This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- The Coopers' Company and Coborn School (Upminster, Essex)
- Oxbridge must help pupils from state schools
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Sixth form
- Oxbridge Admissions
- Why is Exeter full of private school students?
- oxbridge grades
- Are Latin and Ancient Greek GCSE more desirable to top uni's than other subjects?
- Durham University - Full of Rich Privately Educated people?
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- EEE offers
- Starting a charity on UCAS application?
- A-Level Choices - Further Maths
- one day exclusion in year 10 please help im going crazy
- Is Durham University’s reputation true?
- Taking GCSEs a year early
- How many Sixth Forms should I go for?
- Advice on completing high school & further education after taking time out?
- Worth applying to Trinity as a state comprehensive student
- Prince Charles' entry into Cambridge
"Oxbridge takes fewer state school pupils"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7437696.stm
Why is this article not titled "State schools fail to get more pupils into Oxbridge?"
Why is this article not titled "State schools fail to get more pupils into Oxbridge?"
Scroll to see replies
State schools haven't been set targets of increasing the number of pupils who get into Oxbridge, under threat of reduced funding if they fail?
Morbo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7437696.stm
Why is this article not titled "State schools fail to get more pupils into Oxbridge?"
Why is this article not titled "State schools fail to get more pupils into Oxbridge?"
Because anything connected with Oxbridge is regarded as filth in the British media universe, especially with regard to education. I think we all remember Laura Spence, who said that her interview went badly and understood it, yet Gordon Brown and the media kept playing it over and over.
I find this quite funny, because the press never makes a fuss here if someone, say, gets into Yale but not Harvard from a state school or Princeton but not Yale - yet, over there, the media has anti-Oxbridge hounds ready to pounce based on little evidence.
As a student of a state education system, I have to say - when they cry "elitism", I cry "BS"
Every bloody year this happens.
NO NO NO!!!
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
willzville
NO NO NO!!!
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
Warning may contain unbased generalisations and conjecture along with a significant amount of BS.
willzville
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
How exactly does that work?
willzville
NO NO NO!!!
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
You hint at what you've missed when you talk of the idea of an "advantage". Whilst it's true that a disproportionately large number of people who will be the best university students will be at private schools (due to several factors), it's not the case that having the best tuition at young ages makes you more able to study at university. This is precisely why the quality of the school you went to is taken into consideration in the applications process: your current attainments are only a good guide to your potential when they are placed in context. You may, in the future, like to stop and consider whether there may be many more people of the best possible potential in the state sector (simply by mass of numbers if nothing else) than there are in the private sector. I certainly consider this to be the case.
And on the "uncouthness" of the poor, state-educated masses... well... do I even need to go here?
hobnob
How exactly does that work?
Non-NHS prenatal care and follow-up checks?
As far as I have seen, it is not the fact that it is harder to achieve grades from a state school which is the problem (although I'm sure that provides some of a disadvantage) but the fact that it is not as expected that you should achieve grades and then apply to Oxbridge or university etc.. There's simply less chance of being in an atmosphere where education is as valued.
... Of course I say that having not attended a private school. Hm...
... Of course I say that having not attended a private school. Hm...
Morbo
Why is this article not titled "State schools fail to get more pupils into Oxbridge?"
Whilst it is true overall that private-school pupils are better educated (except in my case - i left private school and am doing much better in the state educated system), Oxbridge entry is based solely on academic potential. I don't know the figures for the ratio between number of applicants from state (or private), and number of successful entries from state (or private), but you will probably find that many of those who were state educated and have had financial or family health problems (primarily carers) may have worse results but better potential than someone who has been given a quality education and whose path to getting those results was without major impedence.
nempozpag
Whilst it is true overall that private-school pupils are better educated (except in my case - i left private school and am doing much better in the state educated system), Oxbridge entry is based solely on academic potential. I don't know the figures for the ratio between number of applicants from state (or private), and number of successful entries from state (or private), but you will probably find that many of those who were state educated and have had financial or family health problems (primarily carers) may have worse results but better potential than someone who has been given a quality education and whose path to getting those results was without major impedence.
But surely if you're from a state school where you're not as used to interacting one-to-one with tutors, maybe haven't been as well prepared for interviews and where people don't tend to get into oxbridge as much anyway, then your interview performance isn't going to reflect your academic potential as accurately anyway?
... That was a long sentence.
Angelil
Surely the people at private schools would have MORE money for drugs? 
I can imagine the 'G' toff flogging their drugs now...
*Spot of pot, ol' chap? Innit*
Sorry... Stereotypes bad...
willzville
NO NO NO!!!
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results! What the media ALWAYS fail to state is the actual academic result differences between state and privately educated publics achieve. American universities (unlike in the UK) also place outside-school achievements of high importance, which privately educated students tend to achive at least a few times more than state school students.
