Are most prestigious universities full of privately schooled kids?

not quite "full" but a very major segment come from UK private schools, international schools and foreign private schools. although you could say the vast majority of people are at least middle class/upper middle class (and probably went to grammar school or comprehensives in wealthy areas) even if they didn't go to private school.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 63

Original post by Anonymous

Truth be told there are almost no "normal" people at the good ones. I only go to a mid Russell and I'd say it's 20% genuinely normal max. Although I've never been round them I'd guess oxbridge and the top london ones are about 10% "normal". You've got to remember when people say XXXXX has only YYYY percent private schooled, the rest are just like you this just isn't true. Most the rest are grammar schooled or went to "top" state schools (both these have way more in common with private schools than average state) or internationals (mostly loaded).

I never fitted in at mine but I think it's really important to mention no one ever looked down on me the whole time and it shouldn't put you off, you'll have friends and you're there to work.

correctomundo.

very few average/working class/lower middle class people from average/working class/lower middle class backgrounds at top unis or in top jobs unfortunately.

it's almost to the point where working class/lower middle class white boys are basically a vastly underrepresented minority

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 64

SabinaOforii

1

Original post by ageshallnot

Call me a suspicious old b'stard if you like but I've been around long enough to have seen a lot of people go Anon and then post threads on topics that they know will cause an argument. In this case the OP could have dug out the statistics on the number of state v private students but they didn't. The OP has now given their reasons for being Anon, which I think are weak (hence my exhortation to have some confidence) but at least aren't nefarious. What's your excuse?

Okay, you're a "suspicious old b'stard". Happy now? The OP just wanted a question answered, probably from people who actually go to these schools, to ask about the atmosphere, which may very well have been the reason they didn't dig out stats. It's because of people like you who enjoy shooting down others who ask innocent questions (hence why they have a lack of "confidence") that users feel the need to go anon. Have a nice day. :smile:

Reply 65

Original post by Doones

A stereotype that stopped being relevant years ago.

POLAR3Q1 are increasingly applying to "prestigious" universities and increasingly more successful at gaining places there. Private-schooled students *are* the minority at all universities.

Perpetuating a stereotype "that prestigious universities (are) full of privately schooled kids" isn't helpful.

Again, not my point. I am finding the rhetoric frustrating, especially the use of "big" words disguising a pretty crappy point. "Perpetuating a stereotype "that prestigious universities (are) full of privately schooled kids" isn't helpful." Well it isn't exactly UNhelpful. That said, I am not pushing a stereotype, I am pointing out why it exists, and it does. Wealthy children have an advantage. I really don't understand why that is difficult to understand. They have the advantage. They may not be in the majority due to the fact that wealthy people as a demographic are slightly in the minority as opposed to the middle and working class. I would assume that the upper-middle class would largely dominate top-tier schools due to the nature of their demographic and their comfy position. But the stereotype remains on the wealthy class. They dominated the top-tier universities for centuries, therefore the stereotype continues. It may not be true. But it's there. And that's why.

Reply 66

Original post by Notoriety

I think middle class is not "abnormal" personally.

i got super curious about this and it turns out actual middle middle class/upper middle class/elite families are only like ~30-40% of a developed nation's population.. the vast majority of people (aka normal people) are working class/lower middle class.

Reply 67

SimonAB1

10

Original post by Oxford Mum

Because it promotes harmful stereotypes. In reality there are a mix of private school and state school pupils at many top tier and Oxbridge universities. Saying that these institutions are full of privately schooled people would put state school pupils off applying, also 64% of students at Oxford are state educated. The thread title is clearly inaccurate.

The title is not inaccurate. If 64% are state educated that means over a third are not and only about 7% are privately educated in the UK. If you ask me, there's a clear discrepancy so this thread's title is entirely accurate. What's more, in the past it used to be about 50% were privately educated in Oxbridge but thankfully that is changing.

Reply 68

Original post by Moments

There's a reason rich students are rich in the first place and it's because their parents had an aspirational mentality themselves. They often impart this onto their own kids which fuels the cycle.

In my personal opinion, I've worked with too many state school educated genius' to think financial status gives any direct advantage to educational attainment in this country.

I disagree with the way uni's are taking the "disadvantaged" angle these days, if just ONE person from a low-income family in a crap school can get A*A*A*A* and make it to oxbridge, then the rest can too.

Ok, there is such thing as inheritance. A lot of wealthy families can trace their wealth back many lines. It's quite unlikely that a top-tier university student's parent is a top-tier university graduate.

Financial status gives a many direct advantages: Can afford extra books, healthier lifestyle, extra-tutors, holiday courses, the advice of a usually stable and together family (which disadvantaged students usually do not have), lack of crime near their home, can afford better education i.e. much better schools, for example, Eton.

The problem here with your final paragraph kind of cements the problem I feel you Brits have. You still retain the class divide and clearly have no problem with it. It sounds like most people here haven't even encountered any disadvantaged people and don't seem to understand how life works in the lower classes. I may be wrong but that's the impression I'm getting.

Reply 69

Original post by Anonymous

Really prestigious unis are all about what grades you get & being privately educated does not equal better grades

Not directly, I know. I'm not stupid. You should be able to interpret my argument without assuming I have a mental disability. A fee-paying school will offer you a better education with more academic support, leading to better grades. If you take the average grades from Eton, and compare them with the avergae grades of a random Essex non-fee-paying school in a disadvantaged area, I can guarantee there will be a difference. It exists for a reason.

