Private educated students

[Каие]

Oxford tutors downgrade private pupils


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6806497.ece

One tutor interviewed for the study, funded by Oxford and two government bodies, said he saw it as part of his job to “compensate for the failures of civil society” by tempering the privileges of private schooling. The research, to be published next year, comes amid fresh concern over “social engineering” by universities, sparked by last week’s A-level results.

Two pupils at Bury grammar school for girls in Greater Manchester were rejected by all their chosen universities despite winning six and five As respectively.

Oxford turned down Amelia Al-Qazzaz, a privately educated physics candidate with 10 As from Stockton-on-Tees.

Those without a place include Philippa Scott, 18, a pupil at Bury girls’ grammar. She was rejected by Cambridge, Durham, Bristol, Warwick and University College London (UCL) despite scoring six As at A-level. “I don’t really know what else they wanted,” she said.

Scott, who applied to study English, has no argument with Cambridge. Of the others only Durham gave any explanation, saying her personal statement may have let her down.

Georghiou, also Scott’s headmistress, said another pupil had been turned down by all her chosen universities for medicine despite having five As.

“The answer from most is that they are oversubscribed. That is not a proper answer, it just acknowledges it’s a lottery.” She added: “If another youngster is in difficult circumstances, I want them to be given a chance, but if they have knocked Philippa off because their grades have been [artificially] enhanced, it doesn’t seem fair.”

I and all who know me know full well I support compassionate policies aimed at addressing injustice inherent in society. But there is such thing as by attempting to address one injustice another greater injustice is trampled upon. Honestly.. rejecting a girl who got 6, SIX, As at A level in 6 subjects when the standard number of A levels is three subjects to me is staggering.Just staggering.

The reason why she was rejected was very disappointing and frankly dangerous. You don't choose whether or not you are born rich or poor... hence that should NEVER be a factor when it comes to your life chances. It should be your ability only. Nothing more. Poor kids should be helped to achieve and nurture their true potential by government alleviated financial assistance.

But purposefully rejecting the cleverest people, due to their wealth and good fortune, is frankly stupid. The purpose of the education system is not to play ideological football with. It;s not to say ''Look at us, we are being social justice friendly by helping poor people and hating on the rich''. When in actual fact they are doing the complete opposite. The purpose of education is to educate our children to be the next generation of leaders,professionals and workers. Thus the most intelligent must be nurtured to succeed professional. The not so intelligent must also be nurtured to their own strengths to succeed in employment.

That's social injustice.

People have to realise that discrimination does not end discrimination.

The purpose of education is to educate our children to be the next generation of leaders,professionals and workers. Thus the most intelligent must be nurtured to succeed professional. The not so intelligent must also be nurtured to their own strengths to succeed in employment.

If there is an issue with places and applications, either make efforts to have less applications.. most university subjects are bollocks these days ''Drama, Photography, and Dance'' those subjects should be covered by specialist private schools and colleges. Or you can increase the number of places by increasing subsidies to Universities. Preferably a mix of the two.

[S.L.I.G]

Agreed. This is bull****. When did this ideology of positive discrimination, based on ANYTHING creep in to western society? It's a complete contradiction to societies values and logic, yet it exists in most Western countries in one form or another.

[Каие]

In this case the fact that more and more State school kids are getting in over the public schoolers is worthless, since it can all be put down to discrimination and harsh and unfair bias. As opposed to the actual effort and ability of the state school lot themselves.

[S.L.I.G]

In this case the fact that more and more State school kids are getting in over the public schoolers is worthless, since it can all be put down to discrimination and harsh and unfair bias.

To clarify, Public=private in Britain right? Thought you said that a few days ago...crazy country.

[Copperknickers II]

In theory i agree, but it is not a very good thing for me since i attend a private school. And there is a limit. By all means you must take into account that getting 4 As in Higher in a Gorbals state school with no funding can be just as good as someone getting 6 As in Higher at a leading private school, but selecting someone who is still worse even after the latter just because they go to a state school is ridiculous indeed.

[Каие]

Yeah lol. Public = Private. State = (free) State.

[Avendiel]

Selective quoting is fun, I can do it too.

A separate study by Zimdars and two other sociologists — Professor Anthony Heath and Thomas Ogg — backs the tutors’ approach. They find that to have an equal chance of a first-class degree, a privately educated student at Oxford would need eight A*s at GCSE compared with six A*s and two As for those from state schools.

The task of choosing candidates has been made harder by the surge in A grades at A-level to 26.7% of all papers sat.

Universities which rejected Scott said many well qualified candidates were turned away.

Just playing Devil's advocate here.

[Каие]

Selective quoting is fun, I can do it too.

Just playing Devil's advocate here.

IN future I would play Devil's advocate a bit better.

Universities which rejected Scott said many well qualified candidates were turned away.

