This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Buying Cambridge entry

Now? I reckon if Daddy paid for a college to be done up or for some spanking new facilities to be put in, that might mean the dear daughter who wouldn't usually get in would accidentally 'slip' through the net.

(spanking, there's another out of fashion word...)

Reply 21

The_Goose

18

rockingreviser

Eton has a very difficult enterence exam.....

Does it include spelling?

Reply 22

Aout

If you go to a state school, there can be a lot of pressure NOT to do well- comments such as 'teachers pet' can actively dissuade the smartest in the class from acheiving their potential. Also, the negative stereotype of being a 'geek' will mean that those same people will again be put off doing their work. Even though there's more pressure at Eton, at least it's pressure that pushes students to do well, as opposed to skiving school, and standing less cahnce of doing well.

Not to say that this will happen at every state school- I know it doesn't, because I go to a state school and have an offer from Cambridge. But if I look at one of my best friends from primary school, who was smarter then me, she got the highest GCSE's at her school that year- including only 3 grades that were A or A*. That's still good, but it was the best in a very large school.

Additionally, state schools have to cater to the majority. They can't cover the more difficult work as a lot of people wont understand the basic stuff. Whereas at Eton, even if some don't understand the basic work, the class will still continue to cover the harder work because that's what the parents are paying for (and allowing the more able students to acheive their full potential). Plus the parents will be able to pay for extra tutoring to cover the basic work should their child not understand.

Reply 23

Aout

Ehmo

Now? I reckon if Daddy paid for a college to be done up or for some spanking new facilities to be put in, that might mean the dear daughter who wouldn't usually get in would accidentally 'slip' through the net.

(spanking, there's another out of fashion word...)

Check nirvathema's post further up. This does not guarentee a place.

Reply 24

LawBore

15

I call troll, just posted the same thing on LSE board.

Reply 25

somemightsay

Good bloke

I don't agree. The main reason pupils at private schools do better is that they are in an atmosphere, among like-minded individuals, that is conducive to education and where it is normal to work hard. The paying parents don't have to (and won't) put up with disruption from other pupils. Consequently, pupils are more likely to achieve their academic potential. The idea that state school pupils suffer from bad teaching more than private school pupils is very overplayed.

I've attended a state school for the last 6 years and I can assure you that the quality of teaching is definitely a major factor. Poor teaching impacts motivation and leads to students becoming disinterested in their subjects. I would argue that this is the main reason that certain state pupils don't necessarily work as hard, rather than an unwillingness to learn.

Reply 26

Lachlan

11

I think there are three main factors to be considered here.

1) The work ethic at school. I can personally vouch for the effect that state schools have on making pupils stop trying. I can look back at my school career and see the way that in P6/7 I just stopped giving a **** and started pissing around primarily due to the influence of others. This continually got worse until about S5 when most of the less intelligent and most disruptive kids left school. I had absolutely no work ethic, basically turned into a little ********, getting drunk and being a public menace. Fortunately I am naturally intelligent enough that having no work ethic has not effected me so far but at some point I will hazard a guess that I will have to find the ability within myself to work hard or I will fail. I am also lucky that I have the ambition to pull myself above many of my classmates and aim high. I know many people who have left school at 16 with mediocre or poor Standard Grades (GCSE equivalent for you lot down south) who if they had not fallen victim to peer pressure could have been going to good Universities this year, I will personally never forget how close this came to being my fate.

2) There is better teaching at paying schools, whether this is from smaller classes, better teaching or better facilities it does exist.

3) Paying schools often have entrance exams also people sending children to them will be successful and so are likely to have generally more intelligent children than parents who don't work and sit about all day living off benefits (huge generalisation I know).

I think that it cannot be argued against that state educated children are at a disadvantage, however I have no objection to this, if you have the money to pay for something better then who are we to complain about it. Personally I intend, from a state educated background to succeed in life get a good job, make good money and eventually be able to be the one sending my own children to fee paying schools, its all about moving up in the world. Personally I would prefer to have earned my success of my own back.

Reply 27

xinolisss

10

Good bloke

I don't agree. The main reason pupils at private schools do better is that they are in an atmosphere, among like-minded individuals, that is conducive to education and where it is normal to work hard. The paying parents don't have to (and won't) put up with disruption from other pupils. Consequently, pupils are more likely to achieve their academic potential. The idea that state school pupils suffer from bad teaching more than private school pupils is very overplayed.

Moreover, being in a private school doesn't neccessarily guarantee your child a study-friendly atmosphere... It simply means there are more regulations and the rules are more strict in comparison to state schools. I am pretty sure there are the few repressed private school kids who didn't want to be put in there in the first place. But I do agree is a major difference between State and Private school.

Also, teaching quality if a major factor towards entry to Universities like Oxbridge. For example, AEAs and STEP exams and other extra qualifications are almost impossible to take in any school low on resources, or Further Maths, and however much a university may say that it isn't absolutely essential and that you wouldn't be disadvantaged, I think that is all true to a certain extent. At the end of the day, they still consider Further Maths a highly desireable subject (for Engineering at least...).

So I wouldn't expect them to buy their way into Oxbridge, which is clearly not possible, but chances are, that you will get a higher chance at any private school in UK than at a state school. Particularly if it is a famous private school whose fame is there for a reason and not for money alone.

