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?

That's so sad Gnome

Too few teachers in the state sector have been to Oxford or Cambridge and that creates a barrier all of its own, for a number of reasons.

The VC is saying that UK state schools should make the effort to push their brightest academically.

I can't see what's unreasonable about that, although I can see how infuriating it must be to Brit teachers who also have to deal with SEN, too many pupils, you name it.

All of the daily probs a teacher here faces are heavily bureaucratised too, and s/he has to react, whereas a bright kid can be left to wilt with no comeback on the staff.

Other countries' schools - which VC will know about more than we do - tend not to let that happen so much. Achievement is prioritised.

goodbyestranger
That's it. The reason for the woeful lack of representation of state students in institutions who are all too happy to continue maintaining the status quo is that not enough state teachers went to Oxford or Cambridge

Alternatively, power likes to keep power to its own. Go through certain private schools, then Oxbridge and then walk into any number of prominent careers that are routinely overrepresented by middle to upper class, privately educated Oxbridge graduates. Then in turn you can send your own children on the same path. Oxbridge gets to keep it's nice intakes and those interviewing get to select more teens who are just like them and their children. Independent schools keep their links to Oxbridge. Those in prominent positions make policy and write documents ensuring that the advantage they had in life is preserved and passed to their own children. Meanwhile other Oxbridge graduates return to the private sector that educated them and spent 7 years moulding the next generation of students who'll be just like them.
And so the world keeps turning.

Along the way there will be some lip service to people who are on the outside of the bubble, but they'll be the people who are suitable enough that they'll adapt and fit the mould. It would be terrible to do anything meaningful to promote diversity or really expand opportunities.

In the mean time, every now and then Oxbridge can say 'our hands are tied because state schools aren't as good, state pupils just aren't as intelligent, state teachers didn't go to Oxford'.

For postgraduate study, Cambridge insist that you demonstrate access to tens of thousands of pounds a year in advance of your course starting as a condition of studying there (one of my friends had to prove it when Cambridge knew they were on a full research council stipend!). They claim it's to ensure you have enough financial support through the year. The reality is it's more social selection.

I dont see a conspiracy to keep state students out.

What I saw was Oxford/Cambridge being viewed as a kind of academic stately home. To be visited but with the school having no idea and seemingly no inclination to help students get a ticket to live there.

There was an attitude of good enough is good enough. Teaching to the C grade for all, not differentiating for students capable of higher grade.

The consortium nature of DD's sixth form didnt encourage consistent teaching. Subject teaching was split across different sites and different teachers so there was no incentive to see that a student could be flying under one teacher but sinking under another.

The honourable exception to all of this was Maths taught by two teachers who worked in partnership based on one site. Funnily enough this was the subject DD got her best grade in - now there's a coincidence!

Everything about the sixth form seemed designed to do just enough to get students somewhere but exactly where doesnt matter.

I just think that most state schools (comprehensives) are too blah.

In my experience the big focus at GCSE is heaving the major part of the cohort up to Level 4/5. That is what a school is judged on - or where they appear in the results tables. If pupils can get Levels 8/9 - lovely, but it's not a priority.

Dd was repeatedly told in the last couple of years "That's fine" about her work. She didn't want to be "fine". She is able to be much more than "fine". But some teachers haven't got the time to spend on the more able pupils and some, I'm sorry to say, have a bit of a curled lip about them.

Also most kids don't stand a chance because they have a cultural wasteland in their home lives and nothing is done to ameliorate that at school. Constant Down wid de kidz cloying trying to make things "fun" or "relevant". I have posted many times about when as a governor of primary school I tentatively suggested that something other than pop music should be on offer to play in assemblies/at lunchtimes. The cat's bum mouth of the head! "The children can't access classical music," was her response. Whaddayado?

Irma not just comprehensives. Grammars aren't all the beacons of aspiration that MN makes them out to be.

GnomeDePlume
My current and last 6th form sent students to Oxford and Cambridge every year.
The ones who got there however were the middle clas students.

Many others chose to go to highly regarded universities in our region for medicine and dentistry and law. For some, being ages from home doesn't appeal to them.

I do think schools can do more to promote options, but I do think that privilege protects privilege and there isn't as much of an interest in opening up institutions that disproportionately serve a wealthy elite.

