[Closed] uni admissions criteria-- background not taken into account

Good. Should be on merit only.

Most universities do apply some kind of 'contextual factors' to applications. They are mostly quite open about it - eg. our ones are listed here: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ugstudy/applying/ourpolicies.aspx

Not involved admissions myself, but a funny thing there about 'honing their personal statements' - I've met people in very competitive, high profile departments who said that they pretty much don't consider personal statements at all, considering them to essentially cause a bias for heavily coached private school pupils. They get so many candidates applying vs the number of places that other than taking account of any contextual factors, they pretty much go on the grades.

Same with candidate interviews, most universities dumped interviews a few years back for similar reasons; I understand at LSE they studied students who had been interviewed and compared with non-interviewed students and found they actually got better students in the end by not interviewing. I've done an Oxbridge interview, and frankly it is a silly and unnerving experience for someone coming from a state school - whereas if you'd gone to a fancy boarding school, it'd just be another trip to a fancy old building with names painted on boards outside the doors.

shouldnt matter..

results and personality/extra curriculars. MEans test their familys ability to support by all means but just because they grew up in a family whos parents didnt go to uni and earn minimum wage shouldnt give them any more right to go to uni than bob whos parents earn 2000000 a year but has the same grades.

Some people go through hell to go to uni, i dont under stand why we would treat anyone any different when it comes to entries - doesnt strike me as fair , where there is a will there is a way.

Good. Should be on merit only.

So you think that someone who has looked after a sick parent for the last 5 years, managed to get decent A levels despite a terrible state school education and being so poor that they had to work throughout their a-levels is seriously not going to be cleverer / more worthy of 'merit' than someone with the same A level results who went to Eton, had plenty of time, and had private coaching throughout the holidays? Seriously?

If universities had any balls, they'd actively and openly profile schools and be clear that they require higher grades from schools where pupils are likely to have had an easier ride. As it is, they are scared of the outcry from the private schools, so private school pupils still have a massive advantage in admissions to the top universities, despite evidence that once they get there, the state school pupils do better which makes it pretty clear how poor our current systems are at identifying actual merit.

I think university SHOULD be a meritocracy but that means no old-boy network just as much as it means no quotas for segments of society that need filling either.

More than three quarters (78%) of admissions tutors said they did not look at data on whether applicants' parents had been to university and only about a third (35%) considered that "evidence of success through a difficult start or background" was important.

"Most" do not apparently Joe.
I do not understand how people can equate exam performance with merit in such a direct manner as Joe has explained.

just as much as it means no quotas for segments of society that need filling either.

or shouldnt the uni's be trying a little harder to actually get the brightest pupils?

More than three quarters (78%) of admissions tutors said they did not look at data on whether applicants' parents had been to university and only about a third (35%) considered that "evidence of success through a difficult start or background" was important.

results and personality/extra curriculars

Results are inflated for rich kids by spending large amounts of money private schooling. So pretty obviously two kids with the same results from different backgrounds will be differently clever. This is borne out by the evidence on how much better state school kids with the same results do once they get to the university.

Extra curricular activities = inflated for rich kids by spending large amounts of money on private schooling or out of school activities, and on their parents arranging internships with members of their personal network. Poor kids don't have the same opportunities. No real reason other than snobbery to look at them all that much.

Personality = Code-word for similar background to the interviewer / from 'the right' background. We're hopefully past the days of people not being allowed into Oxbridge because they weren't 'clubbable'*, but realistically however hard we try, we're all biased to like people who are most like us more.

In true STW style, I've not read the article.... but I was sat on an advisory panel for an engineering dept. at Russell group University the other day and was told that extra curricular activities can count as part of the candidates UCAS points - e.g grade whatever piano is equiv to X UCAS points and can be included as part of the students total. This means that the University can make points offers much higher than could be achieved from exam grades alone and they use these extra curricular points as a first-cut guide to the student much more than the personal statements. Not saying it's right/wrong, but they are oversubscribed by ~20:1....

