This thread is closed
reducing intake from private schools
Scroll to see replies
Badge: Very, very prejudiced post, I'm afraid. Firstly, Tonybee doesn't touch on these issues at all. All she does is drop in a couple of standard digs at the privately educated.
Secondly, whingeing about merit is very old, and very out of date. Tutors have been aware of it for decades, and have been making allowances. The standards expected from the best educated are (rightly) much higher. Cambridge actually has a system in place which is equivalent to raising your GCSE score by up to 7A*'s depending on your school. My school had a dozen applicants with 9A*'s, 5A's at AS and AAAA predictions rejected. No one really batted an eyelid.
You seem not to realise plenty of people at top schools are bright, not just well off. For example, between a quarter and a third of Oxford students get firsts - yet the proportion from my school is actually comfortably over half.
Guardian readers can be so boring...lucky this wasn't an article about politics, or I'd've found myself listening to how terrible it was to call the 7/7 bombers islamic terrorists and then read in the next paragraph about Zionist imperialists.
(Toynbee's prejudice has excluded her from reality on the A-level front, too, btw. I take no issue with the fact that old A-leves were just far too hard and exclusive, and that they needed dumbing down. The point is the current qualification system is so poor it fails to provide people with the skills needed in life. Have a look here: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/stats/keystatsadult.html#Adult. Only 44% of the adult population of the country is actually suffciently literate to pass a GCSE!! If Toynbee cared about social justice more than becoming very wealthy by ranting incoherently at the middle classes, she might stop to realise those 44% include all the private/grammar educated, the priviliged in life, who are positioned to continue to do well for themselves. The ones currently getting an arse-****ing in life by our school system are precisely all those less privliged she is supposedly fighting for).
Secondly, whingeing about merit is very old, and very out of date. Tutors have been aware of it for decades, and have been making allowances. The standards expected from the best educated are (rightly) much higher. Cambridge actually has a system in place which is equivalent to raising your GCSE score by up to 7A*'s depending on your school. My school had a dozen applicants with 9A*'s, 5A's at AS and AAAA predictions rejected. No one really batted an eyelid.
You seem not to realise plenty of people at top schools are bright, not just well off. For example, between a quarter and a third of Oxford students get firsts - yet the proportion from my school is actually comfortably over half.
Guardian readers can be so boring...lucky this wasn't an article about politics, or I'd've found myself listening to how terrible it was to call the 7/7 bombers islamic terrorists and then read in the next paragraph about Zionist imperialists.
(Toynbee's prejudice has excluded her from reality on the A-level front, too, btw. I take no issue with the fact that old A-leves were just far too hard and exclusive, and that they needed dumbing down. The point is the current qualification system is so poor it fails to provide people with the skills needed in life. Have a look here: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/stats/keystatsadult.html#Adult. Only 44% of the adult population of the country is actually suffciently literate to pass a GCSE!! If Toynbee cared about social justice more than becoming very wealthy by ranting incoherently at the middle classes, she might stop to realise those 44% include all the private/grammar educated, the priviliged in life, who are positioned to continue to do well for themselves. The ones currently getting an arse-****ing in life by our school system are precisely all those less privliged she is supposedly fighting for).
H&E
Badge: Very, very prejudiced post, I'm afraid. Firstly, Tonybee doesn't touch on these issues at all. All she does is drop in a couple of standard digs at the privately educated.
You seem to like the word prejudice and use it a lot but it really is not that relevant here. We might be discussing prejudice in its simplest sense but to then try and use an accusation of prejudice and all the negative connotations which follow its commonly understood meaning is inaccurate. Positive discrimination is what we are discussing here and it should be discussed as such rather than attempting to mudsling my argument by calling it prejudiced.
As I said in my original post Polly Toynbee's article is about a different, albeit related, debate however she does touch on the issues under discussion here and so it was a valid article to bring into the discussion.
Polly Toynbee
If Oxford, Cambridge and a few others find it hard to choose the very, very best from among that tiny elite, so what? Let them put the names in a hat and pluck them out at random. They will all be pretty good anyway. To pick those with the best chance of getting firsts, lean towards the comprehensive-school applicants who have done well without extra cramming; research shows they tend to do better.
