim to get more state school people into Uni.

However isn't this fair? I mean a state pupil who get AAA must be a lot cleverer than a private pupil who gets the same grades!!!!

Also, Scotland universities discriminate against english pupils. For example English pupils only make a sixth of the input into St Andrews.

It is just a merrygoround of discrimination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - the Government needs to sort this out - come on David Willetts!

There could be many reasons why this person was offered a place and you weren't.

There is a belief that if candidate A could get certain grades at a state school, they would almost certainly get better grades at a private school, as this is true for the majority of people. The fact that state a schooled person got worse grades does not make him any less determined, it's just easier to get better grades in private tuition around other pupils who actively encourage success in exams, where in state tuition peers are more likely not to encourage success and in some cases they may even discriminate the person who succeeds in the state school (Hence the terms geek, nerd, etc.).

Also, those from poorer backgrounds may have greater difficulty doing well in exams as yourself. The universities have to take that into account surely?

On top of that there is other things such as volunteering, non-academic achievements, experience etc. The state schooled person in general could have looked like a better person if they had a lot more of this in their application than you had.

Overall, grades aren't everything. They are a small part of a bigger picture that defines who you are. Don't try to start a social revolution because your private school education didn't get you an offer, having wealthy parents shouldn't get you everywhere in life.

If person A goes to a crap school and gets, say, BBB, and person B goes to a great school and also gets BBB, chances are person A is naturally more talented.

This is a case of person A getting ABBCF and person B getting AAAAB. You can't say "so and so would have got this had he gone to a better school", that's just making assumptions. Universities should view the facts, which is that person B got higher grades than person A.

You can have the best teachers in the world, but you've got to be prepared to work hard independently and put the time in to revise for your Highers.

Not all state school kids live in absolute poverty; Not all private school kids are wealthy, upper class landlords. Yes, it's stating the obvious, but some people seem to be arguing otherwise...

don't worry, because there is an element of truth in what you say, edinburgh even say it themselves. They say they take into account contextual factors when deciding on applicants, implying that if you come from a crap background (i.e crap school, etc etc), then that'll help towards your application

so if they have two identical candidates, one goes to eton, the other goes to a run down school where no-one's actually gone on to university, they'll take the second applicant

its not quite as simple as that. my uncle works at Cambridge so i talk to him about this stuff, and he says that there is a certain number of places where they positively discriminate, however its not simply taking people from **** schools over good schools, its more about considering socio-economic background and seeing if some students have worked harder for their grades than kids who go to top private schools and have tutors in all their subjects. they try and weed out the lazy ones (obv not accusing OP of being lazy haha)

at the same time there are also a number of people at oxbridge who get in through money/family connections. so the positive discrimination is trying to balance out the privileged aspect of it

I recently applied to study Law at a well-known Scottish University. I got 4 A's and a B in my SQA Highers, which I thought would have been enough to get an offer, but as I recently found out, this was not the case and my application was unsuccessful.

I was at an Open Day a few months ago, and started talking to someone who had applied for the same course as me at the first University mentioned. He had 1 A, 2 B's and a C in his Highers, yet he was given a conditional offer, while I was rejected straight away.

The only difference I can see between us is that I go to a private school and he goes to a state school. I was wondering if anybody else has had a similar experience, or knows why a University would favour a pupil with lower grades over one with higher grades based purely upon their education?

It might seem as if I'm jumping to conclusions, but I have put a lot of thought in to this and I honestly can't think of a reason why I would have been rejected in favour of an applicant whose grades were quite a bit worse than mine.

Sounds like rubbish to me. You think everybody in good schools get higher grades because they just happen to take on the best students? No. It's the quality of education. Universities do not 'discriminate', they simply choose the best students - and that's not always measured in grades, because education is inequal.

If this other guy didn't get a lower offer than normal, he'll get in on merit (or fail to get in) and they just didn't want you.
If this other guy did get a lower offer than normal, they just really wanted him for one reason or another (positive discrimination being one possibility).

Or perhaps they just think people don't really need lots of As in their Highers to do well on the course, so they don't use Higher grades as a deciding factor. :idontknow:

Or those that can't spell 'apostrophes"

What about incorrect use of inverted commas?