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?

And all build a child who is able to interview well.

and for whatever reason didn't do very well at interview.

But there's the key - it isn't "whatever reason". Kids from schools where they are taught how to interview well at Oxbridge are going to have an advantage.

Isn't part of the issue the borough boundaries? So Manchester doesn't include Trafford?

Richmond does not have grammar schools (Kingston does though which is neighbouring).

It does have some good state secondary schools but the reason for the figures will be the private schools (not all of the ones in catloom's post are in Richmond but a lot of them are, Richmond is a big borough and has quite a bit of space so has some sought after private secondary schools)

they are extremely selective and v hard to get into (some of these private schools) and pride themselves on getting the kids into Oxbridge

ds once went for an interview at one (he went to state school but got asked to come for an interview as he was very sporty for one of the private sixth forms). We were told categorically that despite him being excellent at sport, they were only willing to take children who were at the top of their game academically. We found it came across as very snooty, even ds said afterwards that he felt their attitude was extraordinary. But I guess it works as they have a vast number of children who get into Oxbridge every year!

Here’s the top 10 schools by GCSE. Both the St Paul’s schools (boys and girls), Godolphin and Latymer and KCS are in Richmond borough or just on the border. Many pupils will also go a bit further to Westminster, NLCS or City. Latymer Upper has withdrawn from the league tables, but would be in there. Other local schools eg Putney or Wimbledon High would be in the top 20 and there are whole networks of school coaches taking pupils a little further out to Hampton School or LEH (aldo in Hampton). Also, there are many boys preps which prepare for CE in this borough, from which many will go to Eton, Wycombe Abbey or other top boarding schools at 13 if this was the plan.

Transport links could be part of it.

Probably most of the reason. We're doing Uni open days with our son at the moment. We're in the North and transport "down south" is really inconvenient and expensive. Train fares are crazy for 3 of us, even if we book far in advance, there are no direct trains so the journey times are very long, and then you have transport needs at the other end. Add in an overnight accommodation and you're down by a few hundred pounds per visit. Far, far cheaper by car, but then you have the miles and miles of roadworks, delays and queues on the motorway. Thankfully, our son's school is doing an organised trip to Cambridge which they're subsidising. But, in reality, we're only able to visit the Northern universities (Leeds, Durham, etc). I had a quick look at trains from London to Oxford and Cambridge seem cheap and plentiful!

Another point is that Oxford and Cambridge don't do open days at weekends, so that means if parents want to go along, they need to take a day or two off work, which means loss of income. Most more "normal" unis do open days at weekends.

20 years ago DH from working class background in declining industrial town was discouraged from applying to universities let alone Oxbridge – he was told to lower expectation he got 5 As at A-level and went to a northern university and got a first. He never applied to Oxbridge assumed even it he got in he wouldn’t be welcomed.

His hometown in meantime is now a commute belt for nearby cities – population generally is more affluent. Family friend very working-class background similar to DH was positively encouraged to apply to Oxbridge – and got in.

I’d be interested in applications numbers vs selected people – I suspect it’s not transport links or even money but wider more nebulous expectations hindering applications even being made - though I could be wrong.

I don’t know Barnet too well, but I imagine the high proportion of Oxbridge entry there is due to schools such as -

Haberdashers Askes
North London Collegiate
Highgate

plus a few others up that way.

That may be true to some extent familycourtq, but a claim can't be made that the two students mentioned "should" have got in when it is such a competitive process irrespective of background.

Also, aside from the Oxbridge stats, most of the schools mentioned above send at least that proportion again to US Ivy League, top medical schools, LSE etc.

sorry posted to soon...All the schools I mentioned will without doubt have dedicated departments to help with Oxbridge applications, just as there is another department to guide pupils through US applications.

For the record, my son was predicted to get and got four As at A-level (As didn't exist at that level then), had thirteen As at GCSE, applied to Oxford from a school which generally got and still gets between nine and twelve pupils into Oxbridge every year, and was unlucky: that one year not a single pupil from that school was accepted by either university.

We did slightly wonder what had gone wrong, that this should happen just in that one year, and whether it would be worth waiting a year and applying again; but in the end he took his second choice Durham; he also applied to and was accepted by Manchester. He had a good time at university followed by a happy career -- so far, anyhow.

We were not living in either London or the North. Other parts of the country exist! (And I went to the university in the town we lived in, and graduated at the same time as him but with a better degree Ha Ha Ha Hurrah For Me! He stopped making fun of me about doing it at that point.)

