Who gets the best jobs?

[fizzyfanta]

I wonder if anyone watched this programme on BBC2 last night.

Whilst I appreciate that children from poorer backgrounds are not exposed to the same resources as those who have been privately educated, I cant help think that sometimes,these children are let down by their own parents and possibly their schools for not giving them enough courage to make them believe that 'they can be who they want to be'. Surely, the whole thing is being generalised and private education is being used as a scapegoat for the failures of the state system?

"There really is an awful lot of conspiracy theory out there which amounts to teacher bashing based on assumptions and anecdotes rather than good, solid evidence."

And there is an awful lot of teacher smuggery. Do you read any threads on MN? Do you not see all the examples of poor teaching and management. You have ignored DKW's posts. Do they count for nothing or, as per usual, are adverse comments swept aside as 'anecdote'.

expat96 I knew exactly what you were getting at with your Oxbridge 'insufficiently ambitious' comment. I am astounded at a 10 out of 11 sucess rate: to me it implies that they only allow 1000%-cert, copperbottomed students to apply.

'it implies that they only allow 1000%-cert, copperbottomed students to apply.'

Eh? Why on earth would we do this? This 'they' is my place of work you're talking about.

I have taken great pains to explain how the Oxbridge programme works at my college and some of the many reasons why students may CHOOSE not to apply.

The fact that you continue to assume that teachers or schools or colleges are somehow preventing students from applying does suggest you don't know very much about students' experience today and is really quite bizarre.

Once again, some reasons why students may CHOOSE not to apply to Oxford and Cambridge include:

1.) The chances of them getting in are slim.

'More than 15,000 people applied to Oxford for 2009 entry (this number has climbed to more than 17,000 for 2010 and 2011 entry). Oxford has 3,200 places.'

This year although the percentage of students from state schools applying went up the number who got in went down.

Given that their chances are so slim some students decide they would be better off devoting their time to ensuring they get the best possible A Level results to ensure they get a place at another university or they may have other priorities for example caring for a family member.

2.) The fact that courses there continue to be very traditional and combinations of subjects are often not possible.

Often students find a course at a particular university which is ideally suited to them.

I taught a girl a few years ago who was clearly Oxbridge material but won a special place at a prestigious music college which had links with the ENO as I remember and this was absolutely ideal for her.

3.) The fact that students from poorer backgrounds often choose to stay at home while at university for financial and cultural reasons. Oxford and Cambridge are charging the full whack for tuition fees and are very expensive towns to live.

And I do wonder why the disproproportionate time and attention given to Oxbridge. Oxford and Cambridge will only ever admit a small and privileged (academcially and economically) group of people. Oxford only had 3,200 places this year. It's frankly irrelevant for most people. Why is the debate not about how to end social division and exclusivity in academia rather than sustain it?

Sorry, actually, you're right. I am lying about what I do and am just part of the big teachers' conspiracy. I went into teaching like all other teachers just so I could tell the buggers not to get ideas above their station. Telling them not to apply for Oxbridge together with my ideology of being against bright kids being stretched is really my mission and nothing is more satisfying than students' lack of success

This is why we spend hours and hours mostly unpaid of our time on extension classes, Oxbridge programmes, mock interviews (I took part in a mock interview this year which took me an hour to prepare and because it went over my lunchtime meant I didn't actually get a chance to do a wee let alone eat anything until 3 pm). And that's just the Oxbridge lot. Don't get me started on what lengths my colleagues and I have been to to get some other kids to stay on at college.

But you know what? Teachers are not capable of miracles.

When is it going to be acknowledged that teachers and schools are not capable of creating a level playing field when there is already a difference in academic performance at age 3 because of social inequalities?

I had a student leave at the end of her AS year in spite of getting A grades in all her subjects to train to be a hairdresser. I tried everything I could think of to get her to change her mind but her parents didn't see that she was making the wrong decision and neither did she. All I can hope is that she realizes that hairdressing isn't that great and comes back to sit her A2s next year or that she becomes a Nicky Clarke at hairdressing and makes her fortune and proves me wrong!

