BBC: Oxbridge entry 'dominated by five schools'

[Disco Boy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14069516

An article saying how people from top private schools are more likely to go to top universities. So basically one telling us what we already know.

It blabs on about A level grades, what it fails to understand is that gaining entry to Oxbridge has only a little to do with good A level results, that's only the first step, the more important step is interviews and, in some cases, entrance exams.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

It's true.

I found getting into Cambridge a nightmare.

 

[Disco Boy]

So it should be easy should it?

 

[Dunks]

It's true.

I found getting into Cambridge a nightmare.

 

[LordSplodge]

So it should be easy should it?

No. Universities used to be (and should be) for the crème of the crop. The most gifted, talented and brainy. Not a "right" for every mouth-breather to go and doss around on a media studies degree.

Thus it is no surprise that the well educated people tend to get into the top universities.

 

[scorza]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14069516

An article saying how people from top private schools are more likely to go to top universities. So basically one telling us what we already know.

It blabs on about A level grades, what it fails to understand is that gaining entry to Oxbridge has only a little to do with good A level results, that's only the first step, the more important step is interviews and, in some cases, entrance exams.

The reason the article "blabs" on about A-Level results is there is a stark contrast in the number of places given to students from state schools compared with independent schools (and especially the Big 5).

Why are these interviews resulting in more rejections for state school pupils? Is it because, as I suspect will be the popular opinion here, that state school pupils are thicker than their richer, independent school educated peers, and this becomes apparent at the interview? or is it perhaps that the interview process is biased (very probably unintentionally) toward "people like us"? There are probably plenty of other potential reasons as well.

 

[UK-AL05]

The reason the article "blabs" on about A-Level results is there is a stark contrast in the number of places given to students from state schools compared with independent schools (and especially the Big 5).

Why are these interviews resulting in more rejections for state school pupils? Is it because, as I suspect will be the popular opinion here, that state school pupils are thicker than their richer, independent school educated peers, and this becomes apparent at the interview? or is it perhaps that the interview process is biased (very probably unintentionally) toward "people like us"? There are probably plenty of other potential reasons as well.

Erm. The major contributor is that those five schools all have practise events for the interview at oxford and cambridge. They also do practise tests for the entrance exams. The state school mentioned happens to be the state school where academics send their kids, if there left leaning.

The majority of 'normal' people would not have this interview practise and exams. The problem with this is that it becomes like the 11+, where people with money pay for the tuition for the tests. This is what my dad(Middle class) did when grammars were common.

 

[Efour]

CLass War right here!!!

 

[ColdAsIce]

No surprise that richer kids benefit from smaller class sizes, more one to one teaching and better facilities. Add in extra tutor time when exams are due and the fact the schools actively practice the tests that are required for entry into Uni.

So not really a great surprise at all then.

 

[Efour]

Also and still the most important regardless of what we are told to beleive in a fair and just society, its who you know that counts when all other things like results are dismissed.

 

[meghatronic]

Good.

 

[GravyMonster]

It's true.

I found getting into Cambridge a nightmare.

Me too. Although the park and ride helps.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Is it because, as I suspect will be the popular opinion here, that state school pupils are thicker than their richer, independent school educated peers

They are not thicker, but they are not educated as well. Surely this is obvious - the entire reason people pay ridiculous sums of money for a childs education is because it will result in a better education than a state school.

In much the same way that somebody coached for 7 years by one of the worlds top Tennis Coaches will be more likely to be good at Tennis than somebody who popped down the leisure centre for Saturday morning tennis at 50p a chuck.

 

[growse]

I'd be more interested to see the breakdown of state/private of those *applying* and comparing that to the distribution of places given.

I suspect that the applicants are skewed more towards the private sector, considering the outright hostility of certain state schools towards any effort Oxbridge makes to encourage applications.

 

[UK-AL05]

Instead of getting annoyed with this result, people should focus on getting annoyed at the cause... the fact that state schooling isn't good enough, in many cases. Bring back the grammar school (properly), I say.

See my earlier post, explains the course.

Germany is a good example of the grammar school problem. In international rankings they have low rates of achievement. Why? Because people who did not go grammar schools bring down the average massively.

There elite students are superb though, but if your not within that 10% selected, chances are your achievement rates are a lot lower than your average person in england.

So depends whats better for society having ultra elite intellectuals, or simply having the majority educated to a decent enough standard.

 

[UK-AL05]

I'd be more interested to see the breakdown of state/private of those *applying* and comparing that to the distribution of places given.

I suspect that the applicants are skewed more towards the private sector, considering the outright hostility of certain state schools towards any effort Oxbridge makes to encourage applications.

4 of the 5 schools mentioned are private.

 

[scorza]

They are not thicker, but they are not educated as well. Surely this is obvious - the entire reason people pay ridiculous sums of money for a childs education is because it will result in a better education than a state school.

This is why Finland makes it illegal for schools to select pupils for enrolment based on the ability to pay, and is also one of the reasons why they have one of the very best education systems in the world.

 

[Disco Boy]

This is why Finland makes it illegal for schools to select pupils for enrolment based on the ability to pay, and is also one of the reasons why they have one of the very best education systems in the world.

UK private schools don't select on ability to pay, they select on willingness to pay.

 

[growse]

This is why Finland makes it illegal for schools to select pupils for enrolment based on the ability to pay, and is also one of the reasons why they have one of the very best education systems in the world.

Do they select on academic ability?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Me too. Although the park and ride helps.

Ah.

It was the roadworks that caused me problems.