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* **

DP reckons the scheme was introduced to ensure the public schools held onto their charitable status.

In terms of postwar history my guess is that the first big game changing upward blip in state school places that the chart shows in the early 60s was the introduction of A level grades [as opposed to simple pass/fail, with latterly a few 'disctinction' grades chucked in] in 1963, before that I'd imagine it'd have been trivially easy for private school kids to blow state school kids out of the water at interview, with no scope for exam results to be a leveller.

The relative stagnation from c late 60s to c 2000 could result from a combination of factors including an increasing disparity of resource, possibly in part in response to the aforementioned introduction of A level grading.

At a guess, the improvement starting in the early 00s results from a conbination of: (a) actual action taken by the universities in response to ever-increasing transparency/calling out on the stats & so on; and (b) the hugely increases in state classroom spending triggered by the blair governments & not yet reversed by the tories, which led to things like ubiquitous classroom assistants & significantly improved facilities.

@ rattusrattus20
That chart is very interesting to see. I wonder though if it quite answers the question about to what extent there was a beneficial effect from grammar and direct grant schools in increasing Oxbridge admissions from those sectors (in proportion to private) ,in the 20th century? Because during that period only about 5% went to university at all rather than straight into work or an apprenticeship. Also fewer girls by far went to Oxbridge until relatively recently.

I am no good at understanding statistics but wouldn’t that line simply have gone up because of the higher number over all of university applicants these days?

@TooManyMiles

@ rattusrattus20 That chart is very interesting to see. I wonder though if it quite answers the question about to what extent there was a beneficial effect from grammar and direct grant schools in increasing Oxbridge admissions from those sectors (in proportion to private) ,in the 20th century? Because during that period only about 5% went to university at all rather than straight into work or an apprenticeship. Also fewer girls by far went to Oxbridge until relatively recently.

I am no good at understanding statistics but wouldn’t that line simply have gone up because of the higher number over all of university applicants these days?

Would you expect a higher number of grammar schools to increase the proportion of Oxbridge places going to state school pupils? There are definitely some clear reasons why it might do, since at least some of the kids who'd have gone grammar back in the day would, after the demise of grammars, end up going private instead. Heck, in a few cases, some entire grammar schools, such as the one that Keir Starmer attended, went private in 1970s. So of course you'd expect the grammars being [largely] abolished to reduce the number of state Oxbridge places.

There might also be an effect, largely unprovable, whereby grammar schools were providing a better education to kids who wouldn't ever have been able to afford private than the comps would go on to do.

Set against this second point is the fact that the 11+ was a test for, let's face it, 10 yr old kids [and as such a fairly seriously flawed predictor of performance at 18, especially with variable levels of preparation for the test], and notorious for favouring middle class children [hence its demise, even in those 1970s days of limited transparency and relative respect for one's betters, etc]. Secondary moderns were abysmally resourced comparde to comprehensives and used to send no kids, ever, to Oxbridge, whereas comprehensives now account for c40% of the total, i.e. pretty much exactly as the same as grammars at the late 60s zenith of their powers, with the few surviving grammars still contributing about c20%.

So does the data show the demise of grammars, which started in the late 60s and was largely finished by about 1980, reduce the number of state school? e.g. if you squint really hard at the shape of the line between the late 60s and early 80s? It doesn't obviously look like it?

Hypothetically, if the grammar schools and direct grant came back to all regions of the U.K.:

1. Would applications to private schools go down because of students going to grammar and direct grant schools in preference?

1. Would Oxbridge admissions from the state sector go up even more?

1. If the answer to the first question is yes, would the Oxbridge admissions from the state sector still increase when the influx of previously private pupils from the state sector is taken out if the equation?

If the answer to question 3 is yes, then why?

There seems to be an almost two year gap between what children are taught in private and state (non-grammar) schools. By what ever means a high bench mark and starting point is expected by age 11 in private and grammar schools.

There also seems to be less depth and breadth in what is taught beyond the curriculum in the state sector not to mention less emphasis on sport, music drama, art etc which are just as important.

The state sector seems to be massively underfunded too when compared to what is spent per child in the private sector. For example GDST schools keep fees as low as possible and are non-profit making. They spend only what they know is necessary, yet that seems to be about double.(It is difficult to know as fees must cover expenses like buildings etc not just staff and equipment.)

