BBC: Oxbridge entry 'dominated by five schools'

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 14:43

I'm gonna go out on a limb here. As it stands at the moment, even if I could afford to send my kids to private school, I'd probably send them to state school.

Tunney · 8 Jul 2011 at 14:46

TheCenturion said:
I don't think that's true. If anything, Oxbridge are trying to get MORE state school pupils in, so they're not going to purposely disadvantage them. Like I said earlier, a lot of red brick universities are being actively biased against pupils from private schools.

This is from the personal experience of my friends (who entered Cambridge between about 1999 and 2003). The interview bias against state school pupils is worse for art subjects than science subjects.

ps3ud0 · 8 Jul 2011 at 14:47

TheCenturion said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here. As it stands at the moment, even if I could afford to send my kids to private school, I'd probably send them to state school.

I think youll learn with age and reflect back on that statement and how incorrect you were - making sure you and your family have every opportunity is one of the pillars of civilisation...

/tangent - Why else would my parents or yours emigrate if it wasnt to improve their/our prospects?

ps3ud0 :cool:

Vonhelmet · 8 Jul 2011 at 14:47

gurdas said:
End of the day it's the parents fault if they can't afford to put their kids in better schools. It should be a priority to give their kids the best rather than spend the money on another pointless holiday to Benidorm.

Is this another thing to go on the list of rubbish stuff we pay for out of taxes that we won't get a refund on if we go private?

Man, I love that list.

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 14:48

Tunney said:
This is from the personal experience of my friends (who entered Cambridge between about 1999 and 2003). The interview bias against state school pupils is worse for art subjects than science subjects.

I imagine times have changed since then. Due to more stories like this in the paper, about how private school pupils are getting into top places and state schools are not, that Oxbridge didn't want the press to keep giving them a bad name, so now it's the opposite.

ps3ud0 · 8 Jul 2011 at 14:51

TheCenturion said:
I imagine times have changed since then. Due to more stories like this in the paper, about how private school pupils are getting into top places and state schools are not, that Oxbridge didn't want the press to keep giving them a bad name, so now it's the opposite.

Todays article isnt really current affairs, the same issue regards Oxbridges admissions policy has been going on for decades - today we just have more information at our fingertips to disseminate such points...

ps3ud0 :cool:

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 14:53

ps3ud0 said:
I think youll learn with age and reflect back on that statement and how incorrect you were - making sure you and your family have every opportunity is one of the pillars of civilisation...

/tangent - Why else would my parents or yours emigrate if it wasnt to improve their/our prospects?

ps3ud0

I may well feel that it was incorrect. But like I said, I believe that a good student will find success no matter where they go. So I would rather train my children to be good students, and to make their success, rather than pay for a school to drill it into them.

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 15:02

ps3ud0 said:
Todays article isnt really current affairs, the same issue regards Oxbridges admissions policy has been going on for decades - today we just have more information at our fingertips to disseminate such points...

ps3ud0

You may well be right, but here's a true story:

Two people from my school applied to Bristol to study medicine this year. They were both rejected without interview. They contacted the university to ask why, and the response was: "You have 4 A grades at AS Level. We have applicants from state schools who have 4 A grades, and that's why we rejected you"

Even though my school selects primarily on financial need and not academic ability.

That's wrong in my opinion. Their job should be to interview any candidate who has the potential to be a successful doctor. By rejecting them, it's as if they were saying that being from private school means that you won't be a good doctor...

ironman · 8 Jul 2011 at 15:13

TheCenturion said:
£2,000 holiday to benidorm versus £70,000 education?

Hey the only people to blame for setting low standards and goals are people themselves

People just want it easy and then complain when they can't have what they want.

Greebo · 8 Jul 2011 at 15:15

TheCenturion said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here. As it stands at the moment, even if I could afford to send my kids to private school, I'd probably send them to state school.

Tbh the problem is private school fees has vastly outstripped inflation.

