I am not sure, if it isn't so intensive in other schools. It is so intensive in our prep school.

All kids aren't equally smart. Not all kids can also handle such a regime. It isn't for everyone. Those, who succeed in such schools, deserve not to be discriminated against, because their dad has a Range Rover and tweed suit.

If a good independent school prepares a child better than a state school, the child should have a preference. Otherwise, all those years of preparation and all that talent is wasted.

▲

growse 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Otherwise, all those years of preparation and all that talent is wasted.

In other words, the parents should get a return on their investment?

Your child is not entitled to an Oxbridge place over a state-educated child because they might have more potential and ability, they're entitled because you paid extra for it?

▲

patanegra an hour ago | parent [-]

Well, when you as a parent, basically get your 9-year-old, work as many hours per year, as a full-time employed adult, so your child reaches its full potential, you expect, that this possibility will continue in all levels of education.

Anyway. If Oxford is going to pass on those kids, who are often multiple years ahead of the average, some other university will accept them. And then, this university will likely beat Oxford in ratings.

	▲	growse 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'd be extremely wary of asserting that privately educated kids are any more successful at university than state-educated kids (on the same course) when there's no evidence to bear this out. If, however, you want to convince yourself that the amount of money you've spent on your child's education means they're smarter than the rest, go right ahead and believe that. Universities don't select for whether a candidate has "reached their full potential". They select for what that potential is.