I highly highly doubt that the son of the chap who donated a lot of money to his former college was rejected for that reason. In fact, I’d be surprised if any reason was given, as I don’t think they do that.

I am loving all the spluttering “why would a bright student choose to go to Oxbridge when there are courses that are just as good at other Universities, without the horrid snooty atmosphere”. You are kidding yourselves. Nobody really believes that other universities are equally as good, they just tell themselves that to justify why they are scared to apply/got rejected. And yes, I know that the courses in some subjects might have a different focus or structure but come on, if you have a degree from Oxford or Cambridge no employer ever said “ah but I know that the course in this subject at Loughborough is much better so I’m not going to give you any credit for having gone to Cambridge”. The only valid reason not to apply would be that Oxford/Cambridge do not offer the subject or subject combination that you want to study -their range is quite limited.

What people are not realising is that (in addition to lectures and seminars) the Oxbridge teaching system uniquely offers students teaching in small groups of no more than four throughout their degree, which is going to be pretty hard to find in most other institutions. That alone makes them a better choice.

I went to Cambridge from a comprehensive school way up North, first in my family to go to University, first from my school to go to Cambridge, knew nobody who had been, had very little money and was voted head of my college students’ union at a very traditional college that only admitted women in the early eighties. Never for one second did I feel belittled, marginalised, looked down upon or socially excluded. It was beautiful and the rent was peanuts. And, being a young thing with a sense of adventure, I wasn’t daunted by a long train ride to get there .

My DH also went (not at the same time as me) from a similar social background in the South West and also had a fabulous time. We live just outside Barnet now . Our son will see from us that normal people go and will not discount it as an option when the time comes. (Obviously we’ll disown him if he wants to apply to Loughborough)

For Cambridge, the most successful schools for getting offers were state grammars (37%). Independents were 34% and comps 28%. One interesting thing is that the number of offers were similar for independents and comps, but 72% of the comprehensive school offers resulted in them actually attending compared to 85% for independent schools. I can't see from the statistics whether this is because more comprehensive school pupils didn't achieve their offers, or because more of then turned the offer down.

GraceSlicksRabbit - agree completely with you. Similar (but non-northern background and loved it.

Reposting - but please do read this:

Insight Into Cambridge Admissions

Nobody really believes that other universities are equally as good, they just tell themselves that to justify why they are scared to apply/got rejected

Of course there are universities that are equally good if not better than Oxbridge, to say otherwise shows a very blinkered viewpoint.

More affluent areas will naturally attract families who are academically gifted ,or have the means to send children to private schools /Grammar/Private tuition.Its a fact of life that children from poorer areas have weaker chances of going to Uni .(Successive governments keep trying to overcome this).Richmond must be one of the wealthiest boroughs in the country !. Oxbridge is the pinnacle of academic achivement !

LSE is better than Oxbridge for Economics and an MBA.

Leeds is better than Oxbridge for business.

The Open University is better than Oxbridge if you want someone with an Msc in Finance.

Soas is better than Oxbridge for anything government / policy / political / international development course.

I say this as someone who recruits both junior and senior investment bankers.

My hunch is that the people who really drive oxbridge applications e.g students and parents do not care if open university happens to be better for finance.

Nobody really believes that other universities are equally as good, they just tell themselves that to justify why they are scared to apply/got rejected.

Funny you say that. I went to Cambridge for my BA and Oxford for my MSt, and I have no problem acknowledging there are equally good universities. IME the people who cling desperately to the 'Oxbridge is the be-all and end-all' myth are those who have very little else to be proud of and/or feel insecure about themselves.

What people are not realising is that (in addition to lectures and seminars) the Oxbridge teaching system uniquely offers students teaching in small groups of no more than four throughout their degree, which is going to be pretty hard to find in most other institutions. That alone makes them a better choice.

Do you think people really don't know Oxbridge has a tutorial system? I think a lot of people do know.

Not everyone will find this the best way to learn, though. I have taught both at Oxbridge and elsewhere, and while some students thrive on being in one-to-one or very small group supervisions, others would honestly do better with the sorts of discussions you get in a class of 10 or more, which aren't so common at Oxbridge.

If you are studying a subject with a small intake, you can end up feeling quite isolated at Oxbridge, and that's not good for everyone.

@AlaskanOilBaron - probably. They probably just want the Oxbridge moniker. They don’t realise than LSE /OU etc have higher undergrad employment rates.

Teddybear half of the degrees you are mentioning are not offered as undergraduate courses at Oxbridge. I am talking about undergraduate choices here.

Economics certainly is offered at Oxbridge!