I am a public school Boy, and know for a fact that the reasons why more of us go to oxbridge than state schooled children is that teaching is of a much higher satandard. Also more pupils are given the oppurtunity to achieve their full potential.

Beckers, bromsgrove,

I think the practice of distilling private school kids to Oxbridge is alive and kicking, and to try and pretend otherwise is delusional. I attended a fairly good state school and a good 'red brick' university. Many people on my course were pleasant, but overconfident, hooray henry types, who boasted constantly about trappings of life at private school. Many had been expected to apply for Oxbridge (though not all had got in)... I ended up with much better A level results and a better degree result than most of them. I'd deliberately chosen not to try for Oxbridge, as I preferred a university with a more democratic, multicultural vibe. I was also worried I'd be a state school lower middle class outsider among toffs. In any case that's what happened!

P.S. I find it ironic that, in a discussion about the top educational institutions in the country, so many contributors here don't seem to have the best skills in punctuation or spelling...

Charlotte G, London,

i think a lot has to do with the interview training a candidate receives. i went to a less prestigious independent school and was one of the best there in terms of grades/work ethic. i also did charity and work experience schemes to make myself more appealing. however i got rejected for law because i didn't get enough practice at things like case studies. although i tried to get help from teachers, they weren't interested as they didn't think i'd succeed. i think one is more likely to get this training at better equipped places like westminster. however my sibling went to a school that on paper was not as good as mine. one of the teachers saw potential and successfully trained my sibling. if i had this i would have been able to give it a better shot. i was clueless compared to many of the others when i went for the interview. so in summary, training from schools can help even if the candidate is not that clever.

saira, manchester,

I think it is sheer competence that gets Pupils admitted in Oxbridge My Son studied in Saudi Arabia got an excellent grade in IB exams Did his batchelors from Cambridge and will be finishing his Masters from Oxford in June 2007
It requires both efforts from students and supportive efforts from the parents

Dr Jaseem Siddiqui, Castlebar, Ireland

May i applaud John Wright. Although dear Mr. Brown may have thought that it was and "absolute scandal" that Laura Spence was rejected, did it ever cross his mind that maybe she did very poorly in the interview? Oxbridge do not only want academic genius's (or simply very able students), they want people who can function in society at a high standard and who can cope with the pressures of their academic system i.e. the tutorials etc - and who are also well-rounded people, with something to offer.

It is no picnic studying in Oxbridge - it is not like going to your local tech but with pretty buildings. It is far more difficult that people realise.

Niamh McBurney, Dublin,

To be honest, I don't think it really makes a difference what school one went to, and A-levels certainly aren't the best indicator. As a comprehensively-educated student with less-than-stunning A-level grades (scraped two of my three As by an insignificant margin, one of which on the second attempt - no reflection on my school, which was excellent, it's just that I didn't work hard enough...), I still feel I entirely deserve my place at Oxford on the basis of good interviews. The interview is the best test of one's ability to thrive in the tutorial system at Oxford; people who don't do well in and enjoy the interviews tend to feel the same way about tutorials, and certainly don't get the most out of their course. If it happens that private schools tend to turn out people better suited for an Oxford education, then it is the comprehensive sector, rather than the Oxford admissions procedure, that needs to change.

Jon Wright, Oxford, UK

Getting into Oxford, and Cambridge, is all about the interview. It's about how you'll cope there, learning in that intense environment. I don't believe that they select the most academically able students: I gained a great mark in the HAT test, but was so unprepared for the interviews. They choose those who are most likely to survive there. Thus, public school applicants are advantaged. The professors, who are mostly public-school educated, would rather teach students who are like themselves. By giving a state school candidate a place, they would not only be teaching them new academic material, but they would have to teach them the social skills required to survive in a public school environment. State school students are at a disadvantage and, no matter how hard we campaign, that will probably always be the case.

Emma, Manchester,

Oxford and Cambrdge maybe good but people should not focus on getting into them as there are perfectly good universities out there. American colleges are the best as they offer a great liberal arts education and you can choose your major after you start studying there. US Colleges for Life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Saran, London,

It must be obvious to any inteligent person, that it is harder to achive exam results good enough to gain entry to Oxbridge, at a state comprehensive school than it is at a good independant school.
What can possibly be unfair in offering a place to a state comprehensive pupil in preferance to a privately educated pupil where both have the same exam results.