@purits: I'm by not suggesting it's primarily the teachers' fault that more students don't apply. fivecandles is correct that the students must make their own decisions. On what input are these decisions made? Well, I'm guessing that teachers provide some, parents provide some, peers provide some and, of course, the students themselves ought to do homework. Out of all that come the decisions about where to apply.

I am surprised that at fivecandles' school only 11 students wished to attend Oxbridge. But, fortunately, their ex post probability of entry was greater than 90%! If any other students had harbored desires to attend Oxbridge (and fivecandles apparently has deemed this question unworthy of answering), it seems that the 12th student's probability of admittance must have been so low as to be unworthy of the effort of applying. Now I can think of reasons this might be the case, most notably that perhaps the 11 came from an advanced group, and that other groups had not been prepared for the most competitive courses; that would beg the question of why there weren't more students being taught in the advanced program. But, otherwise, it's hard for me to see how there could be such a drop off between the 10th student and the 12th student (accounting for the one out of 11 who was not admitted).

It has been asserted that this school had 11 students who wished to attend Oxbridge and had a 90%+ probability of getting in (ex post). If, and this is a big if, there did exist ten more students at the school who did wish to attend Oxbridge and if, also a big if, these ten students had a 50% chance of success (ex ante), then five more state school students would have been rejected but five more state school students would also have Oxbridge places. But this is all hypothetical.

But fivecandles apparently isn't interested in discussing the possibility that ten Oxbridge places might be increased if students could be convinced and prepared to be less conservative in their applications. I guess that's not the way things are done at that school. After all, Oxbridge is not the last word, a sentiment which those of you who waded through my long earlier post know I agree with. Still, though, it seems a bit unfair for him/her to blame us for discussing it given that he/she was the first to bring it up on this thread.

I do also find it inconsistent that fivecandles declares me to be patronizing when I suggest that perhaps more of her students should apply to Oxbridge, when he/she apparently doesn't think it the least bit patronizing to suggest that her student should have ambitions greater than hairdresser. It appears that this girl, at least, does not deserve to be respected.

expat, I'm really struggling to understand why you're so insistent that there must be others who wanted to apply to Oxbridge with the implication that they were somehow dissuaded by teachers.

As I've said I'm not in charge of the Oxbridge programme but I work very closely with the person who is. He issues letters to all students with an Oxbridge profile (i.e. A or B grades at GCSE who are coping well with AS Levels) which is followed by a meeting when they are told more about Oxford and Cambridge, the application process and the support offered by the college. Obviously the Oxbridge tutor works closely with subject tutors who may recommend students whose results at GCSE are not exceptional but who show exceptional talent in a particular field. It is then up to individual studnets whether to apply. Of course some students may begin the programme and drop out if for example they find they're not coping as well as they need to with their AS Levels or if they find a course more suited to them at another university or they can't cope with the added demands of preparing for Oxbridge entry.

It is hard to imagine how there could be more encouragement or support. We can't force students to apply if they don't want to.

As for my girl who left to become a hairdresser, I don't think there's anything remotely patronising about suggesting that hairdressing is not the most challenging occupation for a straight A student. That's not disrepectful to my student or to hairdressers generally. Of course, ultimately I had to respect her decision and wish her well (you'll notice I'm still thinking about her although she left back in September) but personally I think it was the wrong decision.

' had a 90%+ probability of getting in'

You cannot make any sort generalisations based on 10 particular students out of 11 particular students in 1 particular year.

It is not 'probablility' at all and there's nothing to say that results will be the same next year or were the same last year. That's a very odd logic. It's also very odd to imply that if another 10 people had applied they would have had the same odds. Why would they? Especially since as is the case nobody else did choose to apply?

But there's no winning is there. Teachers are bad if they don't force more people to apply to Oxbridge and teachers are bad if they don't want straight A students to drop out of college and become hairdressers.