So they looked at the candidate in front of them, well done at resisting social engineering

so they took a simplistic easy option and gave a place to the less bright kid and so reinforced social immobility

if it was a degree in looking after a sick parent then yes i can see how it can be applied to an application for a degree.....

"Most" do not apparently Joe.

I believe that many essentially just apply a particular fixed and very narrow set of criteria (e.g. Coming from particular high poverty postcodes or schools), or things like being a parent, easily measurable so that they catch the very worst of the worst circumstances, but don't apply anything else.

strangly

someone who has looked after a sick parent for the last 5 years, managed to get decent A levels

Some people go through hell to go to uni, i dont under stand why we would treat anyone any different when it comes to entries - doesnt strike me as fair , where there is a will there is a way

Ah great so we can all go to eton then and get the advantage that that conveys?

Surely you should get better grades from a better place to be considered the same

It is like giving someone a 40 lb bike and someone else a 25 lb bike and claiming the race is fair and the fastest ruder is the best

think university SHOULD be a meritocracy

the point is it is probably* harder to be on free school meals and come from a council estate and go to a bog standard comp and get A's than it is to be the child of a millionaire who sends you to the best education money can by. Perhaps in this scenrio C's a re as good or better than an a from eton?? who knows

* there is no probably

if it was a degree in looking after a sick parent then yes i can see how it can be applied to an application for a degree..

What a silly comment. Is it not obvious that it is harder to get a particular A level grade if you have half the time free than someone else, have to miss school for medical appointments etc. Thus meaning that someone who manages to get that grade whilst in those circumstances is going to be a lot brighter than someone who isn't?

It never ceases to amaze me how far from my views other peoples views are. Anyway thanks for posting I have finished faculty dt now and am off home. (I know I know I should stop being naughty).

I've done an Oxbridge interview, and frankly it is a silly and unnerving experience for someone coming from a state school - whereas if you'd gone to a fancy boarding school, it'd just be another trip to a fancy old building with names painted on boards outside the doors.

I'm from a bog standard comp, not the worst, not the best.

We (state schoopl kids seemed to get put together on one day) got absolutely hammered the night before in the pub, got through the exam at 8:30 the next morning, the interviews through the rest of the day were no better/worse than any I've gone to for a real job (actualy far closer to real interviews than other Uni's were). Then put the wind up the eaton, abingdon, repton candidates (who really were a charicature of themselves) by heading back out to the pub straight after dinner.

Got an offer, but went to Sheffield instead.

What a silly comment. Is it not obvious that it is harder to get a particular A level grade if you have half the time free than someone else, have to miss school for medical appointments etc. Thus meaning that someone who manages to get that grade whilst in those circumstances is going to be a lot brighter than someone who isn't?

Should the admissions tutor give the place to the kid with 4 A's who couldn't possibly have done any more, or the kid with 4 B's and a sob story? How do you justify that to the first kid, sory your parents aren't sick enough?

Personal background:

Parents never went to Uni (Dad a mechanic and Mum a housewife / admin)

Left school at 15 with no qualifications due to years of bullying
Got a some O levels after going to a FE college for a year
Started A levels but significant health problem meant missing almost all of the first year
Had to complete 3 A levels in one year

Achieved top grades due to hard bl**dy work and determination. Offered place at top Uni based purely on grades.

Would I have wanted 'poor' or 'difficult' background to be taken into account - No. I got my place based on merit, equal to everyone else. There are so many other things that young people's grades might be affected by, regardless of income or background (for example school bullying), you can't account for everything.

Okay. If you allow/force universities to round up the grades of pupils from crap schools, what's the incentive to make the schools less crap?

Remember, these are the same schools that kids who aren't headed for university tend to leave still functionally illiterate.

I do love a good "I did it despite this that and tbe other so everyone else should" post top work well done.

