Unfair bias against private schools

You've brought up a lot of issues here and I'm sure someone will pick on them, but this is the one I'm probably best equipped to deal with, knowing the Cambridge system pretty well.

Firstly, it's not true that all state schools in Cambridge are 11-16 (assuming you're also referring to the schools just outside), most obviously IVC, which does IB instead of A-levels, but also Netherhall, which has a small sixth form doing A-levels. But that's not that important. Sure HRSFC gets great results, but apparently admissions tutors generally treat it as if it's a public school in terms of results. In addition to this, people at HRSFC might get great A-level results, but they're mostly either from a private school which they left after GCSE (a huge chunk) or from the better state schools. The kids from the failing schools in Cambridge (yes, they do exist) will mostly go to Long Road or CRC. At Long Road they might do well and get decent A-levels (it does happen) or they might get caught up in huge classes with poor teachers, and at CRC they'll be doing diplomas or AVCEs or something which they don't realise Oxbridge won't accept.

Wow, that's a huge paragraph which I should have broken up.

It's a well known fact that some parents send their children to private schools for egotistical reasons; and it's been equally well report that certain school fiddle their exam entries by refusing to enter candidates if their isn't a strong chance that they will get at least a C. Morally it isn't right, but that's life.

A lot of schools try to manipulate exam results, albeit to a far lesser degree; for instance a school which I did work experience at for a term sent round lists of students who were on the C/D GCSE borderline and the teachers would be "ordered" to concentrate on getting these people into the A*-C bracket. And I was told this or something similar was common practice in many schools.

Some of the arguments / presumprions above are simply ridiculous:
(i) Why is BBB at a Comp better that AAA elsewhere? On the basis that teachers in a Comp are less committed / capable? There is NO proof that that is the case. In fact, DfES / Ofsted research suggest the opposite.
(ii) Much teaching in private schools is merely cursory. Much A-level attainment is down to the student working independently anyway.

(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?

(iv) What makes you think that someone getting 10A* at GCSE in a private school couldn't have achieved the same at any comp? Or that a student with BBC from a comp would have got AAA in a private school?
(v) Students at state comps do NOT receive less support from family and school than private students. All other things being equal, I would suggest that the incidence of marital breakdown, long working hours and rampant materialism, and that type of 'disruption' is higher among private school toffs.

not on the basis of unrealised potential (which is unassessable surely). For example, if all state comps are treated ab initio as places where student attainment is lower BECAUSE teachers are weaker etc, and have to be 'compensated for' in the admissions process, then why continue to fund them?

Finally, I have two questions from those who responded so truculently to my original posting. They are unpleasant questions, but let the truth out:
(i) Has the % of working class students gone down or up since comprehensivisation? Was the % of 'poor kids' higher or lower under the state run grammar system? Even at £35K p.a., I come from a working class background and PROUD of it. But I'm fed up with social engineering platitudes from the chattering classes.

Thank you! This is a cool sensible and informative reply, which has in fact caused me to revise my opinion on the point you address (assuming you are correct that tutors regard HRSFC as 'private').

I would say it is a fact that, in Scotland, the Advanced Highers depend upon your ability to work alone. The teachers could be crap and the textbooks falling to pieces and the library filled with pregnant 14yr-olds discussing contraception, but the exams could be passed anyway. If you put in the effort at home you could get the A grade. Maybe at a private school you can get better GCSE's (or SG's), but does that really matter?

Obviously I'm biased having sat them, but Advanced Highers are far above A level in my opinion. Not only is the non-modular examination system harder and leave a lot less room for error (and virtually none for improvement, unless you want to try again next year), but the qualification has far more "value" as so few people actually sit them. In England virtually everyone who stays on at school will sit A levels, while here very few will sit AH. If you look at the figures on the SQA site, only around 10% of the number of Highers sat is followed by an Advanced Higher the following year. The detailed figures are quite interesting aswell - I for example am one of only 365 people who managed an A in AH chemistry this year!

I agree on the working alone. I was taught well in maths (though still had to do a lot on my own), but in chemistry and physics I got no teaching atall. I was given the Scholar booklets (one of the very few resources actually written for the course) and a password for the website and effectively left to get on with it for a year. Had I not been able to work alone, I'd have scored approximately 0% in each subject, but I worked extremely hard especially at the end of the year and got AAA. I'd be curious to know how many people get AAA actually, but can't find a figure for it.

I couldn't agree with you more. I've also been looking at those statistics, and worked out that under 21% of people who sat AH chem got an A - and for AH biology it was only 16%! Does anyone know how this compares to A-levels?