Let's face it everything's the fault of teachers!

There's no sense of students or their parents having any sort of personal responsibility or any sense that students are products and victims of social inequalities.

If you want to know why so few kids from working class backgrounds are getting into Oxbridge or university at all it's pointless just looking at what happens to them at 16. By then it's far, far too late.

Look at this for example,
'His new report shows that 44% of all five-year-olds in England are considered by their teachers to be falling behind in their development. However in richer commuter towns, such as Solihull and Richmond upon Thames, state schools report this figure to be about 30%. In Haringey, a deprived part of north London, it is almost double.

Marmot, a public health specialist and author of Fair Society, Healthy Lives, said: "The evidence is very clear: investing in pre-school years pays most dividends. We already know that by the age of 10 a child from a poorer background will have lost any advantage of intelligence indicated at 22 months, whereas a child from an affluent family will have improved his or her cognitive scores purely because of his/her advantaged background."'

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/11/poorest-children-fail-good-level-behaviour?INTCMP=SRCH

@fivecandles: Thank you for taking a different tone in this discussion. Please understand that I am not trying to bash teachers. My questions and comments have always addressed the end result (11 students applied to Oxbridge and ten were offered places) and I believe I am keeping an open mind as to why the results are what they are. Please note also that I regard the result as belonging to both the school and the students. I have not implied that teachers are primarily responsible for these results; I have repeated indicated my agreement that the students are principally responsible and that they make their decisions based on inputs from sources as well as their teachers.

For me, Oxbridge acceptance is a proxy for achievement. You apparently believe similarly as you seem quite proud of your school's results. But I believe we agree that it is only a proxy and there are many other results that indicate as high an achievement.

I'm guessing that ten out of 11 may be a better result than your long-term average and may be better than your Oxbridge coordinator expected. Please note that I am not trying to insult your school or denigrate the result. I am merely commenting that I find this result quite extraordinary. If this result is consistent with previous years' results and with your school's expectations, just say so and I will be even more impressed.

But, even if ten out of 11 was a better than average year, your program clearly did an excellent job with the students who chose to apply to Oxbridge. I assume that it did an equal job with those who preferred to apply to, for example, Medicine & Dentistry at non-Oxbridge schools, or top fine arts or performing arts courses, etc.

I do believe university acceptances are probabilistic and noisy, definitely at US universities, more so at most UK universities and even more so at Oxbridge. The reason I believe that is that, in the US, you generally apply to a entire university, not just a course. Over there, variability in admissions can arise from things such as fluctuations in the quality of the applicant pool from year to year, fluctuations in the relative weighting the admissions office gives to various criteria and, just possibly, whether the admissions officer reviewing your application is having a particularly good or bad day. But at Harvard, you are competing for one of 1600 places regardless of which year you apply and you have a pretty good idea of how many other students are applying.

My understanding is that in the non-Oxbridge UK schools you apply to a specific course. Any given course may have more or fewer places in a given year and more or fewer applicants. So a student who might be offered a place one year might not be offered one the next year. My understanding is that it gets even more variable at Oxbridge because you apply to a course within a college, and that most college/course combinations are quite small, admitting just a handful of students each year, so that a student who might be offered one of six places one year might not be offered one of three the next year. Add to that the variability in the quality of the applicant pool to each college/course combination (perhaps this year an exceptionally large and talented group of people apply to Law at XYZ while an unusually small and unexceptionally qualified people apply to Economics at ABC) and you've got a probabilistic outcome. And applicants can have particularly good or bad days at their interviews; I'm guessing that interviewers cannot always see through that, so there is another source of variability.

Now let's be clear on what I have been asking: Outside of the 11 who applied, are there any students at your school who would have gone to Oxbridge had they been offered places? Please note that, for the purposes of what I really want to know, you could extend it to Medicine & Dentistry programs anywhere, top fine arts or performing arts courses, etc., or just generally "better" courses than those to which the students actually applied.

