Oxbridge admissions, state v private

[Lovely Goat]

A private-school educated friend of mine was complaining that the majority of his (also private-school) friends had been rejected from Oxbridge. His complaint was that they had been rejected because Oxbridge now favour state-educated applicants, especially those from less educationally privileged backgrounds, and will even take lower-calibre applicants from these backgrounds rather than more talented private-sector applicants: therefore, his friends had been discriminated against on the basis of their privileged education, and admission was no longer based on true ability.

I wanted to tell him that he was talking bollocks, but I thought I'd try to investigate a bit first; I also thought it might make for an entertaining Sinner discussion (perhaps...can see insults flying now...).

So what do you think? Does anyone know any attitudes of Oxbridge tutors and interviewers?

(Edited for dim spelling error. I think I spelled better when I was 12.)

[Lid]

When I went for an interview at Selwyn College, Cambridge, I had a sneaky look at the sheet that the admissions tutor had about me. I don't actually recall it having my school on there.

Unless they make a decision on quotas later in the process, I'm not sure that the interviewing tutors themselves make decisions anything but impartially.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Batman]

This begs the question.

What if the guys friends where rejected on their performance (ability) and not their educational background.

Quoting Lovely Goat from 00:16, 28th Feb 2007
A private-school educated friend of mine was complaining that the majority of his (also private-school) friends had been rejected from Oxbridge. His complaint was that they had been rejected because Oxbridge now favour state-educated applicants, especially those from less educationally priviledged backgrounds, and will even take lower-calibre applicants from these backgrounds rather than more talented private-sector applicants: therefore, his friends had been discriminated against on the basis of their priviledged education, and admission was no longer based on true ability.

I wanted to tell him that he was talking bollocks, but I thought I'd try to investigate a bit first; I also thought it might make for an entertaining Sinner discussion (perhaps...can see insults flying now...).

So what do you think? Does anyone know any attitudes of Oxbridge tutors and interviewers?

[hr]

Have you ever danced with the Devil in the Pale Moonlight!

[box_of_delights]

Quoting Lovely Goat from 00:16, 28th Feb 2007less educationally priviledged backgrounds, and will even take lower-calibre applicants from these backgrounds rather than more talented private-sector applicants: therefore, his friends had been discriminated against on the basis of their priviledged education

Why is private education a 'priviledge'?

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101440

[Frank]

Quoting box_of_delights from 00:57, 28th Feb 2007

Quoting Lovely Goat from 00:16, 28th Feb 2007less educationally priviledged backgrounds, and will even take lower-calibre applicants from these backgrounds rather than more talented private-sector applicants: therefore, his friends had been discriminated against on the basis of their priviledged education

Why is private education a 'priviledge'?

I'm inclined to say that, statistically speaking, it tends to be. At least on a strict results basis (as far as my memory is aware).

Private schools typically get better grades, on average. That said, I do understand the 'discrimination' in the sense that (well, it's easy for me to envisage) a person of ability 'X' would perhaps do fairly well at a 'state' school, whilst they'd perhaps do better at a private school.

Not the case for everyone, but I'm inclined to believe the discrepency persists.

That said, I'm happy enough to be here from a state school. Delightful fun!

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[[James]]

Why is private education a 'priviledge'?

I would question precisely how privileged they are if they're still spelling privilege as 'priviledge'.

[hr]

http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/antispam.html

[blimey]

Clearly private results are better. But then, if you only enter thse students who are going to do well into exams it's kinda hard not too. As with all things, some state schools are excellent, some not. The same goes in the private sector as well.

Also, if you do very well coming from a "less educationally privileged" background and do reasonably well, does that not provide a good indication of being "Oxbridge material" perhaps more so than coming from a private school??????

[sat]

Exam results from the "private sector" may be better than those from the state system, but I suspect that a well-funded independent school would be able to provide a lot for students in terms of well-qualified teachers, plenty resources and lots of extra-curricular activities. Students who have been in this sort of environment are likely to have a better educational experience than those from a "typical" state school. (Schools are often measured by their exam results but there is a lot more to it than that.)

This is not completely relevant to the Oxbride issue but is worth bearing in mind.

[Okocim]

Some schools (both state and private) have the advantage because they have more knowledge about the admissions system at Oxbridge and are therefore able to offer more coaching to their students about interviews. I don't wish to winge about my rejection from Oxford (I never got the grades in the end anyway and had a fabulous time in St Andrews) but my chances of a conditional acceptance would have been considerably higher had my teachers prepared me in a different manner. For example, I was heavily encouraged to write an essay on a subject that was not on our A level course. At interview they asked me loads of questions I couldn't answer on related topics and ended up being rejected for not knowing enough history! It wasn't my teacher's fault - he'd just never coached a candidate for oxbridge before.