Where has it been assumed on there thread that (i) is the case? I have merely asserted that someone who achieves AAA from a failing school is probably superior to someone with the same grades from a far superior school.

Yes. That's what I don't agree with. And I don't agree with how you are defining 'superior' school. That's the point.

Personally I feel that in todays day and age AAA from any school is achievable, due to wider availability of learning resources etc, slimmer exam specification.

Agree.

If (ii) is the case, how do you explain the fact that it can be statistically proven how significant a factor teaching is?

Sadly, this has not been proven. It is not known how significant teaching is.

Furtehrmore, doing well is not just about teaching standards but about a host of resources, such as library provision, computer facilities. Furthermore, how do you explain the dire pass rate for Chemistry A Level by night class, which can be explained by a lack of individual attention in class to enable students to digest information.

May be the quality of the student, or their ages or their personal situation or the fact that they are most likely to have missed out on earlier schooling opportunities. Or many many other possible causes unrelated to the quality of evenin-class teachers.



Your superlative overuse is repulsive. They might be the best, but they certainly aren't the 'most highly paid'!

Oh, come off it! I meant the best teachers Hills Rd could hire, not the best in the universe. By the way, they ARE paid more (AST and perf / threshold payments) and increased chances of promotion to HoD etc etc etc.

As explained countless times, Oxford and Cambridge generally use other measures rather a broad state/private divide to assess an applicants' schooling. If Hills Rd is so overly successful, this will be depicted in a very high average AS score. I wonder though whether on Friday it will be the Principal of that school or Tiffin Girls School celebrating the best AL results??

Agree. Thanks for this reminder.

To (iv) I assume nothing, but think that Oxbridge dons ultimately need to sort the wheat from the chaff regarding high scoring applicants. I think many people with 10a* would get it regardless of school attended, but I also think many wouldn't if they had larger classes etc. etc. I have never ever said that a comp student with BBC could get AAA in a private school, because I don't think it is true.

Agree. Although the largest classes in England & Wales are in the 'poor private schools where the Teachers' Trade unions have been disempowered. Admittedly, the top private schools have smaller classes that poor comps.

It is to point 5 that I begin to start laughing uncontrollably. Here you are seemingly hope to place your achievements in a greater context because of all the tragedies that you have suffered despite the fact that you earlier called for blind admissions. Which way do you want it Toni- blind or just blinded to your flaws, and only pertaining to your strengths????

Don't know what you refer to, but I want a school- and needs-blind meritocratic admission system. I have no hardship which relates or was related to my university admissions application. I have no 'context' for my achievements, though they hardly warrant being called that, and I don't want to be contextualised. But I'm glad I've amused you.

The assumptions made about divorce etc. are very subjective and completely off the mark- divorce is at a much lower rate amongst the higher social and economic groups, who compose the largest proportion of people sending their children to private school. The 'long working hours' is just an appalling thing to claim in today's world.

I'm not claiming anything for myself about long working hours or divorce. I have no personal experience of any of this. The point was that kids at private school suffer 'distractions' to (what you and others perceive as) their idyllic lives. P.S. Highest marital breakdown is among high earning professional women.

Unrealised potential is assessed at interview. Do you not think when you meet someone you can gauge their intelligence? All state comps aren't treated equally. I turn it back to you, why are so many people continuing to go to these bad private schools?

See my later point about interviews ratrher than tweaking school results. p.s. I think there are many types of intelligence and I wouldn't presume to judge someone's intell from 30mins chat (or naff postings on a web site).
People continue to use crap private schools for variety of reasons, incl. lack of experiential knowledge, convenience, 'familial precedence', and for the same reason that punters still fly BA or bank with Nat West. doh!

The percentage of working class students has gone down drastically since the 11-plus was scrapped. At its peak, 84% of Oxford students went to state schools, and TMK the proportion of working class students was around 23%. Although obviously what we define as working class is important, as there are far fewer working class households now as there were 30 years ago. At 35k p.a. you might come from a working class background (I come from a working class background but my parents have levitated to middle, and I'm not proud or ashamed).

I couldn't agree with you more. I've also been looking at those statistics, and worked out that under 21% of people who sat AH chem got an A - and for AH biology it was only 16%! Does anyone know how this compares to A-levels?

EDIT: For AH english it was only 12.7% that got an A!! Geez, glad I didn't take it

It's about the same. The average % who will get an A is 20 but it does vary between subjects, like greek is about 70%!!