Should the admissions tutor give the place to the kid with 4 A's who couldn't possibly have done any more, or the kid with 4 B's and a sob story? How do you justify that to the first kid, sory your parents aren't sick enough?

you say the evidence shows that the other guy will probably do better so thanks but no thanks.

Do you believe that exams results from school are a completely objective assessment of someones intelligence and ability to learn?

Should the admissions tutor give the place to the kid with 4 A's who couldn't possibly have done any more, or the kid with 4 B's and a sob story

Sob story :rolls eyes: it is obvious you don't want an answer to your loaded question

Would I have wanted 'poor' or 'difficult' background to be taken into account - No. I got my place based on merit, equal to everyone else.

There are so many other things that young people's grades might be affected by, regardless of income or background (for example school bullying), you can't account for everything.

Okay. If you allow/force universities to round up the grades of pupils from crap schools, what's the incentive to make the schools less crap?

Remember, these are the same schools that kids who aren't headed for university tend to leave still functionally illiterate.

Okay. If you allow/force universities to round up the grades of pupils from crap schools, what's the incentive to make the schools less crap?
Remember, these are the same schools that kids who aren't headed for university tend to leave still functionally illiterate.

very little of the judgement of schools is based on such things and it could also be part of the answer could it not?

Would I have wanted 'poor' or 'difficult' background to be taken into account - No. I got my place based on merit, equal to everyone else. There are so many other things that young people's grades might be affected by, regardless of income or background (for example school bullying), you can't account for everything.

The harder part of the question is in the detail of how you weight these factors. Currently we're only talking the difference of 1 grade or so - so 4Bs can never become 4As, but an offer of AAB might become an offer of ABB.
We interview all of our applicants (not in a selection sense, it's more of a sales pitch). The difference in educational background can be absolutely vast, it's really striking. I interviewed a lad boarding at Stowe back to back with someone from a poor inner-London comp earlier this year. An offer of AAB versus ABB doesn't begin to bridge the gap between the quality of education they have received. Likewise, if they were to both get AAB then the difference in potential between the two will be similarly massive.

My post was not a "I did it so everyone else should', it was to broaden the debate to consider:

- not everyone with a 'difficult' background would necessarily want it to be 'taken into account'

- that factors other than parental education or family background can have a greater impact on academic performance - in my case the issue that had the greatest effect on my education was bullying - something which transcends social demographics

Ah, the good old bell curve, I've read a book about that. A great way to justify to yourself different treatment based on the prejudice du jour.

I have no hairs, slightly overweight, not rich, come from developing country, nearly rob a bank or sold my body to fund my education but deep down I am really eager to join the top unis ... my A levels result is so so but I know I can make it ... Clarks shoes are popular where I come from.

My background dictates that I do not come from privilege environment but I know I am a cleaver boy/girl ... does that mean the top uni should offer me lower entrance grades to join them because of that?

Oh ya ... I is not white and a non-Eu ...

If you do not give me a lower offer you are discriminating ...

🙄

Ah, the good old bell curve, I've read a book about that. A great way to justify to yourself different treatment based on the prejudice du jour.

care to expand on this so we can get some idea of what your trying to say?

Same for the post above but with bells on!

anagallis_arvensis - Member

Same for the post above but with bells on!

[b]Only A level results (or those with similar standard) should be taken into consideration the rest irrelevant.[/b]

The rest of the information is irrelevant really even if you are half dead or dying. If you are dying then perhaps on compassionate ground offer you a place ...

🙄

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve[/url]

This book came out in the mid nineties, looking at which social groups tended to appear in the tails of the distribution, how that might be predicted, and what, if anything, ought to be done about it. Caused a bit of a tiz, not a great read, either.

Difficult one this, I'd certainly argue that with a state education system that is supposed to set strong levels of attainment that contextual data being used for entry to university would be pointless?

With the angry but excellent teaching crew on here I'm amazed it's an issue...

Seriously though grades, aptitude tests and personal statement should really be the only means for judging entry, interviews for some programmes (Medicine, Nursing etc...)

