This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do University's discriminate against Private School applicants?

OP

I really don't understand why you don't accept the university's feedback, it seems obvious to me that given your educational background, personal statement references, etc. that your grades simply weren't high enough, why do you disbelieve them?

I expect I'll get some diatribe about grades in response, but it's not simply about grades.

"personal statement references, etc." didn't come in to it. The university said as much in their feedback to me, so you can't use that in your argument.

If you take these things out of the list you gave me, that leaves "educational background", and we're never going to agree on this, mainly because I went to a private school and you went to a state school.

I'm not looking for sympathy here, and I'm full aware that I won't get any. But in my eyes I'm no different from a state school pupil. We both wake up at a similar time, spend a similar number of hours at school, struggle with certain subjects and excel at others. We have teachers we like, teachers we don't, and classes which are more disruptive than others. And, most importantly, we sit the same exams. There's no difference there.

And when you achieve grades that you think were pretty good, especially compared to the rest of the population, it's disappointing when your education is held against you.

Think of it this way: Hypothetically, you went to a top University and achieved a 1st class honours. And somebody else went to a poorer University and achieved a 2:2. You both apply for the same job, and they get it instead of you. When you ask for feedback, you find out that they were chosen solely because they went to a worse University and so should have gotten a worse degree. Would you not feel as if all the money spent on your education had been wasted?

I'd be impressed if you bothered to read all that - I rambled on a bit...

Reply 141

llys

17

Original post by DRE_902

...

What about your other university choices? Did they all give you offers?

Reply 142

DRE_902

OP

3

Original post by llys

What about your other university choices? Did they all give you offers?

I got three offers - two from Universities that were similarly ranked to this one. I was unsuccessful with Durham, but I didn't really expect them to make me an offer.

Reply 143

llys

17

Original post by DRE_902

I got three offers - two from Universities that were similarly ranked to this one. I was unsuccessful with Durham, but I didn't really expect them to make me an offer.

Congrats. : ) So at least private schooling was not an issue for any of them.

Edinburgh has a bit of a reputation for "discriminating" against English applicants in favor of local applicants (just google, or search TSR for more about that..). They consider it important for local applicants to be able to afford university study at their local university so give more weight to local applications. Perhaps they apply a similar reasoning to private versus local applicants - i.e. if you can afford private school you probably can afford to go to universities away from home.

Reply 144

James82

17

Original post by DRE_902

"personal statement references, etc." didn't come in to it. The university said as much in their feedback to me, so you can't use that in your argument.

How do you know they didn't come into it? The feedback from the university, which you've posted somewhere in this thread, said something along the lines of 'your grades weren't high enough compared to other candidates', it doesn't say that they disregarded your personal statement or references, it might well mean that compared to other candidates with a similar personal statement, reference, extra curricular activities, etc. your grades weren't high enough. The university could probably give better and more personalised feedback, but I imagine a lot of people request it nowadays and they just resort to sending fairly standard letters.

Original post by DRE_902

If you take these things out of the list you gave me, that leaves "educational background", and we're never going to agree on this, mainly because I went to a private school and you went to a state school.

Clearly we're not going to agree, but I don't remember ever saying I went to a state school.

Original post by DRE_902

I'm not looking for sympathy here, and I'm full aware that I won't get any. But in my eyes I'm no different from a state school pupil. We both wake up at a similar time, spend a similar number of hours at school, struggle with certain subjects and excel at others. We have teachers we like, teachers we don't, and classes which are more disruptive than others. And, most importantly, we sit the same exams. There's no difference there.

But there is a difference, clearly if there was no difference in the two systems then pupils would be achieving similar grades in both systems, but they don't, not anywhere close. So you have to conclude that their is either a difference in the standards of education or in the marking of exams, and I don't think anybody would suggest that exams taken by those attending public schools are marked any differently to those from state schools.

Original post by DRE_902

And when you achieve grades that you think were pretty good, especially compared to the rest of the population, it's disappointing when your education is held against you.

This is where we're never going to agree, because I believe it's not fair to directly compare grades achieved by those from public schools to those from state schools.

Original post by DRE_902

Think of it this way: Hypothetically, you went to a top University and achieved a 1st class honours. And somebody else went to a poorer University and achieved a 2:2. You both apply for the same job, and they get it instead of you. When you ask for feedback, you find out that they were chosen solely because they went to a worse University and so should have gotten a worse degree. Would you not feel as if all the money spent on your education had been wasted?

This is exactly what the positive discrimination at university entry is trying to address, there aren't the same financial barriers to the top universities because of student finance, so hopefully by introducing contextual data to weight educational background it means that the best students will go to the best universities.

