When it comes to entrance to St Paul's it is arguably one of the most selective schools in the country - I would guess within the top 5. No child there has a C intellect.
I personally think it is rather condescending to say, as stated in the article I read, that a child from a certain school should gain entry because they didn't have good teaching because a lower than average number get good GCSE's. I would say that this school has good teaching but a cohort who may be disadvantaged socially, economically and academically. That does not mean that teaching is not good and the child who got good grades did it despite the school they were in. My experience of state schools were that all the riff-raff left at 16 and the ones who stayed on got fantastic results. If you compared the GCSE avergae to the A'level A grade average one would assume the school was awful pre A'level. This is simply not the case. If Durham is going to look at results based on GCSE averages then they should look at A'level averages for the school not GCSE. If the average was 3 C's and a child got AAB then I could see the point to this but not GCSE's!
The woman that was upset said she struggled to send to indie not that she had "PAID".
EDIT: I don't think because I've paid it should automatically mean that DC should get into any university but I also think he shouldn't be penalised for it. These are children afterall and it stuns me how harsh people can be when it comes to thinking its ok to screw up a childs future as long as their kids are ok!
At the end of the day the private school kids will end up at the most elite uni's if they are not gaining admission to British ones, or they will all end up at the same uni and "jobs for the boys" will be further perpetuated!