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?

Many parents opt for independent day schools, which are more accessible geographically and more affordable. That's the reality.
So money is the reason then.

What was I just saying about Oxbridge being set up to an socially selective?

And yet we are still expected to believe that some children are inherently better / worse based on where they live.

After all, it's because London is filled with smart aspirational people and the rest of the UK couldn't possibly have that

‘State schools’ is such a wide category, pretty much a generalisation in itself. They vary widely. Mine was very pro-Oxbridge, giving much practical support.
Some see that as a bit old-fashioned. There are plenty of good options here and overseas and I think a good number of teachers work on a horses for courses basis rather than having a default ‘Oxbridge is the pinnacle’ attitude.
Plus much recent coverage of BAME students at Oxbridge suggests the experience they have can be less than positive.

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

^^ Aren’t you also agreeing that state schools are failing pupils?

I’m not sure that it is the VC’s critical thinking that is at fault here .

It's always, always, always, ALWAYS about Oxbridge.

But what about the London universities? What are they doing to widen participation - from bright students not from London or abroad? Ds's friends all rejected Imperial/UCL/Kings because they could see that it was impossible to live anywhere but an outer zone for years 2/3, the cost of living was expensive, and fellow students either lived at home or were (in the case of Imperial) dominated by one group.

It would be interesting to see statistics on how many state-school pupils from 50+ miles away attend London universities.

IrmaFayLear
It needs to be about improving access to all top universities.

The highly ranked universities in our area do loads of outreach and it's really successful. I respect what they do and they seem much more aware of the effects of socioeconomic factors on education, that social background doesn't make or break a child's potential, that a child who has been PP for years getting AAB against the odds is probably a candidate with more potential than someone from leafy M25 suburbia who went to private school and got A*AA.

One academic at an event made me laugh when I was applying to a local (highly ranked) university and he said that as far as he was concerned if you can't get straight As (A* didn't exist then) at a selective private school then you're probably not that smart.
It made me smile as a 17 year old then and it's a sentiment I've carried with me as I've gone into teaching.
EarlyModernParent
We send students to Oxbridge and top universities every year. Our approach is that students select the best course for them and aren't put off by some of the stereotypes. We do loads to encourage aspirations.

Sadly, one of my students went on a widening access day at one of Oxbridge and whilst they loved the university and found the sessions fascinating, the message they took away was that you all need to be aware that you're highly unlikely to get in (and it wasn't as in we get more applicants than places). What a fabulous way of encouraging bright students to apply.

They could have said that courses are competitive but we really encourage applications. Show us your passion for your subject, in your statement we want to see... Don't be afraid of letting yourself shine. If you get an interview then nerves are normal but nobody will be trying to catch you out. Be yourself. We want to see your potential.
Nope just told them all (multiple people over the day) that they'd be lucky to get an interview let alone a place.

I think it would be interesting looking at regional differences at Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St Andrews and others similar. I'd still be fairly confident that London, affluent areas are more represented than local students.

My kids are in a state school and have been invited to open days at Cambridge and have really enjoyed them. Eldest doesn’t think her gcse grades are high enough (not straight 8/9a) to get in so won’t apply. Not sure what to advise her as she might be right and it’s then a wasted space on her ucas form. Coulds she have got higher grades at a private school? Possibly. But she has thrived at her state school and is happy which is key and I appreciate not always the case for those attending high pressure private schools.

Sadly, one of my students went on a widening access day at one of Oxbridge and whilst they loved the university and found the sessions fascinating, the message they took away was that you all need to be aware that you're highly unlikely to get in

You see, I think you're very, very wrong to criticise this. It is unlikely that you will get in! When ds went to interviews at Oxford they were told that all 40 of them had all done really well to get this far, but they had 8 places, and those 8 places may not even go to those present. Applicants constantly need the reality check, and the belief that there are so many other good places to go. You only need to haunt the Oxbridge threads on here for a few years to see that there are many overly-invested parents, let alone students, who are devastated, angry and bitter when "rejected", and cast around for blame.

Lola that was my dd impression - told it would be very hard to get in and it has worried her - of course.

But they don't have a place for everyone!! Aaagggghhhhh !!!!!!!

IrmaFayLear
As I've just said, it wasn't in a 'statistically we get X applicants for Y places' way.

They felt very much like it was a repeated theme throughout the day.

At the end of the day, they were bright enough to be Oxbridge material. They aren't stupid. They knew more people apply each year than there are places. Had it been one person at the start of the day talking about it how you describe it wouldn t have bothered them, but it was repeated reminders of how they'd be lucky to get anywhere.

They're smart kids, they know the situation, so spend the day getting them excited by the subejct and the prospect of university so they leave thinking 'i know it's competitive but I'll have a go because I'm as good as any other bright student'.

