Oxbridge Entry and Equality

[KnitterAndTwisted]

I keep hearing from Oxford and Cambridge that they are aiming to increase the numbers of admissions from state schools.

Then;
A friend with a son at a highly regarded private school in South London tells me that her son has been invited to an introductory taster day at Cambridge. In discussion it transpires that they have invited a cohort from that school as they are under target for admissions from that borough. So they go to a ^private* school in that borough? Where probably most of the kids at the school live in other boroughs! And surely the only reason for borough based targets (this is a deprived area) is to monitor state school intake?

Another friend, at another private school tells me that a Cambridge Admissions tutor (one quoted in an article about getting state students into Cambridge) has been to her son's school and given them lots of tips as to how to get in: how to pick a college and subject, make a good application. Do private schools pay Cambridge for this (and thus enable Cambridge to pimp themselves out for money to wealthy private schools) or do Cambridge take it upon themselves to tour independent and public schools? It would have taken a whole day to get there and back).

Then I gather from the recent cheating debacle that Cambridge runs a niche set of exams as an alternative to A Levels, largely (maybe solely) used by private schools, and is the only exam board where practicing teachers, in these schools, are allowed to be the ones who set the questions.

Other students gain access to Oxbridge to do Classics / Greek / Latin, surely largely from a private school intake because it is an uncommon subject in state schools. Having got in to do that subject, they then swap courses to study subjects that they may not have got in to do had they applied for that in tne first place. So their private school curriculum leap frogs them in.

It is hard not to think that pleas that they want to attract state school students is not hypocritical.

I am watching incredibly bright kids (not mine ) in our school ace their GCSEs and A levels, and no one from Cambridge Admissions has been cosying up over sherry in the staff room at their school.

I have to abandon the internet for a few weeks now.

Independents are better at customising. Are able to be responsive if child is struggling. Will change GCSE, A levels choices at short notice in order for pupil to maximise chances at most prestigious institutions. Apart from a few vocational subjects, indies know where you study is often more important than subject choice. Are also more knowledgeable about application to success ratios at different colleges. Have personal links with academics/admissions, due to decades of fostering contacts (both formally and informally.) Will apply more pressure on pupils to succeed and at an earlier stage. Will not just groom a handful of dead certs from early on in secondary. But will drive home early on, to anyone who stands the vaguest chance, that mostly As at GCSE, is the bare minimum to get an interview. Why the disparity? My guess would be that indy teachers have the luxury of + time per pupil. More parental/SLT pressure for results. Have cherry picked the best prepared students from the start of the process and have resources for facilitating pursuits: music/high level debating/ proper sport etc.

When I was at Cambridge the college had residential visits for state school pupils from a certain area in the North West that was very underrepresented. They didn't do that for any private schools.

Our comp arranged a two night stay at Oxford for prospective applicants; they send about 6 students to Oxbridge every year and plenty more to high ranking unis.

The whole state/private debate around Oxbridge entrance is crude and misleading.

The reality is that the vast majority of students offered places at Oxbridge come from supportive homes where parents are heavily engaged in promoting their child's education. Some may have engaged by sending their DC to private schools. Others will have engaged by ensuring their DC got into state grammar schools, high performing denominational schools or semi academically selective comps. This usually requires significant financial expenditure on tutoring/Bond papers etc and/or time expenditure on church attendance etc. Others will have been able to access high performing schools in expensive area by buying homes there. Again this requires £££££.

There is a big overlap between all of these families. Almost choked on my hors d'oeuvres the other day when I heard parents with DC at schools such as the London Oratory, St Olave's and Graveney wittering on about the disadvantages faced by their DC in the state system. This after hearing about tutors and summer enrichment activities for these students costing ££££.

We need a much more sophisticated approach to assessing accessibility than the state/private division. I would like to see much more focus on numbers of students in receipt of pupil premium, FSM, low parental income etc.

