State-Educated Students ‘Achieve Better Degree Passes At University’

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/stateeducated-students-achieve-better-degree-passes-at-university-9219867.html

Students from state schools are more likely to achieve top-grade degree passes than those from the independent sector with the same A-level results, a major study suggests.

The findings of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), released today, have prompted calls for leading universities to place more emphasis on applicants’ backgrounds when offering places to study, and fuelled demands that some state- educated pupils should be asked for lower grades than their private-school peers to secure a place on the same course.

It makes no difference whether undergraduates attended a community comprehensive, faith school or grammar school because they all outperform their independently educated counterparts later in their academic careers, the report says. “Students who have remained in the state-school sector for the whole of their secondary education tend to do better in their degree studies than those with the same prior educational attainment who attended an independent school for all or part of their secondary education,” it concludes. “This improved performance is not affected by the type of state school.”

The findings were welcomed by teaching unions and campaigners for educational equality. Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), said the study strengthened the case for action to prevent children from wealthy families obtaining an unfair advantage in the education system.

How will the Oxbridge and Cambridge connections form for the elites if they end having to accept riff raff who'll do better?

If your privileged you simply don't need to put the effort in and at Uni it's 3 years of partying before moving onto the job daddies connections have got you?

[1929crash]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/stateeducated-students-achieve-better-degree-passes-at-university-9219867.html

How will the Oxbridge and Cambridge connections form for the elites if they end having to accept riff raff who'll do better?

If your privileged you simply don't need to put the effort in and at Uni it's 3 years of partying before moving onto the job daddies connections have got you?

The thread title reminded me of an SDP politician back in the 1980s making fun of Kinnock and his 'pass' degree.

Edited March 28, 2014 by 1929crash

[gimble]

Hardly surprising that if you normalise for A-level grades the kids from state schools tend to be brighter. What would be the point of paying fopr private education if it didn't help a child of given ability get better results? The trouble is, when these average students with excellent grades get to uni and they're on their own they struggle.

[Ah-so]

I am not sure why teaching unions welcome this - it is an indictment of state education. The privately educated kids are not brighter, they just receive an education that allows them to get closer to achieving their potential at 18. State children are reaching a lower percentage of their full potential.

State educated children are being hampered by their education - an unfair disadvantage rather than the other way round. Despite their school year being a whole month longer!

[fluffy666]

How will the Oxbridge and Cambridge connections form for the elites if they end having to accept riff raff who'll do better?

If your privileged you simply don't need to put the effort in and at Uni it's 3 years of partying before moving onto the job daddies connections have got you?

In order to get to Cambridge from a sink comprehensive you need to be able to motivate yourself to study, have a strong interest in the subject, a fair amount of innate ability and quite a lot of luck.

From Eton, you might need a bit of ability.

So it's not surprising that for the same A level results, your State school kid is going to do better, it would be a surprise if it were any other way.

The real problems start after Cambridge, especially nowadays.

[Ah-so]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/stateeducated-students-achieve-better-degree-passes-at-university-9219867.html

How will the Oxbridge and Cambridge connections form for the elites if they end having to accept riff raff who'll do better?

If your privileged you simply don't need to put the effort in and at Uni it's 3 years of partying before moving onto the job daddies connections have got you?

David Cameron seems to have got his first job through family connections. But he also got a first from Oxford, so he can't have partied that hard

[Frank Hovis]

Hardly surprising that if you normalise for A-level grades the kids from state schools tend to be brighter. What would be the point of paying fopr private education if it didn't help a child of given ability get better results? The trouble is, when these average students with excellent grades get to uni and they're on their own they struggle.

I don't know about struggle but I certainly agree with your first point. Somebody with B grade A levels from a state school can be expected to get a better degree than somebody with B grade A levels from a public school because the teaching is better.

I'd add in the social side too, if you go to public school you are likely to have rich parents so your college years can include weekends away, holidays, trips to London etc. whereas the skint student will spend their weekend going to the library as it's warm to write their essay. Or rather this latter was the case, whether this still applies with student loans splashing the cash rather than subsistence grants I wouldn't know.

[fluffy666]

David Cameron seems to have got his first job through family connections. But he also got a first from Oxford, so he can't have partied that hard

Oxford PPE.. I'm sure he got up very early every afternoon to work..

[interestrateripoff]

David Cameron seems to have got his first job through family connections. But he also got a first from Oxford, so he can't have partied that hard

It was a sweeping generalisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Prince_of_Wales#Education

He graduated from Cambridge with a 2:2 Bachelor of Arts on 23 June 1970, the first heir apparent to earn a university degree.[18] On 2 August 1975, he was subsequently awarded a Master of Arts degree from Cambridge, per the university's tradition.

[bambam]

Sorry but this is politicised b0ll0cks.

Actual study:

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2014/201403/HEFCE2014_03.pdf

This is the real key finding:

"The average A-level attainment of students from independent schools is ABB, whereas for those from other schools and colleges it is BBC"

Also, independent school students did better overall

67.0% of private school students got 2:1s or better, higher than any state school type (ranges from 58.8% for sixth-form colleges to 64.8% for foundation schools).