A strong candidate will shine through regardless of background, the real problem is teaching young people from a less advantaged background how to game the system and make their application look as good, it's not difficult, but it takes time, from parents, teachers and universities to do this.

As well as strong grades, good written English, a passion for the course subject and a positive attitude to study are key to landing a place, suggests a poll of admissions officers.

As a list of primary criteria, this sounds pretty sensible to me.

The government wants institutions to broaden access to higher education to include more, poorer students.

The place to achieve this is in secondary education not in tertiary education. This argument is treating the symptom not the cause.

Of course, candidates at independent schools have access to some benefits. But equally they have some disadvantages - schools are much less likely to spoon feed, exam boards will be chosen that are more difficult (eg Pre U, IB) etc. These may pale into insignificance versus the real challenges that some face, but the idea that people simply walk into top Unis without doing any work simply because of their school is ridiculous. Looking at the hours that students put into preparing for exams themselves, I can vouch for that.

So a state school should be able to provide the same education and support as one that charges per pupil more than I earn? Thats not going to happen. You really believe that some fee paying schools didadvantage the kids?

schools are much less likely to spoon feed, exam boards will be chosen that are more difficult (eg Pre U, IB) etc.

They do harder exams if they think it is more likely to get university offers and make it easier to get in. And as for not spoon feeding, the more intensive teaching and support offered by private scools is often said to lead to studnts who are less capable of independent thought when they get to uni - at least that is one of the reasons cited for them doing less well in many university courses.

I'm not saying kids don't work at private schools, just that the level of relevant aptitude required to get onto a university course from a private school is lower than that from a state school - that's just a fact, shows up in the results, nothing to argue about.

Back in a minute gents, I'm just off to get some ketchup for the record breaking chip on joemarshall's shoulder. 😆

One of my ex's worked in admissions for a well known Oxbridge uni.
She wasn't "privileged" and didn't care what background you came from.
If someone was exceptionally bright and managed to get top grades despite looking after all their sick relatives then that would come out during the admissions process.

Could you explain why you think he's got a chip on his shoulder hes just presented a few facts and figures.

joemarshall - Member
They do harder exams if they think it is more likely to get university offers and make it easier to get in.

In my experience, that is DEFINITELY not the case. Hence the conflict with some parents.

And as for not spoon feeding, the more intensive teaching and support offered by private scools is often said to lead to studnts who are less capable of independent thought when they get to uni - at least that is one of the reasons cited for them doing less well in many university courses.

In my experience, that is also not the case at all. A lot of extra-curricula work (extended essays etc) is designed to prepare people for the extra rigours of University study. Many members of staff deliberately choose to spend a great deal of time off-curriculum and deliberately choose books that go well beyond the needs of the chosen exam. I wonder if that helps at all? I would be interested to read the studies suggesting that pupils from independent schools are less capable. If true, then something needs to be done...

I'm not saying kids don't work at private schools, just that the level of relevant aptitude required to get onto a university course from a private school is lower than that from a state school - that's just a fact,

Excuse me for missing that 'fact'. Again would be great to see the research. An ex poster used to go on about how people only got into Eton, Winchester etc due to family connections and money. Went pretty quiet when I posted examples of the entrance exams. Family connections died a death a long time ago in my experience.

edit: from the end of the BBC article: "It is about offering places based on an applicant's abilities and potential to succeed." Again, a sound basis IMO.

Teamhurtmore does your experience extend to state education and whats done there. Extra curricular study is very limited. People must send kids to private schools for some reason. I am totally ignorant of the private school system though.

anagallis_arvensis - Member
You really believe that some fee paying schools didadvantage the kids?

100% yes. That is why it is not "always" the correct choice for a child whatever the ability to pay/parents wishes etc. And within the independent sector there are also major differences in how children are educated and prepared/spoon fed for exams. Hence sweeping generalisations are unlikely to be helpful IMO.

Sweeping generalisations like kids from poorer families do worse in education are useful imo to help try and get the best outcomes for the most people.

