Are top private schools getting fewer oxbridge offers?

[Ijustwanttoask]

Just read in the papers about the drop in Oxbridge offers to Eton in the last few years. Is there a same trend for other big name public schools and top London day schools too?

In the past years, these schools generally happily announce the numbers of Oxbridge offers they get around this time of the year but I haven't seen much for 2021.

* Title edited by MNHQ by request* **

We have also paid for private for one of our DC's because we were able to and it was the best fit for them ( very sporty). We want them to well academically (this particular child benefits from smaller class sizes) , but do not automatically expect a guaranteed top uni place because we are paying. If they work hard, then great.

I completely agree that the system needs to change and the top universities need to be more representative of the general population and widen there access to be more inclusive. As one poster said, there are more A* /A's than there are Oxbridge places. Quotas need to be put into place. Because of the reasons I mention below, it's highly unlikely a parent will be able to "game" the system.

• their access

@rattusrattus20

I mean, seriously, please tell me why the heck anyone would ever pay the thick end of half a million quid [aged 4-18] per child pretax to send them to private school if it didn't give them very significantly better grades than someone equally bright who went state? Seriously? There are so many other things that money could be spent on.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

For some people it literally does not make a difference to their spending.

You can make whatever philosophical argument you want (IMHO, this one's pretty weak). But the results of that study and the data contained in it do not support your contention. Find some other evidence.

Excellent, if true. Perhaps now we can have some REALLY clever people in the top jobs.

“I would be very happy as I would assume a child that managed to get Bs despite attending a poor school would be a much higher quality candidate than one that got As from a top school with all the advantages that goes with attending a top school. “

It is surely the case that the true ability of able students from disadvantaged backgrounds and disadvantaged schools is not fairly reflected by their exam results.

But this does not necessarily mean that the converse is true.

A brilliant student from a top independent school would still be truly brilliant as well as very well taught. These schools are often highly selective for ability and then expect an enormous amount of work from a young age.

Students in academic independent schools would also be extremely well prepared for university because of these high expectations in regard to work and homework from about age eight on.

It seems from the grapevine though that these days little slack will be given at the entrance exam stage to someone who has had these advantages. Meanwhile one has to hope that students who have not been brought up debating and speaking to adults as equals are treated very sympathetically at the interview and when visiting the university.

I went to a mid ranking uni with a fair few students from some of the most prestigious (albeit not the most academic) public schools in the country. I honestly can say that I really don't think they would have got into the university if they had gone into my comprehensive. I did better than them, and worked harder (I was less confident). It was a real eye opener.

@TooManyMiles

“I would be very happy as I would assume a child that managed to get Bs despite attending a poor school would be a much higher quality candidate than one that got As from a top school with all the advantages that goes with attending a top school. “

It is surely the case that the true ability of able students from disadvantaged backgrounds and disadvantaged schools is not fairly reflected by their exam results.

But this does not necessarily mean that the converse is true.

A brilliant student from a top independent school would still be truly brilliant as well as very well taught. These schools are often highly selective for ability and then expect an enormous amount of work from a young age.

Students in academic independent schools would also be extremely well prepared for university because of these high expectations in regard to work and homework from about age eight on.

It seems from the grapevine though that these days little slack will be given at the entrance exam stage to someone who has had these advantages. Meanwhile one has to hope that students who have not been brought up debating and speaking to adults as equals are treated very sympathetically at the interview and when visiting the university.

One would hope that is true - that leeway was given. I wonder why then at DS's interview at Oxford (from a comp with zero prep) he was actually asked 'what makes you think you can manage here when you went to the kind of school you attended?'. DS saw red I'm afraid and didn't probably respond in the most mature way and didn't get an offer. Bloody minded tho so reapplied with full sweep of A stars to Fenland Poly instead. And took a brilliant gap year. Surely that sort of question shouldn't be allowed though? To anyone state or private? But to an ill prepared state student it smacks of discrimination.

@Positivevibesonlyplease

Excellent, if true. Perhaps now we can have some REALLY clever people in the top jobs.

Indeed. A true meritocracy rather than chumocracy

the interview should obviously go, it's an anachronism and hugely discriminatory.

the message it sends out is that Oxbridge isn't just like other UK universities only more so [study hard, how well you do is determined by exams at the end], but rather it's a sort of combination of a UK university and something like an old-style Swiss finishing school.

if part of the final assessment was going to be decided by interview/by oral or debating skills or whatever then, fair enough, it'd make sense for admission to be partly based on an interview. but when the final assessment is 100% exam based then so should the entry be.

It’s interesting if you’ve studied o/s where there are no interviews. We just had point system based on grades post exams and that was it (Aus).

The Oxbridge interview is designed to replicate a tutorial. Although they may be brilliant, many individuals may not suit this teaching method. They want to select students who would flourish in this specific environment.

The Oxbridge interview is designed to replicate a tutorial.

For which the wealthy pay someone to rehearse and practise with their child, and therefore give them an advantage at that stage of selection.

Maybe the question mentioned above* should be: "Why do you think that someone with your privileged background should come here?"

• 'What makes you think you can manage here when you went to the kind of school you attended?'

I wonder to what extent the prevalence of grammar schools / selective state secondary schools skews the north / south application rates? In the county I live in & the county I work in there are no such schools.