But getting back to Oxbridge, you wrote earlier that you believed at least some students did not apply to Oxbridge because "[they decided] that given their chances of getting in are slim they could do without the stress" I interpret this statement to indicate that, yes, some students at your school would have preferred to attend Oxbridge had they been offered a place but chose not to apply because they felt the probability of their being accepted was so low as to make it not worthwhile.

Is it not possible that some of these students underestimated their chances of getting into Oxbridge (or Medicine & Dentistry, etc.) Whether it is because of how your school selects students or in the way you teach students, your better students appear to have a much higher than average chance of getting an Oxbridge place. Do you think they fully understand that? Put it another way, after seeing the success rate of their peers who did apply to Oxbridge, do you think some of the other students might wish they'd "given it a go"?

You have declined to say how many students your school enrolls overall. This matters because, if your school teaches only 20 kids a year then I can very well believe that the other nine all found equally fulfilling alternatives and none of them would have gone to Oxbridge even if they'd been offered places on a silver platter. If your school teaches 200 kids a year then I'd find that harder to believe.

Believe me, in my line of work I understand selection bias. Those of your students who self-selected to apply to challenging courses were already, on average, the better performers and higher probability candidates. But I also understand that most real world distributions are continuous, not step functions. My guess is that your first cohort of 11 did better than you or they, the students, expected, and that, conditional on your first cohort having done so well, your second cohort would also have done better than you (or they) expected. But no one will ever know, since they did not apply.

Hopefully you realize that I did not really believe you were patronizing when you suggested that your straight A student might be capable of more things than hairdressing and would probably be better off going to university. Perhaps I should have included a warning about American sarcasm in the last sentence of my previous post.

I happen to think the following would be good things:

1. If state school students understood the "true" probability of gaining Oxbridge (or other challenging) places. It's not easy, but it's not impossible.
2. If state school students understood the expected rewards of a challenging degree. This thread began, after all, as "Who gets the best jobs?". In addition to the financial considerations, people with "better" degrees tend to have more flexibility and options.
3. If students' parents, peers and other influences understood the benefits of doing challenging degrees.

I suspect you desperately tried to ensure at least the first two with your former pupil turned hairdresser. Something I'd like to understand more about is the difference in the third between the US and the UK.

'Thank you for taking a different tone in this discussion' Eh?

'I believe I am keeping an open mind as to why the results are what they are'

But I don't understand why you wouldn't accept what I have written at face value. It does appear as though you have been looking for some sort of hidden agenda in which the teachers have dissuaded students from applying to Oxbridge and in which you have invented all sorts of hypothetical scenarios which have no relationship to the facts of what happened this year at my college. I dont get why anyone would do this unless there was an agenda.

'Now let's be clear on what I have been asking: Outside of the 11 who applied, are there any students at your school who would have gone to Oxbridge had they been offered places?'

What, you mean if I had said to a student you have a place at Oxford or Cambridge. You don't need to apply, you don't need to sit an exam or go to an interview or select a course or a college?

If that is what you mean then maybe. But it is a silly, silly question because students DO have to apply, they DO have to choose a course and a college, they DO have to sit an exam, they DO have to go to interview.

It is perfectly obvious that such a process will put off some candidates who may otherwise have gone to that university. That is what it is designed to do. To whittle down candidates to the best/ the most motivated/ the most confident.

'Please note that, for the purposes of what I really want to know, you could extend it to Medicine & Dentistry programs anywhere, top fine arts or performing arts courses, etc., or just generally "better" courses than those to which the students actually applied.'