[blimey]

Quoting Okocim from 10:00, 28th Feb 2007
.... It wasn't my teacher's fault - he'd just never coached a candidate for oxbridge before.

... should coaching be necessary? Not wishing to point at you specifically, just asking a question?

[BeccaLydia]

Quoting blimey from 08:15, 28th Feb 2007

Also, if you do very well coming from a "less educationally privileged" background and do reasonably well, does that not provide a good indication of being "Oxbridge material" perhaps more so than coming from a private school??????

Surely this would be discriminatory against privately educated students as they would never have the chance to prove themselves in this way? In the end all the students should be working to the same level, so their previous background shouldn't matter at all, just their ability to work to that level.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100244

[blimey]

Quoting BeccaLydia from 10:44, 28th Feb 2007


Surely this would be discriminatory against privately educated students as they would never have the chance to prove themselves in this way? In the end all the students should be working to the same level, so their previous background shouldn't matter at all, just their ability to work to that level.

Life is discriminatory ... and surely the whole private vs. public education debate STARTS with an element of discrimination????

[exnihilo]

So, life is discriminatory to start with, so parents try to give their children a better education by forking out more money (over and above tax) to send them to an independent school, thus giving them a leg up, it works, so the government introduces quotas to limit the number of privately educated students at any given university and to increase those from 'non-traditional' backgrounds at the expense of entry requirement grades, and the playing field is level again. But, as is always the way, a lower level rather than a higher one. Yet another policy designed to drag down those who try to better themselves rather than to properly educate those who cannot afford so to do. Ingenious, if only we knew what the grand plan was - presumably to render us all as drooling, inarticulate drones of the nu-Labour party machine?

[blimey]

ah.... the old chance to better oneself arguement. Excellent. Obviously, those without the chance, should be excluded. Go read Marx.

[exnihilo]

You are most amusing. As, indeed, was Marx. Go read some history.

I'll reword my post for the hard of thinking - I think the state education system needs to be improved, and freed from government interference to provide the best education possible. Until it is, people have the right to spend their money on getting a better education for their children. The government cannot both fail to provide good state education AND then prevent people from private school going to university in favour of less qualified state school applicants. University should be about only one thing - academic excellence. This idiocy simply creates a system of equally crap education for all at all levels. Failing utterly to address the underlying problems. Where did I suggest state educated people should not go to university? Where did I indicate that they should be denied opportunity? On the contrary, I said the very bloody opposite! But let's make it an ignorant slagging match about class and/or politics because that's easier.

Muppet.

[flarewearer]

Oxbridge? Just apply to St Andrews, they let any old Tom, Dick or Harry in, no questions asked

[hr]

[Campbell]

Quoting box_of_delights from 00:57, 28th Feb 2007

Why is private education a 'priviledge'?

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101440

quoted for utter disbelief

why is [being given lots of things which other people have no access to] a [benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most]?

[flossy]

I was given an Oxford offer and thought that the interviews were fair BECAUSE they had chosen questions and essays outwith the A-level course to see if you had outside knowledge and initiative as well as the ability to regurgitate information. Ho hum.

The state school system will never improve as long as people take their children out of it and put them into private/independent/public schools (whether this be because they can afford it or via scholarships etc). Don't get me wrong, if I had the money, I would send my kids to the school where they'd get the best education, which would probably be a fee-paying school, and enter them for scholarships. However, the comprehensive education system is not comprehensive - some bright children and lots of affluent children are removed leaving a bottom-heavy group. Plus with catchment areas relating to geography, if you live a poor area you are likely to be a sent to the local high school. I think it is fair that Oxbridge interviews take this into account but it doesn't seem to have an effect on the drop-out rates in universities, which are far higher for state-school students.

[hr]

Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?

[oddly familiar]

Just an interesting side note here: Under the labour government, the number of pupils taught at selective grammar schools has increased by 20% - from 128,712 in 1997, to 155,458 in 2006. Ironic as the labour government claimed it would try to reduce these numbers.

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[Bizarre Atheist]

Selective grammar schools KICK ASS. Though my many shiny A-levels, prizes, awards, extra-curriculars, volunteering and other such accolades weren't enough for Cambridge...

[hr]

http://www.race2paris.co.uk
http://standrews.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204763785