I highly doubt that these schools that send 1 in 3 of their A Level cohort to Oxbridge tell their kids they'd be lucky to get a place. No, they'll be telling them that just by being at this school they are the best in the country and that it's expect that lots of them will get in. They'll have that drilled into them probably from y10.

I agree with you on over-invested parents looking for someone to blame. I'd imagine that probably happens more if you spend tens of thousands on school fees based on a school selling it's Oxbridge progression and preparation only for your child not to get it (after all you've paid for the service to give your kid a leg up to Oxbridge) than your typical state school parent who wants their kid to be happy and do their best.

Of course Irma - but are the right kids applying? Or the same type who get supported by certain schools etc

DD went to an Oxbridge convention and found that one of the universities came across as far more snobby and unwelcoming than the other, and pretty much as LolaSmiles described the experience of one of her students.

It did put a lot of students off TBH.

I think it would be interesting looking at regional differences at Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St Andrews and others similar. I'd still be fairly confident that London, affluent areas are more represented than local students.

I live in one of these places and I think for my child's friends it just meant their options were reduced, because they wanted to go away to university , so even if they were able to meet the requirements, they did not apply to the local one. This was from a school with a high Oxbridge success rate by the way, they were not rejecting it because they thought they weren't good enough, but because they didn't want to stay at home for university.

Newgirls
That's the key point.
If all widening access means is run a few days and conventions where you tell state school kids repeatedly that they'd be lucky to even be considered, don't be surprised if they don't apply.

If not as many apply, don't have the nerve to say 'oh but we can't possibly do anything about it because more people apply from fee paying schools and affluent areas' and certainly don't try to pin responsibility on the state teachers who have supported the students for years and built their confidence to the point where they would consider Oxbridge only for their confidence to be kicked out of them and them to decide it's probably not for people like them.

There's no arguing with you, LolaSmiles, because you seem to be blinkered and refuse to believe anything other than anecdotal evidence and that students are easily "put off" by being told it's competitive.

I truly do not believe anyone has ever been told by a college in the last 50 years that "Oxbridge is not for the likes of them". What they are most probably stressing is that if you have reached a certain standard, then it's all to play for but it is highly competitive and to be mindful of that.

What on earth would be the point of building false hopes? Or implying that it's a shoe-in if you go to an open day or participation event? Prospective applicants need to go into the process with their eyes wide open - not already carrying a chip on their shoulder.

The highly ranked universities in our area do loads of outreach and it's really successful. I respect what they do and they seem much more aware of the effects of socioeconomic factors on education, that social background doesn't make or break a child's potential, that a child who has been PP for years getting AAB against the odds is probably a candidate with more potential than someone from leafy M25 suburbia who went to private school and got A*AA.

Oxbridge are global universities that hold their own in international rankings against the best in the world (including US institutions with much larger endowments). How long would that last if they started lowering entry standards in the hope that mediocre grades conceal an untapped genius?

IrmaFayLear
I'm not suggesting building false hope. I've said REPEATEDLY that we aren't talking about someone outlining statistical chances, rather the repeated but you'll be lucky to be considered attitude

As I've already said, do you seriously believe the students at selective fee paying schools are told they'd be lucky to be considered? That they might be bright but so are others? At schools where 1 in 3 students go to Oxbridge are you seriously going to tell me they get actively warned not to get their hopes up too much to the point where it puts them off?

What I am saying is that reason that some universities are woefully skewed against the make up of society is not because children from a limited range of backgrounds are inherently better.

Educational disadvantage is a really complicated issue and there are many factors at play, however as this thread demonstrates there's people out there who think the reason London dominates is because London has professional and aspirational parents vs Yorkshire that doesn't, that meritocracy means being able to pay your way to better grades, that some students from narrow backgrounds are somehow just better.

I'd love to know how many people who are claiming that some kids from a narrow range to privileged backgrounds just happen to be so much better naturally have actually spent any time working with bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. I'm guessing probably very few.

How long would that last if they started lowering entry standards in the hope that mediocre grades conceal an untapped genius?
So now even considering that children much less privilege could possibly have the potential is going to damage their weighting in the world tables.

People really are insistent that only some kids from a narrow range of backgrounds are good enough.

Some top universities offer a contextually reduced offer for a 4 year course with a foundation year. They seem to manage just fine. I think there was talk of either Oxford of Cambridge doing similar for some courses but I'm not sure what came of that.

I'm not disagreeing that bright children need a chance. Who would?! But it should not just be those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I think the ones truly disadvantaged these days are ones from ordinary backgrounds, who are not given opportunities/encouragement/outreach. The children of a local government admin assistant and an IT worker living in Swindon are just not sexy, compared with a "deprived" student from inner London.