I'm still not clear what you're asking. Could some students at my college have applied to better universities than they did? Well, first you'd have to define 'better' because 'better' might mean more suited to their personal interests and ability or it could mean 'prestigious'. But possibly. I've explained that I work in one of the most deprived areas in the country with a very large number of Asian students. A very significant number choose to stay at home while doing courses at university for financial and/or cultural reasons. As it happens we have a Russell Group 20 minutes away with excellent public transport links and this is very often the first choice of able students. There are also other RG universities and non RG universities within easy reach. I might add that I can see students from poorer backgrounds (and middle class backgrounds too) increasingly looking to universities close to home with the tuition fees rising.

I wish my dd had been able to go to a private school the state schools she went to were only interested in boosting their position in the league tables This meant most were pushed onto b techs and a fight to be allowed to do gcse science rather than b tech in the end she got as in gcse science but i was made to feel like the worst mother possible for not wanting her to do b techs Also even though she liked maths the ones in set 2 were never even taught the a paper or given the chance to sit it so that result was a b and will always bug her she knew she could get an a There were a whole lot of sets below set 2 as well so only a very small percentage of pupils at the school got the chance of an a in maths

' I interpret this statement to indicate that, yes, some students at your school would have preferred to attend Oxbridge had they been offered a place but chose not to apply because they felt the probability of their being accepted was so low as to make it not worthwhile.

Is it not possible that some of these students underestimated their chances of getting into Oxbridge '

Can you honestly not see why this is patronising. Students are well aware what their chances of getting in to Oxbridge are. If they are not aware before they apply or have even considered applying then they are certainly MADE aware as part of the process. Oxbridge publishes figures on their website.

There chances ARE slim. Fact. Their chances are likely to be even slimmer if they are lacking in confidence.

We have to respect the choices people make. If they decide it isn't worth the bother then that has to be respected.

I'm in the middle of debating myself whether to apply for a new job right now. The odds are certainly better than they would be for students getting into Oxbridge but is it worth the stress? Is it worth the time and effort of the application form and interview? Well, this is something I will have to think about. I will talk it over with my partner and maybe my colleagues but it is MY CHOICE and I would expect people to respect my choice and not suggest that I am somehow lacking in ambition or have been badly advised if I decide against going for the job.

'your better students appear to have a much higher than average chance of getting an Oxbridge place. Do you think they fully understand that?'

You are basing this assumption on ONE YEAR and as I keep saying there were no more students who wanted to apply. There is no likelihood that student number 12 would have got in to Oxbridge but the point is that there WASN'T a student number 12. If we had pressured one more student into applying who didn't really want to go there or who was not as strong or able then their chances would automatically have been even slimmer.

'1) If state school students understood the "true" probability of gaining Oxbridge (or other challenging) places. It's not easy, but it's not impossible.
2) If state school students understood the expected rewards of a challenging degree. This thread began, after all, as "Who gets the best jobs?". In addition to the financial considerations, people with "better" degrees tend to have more flexibility and options.
3) If students' parents, peers and other influences understood the benefits of doing challenging degrees.'

Desperately, desperately patronising.

I really do wonder how you dare suggest that state school students don't understand these things.

And it also suprises me that you continue to underplay the actual statisticss.

'Fewer state school pupils were given places at the University of Oxford last autumn than in the previous year, even though the number of applications from these students had increased.

The breakdown of data about those who joined Oxford this academic year shows an increase of 8.5 per cent in the number of applications from the state sector, from 5,979 in 2008 to 6,485 last year. But the number of state school pupils accepted by Oxford fell by 3.9 per cent, from 1,515 in 2008 to 1,456 in 2009.'

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/articl e7071736.ece

And, once again, if more students applied there would be EVEN MORE rejections and they are vastly disproportionate for students from state schools and this is getting worse and not better.

@fivecandles:

'It is perfectly obvious that such a process will put off some candidates who may otherwise have gone to that university. That is what it is designed to do. To whittle down candidates to the best/ the most motivated/ the most confident.'

Are you suggesting this is necessarily a good thing? Especially the 'most confident' part? In my own experience confidence is not very highly correlated with ability.

'Students are well aware what their chances of getting in to Oxbridge are. ... Oxbridge publishes figures on their website.'

