Oxford VC blaming state schools for low Oxbridge entry!

[Miljah]

Am speechless- but not surprised, tbh.

Yes, top private schools do pluck clever, poor students out of state schools, not necessarily in an act of altruism, though, but to justify their charitable status and to boost their academic success ratings.

They take these DC out of often, large, all-comer comps with the usual panoply of big classes, poor equipment in falling down buildings, a demoralised work force, challenging behaviours, disruption, SEN, both diagnosed and not (and even then poorly funded), some low community expectations and so forth; and then place them in small classes of clever, motivated fellow pupils, in beautiful buildings with top of the range equipment, better paid staff, forensic guidance, very motivated parents- and thus they head off to Oxbridge.

Louise Richardson, Oxford Vice Chancellor muses that state schools are failing 'their brightest' (those left after the indies have creamed off the ones they want) by not offering a similar service.

How can you be so lacking in critical thinking skills yet get to be VC of Oxford?

State schools are failing to provide scholarships for their brightest pupils- well, I never! What could they be thinking of?

I am more and more coming to the conclusion that the requirements to become a university VC are a combination of verbosity, out-of touch-ness with the rest of the world, a great liking for money, and a general disinclination towards teaching and research. Wrap all this up nicely and you can present it as a VISION and get paid umpteen hundred k a year.

Sorry, have spent too much of my life listening to VCs and critical thinking skills is not where it's at.

They are probably talking about the bright students of colour who come out with top grades but don’t even apply to Oxbridge because of it’s reputation as being a snooty and blaming state schools. In a lot of state schools, especially in big cities, these students form the majority of the brightest students. Oxbridge needs to change it’s reputation, needs to start trotting out it’s famous non-white alumni, and needs to make more of an effort overall in the schools it wants to target. To give you stats most of the top schools in Leicester are in indian areas, and in several schools despite the majority of pupils obtaining grades that would qualify them for Oxbridge, these schools only have at most a dozen students who applied. The majority applied for other red brick universities - this is a reputation problem.

Tbh I think that to an extent she's right. There are state schools which do encourage their pupils to aim high, and which don't perpetuate outdated myths about Oxbridge. That's a more useful comparison IMO than whatever the private sector is doing.

She’s right.

Have you been to both a state school AND Oxford? I have. In fact I followed the very path outlined above - the scholarship to a public school at GCSE - two decades ago. The Oxford VC is right.

Peer pressure to be UNacademic was toxic at my state school and discipline was non-existent. Staff absenteeism was endemic. This was pretty much the identical experience of my state school cohort. I don’t know whether it’s the same these days, but I’ll wager it’s probably worse now.

What the Oxford VC doesn’t want to say is that the state school kids are also failed by the Oxford ‘system’ when we get in. Its very structures are set up to undermine and destabilise kids who aren’t institutionalised.

She is right but it isnt so much state schools fault as the overall system.

Years ago bright kids in state primary would be encouraged to attend a grammar school and from then on the 'system' would help guide them to a Uni - be it Oxford etc.

Although I am not a fan of any elitism in education, when grammars were broadly phased out, state schools did not step into that role. They continued to just cater for the middle and Oxford isnt considered.

The Govt, schools and Unis should all be working together towards improvements but none of them are, therefore public schools hoover up the places

Completely agree @merrygoround51 & I myself benefitted from that exact system.

@mumdom is right. I had exactly the same experience, minus the scholarship. What saved me was sixth form at an all girls grammar.

What the Oxford VC doesn’t want to say is that the state school kids are also failed by the Oxford ‘system’ when we get in. Its very structures are set up to undermine and destabilise kids who aren’t institutionalised.

My state school educated DD and similar friends don't seem to be finding that at Cambridge... I don't know if there's some particular difference between the two or if your experience might be a bit outdated?

Everything @mumdom said was true for me too. Now my children are at local state schools, and they are absolutely being failed. Even in an outstanding school in a relatively comfortable area, 30 kids with massively different needs, with one teacher is not working. The local (outstanding) comprehensive has huge staff turnover.

The teachers themselves are good and we have been so impressed at how they and the head do their utmost with resources available - but it's not ok.

Personally, I think that the private system should be abolished, rather that instituting grammars. Or failing that, at least try to resource.schools appropriately so they can compete.

I am not a fan of any elitism in education

Depends what you mean by 'elitism'. Elitism on the basis of parentage or money, no. But academic meritocratic elitism - that's a different matter. One size doesn't fit all in education.

I think unis like Oxford and Cambridge should only be allowed to accept the same percentage of DC who are privately v state educated across the country.

That would put the cat among the pigeons!

That would put the cat among the pigeons!

It'd put a lot of talented British students into foreign schools and universities.

If you look at the statistics - taking selectivity into account and not forgetting that the prercentage in private schools in the sixth form is ~14% not the oft-quoted 7% - the admissions are not actually quite as unbalanced as some people imagine. There are targets in place to increase the proportions from deprived backgrounds - but these can only be met if those students actually apply. Oxbridge aren't allowed to press gang clever kids!