Lol that isn't a good thing, is it? ''Hey we not only rejected you clever girl with 6 As, we rejected loads of people with straight As to make room for less qualified folk. ''

The task of choosing candidates has been made harder by the surge in A grades at A-level to 26.7% of all papers sat.

This doesn't excuse them refusing people who get As and replacing them with others who get lesser grades.

A separate study by Zimdars and two other sociologists — Professor Anthony Heath and Thomas Ogg — backs the tutors’ approach. They find that to have an equal chance of a first-class degree, a privately educated student at Oxford would need eight A*s at GCSE compared with six A*s and two As for those from state schools.

As Ben-Gurion said; If the expert thinks it can't be done, get another expert.

Does this happen in the states? I would hope not.

Of course it does. It's bloody worse over there. It's done along racial grounds too. See Phier for details.

I may have a bias as I was privately educated and I am just about to start university. But it is a sad fact that some universities are being encouraged to allow people with poorer grades in because they are from a state school.

I also disagree with the argument that privately educated students are unfairly at an advantage. This is really not the case, but rather we should be looking at the failures of the state schools and looking at the reasons why private schools generally get better results.

Discrimination of this kind is not the answer as it does not address the problem of many state schools under performing in comparison to the private sector. It also appears to be a knee jerk reaction by some universities, such as Bristol. Bristol 5 years ago was famous for having such a high percentage of privately educated students. However now it is increasingly hard for privately educated students to get an equal offer.

You hit it on the money there. This, positive discrimination, is just the government trying to cover it's back and it's own failures and incompetence. You see... the government has failed to manage the state education system properly, the government has failed the poor and the state educated children, the government has set up a terrible curriculum and marking process, terrible teaching practises, insufficient resources, they have taken away control of the classroom and taken it from the teachers and given it to the children and they have set up so many rules and regulations that the State school sector has gotten worse and worse.

Oh yes, it's flashy. The government has invested in mass renovations of all the poorer schools to make it look like they are doing something....

So in order to compensate for this incompetence and total failure by the councils and government to run the education system.... they feel the best thing to do is make it up to the poor kids later through positive discrimination.

IN other words this is the government getting it's own back, instead of admitting they failed, they blame ''inevitabilities''.

The government should be doing it's all in the BEGINNING... not wasting it's time in hundreds of discrimination policies at the END. Our education system is terrible compared to the rest of Europe. A rising percentage of kids now leave primary education unable to read and write, and do basic maths.
THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE.


I've always said we should adopt the Finnish system anyway. My mother, who works in early years education, keeps telling me how great it is. Starting education at 7 years old. It's very egalitarian and works according to ability, not resources and wealth. It's perfect.

This is indeed . Not sure whether I agree with what you said here though - "The purpose of education is to educate our children to be the next generation of leaders,professionals and workers. Thus the most intelligent must be nurtured to succeed professional." You see, that is exactly what my avatar portrays, a world where the wealthy people maintain positions of power because they can afford better education, have a better chance of securing professional careers, their children have better education and therefore have better jobs and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile the children in the gutter who, while having the potential to go on and do greater things, have their minds subjected to a sort of prison where they can't achieve their individual intellectual heights. If this continues, the class system is perpetual, in a sense. The "most intelligent" are not necessarily the richest, which is what you are fundamentally implying. Forgive me if I don't make complete sense, I suck at semantics.

Not at all... since not only rich kids go to Grammar schools. Many, many of the kids I grew up in the white working class areas if they were good enough got into Grammar schools on scholarships paid for by the government and many organisations. Hence they were poor, yes, but their ability allowed them to foster.

But if someone dares say ''Lets build more grammar schools'' someone will invoke the class war on them.

In the old Comprehensives system... kids were drafted on ability, and not on wealth. Hazel Blears, former Labour Secretary of Local Government achieved in that way. She was poor, but due to the system which rewarded, not wealth, but ability she went to a good school after sitting the 11-plus and became a government minister.

[Avendiel]

IN future I would play Devil's advocate a bit better.

Universities which rejected Scott said many well qualified candidates were turned away.

Lol that isn't a good thing, is it? ''Hey we not only rejected you clever girl with 6 As, we rejected loads of people with straight As to make room for less qualified folk. ''

I interpreted it as meaning they have more well-qualified applicants than they have room for. The fact that some are turned down isn't going to be a surprise then, is it? Of course, it's more fun to have a news article about some poor little girl who didn't get in, so people have something to be outraged about.

A separate study by Zimdars and two other sociologists — Professor Anthony Heath and Thomas Ogg — backs the tutors’ approach. They find that to have an equal chance of a first-class degree, a privately educated student at Oxford would need eight A*s at GCSE compared with six A*s and two As for those from state schools.


As Ben-Gurion said; If the expert thinks it can't be done, get another expert.