As to how Oxbridge get around to so many places:
Oxford and Cambridge have paired up, and each pair of colleges has an area of the UK to do outreach work in. They often go on tour for a few days each year putting on presentations to groups of local schools. This is in addition to attending the big fairs, ongoing work with deprived schools (including primaries), and offering chances to visit (and sometimes even stay over).

Our local comp has regular visits from Oxbridge people to speak to children from about year 9 upwards about applying.
When dh was at Oxford back in the 90s he did visits round state schools to talk to them about applying.

Bristol apparently has the highest percentage of private school students.

Dumbledore Even 15 years ago when I was last involved in Oxbridge admissions, the metrics were more sophisticated than simply private/state! I remember getting a list of applicants for my subject with the average A level grades (average UCAS scores perhaps?) for their school beside the name. Any good viable candidate coming from a school where few students performed at that level was looked on more favourably than those from schools where everyone got clutches of As. I am sure that the metrics are much more sophisticated now.

Any metrics that try and even the playing field in a retrospective fashion, are bound to be crude.
Is the child receiving FSM more deserving than the child of care workers on low to minimum wages? What about the just about managing demographic- too stretched paying a mortgage/train fares to afford tutors/music lessons, yet deemed to be coping too well for any of Oxbridge's leg up schemes?

Far better to encourage excellence by issuing vouchers for extra lessons for those pupils who wish to improve exam grades. Oxbridge could top up these and save the time and expense of limited outreach courses.

knitterandtwisted
data like this from Oxford (admissions statistics also available from Cambridge) will give you a more accurate idea of offer rates by subjects for state and independent
public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissions2/AcceptanceRate?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=yes&%3AshowTabs=y&%3AshowVizHome=no

Also applicants without Latin or Greek can apply to do Classics (in Oxford's case the course is called Classics II).
The real obstacle to acceptance is poor academic achievement due to poor social educational background or not applying due to myths that Oxbridge is only for a certain socioeconomic sector or applying disproportionately for the most competitive subjects.

There should be a national exam that ranks all students blind and allocates students to categories of university irrespective of background. This would make better use of university resources, surely?

@scaryclown that's what a levels are meant to do. I don't think many sixth formers would want to revise for an additional exam as well as a levels and some schools would still prep their students better than others it would be claimed that the independent schools had an advantage for the exam.
Also students need free choices as to where they apply rather than only those institutions for which they have ranked.
Also how would you rank the universities? Surely it depends on each individual course.

There should be a national exam that ranks all students blind and allocates students to categories of university irrespective of background. This would make better use of university resources, surely?

Blimey who made you dictator?!!! 'Jonny you scored 18 you're going to UCL to do Maths'
'But I want to go to Poppleton and do Drama'

I like the idea of national exams for university entrance though. Maybe they could be taken by state and private schools alike. Ooh I know, a variety of subjects offered to give the kids some choice. And they could do these exams after GCSEs, so maybe we could call them something like Advanced Levelling exams, or A levels for short. Reckon it'll catch on?

Oh god you guys are showing your lack of critical thinking skills..

Universities don't pick the best students they can 'buy' from their A-level grades...

Universities select candidates from those who apply to them. All the best students in the country simply don't apply to oxbridge or the top ten

Yes I know Still not sure how your idea of ranking universities (lol if only you knew...!!!) and matching kids to a subset of universities based on national exams that already exists makes any sense.

Top achievers get their names sent to top universities, and they select from those.

Ucas already know the grades of all those intending to go to a university, so they just slice the data and hand it out.

Thickies from whatever background can go to lower ranking unis or FE.

There should be a national exam that ranks all students blind and allocates students to categories of university irrespective of background. This would make better use of university resources, surely?
Apart from this being totally totalitarian and something worthy of the worst of Stalinist Russia etc.
You do realise that degrees with the same name are not the same in all places. EG. studying English at University A might involve learning Icelandic or Anglo Saxon, whereas University B has amazing courses in Commonwealth literature, and University C has amazing facilities for studying Shakespeare.
Your ideas would also require a "post results" application system.