It's an absolute f**king lie that they can print stuff like this, the fact is state-educated students get significantly WORSE degree passes at university. They started with their conclusion, and pissed about with the data until they could make the conclusion fit it. :angry:

Basically:

1) Private school students are set, or achieve, or both, significantly higher entrance (A Level) grades than state school students

2) Overall private school students do significantly better than state school students, with a higher proportion getting good degrees

3) Therefore the private school acceptance rate needs to be made higher, relative to state, compared to what it currently is.

The only way they can come up with this fraudulent conclusion is if they ignore the fact that private school students are ALREADY being held to higher standards than state, and then, ignoring the very significant difference between ABB and BBC, say that if BOTH students got, e.g., BBC, then the state school student did better, but the fact is that statistically if the state school student got BBC then the private school student got an ABB!

Note also, btw:

"Students classifying themselves as White consistently achieve higher degree outcomes than students recording other ethnicities. This confirms findings from previous HEFCE studies. In all, 72 per cent of White students who entered higher education with BBB gained a first or upper second. This compares with 56 per cent for Asian students, and 53 per cent for Black students, entering with the same A-level grades"

No focus on that in the Independent, I wonder why?

Bloody Marxist scum.

Edited March 28, 2014 by bambam

[Timak]

Sorry but this is politicised b0ll0cks.

Actual study:

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2014/201403/HEFCE2014_03.pdf

This is the real key finding:

"The average A-level attainment of students from independent schools is ABB, whereas for those from other schools and colleges it is BBC"

Also, independent school students did better overall

67.0% of private school students got 2:1s or better, higher than any state school type (ranges from 58.8% for sixth-form colleges to 64.8% for foundation schools).

It's an absolute f**king lie that they can print stuff like this, the fact is state-educated students get significantly WORSE degree passes at university. They started with their conclusion, and pissed about with the data until they could make the conclusion fit it. :angry:

No you are the one misrepresenting the facts.

Just like you did when I posted something a few weeks ago that showed that private school pupils did worse in PISA tests when adjusted for parental income (e.g. if your household income is £100k a year and your kids go to state school they'll do better than their privately educated peers on average)

Of course private schools do better than state schools on average - they have a mixture of children from highly educated parents and scholarship pupils who are already high achievers. They can also kick out anyone likely to fail into the state sector and have vastly higher resources leading to smaller class sizes and more one on one attention.

However once these pupils leave school and go to university then those who have come up through the state system and have achieved the same results do better. Again the reasons are obvious in that at university you have large classes and rely on self-motivation, skills which will have been learnt by state school pupils who have haven't been spoon-fed throughout their school days.

[campervanman]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/stateeducated-students-achieve-better-degree-passes-at-university-9219867.html

How will the Oxbridge and Cambridge connections form for the elites if they end having to accept riff raff who'll do better?

If your privileged you simply don't need to put the effort in and at Uni it's 3 years of partying before moving onto the job daddies connections have got you?

Or,like Harry the barsteward you get one of your dads to pay the tutor to do your coursework.

Edited March 28, 2014 by campervanman

[Eddie_George]

In order to get to Cambridge from a sink comprehensive you need to be able to motivate yourself to study, have a strong interest in the subject, a fair amount of innate ability and quite a lot of luck.

From Eton, you might need a bit of ability.

So it's not surprising that for the same A level results, your State school kid is going to do better, it would be a surprise if it were any other way.

The real problems start after Cambridge, especially nowadays.

I've heard that places like Eton just coach pupils how to pass exams. That's why there's a disproportionate number of chinless wonders at Oxbridge.

[Eddie_George]

Oxford PPE.. I'm sure he got up very early every afternoon to work..

[bambam]

No you are the one misrepresenting the facts.

Nope, the facts are very simple - independent school students enter with better A Level grades and they leave with better degrees.

Just like you did when I posted something a few weeks ago that showed that private school pupils did worse in PISA tests when adjusted for parental income (e.g. if your household income is £100k a year and your kids go to state school they'll do better than their privately educated peers on average)

Yes, I recall you asserting that then, and failing to back up your assertions with any kind of source.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=196801&view=findpost&p=1102469544

Of course private schools do better than state schools on average - they have a mixture of children from highly educated parents and scholarship pupils who are already high achievers. They can also kick out anyone likely to fail into the state sector and have vastly higher resources leading to smaller class sizes and more one on one attention.

However once these pupils leave school and go to university then those who have come up through the state system and have achieved the same results do better. Again the reasons are obvious in that at university you have large classes and rely on self-motivation, skills which will have been learnt by state school pupils who have haven't been spoon-fed throughout their school days.

Yes but the whole point is that the study clearly shows that independently educated children do better at university. This reflects the fact that they are being set higher admission grades than children from state schools. This is clearly stated by admissions tutors.

[Timak]

Nope, the facts are very simple - independent school students enter with better A Level grades and they leave with better degrees.