Frank Loughran, Stockton on Tees, Cleveland

The level of State Education varies, through my journey so far i've attended, what i believe to be, two top quality state schools in comparison with others in Derby/Notts, in agreement though i belive that a majority of pupils work ethic is not there and a majority of younger teachers have no idea of how to cope with disruptive pupils. This therefore leads to class disruption and delayed lessons. Harsher Punishment guidlinesshould reform this issue.

Oli, Derbyshire,

Personally, I don't think that there is any kind of direct discrimination against candidates from state schools but what I, as the first person to apply from my comprehensive in over 20 years, found was everyone else had benefited from extensive interview preparation courtesy of their schools.
Having never even met an Oxbridge graduate prior to my interview, it was abundantly clear who knew exactly what to expect, how to react and what to say. Experience and intimate knowledge of 'the system' seems to be what counts.

GRD, Bishopbriggs,

Private schools achieve better results because the pupils understand discipline. Disruptive behavior is simply not tolerated so all are able to use the time effectively for the purpose of education. No amount of 'resources' or funding will reap benefits if the pupils are not all pulling in the same direction.
I am tired of government pouring money into initiatives, school building programmes and computer equipment. 'Tough love' for the population of this tragic little island would be a government prepared to spell out to parents and children that the purpose of school is learning. They'll rise to expectations. We import labour across all trades and professions not because we are short of people, but because too many of our children leave school so lazy, ignorant and unskilled that they are unemployable.
Universities cannot be expected to make silk purses out of sow's ears.
We must teach young parents HOW to bring up happy respectful children who are free to fulfil their potential.

Sarah, London,

People need to remember that Oxford is, after all, a world class university, and thus it needs - and has the right - to select the best pupils in each intake to retain its reputation.

The fact remains that, until there is a change in educational policy, those who can afford it will continue to send their children to independant schools to give them the best possible start in life. My father, through a pot luck place at an out of county grammar school and an excellent village school with a middle class catchment area, has managed to successfully educate three out of his four children for free. However, my youngest sister has just passed an extremely challenging entrance exam for an independant school. When she goes to university, is her achievement to be undermined merely because my father had the means to do compensate for poor local schools? If the government feels the need to take issue with universities selecting the best candidates it can, it can only have itself to blame.

NJ, University of Newcastle ,

I recently got rejected to do PPE at Oxford. There is quite frankly massive advantage to public schooled people.

For example, the PPE exam is riddled with obscure Latinate words and phrases that anyone who had not studied latin would struggle with. Speaking with candidates coming out of the exam confirmed this - you could separate comprehensive from elite just by the look on their face. All of the interviewers I met were clearly public schooled themselves or had integrated themselves into that culture. An intimidating experience if you're from a poor comprehensive in the north west and completely not used to talking to someone who behaves in that manner.

I am sure in science and maths it is a lot more fair and subjective. But for flagship Oxford courses like PPE and Classics it felt like the Victorian era and I was in the wrong place.

Tom, UK,

Mr Treloar is sadly misinformed if he thinks private school pupils are not selected at 11. Common entrance taken at 11 or more commonly 13 is a competitive exam with the most academic schools such as Eton, Winchester & Westminster demanding a standard at exams for which boys commonly use GCSE revision guides to prepare. The most popular schools are massively oversubscribed and the academic level is fearsome. At private schools in Surrey it is normal to suggest a minimum of 7A* before you consider applying to Oxbridge. The test is who gets in & who does well.

Jane, Guildford,

These are the same Labour MPs who attended Eton and ended up at Oxbridge. There is no point pretending that they know the plight of state school children especially those who attend the comprehensives. You are told not even think about Oxbridge, just concentrate at achieving a D in Maths and you should be fine in life. If they really want Oxbridge to open up its doors to state school students, review the standard of teaching in the state schools.

Jessica , Reading , U.K

The worry is that , contrary to the view of Mr Caldwell, the studets who apply to Cambridge are not better students, having worse GCSE grades that their state school counterparts. I am a state-school student, and among my private school friends the "Oxbridge candidates" have generally lower GCSE grades than the "Oxbrige candidates" at my school- and yet more of them get into Oxford or Cambridge. Given that private school students are not selected by ability at age 11, they should statistically do as well as students from comprehensives- in fact, they do far better.

Benedict Treloar, London,

I went to Oxford in the same year that Laura Spence was rejected, prior to that I went to a bad state school with no history of sending anyone to Oxbridge. At no point during the application process or my years of study did I feel that I was discriminated against because of my background or that preference was given to my privately educated peers. I would have been more offended if I thought that I had been offered a place merely to fulfil a government imposed quota. To retain their rank amongst the worlds leading institutions, Oxbridge colleges have to admit the best applicants (and I have no doubt this is what they do) and this may mean that a higher number come from private schools - that's life!