Yes, directly (limited) and indirectly much more (brother and SIL, governor and headmistress in state sector) - hence lots of family discussions on these topics. I really dont want to go into the pros and cons here, because these debates tend to get unnecessarily "heated". But my experience is very different to joe's obviously - indeed the whole debate about spoon feeding and subsequent uni success was discussed en famille very recently. It was one of my nephew's friends who was spoon fed through A levels (in a v successful state school) who told us that she found Uni very difficult as she was total unprepared. Now this has no bearing on being a state school per se - that is more likely a coincidence. But more that spoon feeding kids through A levels in whatever school is ultimately counter-productive.

There are very good reasons why people send children to private schools - but those who believe that it will result in spoon feeding and automatic Uni entry are most likely to be very disappointed in their investment (sic).

Edit AA, re earlier post about disadvataging kids, my response was in relation to some kids, not all. Different pupils require different types of schools to bring out the best in them IMO.

People must send kids to private schools for some reason.

I imagine because, as this thread suggests, people think that they offer a better education and ability to get into University. We are talking about positively discriminating in favour of state schools which to me implies that they put their pupils at a disadvantage compared to the private sector.

In answer to the OP, it is a difficult question. It would be nice to think that potential could be assessed and the places given out on a more equal footing. I would be interested in the mechanics of it though. If you went to a state school, how many UCAS points is that worth?

I would guess in reality it could be used to decide split decisions and borderline cases.

FWIW I went to Durham, well known for taking a high number of private school pupils (who failed to get into Oxbridge 😉 ) and after 6 months you probably couldn't pick the state vs privately educated ones based on performance, attitude or anything else. Largely it seemed random.

More time and better resources would enable me to spoonfeed less. I could send them off to research for example. But limited contact time and limited preparation time prevent this. I would love to spend a day or two at some top private schools to find out what they do. It was also noticeable in my previous academic life that ex public school kids had very different attitudes to education. Not always for the better. They seemed weaker but more confident as a sweeping generalisation.
As for heated debate I am avoiding the rugby thread for that reason although very kittle debate happens there just mudslinging. You are at least presenting a considered case.

I think this actually goes well beyond qualifications, granted independent schools with their resources are able to tackle teaching for examinations incredibly well, but that's not the whole story. If anyone cares to take the effort to find it "The Class Ceiling" which was on Radio 4 some time ago by Polly Toynbee makes interesting listening.

What independent schools are particularly good at resourcing is technique for UCAS forms, coaching for interviews and instilling a particular attitude in their pupils.

anagallis_arvensis - Member

Could you explain why you think he's got a chip on his shoulder hes just presented a few facts and figures.

I suggest you re-read his posts, then come back to me if you're still struggling.

Utter rubbish from the BBC as usual.

Check out the points system for university admission and you'll find it includes points for a host of activities poor kids will never get the opportunity to do.

There's clear evidence that a private school pupil with the same A-level grades as a state school pupil will on average achieve a lower degree score. A large part of that is not the better education at the private school but that a state school pupil achieving similar results with similar ability will have greater self-motivation and thus continue to perform well when away from home with all the extra-curricular distractions of university.

Edukator isnt it just the bbc report someones research. Whys it rubbish from them.
Chiefgrooveguru how do you separate the various different factors? How do you know its not the educatkon they recjeve?

Chiefgrooveguru that research is very very limited as you'll find if you look at it...

Oh and for other people who don't know the points system is irrelevant to a good UK institution so your piano exam would only be any good as an illustrator of dealing with workload and flexibility in your personal statement.

Grades not points matter, which is why students with BTEC will often struggle to gain entry to elite academic courses.

It doesn't matter what the factors are - the important point is that university admissions should take into account people's backgrounds because achieving top grades at a rough inner city comp is a greater achievement than doing the same at a school where most of the parents are paying a lot of money to give you a better education. I was in the latter group - scraped a 2.2 at uni because I was enjoying the novelty of no longer being at school six days a week and having to work hard with exams being the main focus from eight to eighteen. Learnt how to play bass well though! 😉

Because the BBC haven't reported critically. Journalists should always report from a critical standpoint.