Reply 28

jw366

It's worth noting that Cambridge does ALOT to ensure that they consider applicants based on their educational background. Much more so than other universities. I'm not even from the UK so my experience probably doesn't matter at all but I went to a pretty terrible school. I know of at least 5 students at my school who I know had AAA potential but they best any of them got was ABB. The environment and system in a lot of schools can really fail pupils. Some have to struggle to keep their heads above when had things been properly done they would've been flying high.

The answer to the OP is basically no. Cambridge goes out of its way to ensure that admissions is based on the academic ability of the applicant. So much so that things like CSAS are introduced as well as other less formal means of contextualising applicants so that their performance can be understood in light of their environment. You should also bear in mind that the Ivies in the US, Cambridge's main international competition, are all known to make space for students whose parents give large donations helping to keep their endowments a lot fatter than Cambridge's.

Reply 29

User182034

15

necessarily benevolent

No. I don't agree. The "naturally intelligent" are severely let down by the state system (meaning, were they at Eton AAA would almost be certain; at mine they'd be lucky to get ABB - which is, of course, below Oxbridge standards). That's why it's stupid universities **** over A levels so much - they don't actually prove anything. Someone getting ABB from a state school would flourish just at well as a top 10 uni as someone getting AAA from a big independent.

This is too true. All too often people are not taken notice of with high abilities :-(

Reply 30

User182034

15

By the way I don't think people can buy entry. Cambridge is not that shallow and has high standards academically to keep up.

Reply 31

Reflexive

14

What an interesting sociological discussion. It never ceases to amaze me that argue things like 'people are Eton are naturally clever'. Of course having your parents pay for you to go to independent schools is an advantage academically.

You can buy entry, although the way you do so is legitimised, hidden, and the whole process occurs over your educational career.

Reply 32

rockingreviser

2

The_Goose

Does it include spelling?

It probably does but I don't go there so probably isn't an issue to me...

Reply 33

Kreuzuerk

3

Sprite

you said that they were indirectly buying entry. Boys at Eton are naturally clever and i have no doubt that if the third of boys who got into oxbridge had gone to state schools all of their lives then almost all of them would have still been accepted into oxbridge

Great logic there. :s-smilie:

Leave your name anonymous person please, I'd like to get in touch with you some time.

Reply 34

StandingOnAir

somemightsay

I've attended a state school for the last 6 years and I can assure you that the quality of teaching is definitely a major factor. Poor teaching impacts motivation and leads to students becoming disinterested in their subjects. I would argue that this is the main reason that certain state pupils don't necessarily work as hard, rather than an unwillingness to learn.

Agreed. My school was a good state school, and I still had bad teaching in 2/3 of my A level subjects. Physics A level was mostly taught by Chemistry teachers (who did the best they could, but were often stumped by some of the more technical questions), and in French lessons we did little more than watch YouTube videos or read basic French media (no grammar, no vocab). The only reason I did well in the latter was that I got in touch with the local private school and found a teacher to tutor me.

The quality of teaching might not be the only factor, but to say that it isn't one at all is ignoring a large amount of anecdotal evidence.

Reply 35

faber niger

17

Sprite

you said that they were indirectly buying entry. Boys at Eton are naturally clever and i have no doubt that if the third of boys who got into oxbridge had gone to state schools all of their lives then almost all of them would have still been accepted into oxbridge

Reply 36

Tyrotoxism

2

The_Goose

no, no their parents are rich.

Both. The school is competitive to gain entry to and the boys need to sit a test similar to the 11+ to prove their academic worth; there are a lot of naturally clever people there. Furthermore, they receive extensive preparation for Oxbridge interviews and the vast majority of teachers there are Oxbridge graduates so:

1) They'd be more ambitious than State schoolers and a larger proportion would apply and

2)The advice and preparation they receive (alongside their excellent academic facilities they've been utilising for 5 years) are second to none.

Good bloke

I don't agree. The main reason pupils at private schools do better is that they are in an atmosphere, among like-minded individuals, that is conducive to education and where it is normal to work hard. The paying parents don't have to (and won't) put up with disruption from other pupils. Consequently, pupils are more likely to achieve their academic potential. The idea that state school pupils suffer from bad teaching more than private school pupils is very overplayed.

Posting this again incase anyone missed it the first time.

Reply 37

faber niger

17

Tyrotoxism

The school is competitive to gain entry to and the boys need to sit a test similar to the 11+ to prove their academic worth; there are a lot of naturally clever people there.

Well, that is an assumption: we cannot know what role nature plays and what nuture. An equally viable explanation could be that teaching at Prep Schools prepares them well for the test or even that they were just lucky enough to have more questions that they understood on that particular test than their compatriots (which does not necessarily imply that they would understand more questions on another version of the test) etc. There's also the issue of parents coaching their children for the test to be factored in.

Reply 38

johnbrown

13

It's something like 1/3 of boys at Eton are there on scholarships and so have some sort of natural gift or talent be it in music or academics. I think these probably make up a large proportion of the students who go onto Oxbridge so it's not really far to belittle them and say 'daddy paid for them to get in' because they probably got where they were on their own merit. I agree with Good Bloke though, the whole atmosphere of private schools is more condusive to doing well.

Reply 39

hxmjam

3

necessarily benevolent

Yes. For example, about a third of Eton's kids get into Oxbridge, yet only 1 kid from my sixth form (out of about 300) got into Oxbridge. So, indirectly buying entry - of course they are. Just not illegally.

Hmm.. just a thought but these Eton '*******' may actually obtain better grades than the majority of your sixth form. So what you're saying is you can buy entry with good grades... Well yes I would have thought that much is obvious.

Buying Cambridge entry

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you