The Student Room Group

Why do state schoolers outperform private schoolers at university?

For a given level of pre-university achievement/grades of course.

I'm genuinely not trying to annoy anyone but was just wondering what lies behind the statistics. From the top of my head I'm thinking:

.Private schoolers are receiving a lower quality of education than what they were used to before; they were paying on average around £12,000 a year whilst state schoolers were paying nothing. Thus on average private schoolers are receiving a "lower quality" of education relative to what they are used to paying for whereas its the opposite for state schoolers. Does this not amount to a ridiculous daily advantage which accrues over time during the pre-university years?

.State schools fail to squeeze out the potential from their students because of a lack of resources whereas the standard of teaching in most private schools is such that a student's full potential can be achieved, or at least something close to it.

.the gap in the "extra support" for the top grades nearly disappears - at A Level and GCSE one can get tutoring and whilst I'm not denying that many state schoolers use tutoring, on average they are not as financially able to do so. This kind of extra support is nearly sapped away at university where the availability and indeed use of tutors falls and everyone is on a level playing field.

Again, I'm not trying to annoy anyone but I've seen so many reports on this topic but very few pinpoint "why" it happens. It is a generalization as well, I know.

Scroll to see replies

*cough* can't polish a turd *cough cough*
I used to work for a lady whose son was at a private school. We live in Bucks so had a the 11plus. One of my sons got a place at a prestigious grammar school. She came to collect her ironing one day and her son was with her and she was upset that he didn't pass. She said she didn't understand why my son had passed top of his year and her son hadn't. 'But I've paid all this money for his education and your son passed and you are poor"? Needless to say, I no longer did her ironing for her. Her son was a lovely child but he was as thick as two short planks. All that wasted money.
Original post by zedqr
For a given level of pre-university achievement/grades of course.

I'm genuinely not trying to annoy anyone but was just wondering what lies behind the statistics. From the top of my head I'm thinking:

.Private schoolers are receiving a lower quality of education than what they were used to before; they were paying on average around £12,000 a year whilst state schoolers were paying nothing. Thus on average private schoolers are receiving a "lower quality" of education relative to what they are used to paying for whereas its the opposite for state schoolers. Does this not amount to a ridiculous daily advantage which accrues over time during the pre-university years?

.State schools fail to squeeze out the potential from their students because of a lack of resources whereas the standard of teaching in most private schools is such that a student's full potential can be achieved, or at least something close to it.

.the gap in the "extra support" for the top grades nearly disappears - at A Level and GCSE one can get tutoring and whilst I'm not denying that many state schoolers use tutoring, on average they are not as financially able to do so. This kind of extra support is nearly sapped away at university where the availability and indeed use of tutors falls and everyone is on a level playing field.

Again, I'm not trying to annoy anyone but I've seen so many reports on this topic but very few pinpoint "why" it happens. It is a generalization as well, I know.


I think it's mainly due to the fact that Private Schools teach their pupils to pass an exam, so whilst they may have stellar GCSE's, these students struggle at A-level and Uni because it's mainly independent work and they don't have the answers given to them!
Because universities pander to state school educated students under the stupid guise of "increasing the number of state school leavers in higher education" and completely disregard privately educated students, leaving them to fall behind.
Probably because getting into the top universities forces a sifting of state school students which isolates the best students. Private schools often give more support to students in terms of interpersonal skills and interviews which means that the sifting effect is less so. This means when university really starts, private schoolers lag behind.

This is coming from a grammar school student so I might be barking up the complete wrong tree.
Reply 6
Original post by #ChaosKass
Because universities pander to state school educated students under the stupid guise of "increasing the number of state school leavers in higher education" and completely disregard privately educated students, leaving them to fall behind.
Once you get into university, everyone is on the same page. The only thing holding people back is themselves.
Reply 7
Original post by #ChaosKass
Because universities pander to state school educated students under the stupid guise of "increasing the number of state school leavers in higher education" and completely disregard privately educated students, leaving them to fall behind.
yeah all cool and nice until you see that approximately 40% of students at bristol, st andrews and oxford uni come from a private school background, even though only 7% of students in the uk go to private school. side note: i'm from a state school background and study at bristol so im not posting this out of bitterness
(edited 7 years ago)
I gen think you guys are making stuff up for some kind of reverse snobbery.
Genuinely smart kids can excel on merit alone. So send them to the local comp and get them a library card and they will waltz into the top universities. The slightly stunted ones need tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on them to reach the same level. As someone has already said, you can only polish a turd so much. Their shortcomings will show at university.
Reply 10
Original post by Trinculo
I gen think you guys are making stuff up for some kind of reverse snobbery.
just so it doesnt look like i am: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10728091/The-universities-with-the-most-and-least-state-school-students.html

http://www.isc.co.uk/research/
Considering that grammar schools are included under the category of 'state schools' and they themselves operate a relatively selective admissions policy, it's not that surprising.

Another factor may be that a student who got into a uni despite going to a poor school is likely to be better at studying independently than someone who went to a very good school, and/or may be a better natural performer in that subject area.