Reply 70

Notoriety

22

Original post by Princepieman

i got super curious about this and it turns out actual middle middle class/upper middle class/elite families are only like ~30-40% of a developed nation's population.. the vast majority of people (aka normal people) are working class/lower middle class.

In the UK, around 45% are either working class or underclass and 51% are middle-middle or lower-middle with only 4% in the upper-middle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade

I think most people at mid-RGs tend to be lower- to middle-middle class. They form the majority of the UK population and are thus not "not-normal" (use this phrase as "abnormal" seems to put some noses out of joint).

I think what we think is "normal" is relative to our own position. To live in a rental is normal if you live in a rental and everyone you know does -- but in fact you'd be in a minority of 30%. People tend to think that they are not wealthy, too; "humble lower-middle though Dad earns 140k".

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 71

Anonymous #5

Original post by Answers212121

Having to repeat myself for the third time can be frustrating. Please let this be the last time I have to say this. Regardless of your opinion or the statistics (which indicate nothing as far as my point goes), students who are wealthy/rich are at a heavy advantage over those who are poor. I really don't see why that is difficult to understand?

Just because somebody is wealthy, they are not guaranteed a place at a top uni. Yes, a good education may help, but ultimately it is about hard work and intellect. Wealth cannot made somebody intelligent.

Reply 72

Original post by Notoriety

In the UK, around 45% are either working class or underclass and 51% are middle-middle or lower-middle with only 4% in the upper-middle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade

I think most people at mid-RGs tend to be lower- to middle-middle class. They form the majority of the UK population and are thus not "not-normal" (use this phrase as "abnormal" seems to put some noses out of joint).

I think what we think is "normal" is relative to our own position. To live in a rental is normal if you live in a rental and everyone you know does -- but in fact you'd be in a minority of 30%. People tend to think that they are not wealthy, too; "humble lower-middle though Dad earns 140k".

i mean, lower middle class has way more in common with working class than middle middle class or upper middle class.

so it still pretty much holds that ~30-40% of families are middle middle or above (i already saw that breakdown and knew you would link to it btw).

Reply 73

Anonymous #6

Original post by Answers212121

Not directly, I know. I'm not stupid. You should be able to interpret my argument without assuming I have a mental disability. A fee-paying school will offer you a better education with more academic support, leading to better grades. If you take the average grades from Eton, and compare them with the avergae grades of a random Essex non-fee-paying school in a disadvantaged area, I can guarantee there will be a difference. It exists for a reason.

Oh god maybe you are... thought u would have been able to interpret my answer: good unis are grade focussed, private schooling does not equal good grades, AKA no, top tier unis will not be filled with privately educated kids...

Reply 74

SimonAB1

10

Original post by Anonymous

Oh god maybe you are... thought u would have been able to interpret my answer: good unis are grade focussed, private schooling does not equal good grades, AKA no, top tier unis will not be filled with privately educated kids...

Yet they are.

Be as theoretical as you like, there is no refuting the fact that these top unis are absolutely filled with private school children. That isn't a bad thing but they should be meritocratic so we can conclude one of the 2 things:
A. That unis prefer taking students who can pay because of the networking privately educated students have access to.
B. That privately educated students receive better education resulting in their domination of universities proportional to them

Reply 75

Original post by Anonymous

Just because somebody is wealthy, they are not guaranteed a place at a top uni. Yes, a good education may help, but ultimately it is about hard work and intellect. Wealth cannot made somebody intelligent.

Yes. That's my point? I never said it guarantees a place in uni. I don't want to come across as an ******* but I feel like I'm talking to children here. Being wealthy offers you a lot of advantages over a student living in a council apartment block. That's just a fact.

Reply 76

Original post by Anonymous

Oh god maybe you are... thought u would have been able to interpret my answer: good unis are grade focussed, private schooling does not equal good grades, AKA no, top tier unis will not be filled with privately educated kids...

God has a capital "G". Begin sentences with capital letters too. U is spelled "you". "Focussed" is spelled "focused", AKA means "also known as", therefore it is completely out of place in your oblivious and erratic answer. So I think the dumbass in the room has been established, and it isn't me, so the "Oh god maybe you are" part of you comment has just been proven wrong.

To the point, private schooling offers an advantage. You need to read what I am saying word for word. It offers an advantage. A heavy advantage.

Reply 77

Oxford Mum

Original post by Doones

How many people went to university at all 100 years ago? Answer, not many - about 9,000 awarded a degree in 1920 vs over 300,000 now. What happened 100 years really isn't very relevant these days.

Yes, there is still work to do to improve university progression rates for the less advantaged groups in society but it has been steadily, and significantly, improving over time. POLAR3 Quintile 1 are the least advantaged on this chart:
Screenshot 2019-08-21 at 13.24.27.jpg

And you can see the improving acceptance rates for the least advantaged at the higher tier universities.
Screenshot 2019-08-21 at 13.25.14.jpg

Source: UCAS https://www.ucas.com/file/197261/download?token=yGrM_eUZ

PRSOM - I can always rely on some interesting spreadsheets from you, Doones. You can never argue with statistics.

Reply 78

Oxford Mum

Original post by Answers212121

God has a capital "G". Begin sentences with capital letters too. U is spelled "you". "Focussed" is spelled "focused", AKA means "also known as", therefore it is completely out of place in your oblivious and erratic answer. So I think the dumbass in the room has been established, and it isn't me, so the "Oh god maybe you are" part of you comment has just been proven wrong.

To the point, private schooling offers an advantage. You need to read what I am saying word for word. It offers an advantage. A heavy advantage.

Oh dear.

Reply 79

Oxford Mum