I was privately educated from birth to the age of 12. Then from 13-15 I went state. Then from 16-18 I went back to private (thank god!). From my own experience, the difference in academic quality between state and private education is very significant and I can understand why the best universites aim for privately educated students... because in general, the best students are privately educated! When I was in state school from 13-15 my family had financial difficulties which I found made it harder to achieve better results, outside-school achievements, etc but when we came out of it (and I went back to private) everything became much easier (better teachers, facilities, extra tutors, occasional coaches for sports achievements, etc).
When I wrote my CV for UCAS, both of my school career advisors told me to say that I was also educated in state education from 13-15 because although universities aim for privately educated students, they know that students gain an advantage with private education (private funds = better teachers, facilities, etc) making it easier to achive more. Hence by saying that I was also educated in state school, makes it seem like I didn't have the whole 'private' advantage. Most school career advisors agree that if your state educated, it is easier to get into Oxbridge if you've got the same results as a privately educated student. However American unis pefer privately educated students because they tend to be more civilized / well mannered. I found the students in the 3 years of state school I attended quite uncivilized, you know with teenage preggies, drugs and all that zizz.
All the fuss is just a matter of jealousy... that state educated people (about 90% of the population) didn't have the advantages that the privately educated had.
There's one thing you've missed: they judge potential, not just your grades. In that sense, a B grade student in a state school averaging Ds (and I'm not for once generalising state schools as always worse than private schools) may be a better candidate than a straight A student spoon fed all the information with top-class resources and having to do very little wider reading to achieve their grade. The backgrounds are truly important to consider.
And quit the bull**** of 'private schooled people are more civilised'. That generalisation is simply too wide and elitist. It's nonsense, and about time you view the whole spectrum of life that you walk with.
Education should be meritocratic. The people with the greatest emphusiasm and potential should be chosen, and not judged on the size of one's wallet. I don't want people in good jobs even though their thick just because they already had a mountain of funds to succeed.
Tyraell
But surely if you're from a state school where you're not as used to interacting one-to-one with tutors, maybe haven't been as well prepared for interviews and where people don't tend to get into oxbridge as much anyway, then your interview performance isn't going to reflect your academic potential as accurately anyway?
... That was a long sentence.
... That was a long sentence.
Yeah, i suppose the interview is where it all falls down for the state schools
. Interview preparation is just as biased as exam preparation... A deliberate attempt to keep the plebs (lol) out or a genuine measure of potential? I'm undecided on that one. I can imagine the 'G' toff flogging their drugs now...
*Spot of pot, ol' chap? Innit*
Sorry... Stereotypes bad...
Haha yep, definitely stereotyping there.
Malatesta
There's one thing you've missed: they judge potential, not just your grades. In that sense, a B grade student in a state school averaging Ds (and I'm not for once generalising state schools as always worse than private schools) may be a better candidate than a straight A student spoon fed all the information with top-class resources and having to do very little wider reading to achieve their grade. The backgrounds are truly important to consider.
And quit the bull**** of 'private schooled people are more civilised'. That generalisation is simply too wide and elitist. It's nonsense, and about time you view the whole spectrum of life that you walk with.
Education should be meritocratic. The people with the greatest emphusiasm and potential should be chosen, and not judged on the size of one's wallet. I don't want people in good jobs even though their thick just because they already had a mountain of funds to succeed.
And quit the bull**** of 'private schooled people are more civilised'. That generalisation is simply too wide and elitist. It's nonsense, and about time you view the whole spectrum of life that you walk with.
Education should be meritocratic. The people with the greatest emphusiasm and potential should be chosen, and not judged on the size of one's wallet. I don't want people in good jobs even though their thick just because they already had a mountain of funds to succeed.
Very well said. What a ludicrous suggestion to say that private school graduates are more civilized. I sincerly hope oxbridge admissions tutors have the integrity to see past a spoon fed 14 years of private education applicant, who has no grasp on the values of life and education, who only has 10A* to show for x thousands of pounds, that could be put back into the education system to achieve a far fairer playing field. having said that of course there are many extremly intellegent people at private schools who do excel in their enviroments to become undeniable successes in the eyes of admissions tutors. I have 7A* 2A GCSE but am fairly confident had i paid the fees for private schools i would have maxed that out. I trust oxbridge take every indivudual case seperatly, but money it seems DOES help people get in, which is a very depressing state of affairs.
In my humble and most probably biased opinion, an A from a state school means more than an A from a private school/top-end grammar school.
Private school students have so many more resources than state school kids do. They don't have to contend with class sizes of 30 kids, half of which don't even want to be there and spend most of them time trying to disrupt the lessons. Teachers at state schools spend more time disciplining than actually teaching. There is very little encouragement for students to be ambitious in their aims, either, which means poor work and attendance is tolerated, where at a public/grammar school those kinds of standards would not be permitted.
A student who, despite all that, still manages to achieve As is surely just as or even more able than a public school/grammar school child who has been pressured and pushed to the maximum of their ability, and has all the support they can get behind them to ensure they achieve. So that can't be why Oxbridge doesn't admit state-school educated children.