I agree that the interview is designed to replicate the tutorial. The tutorial system is designed to be challenging for the student and tutors need to see if candidates will thrive in that teaching environment.

DS1 (Chemistry Oxford) had purely academic questions in his interviews at two colleges. They pushed him hard but there were no left-field non-academic questions. Posters should be careful when suggesting that shocking non-subject questions are the norm. That's the kind of myth that puts potential candidates off.

Maybe interview questions should be standardised at a subject level to give a fair comparison between candidates.

But the idea that DS1 was heavily prepped for interview by his independent school or by paid consultants just wrong. He had one practice interview at school with the Head of Chemistry - that's it.

@sandybayley

I agree that the interview is designed to replicate the tutorial. The tutorial system is designed to be challenging for the student and tutors need to see if candidates will thrive in that teaching environment.

DS1 (Chemistry Oxford) had purely academic questions in his interviews at two colleges. They pushed him hard but there were no left-field non-academic questions. Posters should be careful when suggesting that shocking non-subject questions are the norm. That's the kind of myth that puts potential candidates off.

Maybe interview questions should be standardised at a subject level to give a fair comparison between candidates.

But the idea that DS1 was heavily prepped for interview by his independent school or by paid consultants just wrong. He had one practice interview at school with the Head of Chemistry - that's it.

Well done to your Ds. Sounds rigorous and interesting to read.

tutorials account for a very modest proportion of the real learning and a big fat zero of assessment. given its glaringly obvious discriminatory potential it's beyond senseless, in 2021, with the amount of transparency we have now, for an interview that replicates one being awarded any weight at all during applications.

Oxbridge interviews are intended to allow a tutor to probe both an applicant's motivation (is this person really interested in my subject?) and aptitude (how easily can they learn my subject?). Remember, a tutor may have to teach the applicants they admit. Students who are either not interested or are not quick studies can be nightmares who have to be dragged over the finish line.

As for aptitude, it's not hard for a tutor's questions to reach a level of knowledge which exceeds what any sixth-former can have. What a tutor looks for is how well the applicant follows the line of questioning into new territory.

To a great extent, a tutor's goal is to admit applicants who will be easy to teach. Now that I write this, I'm amused how similar their incentives are to independent primaries' when they assess 4 year olds.

Let's hope so !

Please remember too that other unis also interview (albeit they may have a different format) not just Oxbridge. For example, Manchester, Imperial, Nottingham for certain subjects, medicine, vet med, certain art courses. It seems like on this thread anything that Oxbridge does is automatically being deemed bad/outdated without thinking that they are not the only unis that do this.

Despite DS's discriminatory experience I don't believe the interview should go. When he got home from his long train ride (we didn't take him) he was philosophical and said well I wouldn't want to be in a tutorial with a w@nker like him. So DS completely got that it was important to gel with someone who may end up being your supervisor. But that kind of questioning should obviously be removed and leeway given for students who have no practice by dint of the type of school they attend.
His Cambridge interview the next year by contrast was a hoot which he enjoyed. He was also relaxed, having bagged brilliant grades and organised a great gap year post interview.
But I hope no other student has to put up with it and in hindsight DS ought to have raised a flag to the college

With respect @rattusrattus20 tutorials are a big chunk of learning!

They may only amount to a small number of hours a week but DS1's week has been majorly geared around tutorials and working towards them. Working through a problem sheet or researching a new topic and then discussing it with his tutors and his tutorial partner is central to the way he is taught. It's a fundamental of Oxbridge teaching and candidates need to understand that. It's not 2 or 3 hours pleasant chat with a tutor.

My DS had a very positive interview experience.

In my DS's Oxbridge law interview he wasn't expected to know anything about law as an academic subject, although the interview was purely academic. He is Scottish and you cannot study law here at high school.

He was given a (simplified) case study to read in advance of his first interview and was asked to summarise the case and questioned to check his comprehension. It was a long passage and he found this difficult but was guided by the tutor if he became stuck.

His second interview consisted of a statement which he had to discuss "it is illegal to take a motor vehicle without permission". He found this fun.

He really enjoyed the interview process and treated it as a privilege to discuss his interest (law) with a world-leading academic.

He was not coached in any way and was made to feel comfortable in this alien environment.

www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

If you look at the stats around 21% of state school applicants get offers and 23% of independent school applicants get offers. Seems pretty fair to me - 2 % is not a huge amount of difference is it? A higher proportion of independent school kids actually meet the grades they are offered.

I don’t think we should be upping state school numbers just to reach a quota should we? The odds are roughly the same for all candidates and this is how it should be. These are all exceptional kids and each should be judged on their own merits. If more state school kids apply the proportions will change - but not everyone sees Oxbridge as the be all and end all of education.

I'm sorry, it's just a shameful nonsense to suggest that a couple of c twenty minutes, off piste, interviews with a nervous 17 year old is a good predictor of how the same student will, aged 20/21, perform in a series of three hour written final exams that are the culmination of many thousands of intensive study, most of which takes the form of traditional sweating alone over a textbook. delighted for others to disagree.

If interview performance was the only criteria in which selection was based it would not be a sensible or rounded approach @rattusrattus20 but we know that it's not. It's one element of the process - and Oxbridge is transparent about that.

So yes I do disagree with you and particularly your characterisation of my view as 'shameful nonsense'.