When I went to the Grammar school in 1980 it was £700 per annum. By the time I left in 1987 it was £2,100 per annum so it has tripled in 7 years.

I think I heard recently it is now £12,000 per annum so that's almost a 6 fold increase in the last 23 years.

So if you had a child starting school this year, it might start off at £12,000 but could easily be £36,000 by the time they finish in 7 years. You need a very, very good income to afford private schools for your children nowadays.

UK-AL05 · 8 Jul 2011 at 15:44

Indeed. My dad was privately tutored.

I never got any of that =[

Dave · 8 Jul 2011 at 15:45

TheCenturion said:
I'm definitely not going to apply to Oxbridge, sort of as a form of protest, but also because it's crap for what I want to do.

I thought you wanted to do medicine? In which case, Ox/Cam are (I believe, could be wrong) the top universities in the country for it. Certainly the Cambridge medicine students patched me up well in Addenbrooke's last time I fell off my bicycle

growse said:
What you say is partly true, but isn't limited to Oxbridge. They're not the UK leaders in a lot of fields, so it's not the case that all purely academically driven people would put Oxbridge first above everything else.

I must confess I was slightly lazy with the point - I'm in Engineering/Sciences and so I don't really know that much about the other schools. The contacts you get in Eng/Chem Eng are excellent - I collaborate with many people in industry from large companies and more often than not it means that there are plenty of opportunities available from your network for post-study work/research.

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 15:49

Dave said:
I thought you wanted to do medicine? In which case, Ox/Cam are (I believe, could be wrong) the top universities in the country for it. Certainly the Cambridge medicine students patched me up well in Addenbrooke's last time I fell off my bicycle

I believe you are wrong

With medicine, you cannot objectively pinpoint the 'best' university. This is because all medical degrees are regulated by the General Medical Council. You cannot have one university churning out incompetent doctors, that would be awful!

The main difference between medical schools is teaching style and course structure, so for medicine, it's best to go somewhere where you like the style of teaching as that way you'll learn best

Dave · 8 Jul 2011 at 15:58

TheCenturion said:
I believe you are wrong

With medicine, you cannot objectively pinpoint the 'best' university. This is because all medical degrees are regulated by the General Medical Council. You cannot have one university churning out incompetent doctors, that would be awful!

The main difference between medical schools is teaching style and course structure, so for medicine, it's best to go somewhere where you like the style of teaching as that way you'll learn best

Fair point - I was just skimming the Guardian league tables. Although looking at other tables they both seem to be in the top 5, with Oxford usually at #1. I still think that not even applying to one of them is a little strange - it's like you aren't even trying for the opportunity.

I do have a bit of a problem with the Guardian rankings I suppose as they rank my old University (Sheffield) as #33 in the UK, whereas they are ranked at about 40-50 in the world

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 16:02

Dave said:
Fair point - I was just skimming the Guardian league tables. Although looking at other tables they both seem to be in the top 5, with Oxford usually at #1. I still think that not even applying to one of them is a little strange - it's like you aren't even trying for the opportunity.

I do have a bit of a problem with the Guardian rankings I suppose as they rank my old University (Sheffield) as #33 in the UK, whereas they are ranked at about 40-50 in the world

I wouldn't consider it an opportunity. I'd say that studying medicine is an opportunity

Rankings don't matter for medicine, for the reasons I stated above. Oxbridge has 3 years of pre clinical, intense theory study, followed by 3 years of clinical study. The pre clinical is a traditional, lecture-based style. I prefer more modern approaches, I feel I learn better. So I'll be applying to universities where they teach by 'hands on' approach, group learning, pbl (problem based learning). I'll learn better that way

UK-AL05 · 8 Jul 2011 at 16:06

Dave said:
Fair point - I was just skimming the Guardian league tables. Although looking at other tables they both seem to be in the top 5, with Oxford usually at #1. I still think that not even applying to one of them is a little strange - it's like you aren't even trying for the opportunity.

