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* **

@Soma I agree with a lot of what you’ve said - I have certainly been concerned for a long time about poor advice on A level choice. And you are right support is vital which is why the 93percent club mentioned upthread is so important.

Not personally obsessed with Oxbridge I have to say. I’ve taught elsewhere and there is a good level of higher education available at many unis. But as an Oxbridge grad myself I want to see entry made as meritocratic as it could be.

I am looking for the article that I read that said Oxford or is it Cambridge offers this year is 1% higher for private schools than it was last year. Moreover I think we'll start to see some sort of reverse backlash if the figures to falls below 20-25% mark.

Also I don't see a world where Oxbridge will not remain the UK's most Elite institutions. It's the same way Harvard,Yale and Princeton will remain America's most elite institutions no matter How well regarded the Likes of MIT and Stanford currently are.

The US analogy isn't really appropriate. People who are gifted at maths would almost always choose MIT over Harvard. Its not even remotely seen as being in a league below Princeton, Yale and Harvard. The US is a much larger country. We have more elite universities than just two or three that are equally well regarded.

I'm not just talking about academics, I am talking about the whole shebang. Culturally,Politically,Academics et al. The name Harvard has a lot of clout. May be I should have used Harvard's fellow ivy leaguer like Brown or Dartmouth.

Of course the US has more Elite institutions than anywhere in the world. Heck Prep schools like Andover, Exeter, St Paul's,Deerfield,Hotchkiss have more endowment than most universities worldwide.

It looks like American Universities are becoming a major choice for elite public schools. This brings into question the fairness of Oxbridge taking American students when some in the UK may not have the fianances to enter the American system. (another subject)

I am not proposing that Oxbridge becomes less than academically elite or they won't ever be the most established resourceful universities in the country. I was putting forward that cultural elitism may be separate to academic elitism and that universities that accommodate a large number of private school children may benefit from this in terms of cultural positioning.

The fact that our future King met his wife at an 'Oxbridge alternative' university and the fact she came from both a wealthy background and established public school is non coincidental. Elitism seems to part of this country"a DNA and if opportunities are not given at Oxford and Cambridge for this to occur it will occur elsewhere.

I wonder if increasing numbers of state school applicants enter Oxbridge whether the traditions will remain the same i.e. formal dinners, may balls etc. or will student tastes change?

Elitism isn’t the same in the US and the U.K. Harvard sits above Brown in prestige but only because it’s harder to get into. The old whiteshoe waspy stuff went out a long, long time ago. If you meet someone from Harvard the assumption isn’t that they are posh, it is that they are really accomplished and extremely intellectually gifted. Most students at Harvard are on financial aid.

You meet someone from MIT and you equally assume that they are gifted mathematically. Probably some sort of prodigy.

It is equally easy to enter any profession from pretty much any Ivy League school, MIT, Stanford etc. The US doesn’t have a formal class system based on birth / heredity. Americans really hate all that stuff. Money can and is used to peddle influence and network but new money is just as good as old money!

It’s very different to the Oxford / Cambridge

FWIW I don't think much has changed in the perceived hierarchy of universities in the past 50 years or so, do you? I have a close friend whose siblings went to Oxford and Cambridge and they went to St. Andrew's (we're talking three decades or so ago). I have always got the impression that my friend was never deemed anywhere near as academically successful as DSiblings. I'm not sure that St. Andrew's was quite so aspirational in those days but pretty much 'up there' with Durham and Bristol. But yes, I've always got the impression that the top universities are as much based on social as academic tribe which is part of the problem! I think in the UK that is the access nut to crack.

Are we trapped by history in this country?

I agree there be more elite institutions in the US but is this due to the fact we have not let other elite institutions to evolve in this country?

Oxbridge had a hegemony for centuries preventing other seats of learning being established and have not expanded the number of colleges to keep up with the demand of increasingly able and qualified applicants.

Some of the issues raised here could be solved by the expansion of the number of Cambridge and Oxford colleges yet this has not happened.