The imbalance is caused by the education system, not by companies, therefore it is not the responsibility of companies to discriminate to address the imperfections of the education system. Hopefully the introduction of contextual data in the university admissions process means that people coming out of university will be coming out with the correct grade from the correct university for their ability.

Original post by DRE_902

I'd be impressed if you bothered to read all that - I rambled on a bit...

I did read it all, but I feel we are probably going round in circles a bit.

Reply 145

DRE_902

OP

3

Original post by James82

How do you know they didn't come into it? The feedback from the university, which you've posted somewhere in this thread, said something along the lines of 'your grades weren't high enough compared to other candidates', it doesn't say that they disregarded your personal statement or references, it might well mean that compared to other candidates with a similar personal statement, reference, extra curricular activities, etc. your grades weren't high enough. The university could probably give better and more personalised feedback, but I imagine a lot of people request it nowadays and they just resort to sending fairly standard letters.

I compared my feedback with somebody elses feedback for the same course at the same Uni, and the section on personal statement did seem specific to the candidate.

Original post by James82

Clearly we're not going to agree, but I don't remember ever saying I went to a state school.

It was implied, but not stated. I just assumed that was the case, based on a few of your comments and the general feel of your argument.

Original post by James82

But there is a difference, clearly if there was no difference in the two systems then pupils would be achieving similar grades in both systems, but they don't, not anywhere close. So you have to conclude that their is either a difference in the standards of education or in the marking of exams, and I don't think anybody would suggest that exams taken by those attending public schools are marked any differently to those from state schools.

It's a difference that varies from school to school. The question should be what the difference is. I know people from state schools with AAAAA and people from private schools with CCCCC. Going to a private school doesn't give you the right to get decent grades, and you'd probably be surprised to see the grades from some private schools. I'm not suggesting that there's a difference in the way exams are marked.

Private school students are more likely to have parents that went to University, and those parents could appreciate the value of education more than parents who weren't fortunate enough to have the opportunity to go to a private school. Because they have to pay fees, they could encourage their kids to work harder. Obviously there are exceptions to this, and I'm not trying to generalise, but private school students could have a higher work ethic which wouldn't be seen through grades or personal statements and references.

Original post by James82

This is where we're never going to agree, because I believe it's not fair to directly compare grades achieved by those from public schools to those from state schools.

But surely you can't compare grades achieved by pupils from different state schools, if the quality of education differs from school to school. What's the point of sitting exams if you can't compare grades? Weighting results differently from school to school might sound fair, but it doesn't sound like an exact science - or the best way to differentiate between candidates. Should there be an Oxbridge-style admissions test for each University - an exam that you can't prepare for?

Original post by James82

This is exactly what the positive discrimination at university entry is trying to address, there aren't the same financial barriers to the top universities because of student finance, so hopefully by introducing contextual data to weight educational background it means that the best students will go to the best universities.

That implies that each department in a school is equally strong/ weak, which they aren't. Some schools could have a strong History department, but be poor everywhere else, and this wouldn't show up when educational background is taken in to account. There are far too many variables for this to work as a way of differentiating between pupils.

Original post by James82

The imbalance is caused by the education system, not by companies, therefore it is not the responsibility of companies to discriminate to address the imperfections of the education system. Hopefully the introduction of contextual data in the university admissions process means that people coming out of university will be coming out with the correct grade from the correct university for their ability.

Surely the companies should "positively discriminate" in order to get the best employees, in the same way that Universities "positively discriminate" in order to get the best students? You could argue that it isn't the Universities responsibility to address the imperfections of the examination system, because the difference between a state school and a private school is surely the same as the difference between a poor University and a strong one.

Original post by James82

I did read it all, but I feel we are probably going round in circles a bit.

We've been saying the same thing for weeks, but neither one of us seems to want the other to have the final say on this thread.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 146

Xiomara

18

It's a difference that varies from school to school. The question should be what the difference is. I know people from state schools with AAAAA and people from private schools with CCCCC. Going to a private school doesn't give you the right to get decent grades, and you'd probably be surprised to see the grades from some private schools. I'm not suggesting that there's a difference in the way exams are marked.

I'm pretty sure the previous poster addressed this earlier, but I'll reiterate. The CCCCC candidate probably wouldn't have got those grades had he been at a state school.

But surely you can't compare grades achieved by pupils from different state schools, if the quality of education differs from school to school. What's the point of sitting exams if you can't compare grades? Weighting results differently from school to school might sound fair, but it doesn't sound like an exact science - or the best way to differentiate between candidates. Should there be an Oxbridge-style admissions test for each University - an exam that you can't prepare for?

Nothing is exact. They're just trying to make it (in my opinion) fairer. I don't think that someone who went to a Waterloo Road esque sink school and achieved AAB should be judged the same as someone who went to Eton and got AAA.