Also a lot of students already drop out, even more would struggle if their other reasons for applying to a particular University were not taken into consideration. For example a chance to pursue a specific sport, rural or urban, closeness to family or friends.

Also the "Oxbridge" style of study would not suit everyone - it is a very intense 8 weeks, lots of people do much better with a longer term and modular system of assessment.

Top achievers get their names sent to top universities, and they select from those.

You should change your name to Kim Jong Un!

Lots of stats for cambridge here - I've not looked at it all but table 1.1 seems relevant. Looking only at the Home part, it seems that about a third of candidates come from independent schools, and their success rate is very similar to that from grammar schools. (Most GS sixth forms have additional intake, and aren't as selective as ks3/4).

As far as I could see from my DD's experience last year, there are no big secrets to Cambridge entry. Theres an aptitude test, based on A level content which requires no special coaching (very different to the old entrance exams). They need to know to enter the appropriate one and to apply early, but all that info is easily available. The interviews may seem daunting but a they aren't supposed to be intimidating and a candidate with a real interest in the subject should be able to muddle through. The interviews aren't (one supposes) stupid... it's probably fairly clear to them if a kid has been coached or is coming to it more off their own bat or whatever.

I wonder slightly whether special events for oxbridge (and medicine) can sometimes be counterproductive, creating mystique, and actually deter all but the most confident? My DD's GS had some 'early entrants' stuff , and she very nearly didn't participate - her gcses had only been a bit above average for her school (you do not need a full set of A*!!); she didn't go on their trip to a college which turns out to be where she'll be in a couple of weeks time... truth is, the only way to be sure of not getting a place is to not apply. There's 5 slots on the UCAS form, and with so many able applicants no shame in not getting an offer... anyone with predicted A levels in the right range (easy to find online) and a real engagement with their subject should give it a shot if they want.

Very funny, scary. Between A levels and UCAS that's pretty much what happens, but with choice as others have suggested. My DD would have been horrified to be allocated to Imperial!
Oxbridge isn't the be-all and end all, the UK has a fantastic range of unis compared to other countries. Kids with grades that could have got them an oxbridge place will be going to other excellent places. (Mine would have been delighted with her insurance, Southampton, for instance)

Dumbledore has hit the nail on the head.

If anyone thinks a few token visits from Oxbridge to 'selected' state schools is all it takes to level the playing field they're deluded.

The odds are still stacked in favour of less academically able students from privileged backgrounds over more able students from more deprived backgrounds.

Students don't just pass exams because they're naturally more able and work harder (that myth went out with Thatcher and Tebbit).
They pass because they're at a decent school with fewer pupils with additional needs or behavioural issues.
They pass because they have a stable home life with supportive parents.
They pass because parents pay for tutors.
They pass because they have time to do their homework instead of being a carer for a parent or sibling or instead of spending their time helping their parents bring in an income.

I can't congratulate Oxbridge simply because the little they do now is more than they used to do.

Why is it seen as dangerously totalitarian to match practice to the narrative?

People are endlessly talking about how oxbridge has the best, whilst simultaneously arguing that they dont select the best in the country?

Why is it seen as dangerously totalitarian to match practice to the narrative?

Because as you well know, you have removed the element of applicant choice . Everything else you have suggested is what happens in reality. Everyone else's reality anyway, I'm not entirely sure what happens in yours.

@dameofdilemma - I can't speak for all of Oxbridge - but I know my old college is heavily involved with a Primary school in a deprived area, in an effort to open those children's eyes to opportunities, not just to study at Oxford, but to study anywhere. This involves students and staff going in and bringing enrichment to the students, and trying to help run and fund trips to museums etc, which whilst only a few miles away are beyond the reach of most youngsters at that school.

The universities also fund a lot of research into areas such as psychology and educational theory which might give some guidance on how best to level the playing field.
However without political will their efforts are limited. And it is much easier for the Government to criticise Oxbridge etc. than to acknowledge that spending more things like SureStart, properly funded schools and benefits, are what is really needed.