Actually what is lacking for the vast majority of applicants (well, Arts applicants at any rate) is any cultural capital. I don't mean a knowledge of opera or deep-cut Greek myths, but when I think about my dcs' comprehensive schooling compared with my own at a grammar school in the 80s, I can see how a bright student can be stunted.

School productions that are always musicals (nowt wrong with a good musical, but they do nothing else), Music lessons that involve endless composing of your own grime song on a keyboard, only studying extracts of books in English, doing ishooos in History and Geography instead of learning factual information, still being unable to construct a sentence in French after five years......... And breathe!

I agree @IrmaFayLear

I don't think there is much point on directly blaming the school, it's government and budgets that are currently at blame for offering a wider/ deeper curriculum, and essentially an independent school can either charge higher fees or at least have the flexibility to change what they do.
I have a friend who does the timetabling for the secondary school he is assistant head of, and they have had to make class sizes bigger, reduce choice to students eg not french and German but one or the other, and many other compromises which essentially all boil down to lack of money to do anything else. Interestingly he is in an academy which is what the government wants yet in any type of school they are just not funding education as it needs to be to even come close to independent education.

IrmaFayLear
I agree on the average backgrounds too. They too are disadvantaged by the current system which gives a significant leg up to those with money.

Access to cultural capital is fairly well linked to parental wealth, just like access to expensive schools.

Of course, those in power (conveniently privately educated and through a limited number of schools and universties) decided that state school students don't need a broad curriculum and have now backtracked and said their do, they place weighting on performance measures that skew breadth.

School productions being musicals acts as a way too theatre for students who'd probably never get involved. It's building cultural capital. Probably not in the way that the affluent do, but then they probably already read to their children at home, do educational outings, take their children to the theatre.

Schools can only do so much. They can't create a comparable cultural experience between child A who hasn't got a book at home & rarely sees life beyond their estate and child B who has been in and out of enrichment from 3, been to theatres and concerts, goes to museums, has parents who discuss world affairs around them and so on.

The more we look at educational disadvantage, more the correlation shows with parental wealth, which comes back to this: are we seriously going to accept that students from a narrow background are intrinsically better than children from other backgrounds?
I don't think so. I don't think I could face work each day if I thought that was the case.

Ultimately, there is no interest from Oxbridge doing anything meaningful to widen access and little interest from those with influence to meaningfully change educational disadvantage (including issues of social deprivation) because it suits them both to place the burden and responsibility onto state schools and then blame state schools for their own ineffective actions.

I work in a school that is (ahem) one of the worst in the country, and actually has very small class sizes as no one wants to go there! The attention focused on each pupil is quite considerable, and money does not seem to be in particularly short supply. Facilities are excellent. The pupils, however, are drawn from a "troubled" area and many have chaotic backgrounds. Difficult for any school to fix.

The lack of money argument is always a bit meh, to my mind. Doesn't cost 50p to teach the whole book and not "bite-size" extracts. Doesn't cost 50p to point to a map and teach kids where the polar ice cap is as opposed to asking them to draw endless posters depicting climate change. Doesn't cost 50p to play the kids bits of important/well-known/enjoyable classical music works instead of getting them to do their own thing on a keyboard.

Just read the thread. I must point out that although Lincolnshire is a grammar school county, Lincoln itself is not. There were moves afoot to establish a grammar school system in the city over twenty years ago, and local parents managed to stop it.

What they did not want for their children was secondary modern schools. "Failure" at 11 was one of the most hotly debated topics among parents at the public meetings. Many people spoke movingly of being separated from their siblings, even from their twins, under the 11 plus system.

I used to work in a school like that. Poor outcomes at GCSE as well. Largely it seemed to be an 'engage them and that'll sort out rubbish behaviour' from SLT. Rightly, we were told to sort ourselves out and did with new leadership.

The last few schools I've been in (all comprehensive):
Studies whole texts in English with some extracts where appropriate.
Humanities involves detailed study of historical periods and working with sources with key knowledge and important case studies in geography.
In art they study well known artists.
In music they do composition based on genres of music and get the basics of music theory and reading sheet music
In drama they do a mix of scrip work and improvisation
MFL is often a weak area which isn't surprising given shortage of MFL teachers and a general belief that MFL isn't important from parents (it's the single biggest argument every year for options).

You're spot on on the other challenges thay those students can face and it would be a case of running before walking going into a traumatised child's life and selling Oxbridge, but entirely reasonably performing state schools should be in a position where their kids aren't disadvantaged by those parents paying tens of thousands (and as PP mentioned then turn up on MN threads furious their child don't get in after they spent thousands).

For institutions full of amazing bright minds, they should be more than capable of finding reasonable ways to widen access.
The thing is as this thread shows in places, too many people like to pretend that there is something special about kids from affluent backgrounds and will kick against the idea of doing anything to meaningfully level the playing field.