That implies that each department in a school is equally strong/ weak, which they aren't. Some schools could have a strong History department, but be poor everywhere else, and this wouldn't show up when educational background is taken in to account. There are far too many variables for this to work as a way of differentiating between pupils.

It's not purely about the quality of the teaching, though, or the state of the books in the cupboard. At many state schools, you're likely to find a high proportion of people who are there because it's the law, not because they want to learn, and consequently behave disruptively in lessons and make it more difficult for those that do want to learn. It doesn't stop in the classroom, either. If your overall learning environment is poorer, it's harder for you to retain information and you need to make up more of that time outside lessons - essentially, work harder for those AAA grades than someone at a private school who hasn't had to deal with that constant disruption.

Surely the companies should "positively discriminate" in order to get the best employees, in the same way that Universities "positively discriminate" in order to get the best students? You could argue that it isn't the Universities responsibility to address the imperfections of the examination system, because the difference between a state school and a private school is surely the same as the difference between a poor University and a strong one.

They do. It's called a CV.

Reply 147

DRE_902

OP

3

Original post by Xiomara

It's not purely about the quality of the teaching, though, or the state of the books in the cupboard. At many state schools, you're likely to find a high proportion of people who are there because it's the law, not because they want to learn, and consequently behave disruptively in lessons and make it more difficult for those that do want to learn. It doesn't stop in the classroom, either. If your overall learning environment is poorer, it's harder for you to retain information and you need to make up more of that time outside lessons - essentially, work harder for those AAA grades than someone at a private school who hasn't had to deal with that constant disruption.

I'm not sure what it's like for the rest of the UK, but in Scotland Highers are a one year course in 5th year. Legally, you're allowed to leave after 4th year. So in the majority of cases, students sitting Highers want to be there, and want to achieve decent grades.

There are still disruptions to classes in private schools. I've been in classes where pupils have the obnoxious attitude of "I pay your wages, therefore you must respect me" towards their teachers. Plus some teachers have no control over their class. Classes are still disrupted, although I'm not saying it's to a greater extent than state schools. Probably a fairly similar level, to be fair.

Reply 148

Intriguing Alias

16

Original post by DRE_902

The feedback said that my grades weren't high enough, and that I needed AAAAA to receive an offer (I had AAAAB.)

The reason I started this thread was because there were applicants with significantly lower grades who received offers. I didn't (and still don't) feel it was right that I should be rejected outright with 4 As when people applying with 1 A were made conditional offers.

I haven't read everything so this may have been addressed already but universities don't discriminate against students from private schools. However, they do look at where a student stands in comparison to their school.

If someone got ABBBB, and that was the by far the highest result any student from that school has ever achieved; they're probably something pretty special. If someone else got AAABB in a school that routinely produces AAAAA students; then they're below average (compared to the teaching they've received). I know Cambridge definitely do take this into account, I assume some other universities must do too.

Reply 149

Xiomara

18

Original post by DRE_902

I'm not sure what it's like for the rest of the UK, but in Scotland Highers are a one year course in 5th year. Legally, you're allowed to leave after 4th year. So in the majority of cases, students sitting Highers want to be there, and want to achieve decent grades.

There are still disruptions to classes in private schools. I've been in classes where pupils have the obnoxious attitude of "I pay your wages, therefore you must respect me" towards their teachers. Plus some teachers have no control over their class. Classes are still disrupted, although I'm not saying it's to a greater extent than state schools. Probably a fairly similar level, to be fair.

Apologies, I hadn't known that. In the rest of the UK, it's currently compulsory to stay on until Year 11 (for our year), and from next year or so you have to stay in some form of education until you are 18 years old.

Reply 150

username451352

11

Original post by James82

No university would say you'll get an offer based purely on your grades, I'd like to see one that does.

Many universities give offers purely on grades. At one end of the scale is Warwick, who give like 95%+ of applicants for Maths offers each year, but slap really tough conditions on the grades (A*A*A + 2 in a STEP paper, or A*AA + 1 in a STEP paper).

Original post by Ocassus

There really is a solution to all of this.

Rework the system so the school is hidden from view of the Universities until they make an offer.

No discrimination any which way occurs, everybody is happy.

Doesn't work. I'm at a top private school. In Physics, our department is very much mixed. We have one amazing teacher (should have awards for it) who gets the most out of your ability and then some, one good teacher, who gets the most out of your ability, a crap teacher, who pretty much leaves the process of learning to you, and an abysmal teacher, who actively makes you worse at the subject.

Last year, I took AS modules with the amazing teacher and the crap teacher. I got 95%+ in all three physics modules, along with four other people in the class (some people should not have been doing physics and so did badly). This year, I still had the amazing teacher and the crap teacher, but the other four people who did well got the good teacher and the abysmal teacher - their grades suffered massively in the january modules (1 A*, 2 A, B), whilst my class was mostly the same.