It seems inevitable that society will want to expand the range of elite institutions simply because we have too many able applicants for oxbridge.

I agree that oxbridge offers a premium education however it is often the case for non academic jobs the full extent if degree knowledge is rarely used (I personally do not use quantum mechanics a great deal though having a physics degree).

It could be the case employere are willing to accept slightly 'lesser' degrees from the oxbridge alternatives especially when many of the oxbridge rejects there will have exemplary A levels.

@LondonGirl83

Elitism isn’t the same in the US and the U.K. Harvard sits above Brown in prestige but only because it’s harder to get into. The old whiteshoe waspy stuff went out a long, long time ago. If you meet someone from Harvard the assumption isn’t that they are posh, it is that they are really accomplished and extremely intellectually gifted. Most students at Harvard are on financial aid.

You meet someone from MIT and you equally assume that they are gifted mathematically. Probably some sort of prodigy.

It is equally easy to enter any profession from pretty much any Ivy League school, MIT, Stanford etc. The US doesn’t have a formal class system based on birth / heredity. Americans really hate all that stuff. Money can and is used to peddle influence and network but new money is just as good as old money!

It’s very different to the Oxford / Cambridge

i don't speak from a lot of personal experience but that doesn't ring wholly true to me.

unlike in the UK, the most prestigious US universities are more [much] expensive than the bad ones [a quick google suggests $70k per year to study at harvard, which is astonishing].

and social mobility in the US is a long way behind anywhere in europe, has been for decades, despite [inexplicable to me] reasonably widespread beliefs to the contrary.

Aren’t there also alumni admissions in the US, or is that a thing of the past?

@puffyisgood Elite US universities offer very generous financial aid. A pupil from a household with an average income would get to go to Harvard virtually for free. 55% of Harvard students get some amount of financial aid and 17% qualify for Pell Grants which are for students with a household income below the equivalent of £23,000 a year.

Financial aid is much less generous outside of the most elite universities as only those with huge endowments can afford to be so generous. But we are talking about the elite universities so that's what's relevant.

Economic mobility isn't easy in the US at all but there isn't social class in the same way as in the UK. Its very, very different.

I say this as an American who went to an Ivy league university and then got a masters from Oxford, so I'm very familiar with both.

There are more elite universities in the US because there are more people in the US. The acceptance rates at all the top universities in the US are far, far lower than at Oxford and Cambridge so they are even more difficult to access than Oxbridge @mids2019.

@Foxhasbigsocks

Aren’t there also alumni admissions in the US, or is that a thing of the past?

Nope it's not. Legacy admission is still a big thing in US. At the Big Name universities(colleges), it's between 10 and 30 percent.

Legacy admissions is very prevalent because its part of the capitalist cycle of endowment donations. To be fair, the academic credentials of legacy applicants are the same as the overall applicant pool at Harvard.

The most controversial aspect of legacy admission is the Z-list / transfer students, which is the backdoor for less capable legacies who can't get in on their own merit. But this kind of quid pro quo is really attached to big money donations rather than cultural elitism / preference. You don't get the favours without explicitly paying for them.

The US is far from a meritocratic paradise. But like I said, its not linked to any kind of formal social class system like in the UK. Its very different.

So imagine we manage to widen access and the next generation of “successful people” are mainly from the lower socioeconomic classes...so they take their places at the top of the pyramid. What happens to the children of the people previously at the top of the pyramid? Is the aspiration to move them down (because they are privileged) to give someone else a chance at the top? And when the new “top of the pyramid” peeps have their kids would we seek to also move them down the pyramid as by then they will be the entitled ones and it’s time to let someone else have a chance? Is a constant rise and fall of families fortunes the ultimate goal here...or are we seeking the flatten the pyramid to make more space for everyone ? I guess I am someone from the “bottom” and I have found my way to the top - from a selfish perspective I’d like to think my children and their children can always gravitate near the top of the pyramid through hard work but maybe that just isn’t fair? I’m genuinely interested in what the long term end game is here as opposed to making a difference to one generation? It makes me thing of the old Chinese saying which is something along the lines of “the first generation rises, the second generation benefits and the third generation loses it all”....

