Turn on thread page Beta

University Entry- harder if your from private school? watch


    (Original post by Jak Spencer)
    I was generalising. It is true - there are a few good people at my school, but most i find very strange
    Yes I can see how money would do strange things to some people...... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hobbs)
    Is it true that it is harder to gain a place to university if you have been in private education all your life, particularly if you have come from the top public schools e.g Eton? I only mention this because I remember there being quite a lot about it in the papers a while back, about a girl who had been turned down and put it down to applying from a state school...something along those lines.
    It must be so tough for the admissions folk. Only 7% of our children attend independent schools and these make up 50% of the total students at our top universities. This figure is clearly way too high, but if these are so talented and deserving, how can you turn them away?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    It must be so tough for the admissions folk. Only 7% of our children attend independent schools and these make up 50% of the total students at our top universities. This figure is clearly way too high, but if these are so talented and deserving, how can you turn them away?

    Is it that they are talented and deserving or that they've had the opportunities to do well? A student at a state school may be talented and deserving but if they haven't had the same support academically/financially then their grades may reflect that. I'd like to think that the admissions system should be based on meritocracy regardless of education background.

    I have a place at 2 medical schools this year despite having lower than normal grades mostly because of illness, but also because the schools i went did not have very a high academic records, they aim to widen access to students who would never normally have a chance in medicine.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Universities have quotas of state school applicants they should admit, so sometimes they do turn away private school people, but I don't know if i would go as far as to say it is "harder" for them.
    I'm sorry LH but this is just not true.

    University performance with regard to intake from state schools, low social classes and low participation neighbourhoods is measured against benchmarks. The most recent benchmarks are available here: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/perfind/2003 and are based on the student intake in 2000 and/or 2001.

    However this performance is measured long long after the actual business of admissions take place - and crucially does NOT affect funding. There are no punishments or rewards for meeting or exceeding or missing benchmarks*....especially not with regard to the state school intake benchmark.

    Any university that claims to have quota's is using internally set quota's - not government set ones....and I personally don't know of any universities or departments who have quota's when it comes to admissions.

    NO university will give preference to a state school pupil over a private school pupil - even those universities like Bristol who have a system set up to allow for students from poor schools don't consider the funding status of the school - just the average achievement of the pupils. A well performing state grammar will be at a disadvantage to a badly performing private school under this system.

    *there is extra funding awarded for each student from a low participation neighbourhood. The postcodes these relate to are kept confidential and never revealed to universities (which means they're never used as a factor in admissions). The extra funding is to compensate for the fact that students from low participation neighbourhoods are far far more likely to drop out and so cost universities more to support.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    I'm sorry LH but this is just not true.

    University performance with regard to intake from state schools, low social classes and low participation neighbourhoods is measured against benchmarks. The most recent benchmarks are available here: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/perfind/2003 and are based on the student intake in 2000 and/or 2001.

    However this performance is measured long long after the actual business of admissions take place - and crucially does NOT affect funding. There are no punishments or rewards for meeting or exceeding or missing benchmarks*....especially not with regard to the state school intake benchmark.

    Any university that claims to have quota's is using internally set quota's - not government set ones....and I personally don't know of any universities or departments who have quota's when it comes to admissions.

    NO university will give preference to a state school pupil over a private school pupil - even those universities like Bristol who have a system set up to allow for students from poor schools don't consider the funding status of the school - just the average achievement of the pupils. A well performing state grammar will be at a disadvantage to a badly performing private school under this system.

    *there is extra funding awarded for each student from a low participation neighbourhood. The postcodes these relate to are kept confidential and never revealed to universities (which means they're never used as a factor in admissions). The extra funding is to compensate for the fact that students from low participation neighbourhoods are far far more likely to drop out and so cost universities more to support.
    so what are all these ratio of state/private figures that the broadsheets keep showing us in their articles? as far as I've been reading, the government and HEFCE are threatening to reduce funding for universities unless they reach target quotas. Every single year we get new figures about how Oxford etc have less state pupils than others. and that's one of the reasons that the top universities want to break away from government funding, so that they won't be restricted and told what to do.

    if, as you claim, there is no punishment for hitting benchmarks, why do the top universities constantly publish figures on how many more state pupils they accep every year, and how they are always looking for people from under-priveleged backgrounds to apply?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by 4Ed)
    so what are all these ratio of state/private figures that the broadsheets keep showing us in their articles? as far as I've been reading, the government and HEFCE are threatening to reduce funding for universities unless they reach target quotas. Every single year we get new figures about how Oxford etc have less state pupils than others. and that's one of the reasons that the top universities want to break away from government funding, so that they won't be restricted and told what to do.
    The published figures are from the benchmarks.

    The government aren't threatening to reduce funding for universities missing their benchmarks - they are introducing OFFA (Office for Fair Access) who will be able to restrict universities from charging top up fees if they not only fail to meet their benchmarks but also fail to put any effort into meeting them. The Oxford Access scheme, and both Oxbridge universities (and in fact all other universities) outreach progammes which raise aspirations (even if they don't directly result in more state applications to a university) are all efforts that will be taken into account before penalties (no top up fees) are imposed. It's unlikely that any university will end up financially punished unless they miss their benchmarks by a long margin repeatedly *and* they have no outreach/wp activity to encourage applicants.

    It's *very* unlikely that universities would be penalised based on missing a single benchmark for state school entrants - the low social class, low participation neighbourhoods and the future measures based on family income (passed direct from the SLC to the monitoring bodies - bypassing universities completely) and family experience of HE are all likely to be far more influential.

    if, as you claim, there is no punishment for hitting benchmarks, why do the top universities constantly publish figures on how many more state pupils they accep every year, and how they are always looking for people from under-priveleged backgrounds to apply?
    Publicity
    And preparations for the introduction of OFFA - if they can't meet their benchmarks they need to prove that it's because the best applicant from state schools/low social classes etc aren't applying to them....*and* that they're doing all they can to encourage applications from these people and raise aspirations to go to university generally.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.