In my experience the big focus at GCSE is heaving the major part of the cohort up to Level 4/5. That is what a school is judged on - or where they appear in the results tables. If pupils can get Levels 8/9 - lovely, but it's not a priority.
That's not how league tables have worked for years.
Under the old system schools were judge 5A*-C percentage. That lead to coasting middle ability or higher students as most resources wete targeted at C/D borderline.

Progress 8 changes that. Every child counts. A child who should get a 3 but gets a 2 pulls the school down. An able but lazy student who should get an 8 but can't be arsed, decides a 6 will do and gets a 6 also pulls the school down.
It means school who get inflated KS2 scores risk getting negative progress 8 for kids who were heavily supported in SATs but can't perform in an actual exam/ opt not to.

Every single child is RAG rated in most schools these days. There's intervention going in much further down the school.

Unfortunately, there is a limit as to what school can do to challenge home cultures to education, the view that a 5 will do because I don't want to do a levels and so on.
There's also a limit as to what schools can do when there are independents steering for Oxbridge from ks3 upwards, when kids from one background feel very much at home when they visit oxford/Cambridge and see people like them on the open days, and others who see Oxbridge as essentially old houses full of people who don't look like them, don't sound like them.

Our local highly ranked universities do an excellent job of outreach to state schools. I can't say the same for Oxford and Cambridge and when you add in that they appear to be taking fewer UK students year on year in favour of (wealthy) international students and consider they demand to see proof you have access to thousands in advance of postgraduate study, I'm afraid I don't think they can pretend to care about bright students from average backgrounds

Well, I think it's true they don't much care for the "average background" person. All this stuff about poor kids - most of whom live in London and have a wealth of opportunity and very invested parents - but the masses out beyond the M25 from perfectly decent but unremarkable homes and schools don't make sexy headlines.

others who see Oxbridge as essentially old houses full of people who don't look like them, don't sound like them.

Oxbridge is more diverse in terms of educational background, race, and gender than it has ever been. If there’s any group who might think it doesn’t look or sound like them, it’s the old boys who were there in the middle of the twentieth century!

IrmaFayLear
That's how I feel.
I couldn't believe it when my friend was told she needed thousands up front in her bank account to prove to Cambridge she has enough money. How many people have tens of thousands sitting in their bank.
It then came our years later that this is social selection. A postgraduate applicant launched an appeal and it made the press.

Oxbridge is more diverse in terms of educational background, race, and gender than it has ever been. If there’s any group who might think it doesn’t look or sound like them, it’s the old boys who were there in the middle of the twentieth century!
If this is as diverse as it's been, we don't have much to shout about:
The Sutton Trust says pupils from eight schools filled 1,310 Oxbridge places over three years, compared with 1,220 from 2,900 other schools
www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-46470838

And those are eight schools of exceptional quality, some of world-class standard. In addition to the outstanding teaching resources available to them, some are selective to a degree unimaginable in normal institutions. The entrance exams for some of them are calibrated to be harder, relative to a candidate’s age and educational experience, than Oxbridge entrance tests and indeed Oxbridge finals. So it’s hardly surprising that the Oxbridge selection process prefers individuals who have been selected and educated with its standards in mind. Hills Road naturally benefits in multiple ways from being stuffed full of the progeny of the local dons!

CendrillonSings
I admire your determination to turn a blind eye to social selection.

It's just a coincidence you see that the most intelligent people in the land happen to come from families who can afford tutors and the top prep schools and drop tens of thousands a year on private schools, where their children will be with other people who are just like them, who get tutored and links to Oxbridge, who have the networks of their parents (probably also linked to oxbridge) to prep them for Oxbridge.

I suppose you're going to tell me that now we have our 20th Eton educated Prime Minister that it's not a surprise. After all, there's something intrinsic about Eton boys that make them fit to govern.

Nope. No social selection. Nothing to see here. It's just that those families with vast wealth and connections happen to be infinitely better than all the other kids out there.
Give me strength.

I didn’t deny social selection, I simply don’t have much of a problem with it - it’s the mechanism that matches talented people with the resources that allow them to reach their fullest potential. Access to private education should be expanded to similarly-talented kids of all classes, but successive governments have shown little interest in that.