The goal is people succeeding by merit rather than primarily by background / privilege. I don't think anyone thinks people should fall just for the sake of it.

Lost in all of this is the fact that private school pupils get circa 25% of the top grandes but about 35% of Oxbridge places.

Part of this is state school students with good enough academics don't apply. Access and outreach as well is a big part of the answer and what the universities are doing.

Also giving a leg up to students who are really capable but for reasons that are outside of their control didn't perform up to their potential. This is where foundation courses come into play so that everyone who is talented gets equal access to elite universities.

In a true meritocracy there will always people rising and falling though. Social mobility goes both ways.

@Shinyhappypeople762

So imagine we manage to widen access and the next generation of “successful people” are mainly from the lower socioeconomic classes...so they take their places at the top of the pyramid. What happens to the children of the people previously at the top of the pyramid? Is the aspiration to move them down (because they are privileged) to give someone else a chance at the top? And when the new “top of the pyramid” peeps have their kids would we seek to also move them down the pyramid as by then they will be the entitled ones and it’s time to let someone else have a chance? Is a constant rise and fall of families fortunes the ultimate goal here...or are we seeking the flatten the pyramid to make more space for everyone ? I guess I am someone from the “bottom” and I have found my way to the top - from a selfish perspective I’d like to think my children and their children can always gravitate near the top of the pyramid through hard work but maybe that just isn’t fair? I’m genuinely interested in what the long term end game is here as opposed to making a difference to one generation? It makes me thing of the old Chinese saying which is something along the lines of “the first generation rises, the second generation benefits and the third generation loses it all”....

Well, the end game is something approaching a meritocracy, I suppose, ideally something approaching North/Northwest European standards.

If there's someone doing a really important, really skilled, cognitively demanding, job on my behalf, be that, y'know, be that a cardiologist doing an assessment of my health; an Alan Turing-style MOD employee doing some codebreaking work [maybe increasingly relevant in future in the shape of cybersecurity]; even a fund manager looking after my [unimpressive, sadly] pension pot, I'd get a heck of a lot more confidence from knowing that the job was being done by the cleverest, most capable person available, rather than [I exaggerate for effect] someone whose status is the result of a butterfly effect that started some 30 years earlier when his SW london mother managed to block book the diary of the best pre-prep tutor in the area so that other families wouldn't be able to use him.

One of the many funny things about the old Blackadder TV series is the way that the character gets progressively cleverer as he slides progressively lower down the class system over the centuries. Probably quite realistic.

Anyone who's genuinely moved from anywhere even halfway near "the bottom" to anywhere even halfway near "the top" knows that it's really very trivially easy to ensure that your own kids [mostly, of course you do always see the odd black sheep pop up every now and then] will never have to go anywhere near the bottom. Ensuring that they get to the very top, especially the toppermost end thereof, is on another level of difficulty altogether but again, anyone with even a passing familiarity with both ends of the spectrum really ought to know that it's perfectly possible to have a, by any sensible measure, fantastically comfortable, relatively privileged existence without ever getting particularly near the very highest heights.

@mids2019

It looks like American Universities are becoming a major choice for elite public schools. This brings into question the fairness of Oxbridge taking American students when some in the UK may not have the fianances to enter the American system. (another subject)

I am not proposing that Oxbridge becomes less than academically elite or they won't ever be the most established resourceful universities in the country. I was putting forward that cultural elitism may be separate to academic elitism and that universities that accommodate a large number of private school children may benefit from this in terms of cultural positioning.

The fact that our future King met his wife at an 'Oxbridge alternative' university and the fact she came from both a wealthy background and established public school is non coincidental. Elitism seems to part of this country"a DNA and if opportunities are not given at Oxford and Cambridge for this to occur it will occur elsewhere.