H&E
Secondly, whingeing about merit is very old, and very out of date. Tutors have been aware of it for decades, and have been making allowances. The standards expected from the best educated are (rightly) much higher. Cambridge actually has a system in place which is equivalent to raising your GCSE score by up to 7A*'s depending on your school. My school had a dozen applicants with 9A*'s, 5A's at AS and AAAA predictions rejected. No one really batted an eyelid.
It might be an old debate but it is still of relevance. This is proved by the fact that state school educated students, particularly those from the most deprived backgrounds are grossly underpresented at Oxford. It remains an important debate until the imbalance is rectified. As for tutors taking background into account, I did not deny this, but instead stated that more attention needs to be paid to educational background than is currently done. I'm well aware that tutors try their best to pick the best but background needs to weigh more strongly on the admissions tutor's mind than it currently does. As the current system isn't working then perhaps this needs to be done at a more central level using something along the lines of targets or quotas. It might seem unfair against the individual private school student but viewed against a state school applicant it would help to negate the effect a privileged education has on a applicant to a top university.
H&E
You seem not to realise plenty of people at top schools are bright, not just well off. For example, between a quarter and a third of Oxford students get firsts - yet the proportion from my school is actually comfortably over half.
I'm sure there are many bright people at public schools but there are also many bright students who can't afford the fees. I think the general tendancy is that state educated pupils on average go on to do better in their final degree classification. Although I haven't looked for the statistical evidence for this.
H&E
Guardian readers can be so boring...lucky this wasn't an article about politics, or I'd've found myself listening to how terrible it was to call the 7/7 bombers islamic terrorists and then read in the next paragraph about Zionist imperialists.
Yeah, yeah... typical rant against a Guardian reader. I could do the same abotu a Torygraph or Times reader but I won't as it has absolutely nothing to do with the content of this argument or for that matter the content of Polly Toynbees article.
H&E
(Toynbee's prejudice has excluded her from reality on the A-level front, too, btw. I take no issue with the fact that old A-leves were just far too hard and exclusive, and that they needed dumbing down. The point is the current qualification system is so poor it fails to provide people with the skills needed in life. Have a look here: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/stats/keystatsadult.html#Adult. Only 44% of the adult population of the country is actually suffciently literate to pass a GCSE!! If Toynbee cared about social justice more than becoming very wealthy by ranting incoherently at the middle classes, she might stop to realise those 44% include all the private/grammar educated, the priviliged in life, who are positioned to continue to do well for themselves. The ones currently getting an arse-****ing in life by our school system are precisely all those less privliged she is supposedly fighting for).
I'm sorry, I'd like to pretend I understood that last rant but I didn't. Maybe I'm in the 56%.
You seem to like the word prejudice and use it a lot but it really is not that relevant here. We might be discussing prejudice in its simplest sense but to then try and use an accusation of prejudice and all the negative connotations which follow its commonly understood meaning is inaccurate. Positive discrimination is what we are discussing here and it should be discussed as such rather than attempting to mudsling my argument by calling it prejudiced.
Positive discrimination in what sense? Letting in stupid people because they're poor? Because if you're speaking about letting in less knowledgeable students because they've had fewer opportunities but have more potential, it already happens (and rightly so!).
It might be an old debate but it is still of relevance. This is proved by the fact that state school educated students, particularly those from the most deprived backgrounds are grossly underpresented at Oxford. It remains an important debate until the imbalance is rectified. As for tutors taking background into account, I did not deny this, but instead stated that more attention needs to be paid to educational background than is currently done. I'm well aware that tutors try their best to pick the best but background needs to weigh more strongly on the admissions tutor's mind than it currently does. As the current system isn't working then perhaps this needs to be done at a more central level using something along the lines of targets or quotas. It might seem unfair against the individual private school student but viewed against a state school applicant it would help to negate the effect a privileged education has on a applicant to a top university.
The imbalance of which you speak is due to a lack of applications. Every effort is being made to redress this, but at the end of the day if someone doesn't want to come to Oxford, it's their right to make that choice. It is not significantly due to with differing success rate for application - IIRC, the independent educated are only about 17% more successful in this regard, as is to be expected given the far more extensive and rigorous academic selection they undergo before applying.