Original post by Trinculo
I gen think you guys are making stuff up for some kind of reverse snobbery.
Yeah, there is always jealousy on these forums towards those that have better grades etc. On another thread a while ago, there were people trashing doctors/lawyers/dentists as 'overrated'.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Trinculo
I gen think you guys are making stuff up for some kind of reverse snobbery.


It isn't made up - there have been multiple studies showing the same pattern over the last couple of decades
http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/news/state-school-pupils-do-better-at-university-cambridge-assessment-research-confirms/ is the most recent.
According to a friend who goes to a private school (I'm at state) it's mostly down to the fact that university is a lot more like what people from state schools are used to - no-one constantly checking up on you, if you don't do your work it's your funeral, the teachers/professors having better things to do than give constant help to students. Whereas at a private school there's smaller classes so the teacher is always going to be there to help, you're more likely to have parents hovering over you or helping you at home, you can't get away with not doing your work because people are going to notice. Once that pressure from parents/teachers is gone, and you've got to stand on your own two feet a little more, a lot of private school students struggle because it's not what they're used to.


Original post by dairychocolate
Considering that grammar schools are included under the category of 'state schools' and they themselves operate a relatively selective admissions policy, it's not that surprising.

Another factor may be that a student who got into a uni despite going to a poor school is likely to be better at studying independently than someone who went to a very good school, and/or may be a better natural performer in that subject area.


Yeah, there is always jealousy on these forums towards those that have better grades etc. On another thread a while ago, there were people trashing doctors/lawyers/dentists as 'overrated'.


Original post by PQ
It isn't made up - there have been multiple studies showing the same pattern over the last couple of decades
http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/news/state-school-pupils-do-better-at-university-cambridge-assessment-research-confirms/ is the most recent.


I'm not saying the stats are made up- I'm saying the rationales are.

I think some people hear something they like the sound of - and then make up a whole load of stuff to give themselves an ego boost, to kind of justify in their own minds that there is some kind of inherent nobility of superiority to comprehensive school.
Original post by #ChaosKass
Because universities pander to state school educated students under the stupid guise of "increasing the number of state school leavers in higher education" and completely disregard privately educated students, leaving them to fall behind.


Not sure where you get your figures for that from. Have you got any statistics? You do know that going to a private school doesn't mean that those kids are brighter than state schoolers? It just means they have made that choice for their kids to spend money sending them private, and that's their choice of course, so what's your beef with it?
And I wouldn't call it "pandering" either. Or are you one of those people from a bygone age who think university is just for the upper echelons? Sounds like it.
It's because the poor have experienced failure and ergo know 1) to fear it and 2) how to avoid it.

As a result it's us from working-class stock who spend our time late in the library before a deadline, while the couple of privately educated people I know prefer socialising at expensive cocktail bars.
Reply 17
One of my uni lecturers spoke about this and it was so interesting.

He spoke about his experiences in state schools and why he left them. It wasn't because of the students, but because he could not stand the teachers who made their students feel like they would amount to nothing, like there was no ambition.

In contrast, he told us about his experiences in independent schools and how the teachers try to push their students to their full potential, they're much more ambitious and are spoon fed all these exclusive materials to help them succeed, etc.

Like in state schools teachers are inclined to get their whole class to a grade C and are therefore unable to spend extra time on more capable individuals. The student generally has to do it them self or arrange external tutoring. Independant schools can afford to look at students as individuals as their parents are paying for it.

Anyway to answer your questions from his viewpoint, state school students do outperform them at uni because in order to get there, they had to push themselves, work more independently with less resources and so they are generally better adapted to uni.
Whereas private kids don't have that extra support their parents paid for, they don't have everything prepared for them and are no longer spoon fed everything. Essentially, they are not as prepared to take their education into their own hands the way uni needs you to do so.

He said much more but it was a few months ago now and I don't remember. I had this discussion with a couple of friends who attended St. Edmunds college and they agreed with it from their own experiences.
Original post by Seamus123
I used to work for a lady whose son was at a private school. We live in Bucks so had a the 11plus. One of my sons got a place at a prestigious grammar school. She came to collect her ironing one day and her son was with her and she was upset that he didn't pass. She said she didn't understand why my son had passed top of his year and her son hadn't. 'But I've paid all this money for his education and your son passed and you are poor"? Needless to say, I no longer did her ironing for her. Her son was a lovely child but he was as thick as two short planks. All that wasted money.


lmao aylebury grammar i guess :O

Original post by Quantex
Genuinely smart kids can excel on merit alone. So send them to the local comp and get them a library card and they will waltz into the top universities. The slightly stunted ones need tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on them to reach the same level. As someone has already said, you can only polish a turd so much. Their shortcomings will show at university.


Not so sure about this, how come then at oxbridge/imperial/lse have way more private school students as a percentage than the overall percentage of private school students (iirc .07)
No. The Royal Grammar High Wycombe.

Quick Reply

Latest