Where has it been assumed on there thread that (i) is the case? I have merely asserted that someone who achieves AAA from a failing school is probably superior to someone with the same grades from a far superior school. Personally I feel that in todays day and age AAA from any school is achievable, due to wider availability of learning resources etc, slimmer exam specification. If (ii) is the case, how do you explain the fact that it can be statistically proven how significant a factor teaching is? Furtehrmore, doing well is not just about teaching standards but about a host of resources, such as library provision, computer facilities. Furthermore, how do you explain the dire pass rate for Chemistry A Level by night class, which can be explained by a lack of individual attention in class to enable students to digest information.



Your superlative overuse is repulsive. They might be the best, but they certainly aren't the 'most highly paid'! As explained countless times, Oxford and Cambridge generally use other measures rather a broad state/private divide to assess an applicants' schooling. If Hills Rd is so overly successful, this will be depicted in a very high average AS score. I wonder though whether on Friday it will be the Principal of that school or Tiffin Girls School celebrating the best AL results??



To (iv) I assume nothing, but think that Oxbridge dons ultimately need to sort the wheat from the chaff regarding high scoring applicants. I think many people with 10a* would get it regardless of school attended, but I also think many wouldn't if they had larger classes etc. etc. I have never ever said that a comp student with BBC could get AAA in a private school, because I don't think it is true.

It is to point 5 that I begin to start laughing uncontrollably. Here you are seemingly hope to place your achievements in a greater context because of all the tragedies that you have suffered despite the fact that you earlier called for blind admissions. Which way do you want it Toni- blind or just blinded to your flaws, and only pertaining to your strengths???? The assumptions made about divorce etc. are very subjective and completely off the mark- divorce is at a much lower rate amongst the higher social and economic groups, who compose the largest proportion of people sending their children to private school. The 'long working hours' is just an appalling thing to claim in today's world.



Unrealised potential is assessed at interview. Do you not think when you meet someone you can gauge their intelligence? All state comps aren't treated equally. I turn it back to you, why are so many people continuing to go to these bad private schools?



The percentage of working class students has gone down drastically since the 11-plus was scrapped. At its peak, 84% of Oxford students went to state schools, and TMK the proportion of working class students was around 23%. Although obviously what we define as working class is important, as there are far fewer working class households now as there were 30 years ago. At 35k p.a. you might come from a working class background (I come from a working class background but my parents have levitated to middle, and I'm not proud or ashamed).

I hope nobody thinks I'm belittling A-levels - they're just different is all. The main issue is self-teaching and lack of study materials, I reckon the difference in difficulty is minimal or non-existent.

Good luck with results everyone!!!

Hi,
I went to a private school - not a very good one - because I won a scholarship and I needed to board for (serious) family (medical) reasons. I got all A* at GCSE and AAAAA at A-level last year. I applied to Cambridge, LSE, Durham, etc and got none!
The Cambridge admissions people were very nice. I was told, almost one year later when the admission tutor visited the hospital I work in, that I had done well at interview, but their quota for private schools was "over-filled". Can this be fair? My total family income is less than £35k p.a. and we struggle to keep me in private education. My folks haven't had a hol in 5 years, don't drink or smoke, and we have sold our car to reduce our weekly spend.
Please can we have some fair recognition that not all private school students are useless toffs. Why do we not have anonymous, needs-blind admissions?

I have applied again this year; here's hoping.

toni

Why the hell go for a rubbish private school?... why not just go to a GOOF grammar school, best of both worlds, you are still classified as a state school student

I hope nobody thinks I'm belittling A-levels - they're just different is all. The main issue is self-teaching and lack of study materials, I reckon the difference in difficulty is minimal or non-existent.

Good luck with results everyone!!!

Why the hell go for a rubbish private school?... why not just go to a GOOF grammar school, best of both worlds, you are still classified as a state school student

Where has it been assumed on there thread that (i) is the case? I have merely asserted that someone who achieves AAA from a failing school is probably superior to someone with the same grades from a far superior school.

Yes. That's what I don't agree with. And I don't agree with how you are defining 'superior' school. That's the point.

Personally I feel that in todays day and age AAA from any school is achievable, due to wider availability of learning resources etc, slimmer exam specification.

Agree.

If (ii) is the case, how do you explain the fact that it can be statistically proven how significant a factor teaching is?

Sadly, this has not been proven. It is not known how significant teaching is.

Furtehrmore, doing well is not just about teaching standards but about a host of resources, such as library provision, computer facilities. Furthermore, how do you explain the dire pass rate for Chemistry A Level by night class, which can be explained by a lack of individual attention in class to enable students to digest information.