I'm sure there are many bright people at public schools but there are also many bright students who can't afford the fees. I think the general tendancy is that state educated pupils on average go on to do better in their final degree classification. Although I haven't looked for the statistical evidence for this.
Well this is just prejudice speaking. Not only have you no evidence to back it up, you haven't even looked! I said earlier we need some concrete research on this issue (someone did hazily quote some incomplete results, but these weren't massively useful).
I'm sorry, I'd like to pretend I understood that last rant but I didn't. Maybe I'm in the 56%.
Don't want to drift off topic here, but what I said was very simple. The problem with the current school system (of which A-level are the most famous, but far from dominant, part) is that it doesn't give people the skills they need to be successful in life. Illiteracy, I read the other day, is worse than before the first world war!! The people who will really suffer from this are the least priviliged - if the state doesn't teach them to read or write properly, it's far more difficult for them to do anything about it. Hence Toynbee's supposed championing of the working class is entirely counter-productive. It's nothing to do with A-levels no longer serving Oxbridge's needs. That is true, but, frankly, I think it's a good thing (a point on which you, Toynbee and I seem to agree. Huzzah!).
Positive discrimination in what sense? Letting in stupid people because they're poor? Because if you're speaking about letting in less knowledgeable students because they've had fewer opportunities but have more potential, it already happens (and rightly so!).
It might be an old debate but it is still of relevance. This is proved by the fact that state school educated students, particularly those from the most deprived backgrounds are grossly underpresented at Oxford. It remains an important debate until the imbalance is rectified. As for tutors taking background into account, I did not deny this, but instead stated that more attention needs to be paid to educational background than is currently done. I'm well aware that tutors try their best to pick the best but background needs to weigh more strongly on the admissions tutor's mind than it currently does. As the current system isn't working then perhaps this needs to be done at a more central level using something along the lines of targets or quotas. It might seem unfair against the individual private school student but viewed against a state school applicant it would help to negate the effect a privileged education has on a applicant to a top university.
The imbalance of which you speak is due to a lack of applications. Every effort is being made to redress this, but at the end of the day if someone doesn't want to come to Oxford, it's their right to make that choice. It is not significantly due to with differing success rate for application - IIRC, the independent educated are only about 17% more successful in this regard, as is to be expected given the far more extensive and rigorous academic selection they undergo before applying.
I'm sure there are many bright people at public schools but there are also many bright students who can't afford the fees. I think the general tendancy is that state educated pupils on average go on to do better in their final degree classification. Although I haven't looked for the statistical evidence for this.
Well this is just prejudice speaking. Not only have you no evidence to back it up, you haven't even looked! I said earlier we need some concrete research on this issue (someone did hazily quote some incomplete results, but these weren't massively useful).
I'm sorry, I'd like to pretend I understood that last rant but I didn't. Maybe I'm in the 56%.
Don't want to drift off topic here, but what I said was very simple. The problem with the current school system (of which A-level are the most famous, but far from dominant, part) is that it doesn't give people the skills they need to be successful in life. Illiteracy, I read the other day, is worse than before the first world war!! The people who will really suffer from this are the least priviliged - if the state doesn't teach them to read or write properly, it's far more difficult for them to do anything about it. Hence Toynbee's supposed championing of the working class is entirely counter-productive. It's nothing to do with A-levels no longer serving Oxbridge's needs. That is true, but, frankly, I think it's a good thing (a point on which you, Toynbee and I seem to agree. Huzzah!).
This thread is large and I haven't got time to read it all, but I'd just like to add something. I think forcing universities to accept potentially weaker candidates is very wrong and doubt that it will ever actually happen. However, if a place is up for grabs and there's a privately educated candidate with AAAA and a comprehensive candidate with AAAA (assuming it's in the same subjects), I feel the place should be given to the comprehensive student as they've arguably done better to achieve the same grades with a 'lesser' education (this doesn't take into account things like personality, obviously).
What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that in my opinion, if you have two practically identical candidates, preference should be given to the person applying from the state school. They should not, however, admit academically inferior candidates just because they attended a state school.
