Unfair bias against private schools

If I achieve 100% in a maths test for 2 year olds and someone, who's 9 also gets 100%, does that mean that he is more gifted and has more potential than me? Here your theory crumbles. If someone gets perfect marks one cannot ever accuse him/her for being less gifted than anyone else as he did not fail on anything. If on the other hand someone from a comprehensive did slightly better, then there most definitely is a case to argue. As long as the results are identical, as you suggested, your argument's syntax is flawed.

One would assume that if two people take a test, and they both get 100% but one is 20 and the other is 3, that the 3 year old has far superior natural intelligence.

Well, you're a girl, and therefore less likely to be attractive to some people... *must not say any more or else I'm probably committing libel or something *

If someone's on a scholarship to a private school why should you assume that the 10A*s are just because of the teaching and they're not as gifted as someone who went to a comp and got 10A*s? And also, there are some damned good comps. There's too much black-and-white when it comes to discussions like this.

If someone's on a scholarship to a private school why should you assume that the 10A*s are just because of the teaching and they're not as gifted as someone who went to a comp and got 10A*s? And also, there are some damned good comps. There's too much black-and-white when it comes to discussions like this.

Nobody would deny that it takes a lot of dedication and natural talent to get good grades at a failing, inner city comprehensive. But it's deeply unfair to suggest that a private school kid with the same grades is therefore automatically thicker or less dedicated.

Private schools very often set limits on the number of exams you can take, so let's not have any more of the suggestions of 'achieve higher, do more' (I've had this argument far too many times). At the end of the day no child has control over where their parents send them, so NO child should feel persecuted for their educational background - whether private, grammar, a good comprehensive or an inner city, failing school.

How the hell can you assume that without knowledge of what the test involved?!! It could have been "name these colours" or "fit these shapes into the right holes" and the 20 year old could be an utter genius - the test would not be a good way of distinguishing between abilities, therefore

Which, when you think about it, applies to GCSEs and A levels too.
.

That's frustrates me, everyone seems to believe all private schools are like Eton and all state schools are like inner city, crime infested comprehensives; in reality some comprehensives are very good, and quite a few private school are quite average.

That's frustrates me, everyone seems to believe all private schools are like Eton and all state schools are like inner city, crime infested comprehensives; in reality some comprehensives are very good, and quite a few private school are quite average.

..And many "comprehensives" aren't called "comprehensives" anymore

The only thing I would say to this- whilst agreeing completely- is that very often private schools seem to assimilate themselves into their own niche within in an area. So, say, I live in Loughborough where there are in the vicinity several private schools. Loughbourgh Grammar School and Loughbourgh High School (boys and girls respectively) are very academic and both send 10-15 people to Oxbridge p.a., then there is Ratcliffe College and OLC (girls only) which are much less academic. OLC is a Catholic School and seen as a reject bin for the High School, and Ratcliffe is where all the people with thick kids who want private education (oh and I'm in a ranting mood so I'm just going to say it- for the snobbery {balls to all the 'better person' stuff- that is the sign of a lame parent; expecting a school to fulfil their role}). OLC and Ratcliffe get quite bad results, and OLC has been forced by the ISC to stop only entering some students for 5 subjects (so it can boast 100 a*-c).

This is a scary thread to jump into, but I really want an answer - are A's at A-level really that easy to get? Is having the superior teachers and resources, as provided by the private schools, enough to get someone the straight A's needed to apply (never mind be accepted in) to Oxbridge?

Thanks to you all for the response and encouragement everyone. In no particular order:
(i) I applied for History, but I'd rather not say which college as it might identify the admissions tutor (who was very helpful / supportive afterwards). It was an older college.
(ii) The fact that there is a quota for private schools does NOT mean that there is one for state schools: the quota for private schools is a certain maximum. There is no max for state schools, only a min that corresponds to the complement of the private school max.
(iii) The school received a report afterwards which made absolutely no reference to any quota, I have to say, but didn't fault my application in any respect. Consequently, the school contacted the college and that's what led (eventually) to the talk with the tutor. The implication was that the college (rather than the university) had an imposed or self-imposed max for private school applicants, and had (slightly) exceeded that limit in the previous years. I am firmly of the opinion that colleges make adjustments over a three-year rolling average (if you see what I mean) so that their figures don't exceed a quota.
(iv) Taking my experience into account, I would advocate a blind points system for each subject for each university. I believe they have something like it in the south of Ireland. It would mean going to a general, broad, bacc-style exam - 6 subjects say - so awarding points out of 600. The market would then determine the threshold for each subject for each university, based on the UCAS applications. Law at Oxbridge might be 570; Law at Nottingham might be 500; etc.
(v) I am not in favour of 'positive' discrimination; as someone from an upper working class background, and female, I can do without being patronised; I'll get there on my own bat or not at all.
(vi) My school reported the matter to the TES - against my wishes - but they weren't interested.
(vii) I'm looking forward to getting into Oxbridge because I believe (honestly) that admissions aside, if one can do the business there, they do NOT care about gender / race / creed / background. ROLL ON NEXT YEAR!