One of Madame's colleagues has a daughter whom has been offered a points target she is unlikely to attain not because she won't do well in the Bac but because she doesn't have better than grade 4 piano, a gold DOE and the number of GCSE grade "A"s she'd only be likely to get from a British public school. Ignoring the foreign factor how many poor British kids have DOE gold and grade 4 piano?

Bring back Polytechnic ... now you can either join the best Polytechnic or the worst University.

I got into Cambridge having attended a comp which wasn't exactly academically elite - the previous Oxbridge admission before me was 3 years above. Though clearly I was still privileged middle class with my grade 6 trumpet and silver DofE (never bothered to finish gold). Can't say the interview was all that scary - it seemed to test ability to think rather than how much you'd been tutored, at least that was the impression I got and clearly I did OK. The question for those suggesting unis should take account of social background and not do interviews (as they apparently favour private education), how are Oxbridge supposed to select when everybody applying is predicted a full set of As and most get them?

There's clear evidence that a private school pupil with the same A-level grades as a state school pupil will on average achieve a lower degree score. A large part of that is not the better education at the private school but that a state school pupil achieving similar results with similar ability will have greater self-motivation and thus continue to perform well when away from home with all the extra-curricular distractions of university.

Well I did do my best to disprove that theory 😳

Edukator - Member

Utter rubbish from the BBC as usual.

Check out the points system for university admission and you'll find it includes points for a host of activities poor kids will never get the opportunity to do.

Check out how Oxbridge uni's admit students and you'll find the points system is of zero relevence.

chiefgrooveguru - Member
There's clear evidence that a private school pupil with the same A-level grades as a state school pupil will on average achieve a lower degree score. A large part of that is not the better education at the private school but that a state school pupil achieving similar results with similar ability will have greater self-motivation and thus continue to perform well when away from home with all the extra-curricular distractions of university.

Can you link to the clear evidence please? My experience is that self motivation cannot be linked to class or wealth.

Capt +1

Same point with Olympics but that thread ended badly, so didn't want to repeat.

Sutton trust did the long term study a few years back about grades at uni being better for state school educated kids (maybe 2011 - it'll be on their website somewhere).

There have also been various studies run internally at universities which have been reported - Cambridge did one while I was there, Cardiff have recently been in the news, as the observer obtained their private vs state school results study using a freedom of information request.All of them show state school students overachieving in comparison.

I think the Cambridge interview differs per college, for me it was a night in a student room, followed by a grilling from a seriously unfriendly mathematician, then a nice chat (and some quick tests I think) with the computer science guy. Completely solitary experience, I only met two academics and a couple of porters. If it had only been the mathematician, who knows if I'd have gone there.

Oh, and no chip on my shoulder about oxbridge, I had a lovely time there, I just feel strongly as someone who works in academia, that we should be trying to work out how to get the most able students onto our courses, rather than the current system, which clearly favours people with money to spend. If it takes some kind of 'social engineering' like looking beyond pure grades, then so be it

If you want to go to Oxbridge your parents pay for Westminster school or Eton simple as. There's also a good chance you and your cronies will end up running the country too so you can perpetuate the old-school-tie system.

An interview (old-tie system) rather than a points system is even more insidious.

Objective exam-based criteria that only include academic criteria all UK pupils have access to followed by an entry competition based exclusively on the subject applied for is the only way to avoid favouring rich, privileged kids.

Good. Should be on merit only.

I've done two Oxbridge interviews (they correctly identified that I was a high A-level achieving layabout smartarse who would have just clogged up the course for a year before dropping out) and I'm willing to believe that the interviewers didn't care how posh you were or not but gave everyone an equal shake. But if the whole educational system and social context is slanted in favour of certain applicants for the previous 18 years, that's not really such a big impact on outcomes.