Katy, Harrogate,

I personally feel, coming from a state school background very recently, that there was no interest in pushing students to aim for Oxbridge. I remember mentioning the idea to my tutor in lower 6th but it was never followed up. The school's post-Further Education department were far too busy encouraging apprenticeships to the students who had decided not to go to university.

Rebecca, Coventry,

Top public schools have the resources to provide their pupils with an excellent education. Comprehensive schools don't have access to the same resources. It should come as no surprise that students attending these public schools obtain good A level results and are in demand at the top universities. It's not the universities fault, rather its the governments for failing to provide adequate fundding to comprehensive shools to enable them to compete properly.

simon, Lancaster, Lancashire

The Labour Party is side-stepping the more pressing issue of their failure to maintain state-provided education such that it is comparable to the likes of Eton and Westminster. Oxbridge are academically elite - which means that they discriminate on the basis of aptitude, how would that be inconsistent with how the rest of the world works? As for Laura Spence getting a place at Harvard and, subsequently, Cambridge and not at Oxford: Brown is just not acknowledging that people can give the wrong impression at interviews. Perhaps he should fight for every non-Oxbridge graduate who fails to get a job with Goldman Sachs/ Bain but gets one with Morgan Stanley/ McKinsey as well.

Pete, London, London

Dear Sirs,
Could someone explain to me why questions which are illegal in the context of a job interview would be perfectly acceptable in the context of a university application? Some coherence would help.
In france we ban ethnic surveys and we are more and more using anonymous CVs.

Simon Cussonay, Lyon, France

As an employer it is illegal for me to discriminate against anyone applying for a job on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sex, size or age.

It is beyond me how the Government can legislate against discrimination in one breath and then enforce positive discrimination in the next. There is only one thing that matters in the acceptance of a student to University and that is the individual's ability.

If the Government want to make meaningful improvements to the access of some to further education they should start by looking at the schools to help them promote and protect their best pupils.

I find this type of discrimination as abhorant as racism.

John Wallace, Glasgow,

Greetings from the American Kingdom.

I could not imagine those colleges failing in good stewardship. Entertaining incompitence is something for the American colleges, with exception to a few like Yale or Harvard.

Paul Harmon, Farmers Branch, USA

Like many others I worked hard for years to give my kids the benefit of private schooling or more accurately to spare them the disaster that Labour has made of state education in London. Naturally I assume a better school gives you a better chance in life including university. Instead of punishing my kids for my sacrifices by denying them places, why dont the public demand that the huge new investment in state schools under Labour shows some benefit and ask Labour ministers why 1 in 4 still leaves state primary schools unable to read or write properly for their age?

julian, london,

Some parents pay for these private schools, who in turn provide the extra support needed to attain places at these elite universities. Preparation for extrance exams, essays, interviews all goes a long way. Comprehensive schools have absolutely no system which assists pupils. I sat the LNAT exam with absolutely no guidance from my school and in comparison to my "privileged" friend who had been given tuition to sit the LNAT, I felt sorely disadvantaged. What the Government needs to do, is instead of wagging their finger at universities to pick state school students...help us to attain those places. If the figures are that bad, it can't be purely about the elitest attitude that alot of these universities have, it is partially about how poorly prepared state schools are in helping the students. Its not just about the grades anymore, it hasn't been for a long time. The teachers need training to help us with these intense interviews and exams because they are just as clueless as students.

Shabana Saleem, London,

It isn't the universities fault; top institutions want the best candidates to ensure that the opportunities they offer are maximized. If the independent schools are offering candidates that are better able to present themselves at interview, and who have achieved top grades, then what are Oxford and Cambridge supposed to do? Turn them away in favour of less suitable candidates?

It would seem to me that the problem lies not with the universities, but the quality of the schools, and their varying abilities to prepare pupils for the rigours of gaining Oxbridge acceptance.

Niall Caldwell, Belfast, Ireland

i work full time and all my salary goes to pay for my daughte's education. this is a choice made by myself in conjunction with my daughter. she is happy and i am happy to see her full potential utilised. if the state schools can offer me the same then of course i would rather not pay the extra i have to the private school.
there are many in similar situations that go to the same school and it upsets me when people comment that only the privialge go to private schools. my daughter worked hard to get into the school of her choice and it upsets me that she is marked as priviaged and possibly discriminated against because of the school she went to.

Sunder Sanghera, Newcastle-u-Lyme, Staffordshire