These figures reflect the entire population of applicants. Surely you must agree that some students are more likely than others to be accepted if only because of different levels of achievement, with accomplishments which don't necessarily show up in the A-levels. Why do you believe that students form unbiased estimates of their own chances?

Have you ever read about cognitive biases? In one of the best known studies random samples of drivers were asked if they believed they were above average in driving skill. Nearly 80% said yes. I'm sure you realize how absurd this result is, but the experiments have been repeated many times and the results are quite robust. Try taking a survey in your staff room but asking instead "who thinks they are an above average teacher"; it might give some interesting results.

In this case, however, a more relevant bias might be:
"The worse-than-average effect or below-average effect is the human tendency to underestimate one's achievements and capabilities in relation to others. ... This effect seems to occur when chances of success are perceived to be extremely rare."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse-than-average_effect

'as I keep saying there were no more students who wanted to apply.'

With all due respect, I don't see how you can make that precise statement. Someone can want something without taking action. The fact that I don't smoke any more doesn't mean that I don't have the desire to. Unless you can read the minds of your students, the most you can say with certainty is that there were no more students who did apply.

'you continue to underplay the actual statisticss'

The aggregate Oxford numbers to which you refer indicate that 22% of state school applicants are offered places. Please remember that I come from the United States where Harvard made offers to less than 8% of applicants in recent years. I realize that the systems are different, but what seems like long odds to you does not make me flinch.

'if more students applied there would be EVEN MORE rejections'

But if you can be certain that there would be even more rejections, I can be certain that there would be even more acceptances. My guess would be less than the current average of 22% but above 0. Why are you so focused on minimizing the number of rejections rather than maximizing the number of acceptances?

'Desperately, desperately patronising.'

Oh dear, we're back to name-calling again.

'I really do wonder how you dare suggest that state school students don't understand these things.'

I live in a world where people make decisions based on incomplete information and with massive biases all the time. That's a large part of how I make my living, identifying and taking advantage of other people's biases. But beyond my own experience, from the Sutton Trust:

"There are also substantial numbers of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who do attain the qualifications needed for access to elite universities but who go elsewhere. Our research suggests these students number around 3,000 in each cohort.

The main reasons for this are:
? Aspirations: Young people do not always experience an environment which encourages them to 'aim high' or to understand that different universities and courses have different aims and may open up different opportunities later in life.
? Advice: Many young people do not receive the advice and information they need to make sense of the increasing range of qualifications and options open to them. At present, there is considerable evidence that the advice they do get is not always well-timed, sufficient and of good quality.
? Subject choice: ....
? Choice of university: Students from independent schools are considerably more likely to apply to selective universities than those with similar levels of attainment at comprehensive schools. This may be influenced by negative perceptions or misunderstanding of elite universities by some teachers.
? Financial issues: ...."
www.suttontrust.com/research/sutton-trust-submission-to-sir-martin-harris/

'We have to respect the choices people make.'

That depends on which definition of 'respect' you are using. You 'respect' the decision of your former student to become a hairdresser because you have regard for her rights of self-determination. But do you 'respect' her decision in the sense of holding its merits in high regard? I can't see how given that you previously called it a "wrong decision".

I think we've finally gotten to the bottom of our disagreement. I believe we agree that students are competent and must make their own decisions. You seem to believe that they are making fully rational decisions based on complete information and that any result you might personally find suboptimal, e.g., a straight A student preferring to become a hairdresser, must be because of different values. I believe that many of them are making decisions based on incomplete information and with biased assumptions, and that their decisions could be improved by supplying more information and correcting biases.

You think that my position is patronizing whilst I think your position is naive. Shall we now agree to disagree?

'Are you suggesting this is necessarily a good thing? Especially the 'most confident' part? In my own experience confidence is not very highly correlated with ability.'

