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?

It winds me up when people talk about how Oxford / Cambridge select on the basis of wealth / family / accent.

As you said later, it is very dependent on the College (and even subject). But it winds me up when People suggest this doesn't happen. The discrimination is subtle - but the difference between having a school that actively prepares one for Oxbridge vs just being clever means it really does still exist in some cases.

If you start to ask the pupils at 6th form you might find out.
Dd is considering applying to Oxford along with York, purely because a) the reputation for the course she wants to do and b) when the representative came to their school they weee informed that there’s extra grants available for studyfrom our area and economic status (ie not rich!).
It tends to have the closed shop reputation about it - if we don’t think you’ll fit in as one of us we’ll make sure you know, and unless you are used to living away from home why add to extra stress?

EightAce well they didn’t let him in because of it.

Completely agree with familycourtq.

It's interesting, and as discussed above it's clearly a complex web of interlinked factors. One that hasn't been mentioned, but which might also play some part, is a genetic component. I'd suspect that in aggregate bright children are likely to have bright parents. In aggregate bright parents are likely to get high-paying jobs. And the property market and the London economy (and social clustering) means they are overrepresented in those two (very well-to-do) London boroughs.

Is there anyone, of whatever political bent, who would dispute that Oxbridge is really bending over backwards to diversity their intake?

Oxbridge is about privilege though, yes the academically most able get in but there is no way on earth you can claim that 16 percent of the population who attend private schools for 6th form take up 45 percent plus of places at two elite universities without finding things that are in their favour.

I know of two students last year from a good north London comp who didn't get in, but achieved a stars in maths, further maths and physics. What are the reasons these extremely able children didn't get in?

There are a number of them, one is the expectation that they will apply and get in from private schools, this expectation goes far down the school and is built in. Kids are preparing for appliacations in y9 (although they may not realise it) and state schools just don't have the same resources to do this kind of work.

That's all that favours private schools, is the resources they have to put into applications and the in built expectation that their students will apply.

This research paper is an interesting read and highlights some of the issues
www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/access-to-advantage-university-admissions/

Is there anyone, of whatever political bent, who would dispute that Oxbridge is really bending over backwards to diversity their intake?

Yep.

Familycourtq - actually, that was my mistake, I can't guarantee that there aren't any interviewer who is a bigoted idiot who attaches merit to those things. I guess my point was that the incidence of this is far, far lower than the universal truth that's paraded.

The article linked above shows how students who have lower grades are often admitted if they come from poverty / poor schooling / have other difficulties. This can be above those with tailored Oxbridge programmes and high predicted grades.

I can't speak for Richmond but Barnet is a combination of a large amount of reasons.

a) Excellent state secondaries. The 2 top grammar schools in the country are both in Barnet. The comprehensives especially the faith ones are superb at A level. JCOSS sends a good number and JFS in neighbouring Brent has a majority of their children living in Barnet, they will often have up to 20 offers a year and will count under Barnet statistics. Then add a couple of other good comprehensives such as Compton and then a very selective 6th form college with Woodhouse and you've already part of your answer
b) All the big name North London private schools will have a large number of children travelling from Barnet so there again that adds your numbers
c) Ethnic diversity and economic affluence. Barnet is an affluent yet ethnically diverse borough and particularly the very large hindu and Jewish communities place a massive value on education and will push their children towards Oxford and Cambridge as they believe it's the key to advancement. There's a lot to be said for perceived status

Someone up thread said it's because it covers Hampstead, unfortunately, Hampstead is in Camden. you can tell that via the ludicrous 7 day a week parking restrictions and their ability to tow ever car in sight. Doesn't happen in Barnet.

no way on earth you can claim that 16 percent of the population who attend private schools for 6th form take up 45 percent plus of places at two elite universities

With stats like that is it any wonder a bright student from somewhere like Sheffield, Leeds or Manchester thinks fuck it ill go to another Uni which offers just as good a course and wont make me feel like a social outcast for not going to a private school?

In some schools, entry to Oxbridge has just become a perpetuating obsession , driven by the parents, university admissions departments (with experience and resourcing to support application) and the 'fear' of stepping off the highly competitive meritocratic hamster wheel.

This obsession is then fed by University ranking tables, media attention and the like.

Too much attention and societally endowed kudos. We shouldn't judge people on where they went to university. We should ensure that children go to the university that is suitable for them, and isn't seen as a second choice to Oxbridge. I feel for other universities always living in the Oxbridge shadow. But for the most part they just seem to get on with their job of educating.

I very much doubt his son was rejected because his father donated money. That isn't how admission works at an Oxbridge college. DH did admission for an Oxford college so I know exactly how it works. You're given a grade based on each of your interviews (this isn't particularly subjective because you just see how far the student gets through the problem and with how much help) and also your performance on the pre-test (again not subjective) and the highest performing candidates are given a place. The only exception to this is when students meet certain criteria (have been in care or at a school which is flagged for underperforming - not sure of the exact criteria) in which case if they are above a certain threshold (i.e. they could cope with the course) they will be given a place automatically although not necessarily at their first choice college.

Lots of people who are rejected from Oxbridge will have a theory on why (I've heard because they went to a state/grammar/private school all given as reasons) but the reality is it is just incredibly competitive and there will be plenty of candidates who have 4A* predictions, 11 perfect GCSEs, excellent references (these are all but useless as they all effectively perfect) but just didn't perform quite as well on the day f the interviews as other candidates.