Meanwhile, some children have good food from conception, private tuition from university educated/skilled tutors from birth (their parents) while others have no food or other resources. By age five there must already be years of difference between the two groups. We need a system that helps these little children. It would cost a lot but be worth it.

This news report seems to confirm that top private schools are getting fewer kids into Oxbridge.

@Neolara

This news report seems to confirm that top private schools are getting fewer kids into Oxbridge.

It the same data repeated quoting ST "Eton College received only 48 offers this year, which fell from 99 offers in 2014. While at St Paul’s School for boys, the number of successful applicants has dropped from 30 per cent to 25 per cent since 2017."

Only 48 I do not weep..

Still the other however many no doubt went onto great things elsewhere
If you only expect or demand oxbridge for your dc and nothing else matters then that is unreasonable

Sure Start was an attempt at narrowing the huge divide between the haves and have-nots wasn't it?

good on this girl for starting a '93% club'. she got a job with a silver circle law firm at the end of it too.

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/06/bullingdon-in-reverse-working-class-student-93-club-taking-on-elitism

She's brave and good on her. However, I wonder how long before she and future generations of her family become what she has set out to combat?

I suppose she and her descendants may become wealthy, yes, but hopefully they won't turn into bigots. That seems to be the issue with the people she met at university, not their wealth.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

She's brave and good on her. However, I wonder how long before she and future generations of her family become what she has set out to combat?

If it's any consolation to you, I daresay she'll be in for a few very unpleasant surprises in the world of work, the top city law firms make the inhabitants of most Oxbridge colleges seem like they're fresh out of an episode of 'Shameless'.

It doesn't seem unlikely that this 93% lark (plus the fact that she's a woman, of course) baked a verdict of 'not officer material' into her silver circle career from day one, unless she's an individual of genuinely exceptional ability and resilience.

Courageous in that her name is in the national press and potential employers with the help of Google might feel her a bit chippy and wonder how she will interact with privately educated colleagues.

However I think there are points to be raised about university culture and class based tension within undergraduate bodies. These tensions were there 25 years ago and it looks like little has changed.

I wonder in 2021 if we have a position where there is displaced prestige from Oxbridge given the current levels of oversubscription by excellent students?

There are certain universities such as Durham, Bristol, LSE, UCL that are mentioned as leading alternatives to Oxbridge which also have high contingents of private school students.

Are we in a position where from a society level we can describe such universities as prestigious and use phrases such a 'winning a place at Durham'

The reduction in offers to private school children by Oxbridge leads to those candidates who otherwise would have gained a place going elsewhere to a relatively narrow band of universities and I would imagine there being a small second tier of universities that would be mentioned with esteem.

Maybe they just going to Durham

At Durham University, admissions from fee-paying schoolshave risenfor the third successive year to37.8%.And when universities take account of the growing number of overseas students, who are predominantly privately educated, the overall figures do not look good.

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/06/bullingdon-in-reverse-working-class-student-93-club-taking-on-elitism

Well yes, the private school pupils who in yesteryear would have got into Oxbridge easy-peasy will be displaced elsewhere. Only trouble is that the elitism is just being shunted elsewhere rather than spread across all the universities.

What I find most troubling about the whole thing with privilege, is the number of graduates from very privileged backgrounds who have no idea how ordinary people live and then go on to hold the positions (many in government/the Civil Service) of power within our country. Look at the current issue with lucrative contracts for friends/neighbours vs a measly 1% pay rise for the NHS staff without whom we would not have weathered the storm of the pandemic. How can that be right?

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

I wonder to what extent top jobs are given to oxbridge graduates or those from public schools as often you find those in 'elite' positions have been to both?

I wonder if we have displaced elitism from restricting numbers of private school applicants to oxford and cambridge to places like Durham whether similar complaints about Durham graduates getting top jobs will occur?

Will oxbridge lose its hegemony on elite jobs in time? Will the monikers elite and privileged for universties follow where significant proportions of private school children go? I think they will in time .

