This thread is closed

reducing intake from private schools

SlyPie

It's higher than any university in America at least. 43% is very high.....

I went to a private (your "public) school for many years, and then went to a public (your "state") high school.

The public (state) high school I felt provided a better, more well-rounded education. It still got many kids into great universities.

Payed-For Non-Government given education is much more common in this country than practically anywhere else. I think it's about 10-20% of children go to such a school, and a lot of parents of these children are not mega-rich.

I went to an independent school (Alleyn's) and several of my friends were from single-parent families etc, where the parent was literally just scraping the fees together because they wanted the best for their son or daughter. To think that the parent's sacrifices are prospectively to be rewarded with discrimination are appalling. However, luckily the boy I know in this situation's brother is going into final year at Oxford, and he's about to start at UCL this year.

This is obviously less common than the upper-middle class child at a private school, but it is a significant minority.

Reply 61

Waldo

actually its approximately 7% nationwide go to private schools

Reply 62

dappleddawndrawndauphin

3

priya

this was published in the Times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1735725,00.html

for those of you who don't wanna read the whole thing, oxbridge have been given 'tips and hints' on how to best accomodate state school applicants. the article also states that the government has told oxbridge to ''aim to reduce their intake from private schools to 25% by 2009''.

Personally, i find this ludicrous. By positively discriminating against private school candidates, who might be better than their state school piers, oxbridge are going to be forced to lower their own standards. surely the government must realise that they have to concentrate on giving more support to the state schools, and encouraging application from this sector, rather than simply refusing to take private school pupils?!!?

bleh.

I totally agree, I think that's disgusting. The only thing that should be taken into account is academic potential. More selfishly, I'm glad I moved to a state college... but somehow I feel it would take more than that to get me a place!

Reply 63

Steveee

5

Waldo

actually its approximately 7% nationwide go to private schools

But I think that it's much more that have been to a private school. For example: I went to a state primary school and a private secondary. Some people go to college rather than 6th form at their private school. Also: the vast majority of private school people stay on for 6th form, rather than the lower percentage that stay on for college from a state school.

All this adds up to make the apparent figure (which may be only 7% nationwide) lower than the real figure.

And I've also been told that the quota/statistics for percentage state schooled in Unis are derived from where you did your GCSEs.

Reply 64

Alaric

1

Does anyone know the percentage of people getting three As at alevel that are from private?

A.

Reply 65

H&E

3

I saw the stat a while back. Can't remember exactly. 40%?

Reply 66

Narcissus

EDIT: Despite having only 7% of the school population, independent schools supply 38% of all candidates gaining three A grades or better at A-level. In 2004 53.5% of GCSE entries from independent schools scored an A* or A at state schools this figure was 13.4%.

Another: 60 per cent of A grades at A level in modern languages were achieved in private schools.

Independent school A-level results have continued to improve year on year and in every subject. Over 40% of entries from independent schools were awarded an A, compared with 19% from maintained schools. The percentage of independently-educated students achieving 3 A grades has increased from 18% in 2000 to 26% in 2004.

Taken from our friend the ISC

Reply 67

roff

2

what about the percentage for those at state school, gaining 3 As?

Reply 68

Woostarite

9

Tutors would never accept the 25% target - they'd just revolt.
My tutors at Worcester said they didn't even look at the school type box during the application process. Saying that 3 out of 4 of the people on my course are state school (all grammar though).

Reply 69

H&E

3

I think someone should really start doing some studies on degree result by school background. If it was suddenly found public school students get half as many firsts as state school kids, it would make moving policy forward a heck of a lot easier.

Reply 70

mfb3000

Or the government would tell universities to give out more firsts to state school students... They treat the symptoms, not the causes.

Reply 71

Alaric

1

Narcissus

independent schools supply 38% of all candidates gaining three A grades or better at A-level.

So, would people accept a 'target' of 38% as more reasonable (immediately, not by 2009) as opposed to the current 43%?

A.

Reply 72

Woostarite

9

Waldo

This is *******s

The right thing to do -----> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3561-1706465,00.html

I know this is slightly off-topic, but I can't agree with the above scheme. Poor students already pay no fees and already get grants from the university.
Why their expenses should be completely paid - from everything from food and accommodation to social life, and leave university with no debt whatsoever, while I have to get summer jobs to cover my expenditure (and will still probably leave with some debt) - seems ludicrously unfair.

Most students don't get financing from their parents except on fees - and those from low income families don't pay fees anyway (and rightly so), so students from poor families are no more financially disadvantaged than anyone else.

Reply 73

H&E

3

i would accept a target of 38% applying.

EDIT: Which we're hardly far off - it's 42.5% already. The % state school will never rise significantly until the govt significantly improves the % state school gaining AAA. Simple as that.

Reply 74

d750

8

H&E

I think someone should really start doing some studies on degree result by school background. If it was suddenly found public school students get half as many firsts as state school kids, it would make moving policy forward a heck of a lot easier.

It's been done already - a couple of years ago I think. Can't remember what the figures were, but independently educated students were found to get more 2.2s and 3rds.