I know of two students last year from a good north London comp who didn't get in, but achieved a stars in maths, further maths and physics. What are the reasons these extremely able children didn't get in?

Probably because they were applying for competitive courses where most people were getting those sort of grades and for whatever reason didn't do very well at interview. At my school there were a fair number of straight a pupils who didn't get in to Oxbridge either. Just like the Laura Spence affair.

I agree with the competitiveness, student I know got feedback that she would have been offered a place, but she got a C in her MFL gcse and other applicants of the same strength had higher grades.

The interview is subjective though, a very confident student will do better than one who is very nervous.

I know of two students last year from a good north London comp who didn't get in, but achieved a stars in maths, further maths and physics. What are the reasons these extremely able children didn't get in?

I know of many many private school students who didn't get in with straight A. A-levels aren't very difficult compared to getting in to Oxbridge - that's why they set their own admission tests. Straight As at GCSE and A-level mean you'll be good enough to be interviewed (and in the case of Oxford only if you've scored highly enough on the pre-tests MAT or PAT in the case of maths/physics respectively). It does not mean you're bright enough to get in!

Richmond is wealthy with plenty of children in private schools and a very very selective grammar in the next borough (Tiffin).

Lemonmeringue33
I think Eton College is in Hounslow so might skew your stats a bit!

Eton College is within the unitary authority of Windsor and Maidenhead, so I don't think it can be in Hounslow as well?

I know of two students last year from a good north London comp who didn't get in, but achieved a stars in maths, further maths and physics. What are the reasons these extremely able children didn't get in?

Also the schools that dominate Oxbridge simply do well at teaching beyond the curriculum and this data will not be revealed in the statistics but it will certainly come to bear in the interview.

My son attends one such school and just finished his GCSEs. To say that the internal curriculum exceeds the state one is an understatement - his year 10 maths looked like the gibberish on Goodwill Hunting.

Incidentally for those suggesting that Durham is more appealing for northern students/those from comprehensives, that is not the case. 40% of students at Durham come from private schools and, although there aren’t statistics to back it up, anecdotally it is dominated by students from the south east.

In part this is because it is so shockingly unaffordable, with undergraduate accommodation averaging over £7k a year. So even for those wanting to stay in the area, the nearest “best” (in terms of prestige/league tables, obviously not objectively the best) university is also inaccessible to many.

OP, I live in Richmond borough and I can tell you why. In this borough (or in the edges of it) you have) a range of schools that send 20-30% of pupils to Oxbridge every year. These schools are-

St Paul’s Girls School
St Paul’s Boys
King’s College Wimbledon
Latymer Upper
Godolphin and Latymer

Then there are other schools that probably still send around 15-20% to Oxbridge -

Putney High School
Wimbledon High School
Kingston Grammar School

Plus the super-selective grammars which have no catchment -

Tiffin Boys
Tiffin Girls

There is no other area in the country that has any thing like this - nor the academic pressure of getting into one of these schools! It’s like a different planet - educationally-speaking. At 11 plus, the odds of gaining a place at one of these schools through the competitive entrance exams / interview procedures are at least 1 in 10 - eg. for Godolphin and Latymer, 1000 girls will sit for 100 places every year.

It is rare to gain a grade ‘B’ or equivalent once at any of these schools, either at GCSE or A-level. For instance, last year, SPGS achieved 99% A-A* at GCSE while G&L just down the road achieved 98%.

Richmond is a very wealthy borough with a much higher than average proportion of DC in independent schools. Even if you don’t gain entrance into one of the “top tier” schools, the so-called “mid-tier” schools are on a totally different level to the standard independents in other parts of the country (with the exception of a few - eg. King Edwards in Birmingham and a few others).

Have a look at the “Best Schools” league table for GCSE. Most of the top 10 schools in the UK are in the Richmond borough or just outside its border and so easily accessible.

The interview is subjective though, a very confident student will do better than one who is very nervous.
No the interview actually isn't particularly subjective in terms of performance. The only difference is if is a candidate is so nervous they can't think or answer properly. There is an advantage to having experience in really thinking deeply about topics though and being used to thinking beyond the very standard A-level curriculum questions. For example has the student taken maths challenge? have they tried Euler problems online? Do they go on online forums and discuss problems? Have they had the experience of researching and teaching themselves new topics they happen to find interesting? (obviously some of this only applies for maths/physics/stem subjects). Some students do this on their own initiative but at top schools students are lead into these extra curricula avenues naturally. They don't tend to teach primary maths challenge but the top students sit the test so they're exposed to it - they have subscriptions to various magazines and teachers who are highly qualified and can make suggestions. Even in lessons they'll discuss more difficult problems which are beyond the examinations. Bright students at top schools will have more fluency because their top set has a narrower range of abilities and will have been pushed through their education so are often years ahead of a student without those opportunities. Likewise they come from homes filled with books and often parents who are technical themselves and can help encourage interests. All of this is a massive lifelong advantage.

Of course privilege plays a big part. And that is particularly obvious and adventageous in the interview process.

• access to extra curricular activities that build confidence (drama, skiing, etc)
• access to theatre, arts, holiday schemes
• a home environment where wider reading, current news, etc are discussed on a regular basis
• money to support and encourage further exploration of a child's interests
• tutors and private education
• parents and usually grandparents and wider family who are all professionals and university graduates

The list is endless.