There are very good reasons why people send children to private schools - but those who believe that it will result in spoon feeding and automatic Uni entry are most likely to be very disappointed in their investment

Are they? Could you explain your answer with reference to what % of those in private education go to a Russell group university and/or Oxbridge. In light of what % of the education system is made up of private and what % of the state what would you say this shows?
I think even a cursory glance will show you they will be very pleased with their investment...tbh if they were not do you think they would bother? Do you think the schools make a point of stating their success in University admissions in their marketing blurb?

I'm willing to believe that the interviewers didn't care how posh you were

Another possibility is a quota system: the number of places for privately educated pupils being the exact percentage of privately educated pupils in the country.

The question for those suggesting unis should take account of social background and not do interviews (as they apparently favour private education), how are Oxbridge supposed to select when everybody applying is predicted a full set of As and most get them?

Most of you a being a bit binary about this; private school = rich / privileged, comp = poor? What a narrow view.

I wasn't born with a silver spoon, went to an average comp, and didn't make it to Uni. However, against all my political beliefs I have taken my own boys out of the state system which was failing them, and spent my whole life savings on sending them private. They have had great results, but they weren't given them on a plate. They have had to work significantly harder and longer than they did before, with more discipline and much more pressure. Now I have to see their achievements downgraded to level the playing field with kids who are not as capable and / or did not work as hard?

The fact that some of you are missing is how hard the entrance exam to the school was - it's not just about your cheque book. They take bright kids and teach them well and they achieve great exam results. That is not co-incidence, and to suggest that they only achieved because they had time and money is complete rubbish.

The real issue here is that this quality of education is not available in the comp system, and my view is that it should be. I can kind of understand why they did away with grammar schools, etc., but the comp system just seems to try to get everyone to the medium level of achievement whether you are academically gifted or challenged. Wouldn't it be great if everyone in society was capable of the same level of academic achievement? How fair and equitable. But who would do the rocket science and who would do the plumbing once they were in the workplace? If you happen to be "medium" academically, lucky you, but you are a minority in society and everyone else needs educating too.

Teachers on here are not going to like this, but my experience of today's comps is badly managed, inefficient, indisciplined, institutions held back from modernisation by political correctness and out-dated trade unions, that don't properly prepare kids for uni or for work. It really wouldn't be hard to get the system fit for purpose, and then there would be no place for the private sector. Instead it is booming in spite of a recession. Never wondered why that is?

Lights blue touch paper and retires.

"but my experience of today's comps is badly managed, inefficient, indisciplined, institutions held back from modernisation"

ill be surprised if any teachers disagree with you .....

It really wouldn't be hard to get the system fit for purpose, and then there would be no place for the private sector.

go on them?
also could you let me know how much is spent per pupil in state and the average private school.
if you hadn't had significant life savings would it be fair the your kids didn't do so well?

The fact that some of you are missing is how hard the entrance exam to the school was - it's not just about your cheque book.

Well I shared a flat in the first year at uni with a lad who'd had the most expensive private education money could buy. He was one of the most profoundly stupid individuals I've ever met in my entire life. He was so dense, he generated his own gravitational field.

He's probably a government minister now

[img] [/img]

and spent my whole life savings on sending them private.

If you have/had enough savings to pay for private education you fall into a common definition of rich "Some people would define rich as having more money than you "need" to live".

I've never wondered why, I know, been there seen that. 30+ in a class, a lack of resources and zero disciplinary back up are my first three.

They have had to work significantly harder and longer than they did before, with more discipline and much more pressure.

That's my point. And once you go to university, does that pressure and discipline continue or was it from external sources such as the private school environment and the knowledge that your parents were spending so much to give you a better education?

Then again, kids have to pay for university now (I was just pre-fees) so maybe that changes the mindset?