I do have a bit of a problem with the Guardian rankings I suppose as they rank my old University (Sheffield) as #33 in the UK, whereas they are ranked at about 40-50 in the world

Pretty much all degrees are accredited by there relevant professional body. I know the majority of cs degrees are accredited by bcs.

Except my year...due to the fact they changed the course when i was studying...Should be backdated by next year anyway.

RomanNose · 8 Jul 2011 at 16:14

GTRacer said:
Private schools give A LOT of support for Oxbridge applicants - when I applied I had extra tutorials every week (to prepare for the test), a practice interview with my Head of Sixth Form, then the Head of school, then external interviews at another private school and a session where you had a class with other Oxbridge applicants in the area. You don't get that level of preparation at state schools, although my school also ran a program to help Oxbridge applicants from state schools.

I agree, my college has been insisting that I am an Oxbridge applicant. The physics aptitude test is so rock hard that it takes someone who has put hours and hours into it, if you want to do well you have to have a tutor. There is no doubt about it that you can't turn up after as maths and physics even with 100 ums on both and do well.

I don't think I am going to bother, I would rather go to a University like Southampton that has just as good industry ties. People should lose that attitude that Oxbridge is what you must apply for if you are a good student, there are many good Universities that are as good and if not better.

Since I left private school and I am now at a local college, hopefully the Universities will go bazinga! In fairness the universities that are prioritizing students from state sector have a good reason too, it's harder to do well in a bad school than a good school.

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 16:15

chaosdestro0 said:
I agree, my college has been insisting that I am an Oxbridge applicant. The physics aptitude test is so rock hard that it takes someone who has put hours and hours into it, if you want to do well you have to have a tutor. There is no doubt about it that you can't turn up after as maths and physics even with 100 ums on both and do well.

I don't think I am going to bother, I would rather go to a University like Southampton that has just as good industry ties. People should lose that attitude that Oxbridge is what you must apply for if you are a good student, there are many good Universities that are as good and if not better.

Good on you for not applying to Oxbridge

growse · 8 Jul 2011 at 16:23

chaosdestro0 said:
I agree, my college has been insisting that I am an Oxbridge applicant. The physics aptitude test is so rock hard that it takes someone who has put hours and hours into it, if you want to do well you have to have a tutor. There is no doubt about it that you can't turn up after as maths and physics even with 100 ums on both and do well.

I don't think I am going to bother, I would rather go to a University like Southampton that has just as good industry ties. People should lose that attitude that Oxbridge is what you must apply for if you are a good student, there are many good Universities that are as good and if not better.

Since I left private school and I am now at a local college, hopefully the Universities will go bazinga! In fairness the universities that are prioritizing students from state sector have a good reason too, it's harder to do well in a bad school than a good school.

It really does depend on what you want out of a degree. If you're after the pinnacle of academic understanding, the desire to work absurdly hard and a thirst to know all there is to know in your subject, Oxbridge (plus a few others, depending on subject) is where it's at.

If you're after a degree that'll give you real-world experience and just something that'll kick-start your career and don't care too much for the academia, then look elsewhere.

Greebo said:
Tbh the problem is private school fees has vastly outstripped inflation.

When I went to the Grammar school in 1980 it was £700 per annum. By the time I left in 1987 it was £2,100 per annum so it has tripled in 7 years.

I think I heard recently it is now £12,000 per annum so that's almost a 6 fold increase in the last 23 years.

So if you had a child starting school this year, it might start off at £12,000 but could easily be £36,000 by the time they finish in 7 years. You need a very, very good income to afford private schools for your children nowadays.

I thought grammar schools were part of the state system and therefore had no fees?

And the issue with private school fees is the same as any other product in a market - I'd bet that demand has rather outpaced supply, hence the rise in fees.

Mr Jack · 8 Jul 2011 at 16:32

[TW]Fox;19540431 said:
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.

Here's an interesting thing: although people educated at private schools typically do better at GCSE/A-Level, that difference reduces dramatically at degree level.