I wonder if increasing numbers of state school applicants enter Oxbridge whether the traditions will remain the same i.e. formal dinners, may balls etc. or will student tastes change?

To be fair the greatest barrier to entry to US colleges for state educated students is the know how not finance. Independent schools have full time US Admissions officers all year round whilst state schools can't afford it. Heck even grammar schools that get some of the brightest students hardly send any to the states.

The point you made for more cultural elitism finding it's way to other Universities but I reckon the most academically gifted of the cultural elites would more often not be at Oxbridge.

@SouthLondonMommy

The goal is people succeeding by merit rather than primarily by background / privilege. I don't think anyone thinks people should fall just for the sake of it.

Lost in all of this is the fact that private school pupils get circa 25% of the top grandes but about 35% of Oxbridge places.

Part of this is state school students with good enough academics don't apply. Access and outreach as well is a big part of the answer and what the universities are doing.

Also giving a leg up to students who are really capable but for reasons that are outside of their control didn't perform up to their potential. This is where foundation courses come into play so that everyone who is talented gets equal access to elite universities.

In a true meritocracy there will always people rising and falling though. Social mobility goes both ways.

That is the thing many are failing to understand, these schools are and for the foreseeable future will continue to get a big chunk of their students to Oxbridge. They are not banning them.

Also there are no contextual grade offers for oxbridge. These students are the cream of the crop getting in with a bare minimum of 3As much like their independent schools counterparts. 30 odd years ago, Schools with Links to particular Oxbridge colleges were getting students in with "B's and C's" . This is not the case with these students.

OK so if we are looking at a target of 25% for private school children at Oxbridge to reflect the proportion of high A level grades awarded lwill this lead to be a more meritocratic society? I think there are other factors at play as well as access to Oxford and Cambridge. I think as a country we still view public schooling with a degree of respect (look at the backgrounds of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak) and I think this is tied in with an inherent acceptance of elitism which is rather specific to the UK. 75% of country support a monarchy and this is the personification of restricted social mobility (titles given by birth alone) and I think many want to keep the infrastructure and tradition that support this institution . There is an osmosis of this feeling toward other establishment institutions e.g. Eton where there are links to the ruling class and supporting history.

To the point that Oxbridge will advocate the academically elite amongst the culturally elite I am sure this is true as there will always be an overlap between the two. However not all the culturally elite (looking forward) will attend Oxford and Cambridge and hence this idea of displaced prestige of institutions. Kate Middleton did not go to Oxford but one could argue she is part of a cultural elite (as example)

I think the US historically ha s allowed the development of elite institutions as they did not have two universities restricting the profile other ones. The US has a common language and is the world's wealthiest economy so I am sure it has attractive universities. I think the international reputation of its elite universities definitely act as a magnet for private school children.

For elite public schools I think there is an acknowledgment that the 'Oxbridge hit rate will reduce in future and action is being taken to ensure that there is accessed to equally prestigous alternatives in the US (and from world uni rankings these are where they are) . I read a Telegraph article suggesting that this was the case and maybe an understandable one.

AS A seems to be a high benchmark academically but with grade inflation there are actually a relatively high number of pupils achieving these grades and Oxbridge alternatives often give offers higher than this. A level grades are not being used a s the only filter for Oxbridge entrance and interview/other exams need to be used in parallel (the fairness or lack of for this is another discussion).

AAA above

It doesn't surprise me that private school students account for a disproportionately high % of those with top grades. As a parent, what are you investing money in your DC for from such a young age but to ensure top grades and access to top universities? It doesn't make it right though does it?

@NewModelArmyMayhem18 that's correct. A-level students make up 17% of those taking A-levels but 25% of the top grades. There over representation in Oxbridge though of circa 35% is based on access and is pretty complex.

For instance, in certain subjects like Maths, the numbers skew more towards state school students actually. However, independent school students are very strategic and knowingly apply for the least popular courses as well as courses that are only taught at private schools like Classics. Classics is heavily dominated by independent school pupils.