My point of view is - if a single awful teacher can drop your grades by that much, then it makes no sense to be blind to the school's ability as a whole for the sake of being fair to the private school children.
Conversely, there are people at my school who get A* grades in subjects who simply do not deserve it. The same statement applies.

Reply 151

kred

Original post by Julii92

But no, I was explicitly told by the admissions officer that they wouldn't. In his words an A at AH maths would "be good for your knowledge, but won't help your application. A at Higher maths is enough." I presume it was the admissions officer anyway, I asked to speak to someone about undergraduate admissions for maths and I was passed over to this guy.

I think that this is because they offer on Higher results. So if you already had an A in your Maths higher then that is as good as you can get so they just disregard your AH. They will only take AHs if you haven't got an A at Higher - they offered me a conditional to get B at AH Maths which they say is equivalent to an A at higher because I only got a B at higher. They totally disregarded my other Ah because I already had an A at Higher.

Reply 152

kred

Original post by DRE_902

I'm not sure what it's like for the rest of the UK, but in Scotland Highers are a one year course in 5th year. Legally, you're allowed to leave after 4th year. So in the majority of cases, students sitting Highers want to be there, and want to achieve decent grades.

There are still disruptions to classes in private schools. I've been in classes where pupils have the obnoxious attitude of "I pay your wages, therefore you must respect me" towards their teachers. Plus some teachers have no control over their class. Classes are still disrupted, although I'm not saying it's to a greater extent than state schools. Probably a fairly similar level, to be fair.

If it makes you feel any better my friend at my school also got rejected with AAAAB highers (and hers were a broader range than yours as she had a science as well). I go to a bog standard, completely average state school. And it's a leaps school with means Edinburgh should look on us positively. She still got rejected.

Reply 153

Domino25

Original post by DJMayes

Whilst I am not going to argue with the rest of your statement the bolded section is quite possibly the most jumped-up load of rubbish I've ever read. Parents who want to invest in their children? Whilst it is certainly true that some parents aren't all that bothered, to simply segregate private and public schooling by the level of interest parents have is incredibly arrogant. I personally come from a background with an income of less than £16,000 per year. My parents physically couldn't afford to send me to a state school, even if they wanted to, as the annual fees charged for some cost more than their income put together. Whilst there are entrance tests it really doesn't matter how well a student from a very disadvantaged background does as they cannot attend a private school unless the entirety of fees are literally paid for them through bursaries, and there's no student loans like there are at a university level to help students cope.

I apologise for what that sounded like, I honestly didn't mean it in such a generalising way. I simply meant the reverse situation - that whether a child goes to a private school or not is not solely based on how much their parents earn. It is a parent's conscious decision to send their children to a private school (if they have the means to do so) and you will find some very well off families will still send their children to state schools for personal or tactical reasons. For example, I grew up with a group of children in our local area and went to the same state primary school as all of them. We were all around the same bar on wealth and some were substantially better off than me. When it came to senior school some of us went to local private schools. Each went to a different one, in fact, because each offered different things such as bursaries for single parents or a single sex education (girls are tested to work better in an all-girl environment). Some went to the local state school because it happened to be a specialist dance and music school. Then it was not about money, it was about each individual school and each individual student.

Therefore I don't really think it's fair to say that all of this is to do with how much money a person has. Yes, some people don't have the financial comfort to give their children the choice, such as yourself, and I am sorry for that. But flip that and you have people who have plenty of money but will still not be sending their children to private schools. Maybe for personal benefit, maybe because they have different priorities, maybe because a state school is actually better for that child. My parents were in a middle ground and made some sacrifices to let me go to a private school, we had a half and half education and my siblings only got the chance to go to the private school later on in senior school when my parents could afford to. I count myself lucky because my parents didn't have to do that, they weren't comfortable enough that they could do it without a second thought, but they did it. Some wouldn't have.

I apologise again for the way that came off, but hopefully now I've explained my thought process, you'll understand that I wasn't trying to be arrogant or generalise the whole situation. Obviously my view will only apply to part of the population and even then there will be numberable exceptions. This is just what I've seen in my life; your life, and probably anyone else's who will read this, will tell a different story.

Reply 154

editor112

1

Get it right yourself if you are going to criticise someone for their spelling!! It should be 'apostrophes' actually - plural is different i.e not 'ies' because it comes from a Greek word.

Reply 155

Scamp1976

8

Original post by Newbie123

Grades aren't everything, you know; especially when you're applying to a renowned university for a competitive course - there are bound to be a whole bunch of other factors affecting admission.

You shouldn't just cry out prejudice because 1 person with lower grades than you got in and you didn't.