Reply 75

mfb3000

Haven't got a reply to my email so far... Oh well, I wasn't planning on going to Caius anyway - I was advised against it as my brother had 'not a very good reputation among the senior staff' there. He punched a porter whilst being somewhat inebriated.

Reply 76

Steveee

5

Ideally, yes, the percentage state oxbridge would be the same as percentage state AAA, but then remember that a lot of schools won't put everyone in for Oxbridge who wants to. I was shocked to find out that a friend's school had simply deleted her application for Bristol's medicine course and replaced it with something else, saying that there was no point in her applying as she wouldn't get in. Mental.

d750

It's been done already - a couple of years ago I think. Can't remember what the figures were, but independently educated students were found to get more 2.2s and 3rds.

This is probably due to a percentage of independently schooled people getting spoon-fed at school and then crashing and burning. Also: there's much more pressure to go to uni at an independent than a comprehensive or something, hence you'd expect a few less committed ones to go from independent schools.

HOWEVER: I don't think anyone's intelligence is defined by what school they went to.

I totally totally agree that the Government is trying to treat the symptoms and not cure the problem. Bloomin' Labour.

:p:

the_brainaic

Haven't got a reply to my email so far... Oh well, I wasn't planning on going to Caius anyway - I was advised against it as my brother had 'not a very good reputation among the senior staff' there. He punched a porter whilst being somewhat inebriated.

I reckon that they *MIGHT* just be snowed in at the moment deciding which summer-poolians to accept and whatnot. And kudos to your brother, but it's probably wise you don't tempt fate. :smile:

Reply 77

house badger

7

Here we go Polly Toynbee in the Guardian yesterday making far more sense that most the posts on this thread. She's talking primarily about the disgrace which is the annual bashing of A Level results but touches on the same issues as here.

Without addressing the imbalance between state and private at top unis we're building an unmeritocratic society. I don't think this is so much the fault of Oxbridge but more attention needs to be paid, when selecting students, to the considerable advantages private school pupils have had in terms of expenditure, class sizes, facilities, behaviour and learning environments so that the truely most able are able to benefit from the top universities.

The editoral:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevels/story/0,16085,1550611,00.html

Reply 78

Waldo

badgerbloke:

agreed, toynbee is right that only from a very narrow viewpoint is the sorting of the best from the better really a key issue in education, BUT...this is an oxbridge forum. Most of the people in it are likely to be in the 3A 'top 3.5%' bracket she dismisses, so of course these are issues we care about.

As for your second paragraph:
the problem you are ignoring is the question of 'merit', implied by the advocacy of meritocracy. On what basis does a person 'deserve' a place at university over another? If ability does not count when that ability was acquired through finiancial advantage (and it is not self-evident that this should be the case), then how is this distinction to be made?

How does 'paying more attention' to the fact that some private schools provide a better education than the state sector help?

Reply 79

house badger

7

Waldo

badgerbloke:

agreed, toynbee is right that only from a very narrow viewpoint is the sorting of the best from the better really a key issue in education, BUT...this is an oxbridge forum. Most of the people in it are likely to be in the 3A 'top 3.5%' bracket she dismisses, so of course these are issues we care about.

As for your second paragraph:
the problem you are ignoring is the question of 'merit', implied by the advocacy of meritocracy. On what basis does a person 'deserve' a place at university over another? If ability does not count when that ability was acquired through finiancial advantage (and it is not self-evident that this should be the case), then how is this distinction to be made?

How does 'paying more attention' to the fact that some private schools provide a better education than the state sector help?

It would appear that you are defining 'merit' somewhat differently to me but I can't see how. If for the purposes of this argument we take it to require the selection of the objectively best students from those who apply to study a course. Thus a person who 'deserves' a place (your word not mine but it seems to be in quotation marks) or in other words the person who should get the place is the person who is the 'best'.

The difficulty arises in determining best and it goes without saying that it is complex task and perhaps even impossible to acheive perfectly. I think this is where we differ. If I understand your view, and the prevailling view on this thread, correctly, then it is that the determination should be made based on the student at the time they are applying. If they have been advanced ahead of a state-school applicant by private schooling then so-be-it as they are the best and should be selected. My view is different being that it should be a determination of who will go on to do the best in their degree and thus the apparent inflationary effect of private schooling on a students ability should be discounted and students should be assessed on what they have achieved against where and how they've achieved it.

I agree with Polly Toynbee that the former view is conservative and would tend to lead to social status perpetuating whereas the latter is progressive and fairer. You're right that the latter view is not self-evidently right, it is a largely political preference but it is my political view and I think better justifiable than the conservative alternative.

In response to your final question it helps because it gives university places to the truely most able and not to those who have gained advantage through priviledge thereby breaking down those constraints that have traditionally limited social mobility.

There are of course some limits to the effectiveness of such an approach and these are caused by disparate educational opportunities at a younger age. i.e. the fact that some people can access better education while others can't. These factors can be limited by investment in state schools and (perhaps controvertially) limitations on private schools such as removing their charitable status (in effect a state subsidy) but those are matters for a different debate.

reducing intake from private schools

Related discussions

Trending

Latest