To ask why two London boroughs send more kids to Oxbridge than the entirety of Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester combined?

[nickymanchester]

I was reading an article in The Guardian today which claimed that more children from the London boroughs of Richmond and Barnet go to Oxbridge than all of Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester combined.

For context, the population of Richmond and Barnet combined is about 540k (Barnet actually has quite a lot of people living there) according to the ONS - so about the same population as Sheffield.

David Lammy says England is failing those who don't go to university

This is the quote:-

He noted that university access data reveals that geography is as much of a fault line as class or race. “Two London boroughs, Richmond and Barnet, send more kids to Oxbridge than the entirety of Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester combined,” he said.

So, is it just down to all the private schools in London? Or is there something else affecting these figures as well?

Transport links could be part of it.

Do you have the figures of how many actually apply from those areas versus how many get offers and how many actually accept the offers/get the grades?
We are in the North and my DD chose to go to university in the North (still 2 hours away from us).

My understanding is that generally those in the north will not necessarily ant to go to Oxbridge or have it on their radar but are more likely to apply to the top unis in the north such as Durham. Some of it stems from the its not for the likes of us (which it is because its for anyone) and some of it is the distance.

Obviously Oxford and Cambridge are only an hour or so by train from London.

I would assume transport might be part of it but equally they might be held in high regard but Oxford and Cambridge are not the be all end all of universities. There are other, often better choices out there so I would presume more able students from outside those boroughs are casting their net wider than just those 2 choices.

Both those London boroughs are pretty affluent, even by London standards, so I'd expect that they have a higher proportion of privately educated children than Sheffield, etc. Privately educated children are disproportionately represent among Oxbridge students.

And the interviewing panels may well be prejudiced against northern accents!

I was going to say transport too. Oxford & Cambridge are both ~1.5 hours from London. Way less than the cities you listed.
The extra benefits may not be enough compared with e.g. Warwick, Durham or wherever.

I live in Sheffield, transport links to Oxford are just fine - we've got both cars and trains now.....

In part (and yes this is not the whole story) because the north has some excellent universities itself and students don't necessarily think as an Oxbridge degree as the be all and end all of educational aspiration.

Also, far fewer children are privately educated in the north than the SE .

Maybe students further north don't want to move so far from their families for the sake of a marginally better university?
Maybe they are put off by moving from low cost of living to high cost of living areas.
Maybe London attracts very clever high-earning people who then have clever children.
Maybe there are one or two excellent feeder schools in those areas which disproportionately contribute

How has he concluded that geography is the reason, not class or race (which are also very different between those two areas)?

So, is it just down to all the private schools in London?

Not just private schools, I imagine, but also grammar schools. Both of those boroughs still have grammar schools.

Talented Northern kids tend to go to Sheffield / Leeds / Durham / Manchester U / Birmingham U / Leicester U / Loughbourgh U etc - all of those unis are as good or better for certain subjects than Oxbridge with the added advantage of being closer to home and providing more direct routes to employment for kids who don’t have connections.

How has he concluded that geography is the reason, not class or race (which are also very different between those two areas)? He's not concluding it's geography per se, class, race, income/wealth are all part of what leads to the difference between the two areas.

Despite there being some very poor areas, most of the wealth of the country is concentrated in SE, which means higher levels of private schooling, more access to extra curricular activities and more "social capital", all of which will lead to a greater chance of getting into Oxbridge.

A highly selective private or grammar school will naturally have a far higher proportion of kids going to Oxbridge than anywhere else. This will be reflected in the fact that they get far far better A-level results than other schools. There will also be a higher proportion of parents with parents who went to Oxbridge (or other top international universities) and have the confidence to apply and take STEP, pre admissions tests etc. A child in a poorly performing comprehensive will be so behind by the time they reach A-levels that unless they are exceptionally self motivated and confident they wouldn't stand a chance at STEP. A school local to me has the top set maths group with a range of GCSE grades from A-C and almost no provision for the 3 or 4 really bright students in that class. (The teacher was great but actually had done physical education not maths at university and wasn't able to stretch the bright students as their limit was GCSE).

There is a bias against Oxbridge at some schools who would advise students against it. (Actually Oxbridge has excellent hardship funds and other opportunities for bright students from disadvantaged backgrounds).

It's broadly because they don't apply (for whatever reason). Oxford recently released its stats and they were discussed on another thread. IF you look at them here on page 7 it has the application and acceptance percentages for each region. They are roughly in line for each area so the success rate is broadly similar wherever you are in the country but Greater London and the South East are overrepresented in applicants compared to the percentage of high A-level achievers (and the converse is the case for North of England and Scotland, Wales and N. IReland). I would imagine that Cambridge has similar stats.

Because schools in thoae boroughs have had a shit ton of money pumped into them.

And the interviewing panels may well be prejudiced against northern accents!

Bollocks may they. Honestly, do you think people doing interviews live in Brideshead Revisited and swan around crooking their pinkie fingers round cups of tea and asking Tarquin for the scones?

Plenty of them don't have RP accents.

Maybe it is because people in those areas are closed off to the idea that there are excellent universities elsewhere in the UK and refuse to step outside their comfort zone.

To ask why two London boroughs send more kids to Oxbridge than the entirety of Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester combined?

1. Economic capital- people who live there are (on average) very rich.

1. Social capital- people who live there will know people who went and leverage those connections.

1. Cultural capital- that expectation and familiarity with power seeps into your bones when you grow up on the right side of the oligarchy. On average poor/northern kids see Oxbridge as 'not for them'.

Talented Northern kids tend to go to Sheffield / Leeds / Durham / Manchester U / Birmingham U / Leicester U / Loughbourgh U etc - all of those unis are as good or better for certain subjects than Oxbridge

Not so good for becoming PM though are they? If you want to be a journalist, barrister, civil servant, charity professional or politician in this country then going to those Unis (and the requisite public school before hand, of course) helps a lot.

Because they’re two of the most affluent areas of the UK? Those boroughs include Hampstead, Finchley, Kingston, Twickenham....it’s where the money is. Oxbridge follows private education which follows wealth.

Well here's a thought to get hold of, maybe an Oxbridge education, private school connections and wealth shouldn't be pre-requisites for being a journalist/barrister/PM. Esp the latter.

Not so good for becoming PM though are they

How many people actually have this as an ambition in reality.

It's as though you're saying those who attend Oxbridge all want to become PM.

It's as though you're saying those who attend Oxbridge all want to become PM.

Did you not read the sentence immediately afterwards?

PMSL that transport has something to do with it. And, no, I don't find it funny.

They have selective sixth forms. They only take pupils who aced their GCSE’s.
Non-story.

Barnet has very successful, incredibly high-achieving grammars.

Richmond has wealth and private schools aplenty.

The inequality within London is huge.