What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that in my opinion, if you have two practically identical candidates, preference should be given to the person applying from the state school. They should not, however, admit academically inferior candidates just because they attended a state school.
Ollie87
This thread is large and I haven't got time to read it all, but I'd just like to add something. I think forcing universities to accept potentially weaker candidates is very wrong and doubt that it will ever actually happen. However, if a place is up for grabs and there's a privately educated candidate with AAAA and a comprehensive candidate with AAAA (assuming it's in the same subjects), I feel the place should be given to the comprehensive student as they've arguably done better to achieve the same grades with a 'lesser' education (this doesn't take into account things like personality, obviously).
What about top state schools? - which can be better than many private schools (eg Hills Road Cambridge, which churns out about 30 Oxbridge students every year and is a state sixth-form college).
MadNatSci
What about top state schools? - which can be better than many private schools (eg Hills Road Cambridge, which churns out about 30 Oxbridge students every year and is a state sixth-form college).
Exactly. They shoud look at things like points scores and average grades rather than just whether it's private or state, which I think they already do but I'm not sure.
kellywood_5
Exactly. They shoud look at things like points scores and average grades rather than just whether it's private or state, which I think they already do but I'm not sure.
the tutor for co-ordinating admissions in my dept. certainly does rather than merely 'state' v. 'independent'.
nice to have some faith these staff might be more than merely admin gimps & capable of seeing shades of grey in the system that they work in..
Nat - 30 would be a bad year for Hills Road..!
MadNatSci
I was being conservative 
[kellywood: Cambridge do take the quality of state school into account; I was just commenting on the interesting use of 'state' to automatically mean 'bad' on this thread...]
[kellywood: Cambridge do take the quality of state school into account; I was just commenting on the interesting use of 'state' to automatically mean 'bad' on this thread...]
Ah right, I see. Yeah, it's interesting how some people automatically think of state schools as poor, rundown dumps that gets crap results. My school is only an average comprehensive, but it's nothing like that!
I think positive discrimination in this case is. . .well positive. I come from a state school and my friend goes to private. Some pupils there (including her) work really hard for their grades but a lot are completely and utterly spoon fed, where as at my school you hardly ever get any one on one time with the teacher. It isnt ideal but we learn to work independantly which is what you need at university and the grades we get really are the grades we deserve. It is a shame for those at private school who are working for their grades but it would be an even bigger shame if the state school candidate who really worked hard was rejected over the private school candidate who had been handed their grades on a plate. I feel really strongly about it-private schools should be abandoned altogether its just unjust.
How far would this discrimination go? Should there be a distinction between good and bad state school?
If this was to become into being then what about the pupils at private schools that got their place that was paid for by the school (since assisted places were stopped many private schools fund places for some pupils that would not normally be able to afford it), should they be disadvantaged as well?
I don't understand how its percived that pupils at private schools get 'handed their grades on a plate'. They might be better prepared but they still sit the same exams.
If this was to become into being then what about the pupils at private schools that got their place that was paid for by the school (since assisted places were stopped many private schools fund places for some pupils that would not normally be able to afford it), should they be disadvantaged as well?
I don't understand how its percived that pupils at private schools get 'handed their grades on a plate'. They might be better prepared but they still sit the same exams.
ancient1
How far would this discrimination go? Should there be a distinction between good and bad state school?
Yes, and there already is. They don't just look at whether it's a state school, they look at things like points scores and average grades to work out how good a state school it is.
ancient1
If this was to become into being then what about the pupils at private schools that got their place that was paid for by the school (since assisted places were stopped many private schools fund places for some pupils that would not normally be able to afford it), should they be disadvantaged as well?
What does it matter whether they're paying for the place or not? They're still benefiting from a better education and therefore they should be treated as such.
ancient1
I don't understand how its percived that pupils at private schools get 'handed their grades on a plate'. They might be better prepared but they still sit the same exams.
Yes, they sit the same exams, but if you're prepared better than someone else, it makes sense that you'll get better results than them. The difficult thing is that it's impossible to tell whether someone at a private school who got an A would get the same grade at a state school.
kellywood_5
Yes, they sit the same exams, but if you're prepared better than someone else, it makes sense that you'll get better results than them. The difficult thing is that it's impossible to tell whether someone at a private school who got an A would get the same grade at a state school.