Love

toni

What are they called, then?

But what he is saying is that if you both score 100% it is impossible to say who is more clever. This is why it is flawed to say someone with 10A*s from a crap school must be brighter than 10 A*s from a good school. the most you can get is 100% so you just cannot say one is more bright than the other.

If someone who gets 10A*s from a good school was capable of getting 10A*s from a crap school they should've gone to the crap school and saved their parents a six-figure sum , as well as the impressiveness of their result being devalued eg for uni admissions if tutors take into account their school.

It's natural to assume person A with AAA from a crap school is better than person B with AAA from a good school. In fact I'd say someone who gets ABB and tops the year at an awful comp is a) more intelligent, b) put in a lot more effort, and c) is more likely to do well at university than moststraight-A students from top schools. Favouring students from the worst schools by accepting them with slightly lower grades does not mean discriminating against private schools; it means more fairly basing offers on one's potential at university.

i think they're now called academies. can't be too sure though.

Yep, read of an analysis that Bristol Uni did of one year's intake. According to them state-educated students with ABB did equivalently in their finals to that of a privately-educated student who attained AAA at Alevel.

I'm not being black and white. Your point is valid but has been addressed throughout this thread.

I wonder if you actually read my post at all MadNatSci, as I actually detailed I how most Oxbridge colleges use average achievement at GCSE and A Level of an applicants' school to compare their relative achievements- this would make sure good comprehensives were acknowledged!

Here you seem to be contradicting your aforementioned argument.

No child should feel persecuted for their educational background, but people from private schools seem to want to have their cake and eat it. As someone has mentioned previously on this thread, if people accept the many advantages of private education you have to accept the drawback that your achievements are set against a context of better facilities and preparation.

The example I gave was non-descript, you pedantic fool. But let's assume it was a spatial reasoning test, as you suggest. The assertion I gave would STILL STAND!!!!!

When you think about, it, actually, just for two seconds it doesn't apply to GCSEs and A Levels. They are developed upon common criteria from the QCA nimwit.

The Irish system is not flawless. Too many people get into courses purely on examination results and the drop-out rate is relatively high. A move away from a pure points system is being considered as the universities would like to be able to interview or at least read some sort of personal statement/school reference.

I wish you well with your re-application but for your own sake put it all behind you if you aren't successful this time.

I don't want to get into the whole public/private school debate as it's not part of my experience. Mind you, there aren't many who just happen to bump into an admissions tutor whilst working in a hospital (was this in France?).

As a parent I have experience of one child getting into Oxford. She was turned down by her first college but taken by her second. Another is applying for Cambridge this year. Her results to date are as impressive as yours but there's every chance she won't make it even though I'm sure she'd do very well there. If the worst thing that happens to any child of mine is that they don't make it to Oxbridge then I'll consider myself very blessed.

I'm convinced there's a large element of luck in the Oxbridge application process. When mine embarked on the process we were complete novices and the school had little experience either although they were very supportive.

I notice that you weren't successful with your application to other universities. Perhaps you need to look at your Personal Statement and see if it needs changing. Just a thought.

Whatever way things turn out, I wish you well.

(iii) Much of the intake in private schools is comprehensive in ability terms, if very selective in socio-economic terms. Much of the intake in state schools is not comprehensive as originally intended; e.g. all state schools in cambridge are 11-16 and then students go to e.g. Hills Rd for A-level. This worthy establishment is truly an exam factory with the best, most highly-paid teachers one could imagine. Why is this less 'elitist / selective / etc' than a random private school?