Oh come on CendrillonSings, pull the other one about the difficulty of getting in to one of those eight schools. That's just the marketing bumph. Hard to explain some of the alumni if the entrance tests are harder than Oxbridge finals relative to age and utterly fails to explain why so many don't get into Oxbridge rather than why so many do. Piffle.

Because the endless roll of Etonians in government has totally demonstrated meritocracy. They have obviously been the most competent people for the jobs they've had and have done an excellent job of it too.

I'm also guessing the judiciary being disproportionately privately educated from top private schools is also meritocracy.

Same for acting?

What a coincidence that lots of professions seem to just happen to conclude that a narrow selection of expensive schools happen to have innately more gifted and talented children, not only that but the most talented children in the country disproportionately live in the south east within or in close proximity to the M25.

There must be something in the water that gives decades upon decades of superior intellect and potential to such a narrow group of people who just happen to have money.

It doesn't match talented people with resources to reach their potential. That's my point.
It allows some naturally talented and those who could be talented if you throw thousands of pounds at tutoring access to schools which are only available to you if your parents have tens of thousands of pounds a year spare to spend on fees.

Meritocracy? Yeah right.

That is an extremely simplistic view, LolaSmiles.

Ii can't even begin to know where to start dissecting your post, but for a start, we have the London drag effect. So, when I graduated, no matter where you came from or what background, you for the most part gravitated to a job in London. Obviously this was easier in the 1980s. But, still, that was a lot of brain power moving to one place, moving up the social/economic ladder and forming families who are now "privileged".

There are many, many courses at Oxbridge. Some courses are dominated by private school pupils, eg Classics and MFL. That's not Oxbridge's fault. Otoh what about the Science subjects? I don't think they are by any means private-school heavy.

Granted, a lot of Old Etonians etc are in top positions. But you are citing 50+ year old people. I should think things will change. However, I don't see the point of being anti-Oxbridge if they are "letting" more state-school pupils in. So you work your socks off and are then told, No, you shouldn't have bothered as all Oxbridge graduates only got there through tutoring.

Hard to explain some of the alumni if the entrance tests are harder than Oxbridge finals relative to age and utterly fails to explain why so many don't get into Oxbridge rather than why so many do.

It depends on the school, but in the past at least a substantial proportion got in via common entrance, and in several schools intellectual gifts were only one entrance criterion amongst many. My comments don’t apply to that category and that time to the same degree.

IrmaFayLear
I'm well aware it's more complex than my last post.

I'm just stunned that people actually believe social selection is a positive thing and that it's just an honest meritocracy when the same groups of people magically manage to benefit from it. That when 8 expensive fee paying schools get more places than almost 30,000 state schools we are seriously meant to believe that they just happen to be the brightest.

And I suppose Eton just happens to educate boys who are destined to govern as well? After all, it's just a meritocracy that happens to benefit those with hundreds of thousands to spend on education.

I'm not against people going to oxbridge. I've found summer schools and visit days for my students. Our 6th form sends people each year. I think it offers good opportunities. I just think it is much more difficult for state students to get in and those that do are from leafy middle class backgrounds in general and find it particularly insulting that when they take from 8 schools more than all state schools together, senior staff at Oxford have the nerve to turn around and tell state schools we need to be doing more, that we are letting the kids down, that they are doing all they can do. They aren't and they aren't interested in attracting the brightest children from a range of backgrounds otherwise they'd spend more time trying to help and less time courting wealthy international students (recent figures show there has been a reduction in proportion of UK students).

I know I probably sound like I'm on a rant, and I am in part, but I find it hugely insulting to the wonderfully talented kids I've taught year in year out to find tjat people honestly believe that 8 schools in a limited geographical area just happen to have the best possible students in the country and that huge amounts of cash and social selection either has nothing to do with it / well maybe it might but it's a good thing because we get the best people. What utter bollocks. I have no doubt many children would do as well, if not better if they had hundreds of thousands of pounds thrown at them. Could you imagine what a straight A student from a deprived background could be if they had the money invested in them that ensures an average child in a pricey private with lots of tutoring gets an A not a B/C? And we'd be expected to believe that both those students are equal?

It's not anti Oxbridge to point out that privilege promote and preserves privilege and that social selection is a back door way to preserve the interests of those in power.

You see it even after university. Want a job in a competitive field? Best use your connections to get some experience. Probably should apply for an oversubscribed unpaid internship (assuming you have access to enough cash to fund living unpaid in London).