Of course they do. A child of a doctor and a banker who went to Eton will usually outperform a pupil who went to a sink estate comprehensive. There are lots of factors involved in this - resources, genetics, nurture etc etc

However when you adjust it to compare like (the pupil with AAB from Eton and the pupil with AAB from Bogtrotter Comp) then the state educated pupil outperforms them at University.

I don't understand why you don't accept this conclusion - it has been backed up from repeated studies.

Yes, I recall you asserting that then, and failing to back up your assertions with any kind of source.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=196801&view=findpost&p=1102469544

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48482894.pdf

Look at the graph on page 2

Yes but the whole point is that the study clearly shows that independently educated children do better at university. This reflects the fact that they are being set higher admission grades than children from state schools. This is clearly stated by admissions tutors.

On average they do, but the point is that when you take pupils who achieved the same results at GCSE/A-level in the state system they do better than the ex-private school pupils.

And when you adjust for parental income then the state educated pupils perform better than their privately educated peers.

In other words you are wasting your money on private school if you are doing it to make them perform better in examinations. They won't - they'll do worse than they would have done in the state system on average.

[billy budd]

State schools are hampered by all the "special needs" kids and the ones that don't give a shit; these types are shunned/excluded by the private schools.

[Frank Hovis]

In other words you are wasting your money on private school if you are doing it to make them perform better in examinations. They won't - they'll do worse than they would have done in the state system on average.

Haven't you just said otherwise or am I misreading that?

If you pay to have your child privately educated then they will get better qualifications at that school than they would at the local comprehensive for a variety of reasons.

This will then give them an advantage in getting into a better university which will give them much better employment prospects, employers look at the university name first.

[Habeas Domus]

However once these pupils leave school and go to university then those who have come up through the state system and have achieved the same results do better.

The problem is that many people will skim over or misunderstand that small print "with the same results" and come to completely the wrong conclusion.

Yes there is a minority who do really well in state schools and will go in to do well elsewhere, that does not mean they would have done worse in a private school.

What the figures do show is that private schools are able to take an average pupil and push them into achieving good grades, well duh thats what they are paying for

[long time lurking]

Mongrels tend to be brighter than pedigrees

[Timak]

Haven't you just said otherwise or am I misreading that?

If you pay to have your child privately educated then they will get better qualifications at that school than they would at the local comprehensive for a variety of reasons.

This will then give them an advantage in getting into a better university which will give them much better employment prospects, employers look at the university name first.

No, when you compare apples with apples then the state outpeforms the private sector.

If you are a well educated couple with a £150k household income then if you send your child to a state school rather than a private school they will do no worse academically then they would have done in the private system.

Private schools do better overall on raw exam results as their intake is made up of either the children of well educated parents or scholarship pupils whilst state schools take anybody.

However the research shows that if you are a well educated couple with a £150k household income then if you send your child to a state school rather than a private school they will do no worse academically then they would have done in the private system. Indeed the PISA results show that this group of state pupils actually outperform private pupils in tests.

There are many other advantages to private education but it is a myth that the level of teaching is better.

[terryturbojr]

It's like if I played Tiger Woods at golf. If he went around in 65 and I went around in 90 some fools might consider saying that he'd had a better game than me, that he was a better golfer. You need to adjust it for handicap though. So once you've taken my 28 off, what you should really be saying is Terry played better golf than Tiger Woods.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

No, when you compare apples with apples then the state outpeforms the private sector.

If you are a well educated couple with a £150k household income then if you send your child to a state school rather than a private school they will do no worse academically then they would have done in the private system.

Private schools do better overall on raw exam results as their intake is made up of either the children of well educated parents or scholarship pupils whilst state schools take anybody.

However the research shows that if you are a well educated couple with a £150k household income then if you send your child to a state school rather than a private school they will do no worse academically then they would have done in the private system. Indeed the PISA results show that this group of state pupils actually outperform private pupils in tests.

There are many other advantages to private education but it is a myth that the level of teaching is better.

Who are you trying to kid? Yourself?

We all know that its not just an academic issue.

[porca misèria]

I've heard that places like Eton just coach pupils how to pass exams.

That would make it worthless. Would negate the reason for sending your kids there: namely that they grow up with the effortless self-confidence of the patrician, and build the social networks that matter.

That's why there's a disproportionate number of chinless wonders at Oxbridge.

That may be the case. We (comprehensive-educated plebs at Cambridge) never really encountered them, but were kind-of semi-aware of their presence somewhere. Most likely in some of the more backward-looking colleges, and studying degrees like the standing joke of "land economy".

On the other hand it's very clear that Cambridge goes to great lengths to negate any advantage to coaching: see here, for example (especially paragraphs 5 and 6).

Now, what about the finding of a couple of years ago, that the majority of Britain's Olympic winners were privately educated? Now that's where privilege really matters. You don't need to be rich to read and study, but you certainly need it to participate - let alone get coaching and excel - in many sports.

[Ah-so]

I've heard that places like Eton just coach pupils how to pass exams. That's why there's a disproportionate number of chinless wonders at Oxbridge.

You "heard" things did you? I am glad that they helped to reinforce your class based stereotypes.

Even if they are complete tosh.