@Elij00 yes, I agree with all of that.

@mids2019 prestige isn't controlled in the way that you are explaining it in my view, at least not in the American context. Harvard doesn't allow Stanford or MIT to become prestigious. Harvard has no control over it. The reality is there are enough really talented people given the size of the US, that the cream of the crop attend a wider array of schools. The prestige is linked to the talent and success of each university's alumni through various channels.

I'd say Oxford and Cambridge's prestige though is intertwined with the class system and I agree that the monarchy and formal class system that exists in the UK doesn't sit at all well with a meritocracy. The cognitive dissonance around it for me is alarming and problematic.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

You raise a good point about the fairness of private schooling.

To play devils advocate can I point out to a previous point I made about the abolishment of private schools never being performed by governments of any shade in the UK and I would be surprised if it was a manifesto commitment of future Conservative or Labour governments. There is therefore a democratic acceptance of private schools (with their perceived unfairness) in society as a whole so as democrats we have to accept this.

Is it unfair....in the whole yes, maybe. However there is inequality in other areas of life (health and wealth for example) and these inequalities, their cause and solution, will be the subject of perennial political debate.

I may point out that we have a conservative government currently with an 80 seat majority so the political centre of gravity is on the right and an. abolishment of public schools would be identified with left wing politics not currently favoured.

I suppose the argument would follow that if we allow private schools and it's inherent advantages what rights do we have to put in place measures to limit their pupils acceptance at institutions like Oxbridge? (You or I may not like it but it there is a democratic mandate)

@SouthLondonMommy

Apologies I was referring to a time way back in time when Oxford and Cambridge prevented other seats of learning (mainly theological) in the UK.

I think in the UK the public perception of Oxford and Cambridge is linked with a lot of institutions that define us, Westminster, Monarchy, Church of England, the Judiciary etc. The boat race is as British as the FA cup or Grand National. The architectural lay outs of the older Oxbridge colleges are similar to the layout of our elite public schools and their may be shared traditions e.g formal meals or substantive use of Latin.

I would say then that there is weight of national history and tradition linking public schools and Oxbridge . I think in the country as a whole very much is behind these national traditions so maybe there is a tacit acceptance of the status quo linking our older schools with older universities?

The cynic in me wonders whether decreasing private schools admissions to Oxbridge will be blamed on the 'woke brigade' by certain elements of the press with linkage to other equality drives e.g. race and the conservative party being anti woke will eventually argue for higher private school admissions based on that.

I think we do have a meritocracy in the UK - places at university are dictated by performance in exams and interviews and likewise individual are selected for jobs/promotions on the basis of how good they are at their jobs. What is being proposed is that we move away from a meritocracy because a meritocracy is not fair if people in the “race” have not all started in the same place or run under the same conditions. Quotas, affirmative action, contextual grades are all attempts to make up for a perceived unfairness but the reality is there is no way to objectively assess the “unfairness” and how much of it was truly beyond the child’s control. It can also feel quite unfair to the other kids in the “race” as there is no way of proving that those kids wouldn’t have done equally well even if you strip away all their privilege. I don’t know what the solution is but the fact that this thread has so many posts shows how divisive the topic is.

@Shinyhappypeople762

First, Oxbridge doesn't have quotas or contextual offers. That's a myth. Things beyond ability (as measured by A-levels) skews intake at Oxbridge and that is what is being addressed through outreach etc.

Even with those misconceptions about the point in hand addressed, its worth being clear that the UK is not a meritocracy.

Competition can't be fair without a level playing field by definition. A true meritocracy requires that as a baseline. For that reason, there aren't any perfect meritocracies though measures to level the playing field are what make a society increasingly meritocratic.

However, the existence of the formal class system- heredity titles, royalty etc- makes the UK an aristocracy which is antithetical to meritocracy. The idea that some people are by birthright alone 'above' other people is, well, problematic...