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* **

@SouthLondonMommy

As this continues you will eventually see private schools' share of places continue to fall to at most 25% at which point it will be a proportional share of the top grades private schools students earn

That will be fair.

I might agree if the top code on grades increases to the point where the percentage of applicants getting "top grades" is lower than the percentage of university students that Oxbridge educates. Otherwise, I don't see that your conclusion is justified.

I don't understand how you can justify private school students getting a greater share of Oxbridge places than their share of top grades achieved at A-level.

I suppose people can justify anything to themselves if its in their self interest...

What's your definition of top grade at A Level? AAA? 13% of A Level students get that mark or better. Oxbridge can only educate about a tenth of those students. Who is to say that all of the AAA or betters have the same level of qualification? Because that is a necessary condition for your argument to hold.

I'm not aware of any data on the distribution of 3A* or better. In my opinion, that would be more appropriate but I believe even those students would be more than Oxbridge can educate.

I don't understand how some people aren't willing to discuss arguments which may challenge their fixed conclusions. I run into it a lot, but I don't understand it.

I suppose people can justify anything to themselves if its in their self interest...

@southlondonmommy your argument does not hold water. It’s not like Oxbridge is letting in private school kids who aren’t achieving the grades. Everyone is free to apply and the best candidates get in. The fact that more of them come from private schools is because proportionally more private school kids apply.

Oh well - I suppose that kids from private schools should have caps placed on their ambitions to suit your agenda.

I'm saying Oxbridge should continue to extend their outreach efforts so that the wealthy don't unfairly dominate society as a result of their wealth. It's not controversial and is what is already happening.

Private school children feel entitled to Oxbridge and apply in large numbers for a number of reasons including the parents they have and the aspirations instilled in them by the schools they attend. Those from other backgrounds are less likely to apply because of background which leads to inter-generational legacies of skewed power and access which don't belong in a society that is meant to be meritocratic.

Oxbridge themselves agree with this and their efforts at outreach have already yielded huge changes in the ratio of private versus state applicants and acceptances. This is going to continue so you might as well get used to it.

@SouthLondonMommy I have really enjoyed your posts throughout this thread, and as a private school parent yourself I think you show a huge amount of open mindedness and clearly have a great knowledge about the current system. Thank you.

@thetell yes, my daughter goes to a very selective private school but I went to Oxbridge from a state school so I can see it from both sides...

An American friend once explained to me what he saw as the differences between university admissions in the UK and the US:

UK PhD: You apply to a program typically offering between a few and a few dozen places each year.
US PhD: Similar
Cambridge first degree: Similar
Harvard undergraduate: You apply to the university for one of 1,800 places each year.

UK PhD: You commit yourself to studying a specific subject before entry. It is very uncommon to change subjects after entry.
US PhD: Similar
Cambridge first degree: Similar
Harvard undergraduate: You typically don't decide your major subject until the end of the first year. Even after that it is not uncommon for students to change subjects provided they are willing to study for an extra year.

UK PhD: Admissions decisions are made by the professors who will be supervising the students.
US PhD: Similar
Cambridge first degree: Similar
Harvard undergraduate: Admissions decisions are made by a central department of administrators.

UK PhD: The admissions tutors would regard it as a great success if, after 20 years, all of the students they admitted have become tenured professors in their field.
US PhD: Similar
Cambridge first degree: Similar
Harvard undergraduate: The admissions committee would regard it as a complete disaster if, after 20 years, all of the students they admitted have become tenured professors in their field.

The Harvard admissions committee would like to see some future academics amongst their students, but they would like to see more future politicians, senior judges, CEOs, and other movers and shakers.

AFAIK, @cupcake222 is correct that Oxbridge admissions tutors focus on future academics to the near exclusion of everything else.

Good topic

I think it is easy to be virtuous and applaud increased state school entrance to these universities but I think we have to consider the position of those in private schools who do not receive offers.

If there are pupils in the independent sector that have outstanding academic profiles and are known to confident articulate debaters then question marks should arise why these children do not gain places.

The teachers at these schools have a great deal of knowledge of their pupils and the standards normally associated with Oxbridge acceptance so their opinion holds weight. I guess some that have supported children through this arduous process will no doubt feel aggrieved when success isn't forthcoming.

I think the general feeling of these children is 'how could I have done better' when top exam results are achieved and interviews in their opinion went well.