Yes, they sit the same exams, but if you're prepared better than someone else, it makes sense that you'll get better results than them. The difficult thing is that it's impossible to tell whether someone at a private school who got an A would get the same grade at a state school.
Which is why they set additional tests and interview, to stretch those candidates who may have benefitted from a better education and see if their academic capability matches their record. (NB in my books, "better education" does not = "grades handed out on a silver platter.") They also use UMS marks as an indicator - for example I got 298, 296, 293 and 257
(German, so not related to Medicine and also a mess-up on the school's behalf, not mine); I THINK that might indicate that I could probably have scraped a few As at a state school.
Also, many Oxbridge students, state or private, have taught themselves one or more of their A Levels (I taught myself two), often (as was my situation) without *any* guidance from schools, and got blinkin' high UMS too. Can you say then that those at state school are less likely to succeed at this than public school? I wouldn't make that assumption, since I'm state school (or was). Cambridge also make allowances for your schooling, so I don't think it's got that much to do with it, really.
Related discussions
- American university
- Is Nottingham still reputable for law?
- State school vs private school intake
- Leeds or Exeter LLB
- Could I get into Durham?
- Are independent/private schools really better than state schools?
- is this realistic?
- Are there a lot of snobby private school people at Cambridge?
- UCAS Clearing 2023 FAQ and Help Megathread
- Got a Ucas or results related question? Ask a Clearing and Applications Advisor here
- Is it not considered "cool" to have went to private school anymore?
- Which Uni?!
- Oxford Contexualised GCSEs...
- Calorie deficit is not working
- CAS Letter Concerns
- Fitting in at Exeter
- Help! Choosing between SSE and SciencePo for Finance Master's Program in Europe
- Help！SSE fin with partial scholarship or Sciences po finance and stategy??
- how can i loose weight?:(
- Is UCL full of rich kids?
Trending
- Hat 2023
- Human Sciences Oxford applicants 2023-2024
- Mat 2023
- Oxford language applicants - 2024 entry
- TSA Section 1 2023 / Oxford E&M (2024 entry) thread
- Extra MAT 2023
- John Locke Essay Competition 2023
- When will I hear back from Oxford about interviews?
- do colleges send all interview invites on the same day?
- Oxford history written work
- Geography Admissions Test (GAT) 2024 discussion
- Feedback on the HAT (History Admissions Test) for this year
- Leaked 2023 MAT paper
- Oxford PAT FAQ
- Mlat 2023
- GAT 2023 Oxford
- Oxford Classics Aptitude Test (CAT) Glitch
- Oxford University says it will not base admissions on botched online tests
- I cannot sit the ELAT
- PAT 2023 Online Calculator
Latest
- DWP Work Coach October 2023
- PPE at Durham (can't see the study abroad option on UCAS)
- Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant thread
- Will he comeback or he has just moved on?
- DWP EO work coach Kent 602 campaign September 2023
- Big 4 apprenticeships?!?
- Civil Service Fast Stream 2024 - Applicants thread
- hi how is everyone
- QUB Dentistry 2024 entry
- law degree
- University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official Thread
- [MASt Astrophysics] Number Accepted and Applications per place?
- he's too good for me
- CTC vetting time frame
- Korean/Japanese Studies 2024 Applicants
- Korean language students : What advice would you give to new students?
- EPQ artefact survey
- ENSUITE NEAR UoA AND CITY CENTRE
- New Thread Experience Feedback - Official Thread
- Room available on Giles Lane
- End of the day blues...don't mind me
- Missing lectures in 3rd year due to commuting?
- Official: University of Cambridge A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Reapplying to Cambridge medicine
- hello
- 2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer senders
- joint honours degrees
- Which uni is better for law LLB? Essex vs London? Online bachelors degree.
- Queen's University BT9 Room Takeover
- EY apprenticeship 2024
- ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024
- from all 9s to all Ds, help
- The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- Law Course uni
- Official: St George's, University of London A100 2024 Entry
- should i cut fruits to lose weight
- Feeling lonely at kings
- Oxford Parents Association
- DWP Work Coach Interview - how long to hear
- Frontline Social Work 2024