I admit, I am probably quite biased here. I've been state-educated all my life, and my secondary school/sixth form is a pretty dire comp. I don't have any personal experience of private schools at all. However, after GCSEs I applied to transfer from my current school to a nearby prestigious grammar school. I got in, and spent a month there. In the end I moved back because I didn't like the people, the commute or the History department. (NOT because I couldn't keep up with the others, I add. I was at least as able as all of them.) The difference between my school and that school was quite staggering. The demands they made of the students and how highly they were expected to achieve was so different to my bog-standard comp. If all students had access to that level of education and commitment from teachers then I'm sure there would be much more state school applicants to Oxbridge.
My thinking is that Oxbridge takes fewer state-educated pupils simply because less of them apply. At least twenty (at least) of the girls from that grammar school will have been encouraged to apply for Oxbridge. At my school, no-one is encouraged to do that, no-one has even said to us that it might be possible. As far as girls at my sixth form are concerned, Oxbridge is completely out of their reach and there is no point even trying to apply there. I'm just thankful that I'm from an academic family who have encouraged me to be ambitious even when my school hasn't.
Private school students have so many more resources than state school kids do. They don't have to contend with class sizes of 30 kids, half of which don't even want to be there and spend most of them time trying to disrupt the lessons. Teachers at state schools spend more time disciplining than actually teaching. There is very little encouragement for students to be ambitious in their aims, either, which means poor work and attendance is tolerated, where at a public/grammar school those kinds of standards would not be permitted.
A student who, despite all that, still manages to achieve As is surely just as or even more able than a public school/grammar school child who has been pressured and pushed to the maximum of their ability, and has all the support they can get behind them to ensure they achieve. So that can't be why Oxbridge doesn't admit state-school educated children.
I admit, I am probably quite biased here. I've been state-educated all my life, and my secondary school/sixth form is a pretty dire comp. I don't have any personal experience of private schools at all. However, after GCSEs I applied to transfer from my current school to a nearby prestigious grammar school. I got in, and spent a month there. In the end I moved back because I didn't like the people, the commute or the History department. (NOT because I couldn't keep up with the others, I add. I was at least as able as all of them.) The difference between my school and that school was quite staggering. The demands they made of the students and how highly they were expected to achieve was so different to my bog-standard comp. If all students had access to that level of education and commitment from teachers then I'm sure there would be much more state school applicants to Oxbridge.
My thinking is that Oxbridge takes fewer state-educated pupils simply because less of them apply. At least twenty (at least) of the girls from that grammar school will have been encouraged to apply for Oxbridge. At my school, no-one is encouraged to do that, no-one has even said to us that it might be possible. As far as girls at my sixth form are concerned, Oxbridge is completely out of their reach and there is no point even trying to apply there. I'm just thankful that I'm from an academic family who have encouraged me to be ambitious even when my school hasn't.
willzville
NO NO NO!!!
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results!
Getting into Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, etc doesn't have much to do whether you've come from a private or state school. Private schools in general provide much better education than state schools, which means that their pupils are better educated = better results!
Almost 3 lines without contradicting yourself
Related discussions
- The Coopers' Company and Coborn School (Upminster, Essex)
- Oxbridge must help pupils from state schools
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Sixth form
- Oxbridge Admissions
- Why is Exeter full of private school students?
- oxbridge grades
- Are Latin and Ancient Greek GCSE more desirable to top uni's than other subjects?
- Durham University - Full of Rich Privately Educated people?
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- EEE offers
- Starting a charity on UCAS application?
- A-Level Choices - Further Maths
- one day exclusion in year 10 please help im going crazy
- Is Durham University’s reputation true?
- Taking GCSEs a year early
- How many Sixth Forms should I go for?
- Advice on completing high school & further education after taking time out?
- Worth applying to Trinity as a state comprehensive student
- Prince Charles' entry into Cambridge
Latest
Last reply 19 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1021
Last reply 20 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 21 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 26 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Posted 27 minutes ago
Occupational therapy wolverhampton universityLast reply 31 minutes ago
Does LSE accept students who reapply?Last reply 55 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2868
Last reply 55 minutes ago
Is meeting potential partners through friends the most vaible strategy?Last reply 55 minutes ago
Is anyone going to graphic design in 2024 in university of Northampton?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Cambridge Land Economy 2024-2025 Postgrad AdmissionsLast reply 18 hours ago
March 2024 Cambridge Mature Colleges Round - Anybody?Last reply 21 hours ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 1 week ago
Easy Colleges in Cambridge to get in - should this be allowedLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Machine Learning and Machine Intelligence at Cambridge 2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
How likely will Cambridge allow me in if I miss my subject specific offer?Last reply 2 weeks ago
What to do for a competitive application for Mathematics at top universities.Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Cambridge Land Economy 2024-2025 Postgrad AdmissionsLast reply 18 hours ago
March 2024 Cambridge Mature Colleges Round - Anybody?Last reply 21 hours ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 1 week ago
Easy Colleges in Cambridge to get in - should this be allowedLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Machine Learning and Machine Intelligence at Cambridge 2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
How likely will Cambridge allow me in if I miss my subject specific offer?Last reply 2 weeks ago
What to do for a competitive application for Mathematics at top universities.