And then the people who've had a leg up the whole time sit back and congratulate themselves on how they're so meritocratic and got their by their own hard work.

I'm sorry, but blaming state schools for lack of diversity at Oxbridge is simply insulting and ignores the much bigger picture.

Apologies for the rant, I just get annoyed by people in positions of influence who do very little to help state students and don't give a toss about educational disadvantage try to pin responsibility on the people who are addressing educational disadvantage day in day out when we're the ones trying to raise aspirations, we're the ones trying to give a leg up, we're the ones encouraging students to broaden their horizons, we're the ones teaching on the front line with a range of challenges that the masters in your 'top 8' schools simply wouldn't have a clue how to deal with, we're the ones handing out breakfast bars and sanitary products to able students so they can learn, we are the ones helping students to revise because there's no space at home to, we are the ones picking up the rise in mental health issues because existing services have been cut.

And yet VC at Oxford thinks we need to do more?
I'd love to see the dons of Oxbridge or staff of Eton and the like try a year in a normal state comprehensive and then get back to us on educational disadvantage.

CendrillonSings I'm referring to the schools now and the tests now and to their existing and very recent alumni. I can only assume that you're a proud parent of a kid at one of those eight schools to be so impressed by the rigorous standard of the test and the enormous difficulty of securing a place. I'm much more cynical.

One of my DC was recently offered a place at such a school and the letter containing the offer was fulsome in its praise of the huge achievement this represented and of the DC's clearly very significant talents. Then it asked for a decision followed by cash, quickly.

Please tell me how so many pupils from these schools can fail to secure a place at Oxbridge and why the ones who do take up places at Oxbridge don't all go onto excel and get Firsts in finals given that they've passed the even more challenging tests at 11+ or 13+? Do the schools in these cases fail not only to not add value in educational terms but to drain the intellectual vim and vigour from those pupils? Not much of a bargain for the parents.

that level of investment on the part of the parents then is it?

Pressed something there while drinking my tea and it disappeared. Then appeared. But you know - what a load of old rubbish. People are seduced by flattery too easily when it comes to their kids.

Please tell me how so many pupils from these schools can fail to secure a place at Oxbridge and why the ones who do take up places at Oxbridge don't all go onto excel and get Firsts in finals given that they've passed the even more challenging tests at 11+ or 13+?

How much higher an acceptance rate than 30-50% do you want? It would indeed be more accurate on my part to say that the top third to a half of a given year in those schools would be expected to get in, and that corresponds well (as far as I’m aware) to the proportion entering through the schools’ custom tests rather than through common entrance.

As for eventual Firsts and so on, different kids peak at different ages, or their priorities change, so it’s hard to give a definitive answer. Nonetheless, students educated at those schools are well-represented at the top of the Oxbridge class lists for those subjects of which I’m aware.

People are seduced by flattery too easily when it comes to their kids.
Very true.
They're also blind to the legs up they've had in life as well.

This cartoon sums it up well:
www.boredpanda.com/privilege-explanation-comic-strip-on-a-plate-toby-morris/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

I love it at the end where the one who has had every advantage and privilege in life has the nerve to say they got there on their own steam because nobody handed them anything on a plate.

It's a bit like people saying 'but my DC worked hard... the 8 expensive fee paying schools that have more Oxbridge places than 29000 state schools just happen to have the smartest 18 year olds in the country... If state schools for what private schools do then it would all be solved... All these fee paying schools and hours of tuition are just meritocratic and linking people with talent to the best way to achieve (conveniently ignoring that it's clearly not a meritocracy if access is blocked by a sum.of tens of thousands of pounds)'.
If these top highly expensive private schools didn't enable you to buy an advantage, then nobody would throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at them, but when it suits people play dumb to this fact.

CendrillonSings in answer to your question, I'd expect no less than 100% of those who applied in Y13 to be made offers, assuming what you say in your first post about tests/ selectivity to be correct.

Secondly, in response to this: students educated at those schools are well-represented at the top of the Oxbridge class lists for those subjects of which I’m aware. which subjects are the subjects of which you're aware and please could you tell us where you're getting your statistics for the specific classes of degree from Oxford and Cambridge for those eight schools? (My own info is anecdotal, but there doesn't seem a strong correlation especially - perhaps my DC know the wrong sorts :)).