Not at all. Actually I don't think there's much fair about the whole thing. There are two things this year that particularly confirm my suspicions. 1 is the research which says that kids from state schools do better than kids from private schools with the same grades when at university and yet nearly 50% of kids who get into Oxbridge come from private schools and 2 is the fact that the 2 kids who I know this year who didn't get into Oxford (one from my college and one who went to a different better performing college but the daughter of a colleague and friend) were better candidates than any of the 10 who did but were probably not as confident.

I think the whole thing would probably be much fairer if there was a lottery of the people who applied with the same grades (A* and A). I genuinely can't see how that would lead to any decline in standards.

And possibly not even A* and A since that doesn't necessarily predict degree class especially where those grades have been achieved at a private school.

'Surely you must agree that some students are more likely than others to be accepted if only because of different levels of achievement, with accomplishments which don't necessarily show up in the A-levels.'

Yes. A Levels are just the start and you need A grades. I understand that Cambridge is only making A* offers from next year. But you need a whole lot of other stuff too and it's not always possible to predict what admissions tutors will go for and it's not always the best candidates IMHO but often the candidates who say the things they want to hear at interview. See my post above.

'Why do you believe that students form unbiased estimates of their own chances?'

Look, there were 17,000 applicants to Oxford for 3,200 places this year.

It would be unfair and irresponsible to downplay this to students. We tell them this (and it is freely available information) and we tell them what the chances are for their individual subject and we tell them what we think they have in their favour.

From that they can estimate their own chances but there's no such thing as 'unbiased'. and were more hard working didn't).

Let's remember that interviews are not objective assessments of somebody's ability. That's one reason why most universities have got rid of them. Lots of research shows that interviewers are likely to choose the candidates most like them. And they discriminate in favour of students who are confident but not necessarily more able.

''as I keep saying there were no more students who wanted to apply.'

With all due respect, I don't see how you can make that precise statement. Someone can want something without taking action. The fact that I don't smoke any more doesn't mean that I don't have the desire to. Unless you can read the minds of your students, the most you can say with certainty is that there were no more students who did apply.'

OK, there were no more who CHOSE to apply. You're quite right there may have been lots more people who WANTED to apply including students with E grades. But the fact is they didn't. They CHOSE not to. And your point is? We encouraged all the students with an Oxbridge profile to apply and that is all we can do. We cannot force students to apply. And we have to respect their choices which were informed and sensible. These are intelligent students (amongst the most intelligent in the country) and quite capable of making up their own minds. And it's just a point that you're making. There are lots of things that I want. I wanted to be a ballerina when I was young but I was actually hopeless at ballet. So what? I want to have a holiday to somwhere sunny this year. So what? Wanting something and being in a position to get it are very different things.

But again I think you're trying to get me to say that we somehow held students back. We are stifling them. Is that what you're after? Would that make you happy? It isn't the case though.

Our value added is exceptional. We are an outstanding grade 1 college according to Ofsted. We do not hold students back. We push them as far as they can go, support, encourage and are delighted when they achieve amazing things. And I've never met a teacher who doesn't do this and feel this way.

'but what seems like long odds to you does not make me flinch.'

But it's not about YOU is it?

And there's no SEEMS about it.

Statistically students' chances are slim. They are slimmer if they come from a state school. And it's up to the individual student whether they want to go through such a gruelling process and make the psychological and time investment for such long odds.

'But if you can be certain that there would be even more rejections, I can be certain that there would be even more acceptances.'

Rubbish. There are no more places.

There were 3,200 places at Oxford this year and 17,000 applicants. If there were 17,020 applicants there would have been 20 more rejections. Even my maths can work that out!!

''Desperately, desperately patronising.'

Oh dear, we're back to name-calling again.'

It is not name-calling to say it is patronising of you to assume that students from state schools don't understand that their odds of getting into Oxbridge and are not capable of making their own choices.

Even if there are some state schools out there which give bad advice or no advice that is not the case at my college. I have repeatedly explained this to you but you insist on pursuing an agenda based on your assumption that we are somehow keeping students back.