Much too identifying to disclose more, but my experience of the university is current through a young family member as well as historic.

I could literally list the ways in which the Oxford syllabus, traditions, governing body etc discriminate against state school undergraduates, but I’m more than capable of writing this article and being paid for it myself .

Syllabus is, of course, subject specific, but DDs friends span a range.
'Oxbridge' isn't one homogenous entity, I'd hate anyone to be deterred by anecdata which may be completely irrelevant to them.

Yes, absolutely agree with you there Errol. I know absolutely nothing about Cambridge for a start, although my knowledge of Oxford colleges is very extensive - arguably more so than that of many tutors’- because of my job.

There's another factor liable to skew the application/admissions statistics - geography. More private schools/parents who can afford them in the south than north. A lot of students don't look across the whole of the U.K. or even England, for a variety of reasons, often purely practical, and there are a lot of excellent universities in the north of England, Scotland and the midlands.

OP, have you actually read the interview?

She said SOME schools are failing their pupils by not encouraging them to apply to Oxbridge, saying it is not for them. I spend a lot of time in schools and that is definitely the case. As seen by the success of some of the new academies, with a different culture, Oxbridge results can be spectacular. There's also the problem that some communities do not want their children, especially daughters, to leave home to go to uni so Oxbridge is out of the question.

DH went to Oxbridge from an undistinguished comp. He did not feel discriminated against in any way, nor that the system was rigged against him.

I got there via the state school =>scholarship to private school sixth form route. My A Level years were profoundly unhappy (I suffered there for my social and economic background) but once I was at Oxbridge I had the time of my life.

We tried and tried to get a very bright girl we knew to apply, but she had this whole Brideshead Revisited image in her head, was convinced that even if she did get in she'd hate it, and that was that. It's not just anything that Oxbridge does or does not do: it's a whole plethora of factors.

And for anybody from a background not rolling in money, look into the bursary schemes that are getting going - largely funded by alumni who are keen to see access expanded, but managed by the colleges (or maybe the two unis - I forget which). It's a genuine effort to level the playing field once you're in, so that a bright-but-poor student doesn't have to worry so much about debt and working in the holidays.

Sure, there are bursaries and scholarships. But considering 93 per cent of children are state educated, the numbers benefiting are a tiny proportion of the brightest children, let alone all children. If there were no independent schools you'd soon find the parents with influence, contacts and money would channel these into the state sector. It has worked in Finland since the 1970s,

Equatoria, I dont think children that leave school after gcse are likely to go to Oxbridge so the 7% figure isnt relevant,the % for private educated at A level /IB or whatever is actually nearer 16%
The education system in Finland is totally different to ours to pretend it does so well because there are no private schools is simplistic in the extreme

I have experience of both state and private schools.
I haven't read the article, but I think in state schools there are a lot of parents who do not value and support the education the school offers. This attitude then leaks down to the children, who mess around and disrespect the staff. This in turn creates a difficult environment for the other children to learn in. I really think that the parents need to be educated about the benefits the schools are trying to offer their pupils and get them on side to make their kids appreciate whats on offer.

Which, 1805, is the point.

The VC of Oxford uni is stating that state schools should be doing what private schools do: identifying the gifted 'poor' kids and throwing the gates of opportunity open to them. As if it was a level playing field.

Private schools, especially those that regularly feed Oxbridge, do not have to contend with disruption, undiagnosed SEN (if at all), unengaged parents, possibly 'beyond control' children.

Yes, I think we all appreciate how beneficial it would be for all parents to get behind education, to appreciate the benefits- but until we reach those sunlit uplands, whilst the children of the feckless, unengaged aggressive parent still prowl the corridors of too many schools, it's unfair for the Oxford VC to go all wide eyed and innocently ask why state schools can't provide what some private's can.

Like isolation from the educationally unengaged.

There are state sixth form colleges in my area (north west) which manage to get a fair number of their pupils to apply to Oxbridge and get offers despite the geographic issue. If some state schools can - and the ones I'm thinking of aren't the grammar sixth forms which of course do too - then it's clearly not an insuperable problem.

It is the classic case of diverting attention elsewhere.
Look the office of students and the government board for HE both say Oxford isn't doing enough to get bame and working class northern kids in, so Oxford VC doesn't review her failing outreach schemes, she blames state schools.
Classic look over there, there is a flying pig, whilst I run away.
Oxbridge have managed to take 1 disadvantaged white working class kid from the North east and Yorkshire and Humber in 2017, not one each NO one from both.
Our 6 local schools have in the last decade failed to get any students to Oxford and only 1 to Cambridge. But last year 12 went to Leeds, 5 to Newcastle and 16 to Lancaster.
Our school has 4 going to Royal Northern ballet and Music schools and next door comp has 3 pupils going to Institute of Arts school in Barcelona, both are SM rated.
If kids can do that, why does Oxford reject the same kids.

Because it easy to blame our schools who educate kids on less than £5000/year for not matching schools who charge more per term.
Sadly looks like whoever educated the VC failed.