Well I shared a flat in the first year at uni with a lad who'd had the most expensive private education money could buy. He was one of the most profoundly stupid individuals I've ever met in my entire life. He was so dense, he generated his own gravitational field.

One of my worries was how many of the dim kids at my private school were the children of doctors and how many then went on to study medicine...

I've never considered myself rich, privileged or gifted, but I've worked hard for nearly 30 years and saved hard so I kind of think what I spend my money on is up to me, but my point is that this quality of education should be available from the state and it isn't.

I wasn't born with a silver spoon, went to an average comp, and didn't make it to Uni. However, against all my political beliefs I have taken my own boys out of the state system which was failing them, and spent my whole life savings on sending them private. They have had great results, but they weren't given them on a plate. They have had to work significantly harder and longer than they did before, with more discipline and much more pressure. Now I have to see their achievements downgraded to level the playing field with kids who are not as capable and / or did not work as hard?

ETA The quality of education certainly is available from the state, you just needed to have spent your savings moving to a new house. Oldest trick in the middle class play book that.

I think private education is great - imagine how bad state education would be if it had to handle all the private school pupils too on the same budget! The sport and other facilities are in another league too. However I'm seriously worried that the cost of university level education is completely killing social mobility.

There's some lunatic belief in government (and has been since the '90s) that almost everyone needs to go to university which is completely missing the point of high academia - and has driven the universities to have to charge fees, so eventually we'll go from a situation where the clever kids from fairly wide backgrounds go to university to a situation where the family's financials decide who goes.

"There's some lunatic belief in government (and has been since the '90s) that almost everyone needs to go to university which is completely missing the point of high academia - and has driven the universities to have to charge fees, so eventually we'll go from a situation where the clever kids from fairly wide backgrounds go to university to a situation where the family's financials decide who goes. "

its not just government - have you tried getting a job without a degree OR OOODLEs of experiance in the job ?

its going the way now that as a youngster to get a job you need a degree or a trade. There just doesnt seem to be the entry level posts that you can work through like there used to be - its all temps , and gone are the days when you can start as the cleaner and work up .... the cleaners are all outsourced for peanuts.

i do think that if id had to pay my fees i wouldnt have gone to uni.... as it was i came out the otherside with a mech eng degree and it got me a good job - it took less hard work i believe than those doing apprenticeships.... just finding an apprenticeship in this day and age is a nightmare , very few companys want to afford to invest(money and time) in people and would rather poach skilled staff from other companies - its a never ending cycle that one.

Interesting thread and viewpoints.

I believe the universities don't have the tools or environment to correctly manage admissions. Firstly they are poorly funded which means they are pressured into admitting foreign students who pay higher fees at the expense of uk students. Secondly the exam system has been dumbed down to the level where differentiating students is very hard.

Popular universities discriminate against private school kids for some courses, its a discrace and devalues the system. The issue with education is insufficient resources in the state sector, I'd love to have sent my kids to state school (they did their a levels at state school) but the rescources and standards were not as high. I went to state school and went to a good Uni and a postgrad at Oxford, it's not about the background it should be purely about standards.

The fact that some of you are missing is how hard the entrance exam to the school was - it's not just about your cheque book.

Really? You took the same exam did you?

"Universities should consider where a student went to school, their parents' occupation and whether either parent went to university."

Wait, so we should be [i]increasing[/i] the impact a parent's choices have upon their child? To all the people reading this at work who spend their time solving complex problems, go home! It turns out that to solve a very complex problem with no single cause, which no one can model, predict or accurately measure, we simply have to apply a very crude action across the board in the direction we've assumed is the opposite!

(35%) considered that "[b]evidence of success through a difficult start or background[/b]" was important.

Really? You took the same exam did you?

PMSL at Jambalya...

Yes there's increasing numbers of overseas students, elite institution should have a large percentage of students from overseas as they're global educators, their global reputation exists on pursuing, and recruiting the best students available to them from the pool...

As for the best institutions disadvantaging students from independent schools have you read any of that Sutton trust material mentioned earlier?