Just because a child went private doesn't mean the disappointment is any less.

@SouthLondonMommy

I also want to see Oxbridge continue their outreach programs and I think their new foundation year programs are a great innovation. But I have a question about your numerical targets and whether they are appropriate and you're refusing to engage on that.

Again, what is your criterion for top grades achieved at A-level? And why do you think that is the most appropriate measure?

Unless things have changed a lot since my day (which I accept they may well have done), then your average Oxford tutor is basically interested in admitting the students he/she thinks will get the most out of and contribute the most (academically) to, their time there. So - top grades, a genuine interest in the subject, an ability to cope well with the tutorial system, and an ability to study independently. I can already see that my son (privately educated) would fare better than I did (state educated) on the latter two categories - not because he's some über-posh over-confident socialite (far from it), but because his school is able to place far more emphasis than mine did on those skills. Pupils are regularly expected to present work to a group, to take part in extra-curricular activity that involves elements of performance and/or mixing with different groups of people, to take pretty much complete responsibility for managing their work, homework and communications with staff themselves, right from Year 7, and to have a very 'peer to peer' relationship with their teachers that is not dissimilar from a university tutor relationship. It is arguably true that
a student with those skills and experiences (as long as they also have the academic ability to match) is going to find it easier to hit the ground running on an Oxford-style degree course. I'm not saying that Oxbridge shouldn't be trying to widen access - I'm just trying to suggest why it's not necessarily as simple as identifying which students have the academic ability to achieve straight As in equal conditions. Coming from my school background (which was by no means disadvantaged compared with most), I really struggled for quite a long time with things like the need to 'hold my own' with tutors and other pupils, to feel confident amid a cohort of (mostly) extremely able students, and to manage my workload when I only had two hours' scheduled contact time a week in term time, and months of holiday when all my work was entirely down to me. I simply didn't have the skills to cope well, and it took me a long time to develop them.

The initial question about elite private schools was probably initiated with reference to 8 schools sending as many to Oxbridge as 3/4 of other schools a few years back.

This made great headlines in the guardian who seem to have a lot of privately educated Oxbridge grad journalists who seem to happy to take swipes at a set.up that facilitated their university entrance.

The reason elite private schools send so many to Oxbridge may lie in the fact that these are often very selective with an academic ethos with parents invested in their children's education (not a bad thing). It may be that parents demo can afford the school fees have careers that involve some intelligence so there is an additional genetic component.

I think the implicit message that privilege equals Oxbridge entrance is very much oversimplified and we should not be making hard working bright children of my background political footballs.

I am all for outreach but not for positive discrimination. This has its own set of problems.

any not my.....

[quote user149799568]@SouthLondonMommy

I also want to see Oxbridge continue their outreach programs and I think their new foundation year programs are a great innovation. But I have a question about your numerical targets and whether they are appropriate and you're refusing to engage on that.

Again, what is your criterion for top grades achieved at A-level? And why do you think that is the most appropriate measure?[/quote]
Sorry @user149799568 I missed your question. AAA and above and its the criteria Oxford themselves use in their benchmark analysis when looking at admissions from various groups (BAME, regional breakdown, private / state etc).

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

Most courses require AAA or above. This tends to be the main benchmark they use though they use others as well for completeness.

www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/Annual%20Admissions%20Statistical%20Report%202020.pdf#page=16

@plusorminus

Good post. The question is for entrance tutors is that if a private school pupil with all the necessary attributes did well at interview should there be any implicit or explicit bias against them especially with some pressure generally to increase state school intake.

If private schools are.preparing their students well to engage at Oxbridge is that a bad thing? Should Oxbridge necessarily bias against this?

-The teachers at these schools have a great deal of knowledge of their pupils and the standards normally associated with Oxbridge acceptance so their opinion holds weight. I guess some that have supported children through this arduous process will no doubt feel aggrieved when success isn't forthcoming.""

Aggrieved? Why?
Not all can get a place.it s simple maths.
It may be down to the smallest of reasons.
The times article cited one school ..30 % of oxbridge applicants from the school got places before... now its 25% . That could be one or two people. They always had applicants not getting the oxbridge place applied for.
Presumably the non oxbridge go onto lse Durham Bristol etc etc and do fine so long as they don't go thru life "Aggrieved " ....

@plusorminus you make a great point. Becoming good at anything in life is down to practice and training to a certain extent - we don’t watch elite athletes and complain that it’s not “fair” because they had all that training from an early age (which often costs a lot of money). Perhaps I should be demanding a place on team GB as when I was younger I was very athletic but sadly didn’t get the training I deserved because my family wasn’t supportive and there were no facilities in my town? Yes, private school kids are pretty impressive after 7 years in the system and they have put in the hours. Does this mean that they should have their opportunities in life capped to fulfil a social mobility agenda? I would only sign up to it if we also put in place quotas on grammar schools, socioeconomic groups, regions, ethnicity...actually, let’s go the whole hog and make it quotas by school. Then it would truly be fair as it’s impossible to objectively compare each and every child’s relative experiences and perceived advantages/disadvantages. Tutoring would also need to be banned. But if it’s just quotas of state vs private then whose to say that we’re not just making space for more kids who have got lucky and got into great grammar schools/highly achieving comprehensives in good areas whose parents can afford a tutor?

@plusorminus - which is also where Oxbridge probably also needs to do their bit to adjust/update their teaching methods (social sciences/humanities - i know that those in labs study in a completely different way). But for example, a tutorial is a really poor method of teaching particularly in today's environment. It's intimidating, favours a particular type of student and just doesn't reflect the nature of work i.e. largely collaborative etc where skills such as team work, agility and ability to get along are invaluable. The old set up of a tutor passing their knowledge onto a pupil etc is very old school. However, seeing as this is then reflected in the interview processes i.e. because this is what is perceived as enabling students to succeed once they get in - it does mean that Oxbridge should work harder not only at outreach but also their teaching methologies

"have their opportunities in life capped"

They are not capped though.
Getting to oxbridge is not the only route to success
They still take with them and have the advantages and will do OK with the right attitude .

The impact of inequality in sport versus wider society can't possibly be compared. In the most lucrative sports I'm also not convinced the wealthiest have a huge over representation.

In the most lucrative sports I'm also not convinced the wealthiest have a huge over representation.

The fact that it may be different in the most lucrative sports doesn't negate the fact that there is an effect in many sports. Tennis and golf spring to mind immediately as fairly lucrative yet very difficult to get out of the juniors without a fair amount of support. Cricket and rugby are not lucrative yet exhibit a similar effect. Also, anecdotally, wealth doesn't have much impact beyond a certain level, so no need to direct the conversation to the wealthiest, middle class advantage will do.

Elite schools send many to Oxbridge due to the fact they are very selctive, have an academic ethos, and parents invested in their children's education.

Elite schools have extremely good A level profiles for their students so it would be strange if a high proportion didn't go to Oxbridge. The falling numbers from these schools despite high sustained A level grades does bring with it questions.

Discrimination works both ways. We have never had a political party that has removed private schooling so we should accept as a society the democratic decision that independent schooling is part of our system and not bias against it at the expense of pupils who did not make a decision where to attend school.

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

Most courses require AAA or above. This tends to be the main benchmark they use though they use others as well for completeness.

www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/Annual%20Admissions%20Statistical%20Report%202020.pdf#page=16[/quote]
The problem I have with using AAA as a measure is that Oxbridge clearly don't regard that level of achievement alone as sufficient condition for admission since, as I pointed out earlier, about 10 times as many students in the UK achieve at that level as Oxbridge has places. Furthermore, they clearly don't even regard A Level exams as adequate for their admission decisions in many subjects, as evidenced by their requirement that applicants take their own, presumably more rigorous or targetted, university exams:

www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/guide/admissions-tests

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/applying/admissions-assessments/pre-interview

So I don't regard the fact that they report the AAA or above number as support for the relevance of those numbers in the way you want to use them.

@user149799568 and @Tselliotsunderpants your analogy is completely insane.

We aren't talking about potential. State school students get the grades! They deserve the place as much as private school students who get the same grades and are over-represented. So yes, if team GB for historical reasons wasn't selected athletes with the exact same ability from state schools, it would be discriminatory.

Also, the country does invest in expanding athletic opportunities to the less advantaged as its also the right thing to do for sport as well.

However, the implications for society are completely different and if you can't see that I'm not really sure you understand why Oxbridge are doing the outreach they are doing in the first place...