May be the quality of the student, or their ages or their personal situation or the fact that they are most likely to have missed out on earlier schooling opportunities. Or many many other possible causes unrelated to the quality of evenin-class teachers.




Your superlative overuse is repulsive. They might be the best, but they certainly aren't the 'most highly paid'!

Oh, come off it! I meant the best teachers Hills Rd could hire, not the best in the universe. By the way, they ARE paid more (AST and perf / threshold payments) and increased chances of promotion to HoD etc etc etc.

As explained countless times, Oxford and Cambridge generally use other measures rather a broad state/private divide to assess an applicants' schooling. If Hills Rd is so overly successful, this will be depicted in a very high average AS score. I wonder though whether on Friday it will be the Principal of that school or Tiffin Girls School celebrating the best AL results??

Agree. Thanks for this reminder.

To (iv) I assume nothing, but think that Oxbridge dons ultimately need to sort the wheat from the chaff regarding high scoring applicants. I think many people with 10a* would get it regardless of school attended, but I also think many wouldn't if they had larger classes etc. etc. I have never ever said that a comp student with BBC could get AAA in a private school, because I don't think it is true.

Agree. Although the largest classes in England & Wales are in the 'poor private schools where the Teachers' Trade unions have been disempowered. Admittedly, the top private schools have smaller classes that poor comps.

It is to point 5 that I begin to start laughing uncontrollably. Here you are seemingly hope to place your achievements in a greater context because of all the tragedies that you have suffered despite the fact that you earlier called for blind admissions. Which way do you want it Toni- blind or just blinded to your flaws, and only pertaining to your strengths????

Don't know what you refer to, but I want a school- and needs-blind meritocratic admission system. I have no hardship which relates or was related to my university admissions application. I have no 'context' for my achievements, though they hardly warrant being called that, and I don't want to be contextualised. But I'm glad I've amused you.

The assumptions made about divorce etc. are very subjective and completely off the mark- divorce is at a much lower rate amongst the higher social and economic groups, who compose the largest proportion of people sending their children to private school. The 'long working hours' is just an appalling thing to claim in today's world.

I'm not claiming anything for myself about long working hours or divorce. I have no personal experience of any of this. The point was that kids at private school suffer 'distractions' to (what you and others perceive as) their idyllic lives. P.S. Highest marital breakdown is among high earning professional women.

Unrealised potential is assessed at interview. Do you not think when you meet someone you can gauge their intelligence? All state comps aren't treated equally. I turn it back to you, why are so many people continuing to go to these bad private schools?

See my later point about interviews ratrher than tweaking school results. p.s. I think there are many types of intelligence and I wouldn't presume to judge someone's intell from 30mins chat (or naff postings on a web site).
People continue to use crap private schools for variety of reasons, incl. lack of experiential knowledge, convenience, 'familial precedence', and for the same reason that punters still fly BA or bank with Nat West. doh!

The percentage of working class students has gone down drastically since the 11-plus was scrapped. At its peak, 84% of Oxford students went to state schools, and TMK the proportion of working class students was around 23%. Although obviously what we define as working class is important, as there are far fewer working class households now as there were 30 years ago. At 35k p.a. you might come from a working class background (I come from a working class background but my parents have levitated to middle, and I'm not proud or ashamed).

Regarding the infamous Chemistry night class v. day class, the samples were GCSE matched across the board and in science/chemistry and maths (the only subjects which correlate with success at AL Chem). This is often used as proof of the need for smaller Chemistry classes, as the results were most marked in Chemistry at all grade intervals. (Interestingly, in Physics and Maths the effect was amongst the lowest).

I agree there, as apart from Scholar there is very little material atall and basically nothing for revision (I went through all of Scholar again, which took weeks). I would say the A-level system is certainly easier - as here it's still pretty much down to a one or two papers at the end of the year. There are unit assesments, but these count for nothing towards your grade.

As for difficulty, having looked at A-level material to see if it was any use for revision, and from talking to others on here, I would say in the subjects I sat AH seems to be the harder of the two. AH maths for example contains a considerable amount of the A level futher maths syllabus (complex numbers, differential equations etc) but is only a single subject here. I think the reason is probably that Higher is a "proper" standalone qualification unlike AS, and covers more in the first year (and is worth more with UCAS), which leaves more room to go into greater depth in the second.

Somebody on here actually sat two AH's and did A-level physics, and said they found the A-level far easier. I forget who, I think it was in the results thread or something.