This is a very interesting thread and I’ve enjoyed reading it. Just to add the perspective of someone who has worked in graduate recruitment for many years - It pains me to say it but these privately educated kids make fantastic candidates regardless of whether or not they come from Oxbridge or other RG universities. They usually have great academic results, have done loads of extracurricular activities which help to demonstrate the soft skills that we are looking for and come across very well at interview. Furthermore (and this pains me to say as I am state educated) when we track their progress they usually live up to the expectations they set. Maybe they aren’t all genius’ but in the world of industry we don’t need people to have an IQ of 140 - we need them to be clever enough. It’s much more important to be organised, know how to work well with others, be willing to work long hours, be able to present ideas well etc In my opinion a private education grooms these kids to be able to function well in investment banks, management consultancies and other blue chip companies...all the places that pay well. State school kids can also be fantastic candidates if they have found ways to develop these skills too and many do through involvement in sport, drama, volunteering etc but it’s much less of a given. I have seen far too many highly intelligent state educated kids with great degrees that just can’t make it through the graduate interview process as they just don’t come across well and they expect their academic achievement alone to open the doors. Broadening access to top universities is one lever but it’s not the whole picture.

@Shinyhappypeople762

Interesting post though may not be the most popular views for a view.

I agree privately educated children cm present very well and in some circumstances show greater confidence.

I think one of the issues with this thread is whether one should bias against the privately educated in the interests of making an institution of company a fair reflection of society.

Companies I not have policies (as far as I am aware) of having to look to have a certain ratio of state school educated employees so the argument would be why should universities be subject to these pressures?

It is ironic that there are public sector employers that are looking to reduce Oxbridge graduates e.g. BBC and I wonder how much weight is placed on university in the private sector? I know for my current public sector field at interview we can't ask about university attended.

Companies I not have policies (as far as I am aware) of having to look to have a certain ratio of state school educated employees so the argument would be why should universities be subject to these pressures?

Because the government, i.e., society, is paying the bills for universities?

@user149799568

Good point but students themselves fund universities to an extent through fees.

I suppose the electorate as a whole have voted for partys who accept (rightly or wrongly) private education as part of our educational mix so you could say there is democratic mandate for private schools.

If this is the case then is it incumbent on public institutions to limit the number of private school attendees they employ?

My view is either as a society we don't have private schooling or it is accepted as part of our educational variety and therefore universities should concentrate on evaluating applicants in a way that is independent of the school attended. If this means that naturally there is a disproportionate number of PS children then that can be viewed as fair under the system we have.

I think that the presence of absence of private schooling is a matter of political debate amongst electorate and 17 year old university applicants shouldn't bear the consequences of our political views of the diversity of undergraduate bodies.

In my opinion a private education grooms these kids to be able to function well in investment banks, management consultancies and other blue chip companies..

Sot the children of the wealthy fit in with the wealthy, hardly surprising. The skills you mention:

know how to work well with others, be willing to work long hours, be able to present ideas well

These not just confined to people working for the limited list you presented, they are prevalent throughout the range of employment.

Indeed, it could be argued that "investment banks, management consultancies & blue chip companies" were responsible for the 2008 mess and the subsequent lack of investment in public services that has left us with over 120,000 dead from Covid due to their collective failure?

Indeed I'd go further and suggest that where the state has turned to Management Consultancies to deal with the issue, such as the woeful track and trace, they have failed miserably, unlike the NHS' reaction and in particular the vaccination programme, mostly devised, managed and delivered by the hoi polloi who attended state school?

as they just don’t come across well
able to present ideas well

Maybe we should be thinking more carefully about whether it's a great idea to keep handing the top university places out to those who are the best at radiating a halo of private-school-nurtured confidence and self-belief.

The UK is in a pretty poor state right now due to BREXIT and the shambolic handling of the pandemic.

I've seen quite a lot of commentators convincingly making the case that part of the problem is that we have a lot of political leaders and politicians who are convincing, great at "selling themselves" and full of the kind of superficial confidence that isn't exactly earned by their intellectual credentials.

www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/22/posh-boys-english-public-schools-ruin-britain-robert-verkaik-review

They may well present well. Crikey they've presented well to Conservative constituency associations all over the country as well as banks and other higher echelons. And we know where that is getting us. Croneyism and entitlement. Honestly lets have a proper meritocracy.
Just because rich well brought up young ladies and gentlemen get on well with other rich well brought up ladies and gentlemen it doesn't mean they are they right people for the job. Maybe the the bright hot polloi take a little longer to settle in. But hey maybe once they do they're actually better at the jobs?