George W. Bush took exactly that attitude too. Never let facts get in the way of policy.

[Каие]

I interpreted it as meaning they have more well-qualified applicants than they have room for. The fact that some are turned down isn't going to be a surprise then, is it?

Of course not, but it's WHY they were rejected that was the issue. That it was to make room for people with lower grades. Hardly the time to do that, if there are so many good applicants.

George W. Bush took exactly that attitude too. Never let facts get in the way of policy.

Everyone takes that attitude. There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics. Benjamin Disraeli. It's how ideology and dogma is justified. Through ''exerts'' and their ''facts'' and their ''statistics''. Look at the Global warming debate. Take a side, there are plenty of intelligent experts on either side with directly contradictory hypotheses and facts, and evidence and conclusions.

[Avendiel]

Everyone takes that attitude. There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics. Benjamin Disraeli. It's how ideology and dogma is justified. Through ''exerts'' and their ''facts'' and their ''statistics''. Look at the Global warming debate. Take a side, there are plenty of intelligent experts on either side with directly contradictory hypotheses and facts, and evidence and conclusions.

I always have to wonder what is it that makes people think quoting famous people is a good way to prove a point.

But no, not everyone takes that attitude. The fact that you used the global warming debate, especially, as your example tells me everything I need to know about you, honestly.

[Avendiel]

Alright, fair enough. You've convinced me

[Tominokar]

Who knows, perhaps their personal statements were lacking. Maybe they've never had a job, never travelled, and show no real enthusiasm for the subject they want to study. I can imagine that many of these students from private education apply to oxbridge and the like because that's what mommy and daddy expect them to do.

I didn't get the required two As and a B for my course, but I got accepted because I already had lots of real life experience relevant to the subject and showed genuine interest. I even got a personal letter from Reading (though I chose Cardiff) stating how inspired they were, and that they wanted me despite not getting the required grades. Neither of my parents went further than compulsory education, we have the lowest income bracket, and I took my A levels at a public school alongside GCSE students. So it was pretty obvious it was off my own back.

In short, grades aren't everything, and I'm glad many Unversities realise that.

[Reidy]

In short, grades aren't everything, and I'm glad many Unversities realise that.

Sure grades aren't everything, but they aren't valueless. Even though its probable that private school grades are boost by improved teaching, it is wrong to blindly devalue them in the admissions process purely because they were obtained at a fee paying school.

And it is true that the labour government would dearly love to indulge in some 'postive discrimination' in order to fudge the balance of state vs private educated students in the top unis. But they don't dare, since they'd likely lose a huge wad of votes from poublic school parents. Personally, all i see this discrimiation as is a way to mask the inadequacies of the state schooling system. I'd have though the best way to increase admissions from state schools would be to improve their quality of teaching, not to disadvantage those who seek education privately. Of course, our current government is more than incompetent enough to fail at that.

[Father Jack]

I may have a bias as I was privately educated and I am just about to start university. But it is a sad fact that some universities are being encouraged to allow people with poorer grades in because they are from a state school. I also disagree with the argument that privately educated students are unfairly at an advantage. This is really not the case, but rather we should be looking at the failures of the state schools and looking at the reasons why private schools generally get better results. Discrimination of this kind is not the answer as it does not address the problem of many state schools under performing in comparison to the private sector. It also appears to be a knee jerk reaction by some universities, such as Bristol. Bristol 5 years ago was famous for having such a high percentage of privately educated students. However now it is increasingly hard for privately educated students to get an equal offer.

[Copperknickers II]

Private = fee paying, state = free. To confuse the situation however, Public is used to describe both state schools as well as old and well established fee-paying schools such as Eton and Glenalmond, especially in England.

[Yorkshireman]

We don't generally refer to state schools in England as public, I've only ever heard it on the internet, used by north Americans.

Slitghly off topic, but do public schoolboys still have to fag for the older boys ?

[Exarch]

This is bull

and good quote:

he purpose of the education system is not to play ideological football with. It;s not to say ''Look at us, we are being social justice friendly by helping poor people and hating on the rich''

it's the same here in oz
tall poppy syndrome all over again

[S.L.I.G]

We don't generally refer to state schools in England as public, I've only ever heard it on the internet, used by north Americans.

Slitghly off topic, but do public schoolboys still have to fag for the older boys ?

Jesus christ, public=private and now I hear "public schoolboys still have to fag for the older boys" and I KNOW that has absolutely nothing to do with what it sounds like. Damn English English is...inferior.

[Yorkshireman]

Jesus christ, public=private and now I hear "public schoolboys still have to fag for the older boys" and I KNOW that has absolutely nothing to do with what it sounds like. Damn English English is...inferior.

Its an old public (private) school tradition, its as amusing to a working class northern oik like me as it is to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagging