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* **

@expat96 What you've linked to doesn't contradict what I've posted which is about academics of legacies.

That paper is comparing a wider group of candidates that includes athletes, dean's interest list (ie donors) etc. Legacies academic scores aren't different from the admitted class though the admission score would be without the legacy points (the admission score provides bonus points for various non-academic variables including being from the West Coast to promote regional diversity etc).

I said that legacies have the same academic credentials as other admitted students and they do. Its just a fact.

You can say you think privileged legacies (not all are rich) should need to get higher academic scores than the rest of the class given the advantages they've had though that really would apply to all the privileged students. Or that that legacy status should be removed from the admission scoring, which I actually agree with.

Either way, that has nothing to do with what I said which is true irrespective of any of that.

I don't actually agree with legacy candidates getting extra consideration in admissions. However it's how elite universities in the US build loyalty (and donations). A $42 billion endowment doesn't just happen so its unlikely to be reversed unless they are compelled to by law.

@SouthLondonMommy

Table 2 separates Legacies, Dean's List and Children of Faculty (LDC) from Athletes. Table D2 is only LDC. Athletes are stripped out of Table D2. As you yourself pointed, Dean's List is a small fraction, much smaller than Legacies.

The Academic Ratings are the assessments by the admissions staff. I saw no indication in the paper that the Academic Ratings are adjusted to reflect anything other than academics. I am not discussing the Overall Ratings, only the Academic Ratings.

According to Table D2, 89% of White admits overall had an Academic Rating of 2 or better. Only 78% of White LDC admits had an Academic Rating of 2 or better.

Table 4 shows that White LDC admits make up 27% of all White admits. From that we can infer that 93% of White non-LDC admits had an Academic Rating of 2 or better.

Let's review this. Harvard's own data (released under court order in response to a lawsuit) shows that:

• 93% of White non-LegacyDC admits had an Academic Rating of 2 or better
• 78% of White LegacyDC admits had an Academic Rating of 2 or better

How do you justify your statement that legacy admits have the same academic credentials as non-legacy admits? The only way I can see is if you believe that Harvard's Academic Rating does not reflect academic credentials. If so, we have to agree to disagree. But please do me the courtesy of pointing to the paragraph in the paper which leads you to that conclusion.

By the way, Table 4 also shows that Whites make up 49% of all admits but 74% of LDC admits, so I feel totally justified picking on them.

[quote mids2019]@shinyhappypeople762

I am glad that your university was positive and I think in theory university should allow mixing of a diverse range of groups and the ability to engage with people of different backgrounds is definitely a good life/work skill.

However it is human nature for people of similar backgrounds to coalesce ... 'birds of a feather' comes to mind and this can unfortunately cause some tension. There are instances of class based discrimination at universties though maybe it doesnt quite get a lot of attention. It may be overt or manifest itself subtly by ostracism (not being invited to the pub etc) or humour based around mocking the working class (chav jokes). I dont think these experiences should be entirely discounted.

@rattusrattus20

I would think oxbridge is very supportive of disadvantaged students with the award of generous bursaries and guaranteed accommodation.

With the increasing diversity of oxbridge I think in future oxbridge will be still the host of an intellectual elite but may lose its 'posh' reputation.

Interesting that accommodation can be a proxy for prosperity now...

@Elij00

Outreach is certainly having its successes and I suppose the change of make up of oxbridge student bodies will be permanent

However I still think there is a political dimension to this and it is not a zero sum game as one could argue for every extra state entrant there is one less private entrant. Some will ascribe this to greater number of state applicants but there will also be those that are convinced positive discrimination is being applied.

I saw a Daily Mail piece (never a paper to want to provoke a reaction) juxtaposing Bramcote Manor's oxbridge successes with a piece showing Eton's reduction in successful applications.

With typically goading style it attributed Bramcote's success to an 'aggressive diversity campaign' (DM speak for outreach).

On the other hand there were quotes from Eton's deputy head expressing that some very strong applicants had been disappointed by their rejections but there other alternative 'leading universities' .

I noted there was no cause linked to the disappointment but presumably the universties were the target of this remark and the subtext was in Eton's opinion these were pupils that really should have been successful.

Read the Telegraph and Daily Mail in future and we will find increasing diversity is due to increasingly 'woke' university staff and left wing bias generally in academia.

University romances.. always a minefield at that age but I did notice that there were male wealthy students with really quite misogynist views of poorer females and vice versa with some wealthier women dating poorer males with no real desire for a long term relationship (bit Pulp and common people)[/quote]
I agree there is indeed a political dimension to it but this is the UK where most things are viewed from a Political or Class lens. I feel a bit sad for the Oxbridge Admissions officers because it looks like they are fighting a battle they can not win.

With regards to the Daily Mail article, they knew exactly what they were doing when they came up with that headline and picked that particular school. They could have chosen either Hills Road Cambridge or Peter Symonds in Winchester but alas no. Then again there was a big article a few years back about 8 big schools having more Oxbridge than three quarters so I guess both sides of the Press are trying to outdo each other.

Lost in the midst of all this bickering is the North South divide and I don't know how we'll resolve that especially considering the majority of the countries best schools are in the South. It's the pupils that make the school so something must be done to draw these highly aspirational parents to the North.

Let's Hope those Misogynistic views are left at the door and not carried around like a badge of Honour

@expat96

I didn't say dean's list applicants are a small fraction of the admitted class. I said Z-list students are a small fraction and they wouldn't be included in the standard admission statistics as they are admitted in a different way because they aren't up to scratch academically... Dean's list isn't the same as z-list.

The data you are referencing is for faculty kids, legacies and dean's lists, not legacies alone. We know what the scores are for legacies alone and they are slightly above the overall average. We don't have to guess as its published.

Anyway, this is getting very off topic as this is a thread about Oxbridge not Harvard.

@expat96 also you are comparing white legacy students against white non-legacy students not the entire student body which is the average I referred to.

If you really want to continue discussing this, I'm happy to over private message as to not derail the thread further.

I said Z-list students are a small fraction and they wouldn't be included in the standard admission statistics as they are admitted in a different way because they aren't up to scratch academically... Dean's list isn't the same as z-list.

On page 2 of the paper: "As indicated in the Day 3 Trial Transcript, the dean’s interest list contains a set of applicants that is of special importance to the dean of admissions. In particular, this list will include applicants whose parents or relatives have donated or show potential to donate to Harvard."

This has gone on long enough. We will have to agree to disagree. You will continue to base your opinion on average SAT scores in a marketing document, scores from an exam which, by the way, an increasing number of top schools are making optional because they no longer believe it to be a good measure of academic potential or achievement. I will continue to base my opinion on Harvard's own Academic Rating data, information which the school was forced to disgorge in a lawsuit.

I know what the deans list is. I said it tends to be donors kids. Z-list pupils are kids who aren't admitted but waitlisted and then told they will be admitted if they differ a year. This is for big donors whose kids aren't up to scratch and would damage the overall admission statistics for the league tables but still need to be admitted through the backdoor. You can't use my stats on Z-list students to extrapolate what proportion of LDC are dean's list versus legacies and staff kids.

I'm sorry its frustrating you but you cannot draw the conclusions about legacy candidates from the information you've posted. I don't disagree with you on the general point about legacy admission being unfair but you are simply misrepresenting the data.

I really apologise for being pedantic but I'm uncomfortable with data being misconstrued, particularly in public forums.

Don't worry about being pedantic. I'm the one who's citing specific tables in an academic article which references several thousand pages of court filings.

But... you are comparing white legacy students against white non-legacy students not the entire student body which is the average I referred to.

You really don't see a problem with using raw averages when the composition of the legacies, in both economic and racial terms, is so different from the composition of non-legacies?

[quote expat96]@Elij00 it does happen that some students decline those schools, but they probably lose fewer than 10% of their admits to schools outside the group. Common reasons why include:

• Parents went to Dartmouth
• Step-parent makes too much money for student to get financial aid but won't pay for private college
• Student wants to go to school in NYC
• Significant other is going to Chicago

That said, I'm sure I've read that some state school students have declined Oxbridge because they thought they wouldn't fit in.[/quote]
I'd like to know the exact amount(in percentages)that rejected HYP+Stanford+MIT for other Top 10-15 colleges as US students do have more reason to decline those Unis than UK students Oxbridge. In addition to the reasons you gave, you can add being admitted to an Academic Military Academy.

That's interesting because when state students feel they won't fit in, they'd simply not apply rather than go through the whole rigorous Oxbridge process only for them to reject it.

@expat96 I really do agree with you the legacy admissions is unfair.

All I'm saying is the data in those tables does not say that legacy students have an average academic performance below the average of the class intake for Harvard. You can't make that claim with the aggregated LDC data. It is impossible and there is published data that actually says the opposite.

If you want to talk about race and admissions, that's a completely different and far more complex question worth a separate thread devoted to that specific topic.

@SouthLondonMommy, I knew from other sources that legacies dominated the LDC category. Deep inside the court filings, they do indicate that there were 1560 legacy admits out of the 1835 total LDC admits, so 85%.

Even if you look across all LDC vs non-LDC without taking into account race, 83% of non-LDC admits had Academic Ratings of 2 or above vs 77% of LDC admits.

But it's not appropriate to measure whether there is or isn't a difference in Academic Rating based on LDC status without taking into account race, as there are clear differences in the requirements by race. The statistical concept involved is related to both hedonic adjustment and regression but, basically, you need to compare like for like. For that reason, among others, the data that you cite is also inadequate to support your claim, another reason being the question of whether SAT scores are a useful measure of academic credentials.

Again, it's clear that neither of us is going to change our minds.

@Elij00

I agree. The story behind this Newham school is a great narrative for the media and breakfast TV picked this up.

I found the DM article uncomfortable in its subtext with a picture of majority ethnic pupils outside Brompton Manor and a stock picture of white Etonians.

A lot of comments on the article seemed to suggest positive discrimination from a 'woke' society and I think that's the narrative that Oxbridge are going to have to fight in future.

In fact I think the positive discrimination argument will be the one used by private schools to combat falling levels of Oxbridge entrance with legal class action by private schools at large if any evidence could be found (either at an individual or collective level). I do pity the admissions tutors, their position is unenviable, and I wonder where the drive for diversity is coming from? Is there advice given to admissions tutors in terms of fairness of access or is there an overarching policy of inclusion at the University governance level? .I do not think the reduction in private school pupils was part of any conservative manifesto so I presume there is limited government interference. I wonder what Boris Johnson's attitude would be when reading this article while eating his corn flakes? Will it be pleasure at a more diverse university make up, 'levelling up' in the new parlance or will it be a feeling that his old school is being stuffed and this 'woke' lefty nonsense has to stop?

I think we are in for more stories about private school children with streams of A stars that have been denied Oxbridge places in the right wing press specifically the telegraph to keep the pressure on to influence admission policy.

@mids2019 I agree there might be a backlash fuelled by the media even though the facts won't be on their side. Its an interesting question where the pressure is coming from too as it will determine how well they can maintain their course of action. I don't think the public is actually that sympathetic to the plight independent school students but its easier to whip up racial tension unfairly.

@expat96 you can't disaggregate the data without knowing each subcategories score within the LDC that makes up the overall weighted average. Its literally impossible for you to make any definitive statements about what legacy scores are with that data. The detail isn't sufficient.

I never said anything about the performance of LCD candidates in the statement I made that you said was wrong,. I only mentioned legacies. If you want to say that LDC (so legacies, faculty kids and dean's list donors) students on average have lower academics than non LDC, that is a completely different point.

[quote mids2019]@Elij00

I agree. The story behind this Newham school is a great narrative for the media and breakfast TV picked this up.

I found the DM article uncomfortable in its subtext with a picture of majority ethnic pupils outside Brompton Manor and a stock picture of white Etonians.

A lot of comments on the article seemed to suggest positive discrimination from a 'woke' society and I think that's the narrative that Oxbridge are going to have to fight in future.

In fact I think the positive discrimination argument will be the one used by private schools to combat falling levels of Oxbridge entrance with legal class action by private schools at large if any evidence could be found (either at an individual or collective level). I do pity the admissions tutors, their position is unenviable, and I wonder where the drive for diversity is coming from? Is there advice given to admissions tutors in terms of fairness of access or is there an overarching policy of inclusion at the University governance level? .I do not think the reduction in private school pupils was part of any conservative manifesto so I presume there is limited government interference. I wonder what Boris Johnson's attitude would be when reading this article while eating his corn flakes? Will it be pleasure at a more diverse university make up, 'levelling up' in the new parlance or will it be a feeling that his old school is being stuffed and this 'woke' lefty nonsense has to stop?

I think we are in for more stories about private school children with streams of A stars that have been denied Oxbridge places in the right wing press specifically the telegraph to keep the pressure on to influence admission policy.[/quote]
Ironic though isn't it that pupils from schools such as Eton (but many more besides) have effectively benefitted from a form of positive discrimination for generations.
And streams of A stars, well they also exist in state schools and in far bigger numbers overall. Surely.

I am not sure that the success of private school children is down to "positive discrimination" at least not in this day and age. Historically (as a demographic) they achieve better grades and apply to institutions like Oxbridge in greater numbers. They have also been willing to study subjects like Art History and Classics which many ambitious state school kids (quite rightly!) see as not being fantastic for job prospects afterwards.

We are not comparing like for like when we look at the population of private school kids versus states school kids because the latter includes children in the lowest socioeconomic groups within society. Socioeconomic factors massively impact IQ - when kids are very small the difference between IQ in the highest versus the lowest socio-economic groups is about 6 points which isn't massive. By the time the kids get to 16 that difference has tripled. Growing up in poverty has a hugely detrimental impact. Consequently when you look at the state schools versus private school you have to take into account that none of the private school kids have grown up in poverty but a proportion of the state school kids have. If you assess them on a pure meritocracy of IQ and exam grades then clearly the private school kids are going to do better. The impact of "outreach" can only go so far because by the time the kids are at the age to be thinking about careers and university a lot of the detrimental damage has already been done. "Levelling up" if you're talking about kids who fall into this socioeconomic group needs to start sooner.

I think it would be very interesting to compare the academic performance of middle class state school kids versus private school kids - I think the picture might look very different . I don't think we can lump all state school kids into one big group and claim they are all facing the same level of disadvantage....and it is very difficult, if not impossible to unpick. I have to admit that I balk at blanket statements like " a state school kids "A" is worth more than a private school kids "A"" as there is simply no evidence to support it.

I'm not sure what the solution is - it may make people feel better to see that "big name" private schools are getting less offers from oxbridge but I don't think that this is addressing any of the issues that have been brought up in this forum. Out of curiosity I compared Brampton Manor and Kings College Wimbledon on the government website:

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/compare-schools?for=16to18

I also had a quick look on their websites - Brampton manor doesn't include any information beyond the headlines but KCS has a complete breakdown.

The value add score at Brampton Manor is massive - this is a school where every inch of potential is being squeezed out of the kids and their oxbridge support is second to none (the very things that we see as the key "advantages" provided by the private school system). Brampton Manor has twice as many Oxbridge offers as KCS. And yet their results are not as good as KCS....I was frankly quite blown away by the KCS results and it's clear that this is not a "normal" cohort by any stretch of the imagination. I can see why the headmaster of KCS feels his kids are being shortchanged. I wonder if headlines pitting schools like Brampton Manor against KCS to make it look like we are addressing social mobility are just distracting people from the fact that the true issues like poverty aren't being addressed.

@SouthLondonMommy

I think that as whole you are correct in that public opinion may not be on the side of independent schools decrying the reduction in oxbridge places.

@Shinyhappypeople762

I am not sure that the success of private school children is down to "positive discrimination" at least not in this day and age. Historically (as a demographic) they achieve better grades and apply to institutions like Oxbridge in greater numbers. They have also been willing to study subjects like Art History and Classics which many ambitious state school kids (quite rightly!) see as not being fantastic for job prospects afterwards.

We are not comparing like for like when we look at the population of private school kids versus states school kids because the latter includes children in the lowest socioeconomic groups within society. Socioeconomic factors massively impact IQ - when kids are very small the difference between IQ in the highest versus the lowest socio-economic groups is about 6 points which isn't massive. By the time the kids get to 16 that difference has tripled. Growing up in poverty has a hugely detrimental impact. Consequently when you look at the state schools versus private school you have to take into account that none of the private school kids have grown up in poverty but a proportion of the state school kids have. If you assess them on a pure meritocracy of IQ and exam grades then clearly the private school kids are going to do better. The impact of "outreach" can only go so far because by the time the kids are at the age to be thinking about careers and university a lot of the detrimental damage has already been done. "Levelling up" if you're talking about kids who fall into this socioeconomic group needs to start sooner.

I think it would be very interesting to compare the academic performance of middle class state school kids versus private school kids - I think the picture might look very different . I don't think we can lump all state school kids into one big group and claim they are all facing the same level of disadvantage....and it is very difficult, if not impossible to unpick. I have to admit that I balk at blanket statements like " a state school kids "A" is worth more than a private school kids "A"" as there is simply no evidence to support it.

I'm not sure what the solution is - it may make people feel better to see that "big name" private schools are getting less offers from oxbridge but I don't think that this is addressing any of the issues that have been brought up in this forum. Out of curiosity I compared Brampton Manor and Kings College Wimbledon on the government website:

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/compare-schools?for=16to18

I also had a quick look on their websites - Brampton manor doesn't include any information beyond the headlines but KCS has a complete breakdown.

The value add score at Brampton Manor is massive - this is a school where every inch of potential is being squeezed out of the kids and their oxbridge support is second to none (the very things that we see as the key "advantages" provided by the private school system). Brampton Manor has twice as many Oxbridge offers as KCS. And yet their results are not as good as KCS....I was frankly quite blown away by the KCS results and it's clear that this is not a "normal" cohort by any stretch of the imagination. I can see why the headmaster of KCS feels his kids are being shortchanged. I wonder if headlines pitting schools like Brampton Manor against KCS to make it look like we are addressing social mobility are just distracting people from the fact that the true issues like poverty aren't being addressed.

are you literally arguing that the BM kids have, per head, had the benefit of more resources thrown their way than the KC kids. I mean, is hat what you're doing ?

However as said previously there hasn't been a groundswell of public opinion to abolish private schooling (sort of policy advocated at the fringe of Labour party conferences) so there is a tacit acceptance private schools are part of the system.

The independent school sector and supporting press will though argue that they are the victims of left wing ideology which may garner support in a country that rejected a left wing government recently.

I was firmly behind remaining in the EU and was convinced the Telegraph and Daily Mail spoke for only a small fraction of the country yet I was proven wrong so I am always cautious about weighing public opinion.

There are some really good questions raised about whether A levels are a truly objective measure of intelligence and ability as it is difficult (maybe impossible) to differentiate between inherent ability and the influence of educational environment.

In my opinion it's the best system we've got and there are dangers in starting to say an A from x school is worth a B at y school as this undermines the grading system itself.

Has Eton been discriminated for for some time? Yes basically (especially in the historical long term) in that it can provide an environment where academic excellence becomes a norm but it is difficult to know whether the string of A stars are due to a child's individual ability or the fact they attended Eton.

@Shinyhappypeople762

I think you raise some very valid points and thought must be given to whether the oxbridge undergraduate body can truly reflect all of society. Oxbridge by definition discriminates on academic ability and as there is a correlation between exam results and socio economic status there is de factor discrimination against the socially disadvantaged and that is the circle that cant be squared in a lot of these discussions. If for instance the top 5% of children on FSM on average get 3 B grade A levels do we say Oxbridge offer at this level for that portion of society?

Good point that in reality private school places are on the whole going to other middle class children and there isn't a wholesale drive for diversity in elite academia

The point about KCS is inevitable and yes I can see the heads frustration.. Why drive your pupils to achieve academically when they are not necessarily going to send the rewards and some of those pupils will have worked their behinds off to get an oxbridge offer (which belies the point made by the Bromcote Manor students that hard work pays off. . . the narrative isn't that simple)

I think ultimately if the situation continues we may see this land in the courts in a few years as KCS et al may have a case that discrimination has occurred if their results in absolute terms excel each year and maybe you will have legal scrutiny of the oxbridge selection process..

@rattusrattus20 from an academic perspective yes. Brampton is highly selective so the kids are going to be in classes with equally motivated students - not like your sink school estate where the teacher is trying to control the classroom. The kids that go to Brampton commute from quite far afield to get there - I would hazard a guess that the parents of students at Brampton manor are supportive of them being there in that they have sought out the school and supported their children to apply. Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that these parents value education? The class sizes at Brampton Manor are also small (this information is on their website) and the teaching is apparently outstanding. Judging by the sheer volume of oxbridge applications - last year over 100 with a 50% hit rate I would say that there is support in the application process. From a purely academic perspective I would say that Brampton Manor provides an equivalent environment. No they don't have a multi million pound music school and the plays they put on probably aren't rivalling those in the west end...they also probably aren't focusing on developing their rugby or cricket teams. No-one is questioning whether or not private school provide better extracurricular activities. This whole argument is about the private school system being a better environment to maximise a child's potential and the fact that at some state schools this does not happen. Are you saying that just because lots of the kids are Brampton Manor are poor this makes them less able to respond to a positive learning environment? Well let's not waste time sending any of them to oxbridge then.....

@mids2019 it will be interesting to see whether or not schools like KCS will revert to some form of legal action...I suppose if you have 50% or grades at A and 85% A/A you might expect a better Oxbridge offer rate than 13%? I have also heard from KCS parents that this reduction of offers is not just an oxbridge thing....kids are getting rejections from other top universities. One student I know personally who had 12 A*s at GCSE and was predicted 45 points in the IB only received one offer through the UCAS process to Bath University (asking for only 36 points) He was turned down from Oxford, LSE, St Andrews and Durham. He ended up achieving his 45 points at IB and is quite bitter about the whole experience.

[quote Shinyhappypeople762]@rattusrattus20 from an academic perspective yes. Brampton is highly selective so the kids are going to be in classes with equally motivated students - not like your sink school estate where the teacher is trying to control the classroom. The kids that go to Brampton commute from quite far afield to get there - I would hazard a guess that the parents of students at Brampton manor are supportive of them being there in that they have sought out the school and supported their children to apply. Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that these parents value education? The class sizes at Brampton Manor are also small (this information is on their website) and the teaching is apparently outstanding. Judging by the sheer volume of oxbridge applications - last year over 100 with a 50% hit rate I would say that there is support in the application process. From a purely academic perspective I would say that Brampton Manor provides an equivalent environment. No they don't have a multi million pound music school and the plays they put on probably aren't rivalling those in the west end...they also probably aren't focusing on developing their rugby or cricket teams. No-one is questioning whether or not private school provide better extracurricular activities. This whole argument is about the private school system being a better environment to maximise a child's potential and the fact that at some state schools this does not happen. Are you saying that just because lots of the kids are Brampton Manor are poor this makes them less able to respond to a positive learning environment? Well let's not waste time sending any of them to oxbridge then.....[/quote]
Kings has easily twice the budget per pupil, and two centuries worth of experience of sending kids to Oxbridge.

Let's face it, the Brampton [sixth form only] kids are almost certainly cleverer and/or harder working than the King's kids on average.

I don't particularly like what they're doing, hoovering up kids with perfect GCSEs [who'd therefore be many cases do well wherever they did A levels] from a huge geographic area.

There's a classic book, Moneyball [turned into a decent movie with Brad Pitt in pretty decent form], which offers many gems of wisdom on baseball [me neither] which in some cases have much wider application, it's all backed up by very rigorous data analysis, and one of their key findings is, "college players are a better investment
than high school players by a huge, huge, laughably huge margin". In other words, the later you select the more accurate a picture you have of true potential.

Brampton Manor picks kids based purely on the results of exams that they take when they're, on average, about 16 years and 5 months old. They only care about exam results.

The age at which admission to Kings is assessed varies but the common routes are 11+ [taken when kids are an average of about 10 yrs & 3 months old], 7+ or 8+ [taken when the kids are barely out of nappies, certainly far too young to do any kind of independent learning], and then some also come in at 13+. Getting on the track to get into Kings starts, what, at least a couple of years before each of the above entry points?

If you were serious about devising a methodology for getting the most capable possible 18 yr olds, the Kings approach [using vast parental income to impose a huge barrier and then using a process that revolves around selecting at extremely young ages, with prepararation for this selection starting in practically the cradle] is really not the way that I'd do it.

I think the from the above a narrative of 'poor kids get into Cambridge' is simplistic for Brampton.

@Shinyhappypeople762

I think there is a danger in public perception of it being some sort of norm that children on FSM can with hard work achieve oxbridge places. The proportion will be minute.

I wouldn't want people thinking 'well it's ok living from foodbanks because the kids with a bit of nouse and their nose to the grind stone will be eating pheasant in Christchurch'....your right in that highlighting success stories from pooper students may mask deeper more widespread issues in society.

So KCS gets more spent per head on their pupils than state schools....that is undisputed. However we haven't got rid of private schooling so that imbalance is 'fair' from a democratic point of view.

A telegraph reader (I am not) would argue a lot of the protest against independent school oxbridge success is born out of the politics of envy. One could say if you earn significant amounts of money you have the right to spend money on your child's education to give them an advantage.....and why not? We dont have exorbitant inheritance tax so we can leave our children money to help them achieve their life goals and they mean educational assistance? I guess a lot of capatilist though is inherently unfair...I can buy a better car than others.....live in a bigger house....go on more holidays.. ..si why not add allowing my children every opportunity going forward to the list. I am not saying I agree with this but it's an argument put forward in defending educational inequality.

@mids2019

I think the from the above a narrative of 'poor kids get into Cambridge' is simplistic for Brampton.

@Shinyhappypeople762

I think there is a danger in public perception of it being some sort of norm that children on FSM can with hard work achieve oxbridge places. The proportion will be minute.

I wouldn't want people thinking 'well it's ok living from foodbanks because the kids with a bit of nouse and their nose to the grind stone will be eating pheasant in Christchurch'....your right in that highlighting success stories from pooper students may mask deeper more widespread issues in society.

So KCS gets more spent per head on their pupils than state schools....that is undisputed. However we haven't got rid of private schooling so that imbalance is 'fair' from a democratic point of view.

A telegraph reader (I am not) would argue a lot of the protest against independent school oxbridge success is born out of the politics of envy. One could say if you earn significant amounts of money you have the right to spend money on your child's education to give them an advantage.....and why not? We dont have exorbitant inheritance tax so we can leave our children money to help them achieve their life goals and they mean educational assistance? I guess a lot of capatilist though is inherently unfair...I can buy a better car than others.....live in a bigger house....go on more holidays.. ..si why not add allowing my children every opportunity going forward to the list. I am not saying I agree with this but it's an argument put forward in defending educational inequality.

"Envy" is such a desperately unhelpful word in these circumstances.

A quick visit to the comments page on a related Telegraph or Mail story would uncover an extremely strong swell of 'envy' [in addition to, I daresay, bucketloads of casual racism & various unfounded conspiracy theories rooted in extreme snobbery] from readers whose kids are at private schools who've been offered fewer Oxbridge places than Brampton Manor.

Where we've got to today [roughly 60:40 state:private] is itself the product of 'envy' dating back to the days when a strong majority of the intake was private [which was especially outrageous back in the pre tuition fees days where the state was picking up the bill, and even giving Oxbridge more money per undergraduate head in the shape of the 'college fee'].

There's a [very] finite number of Oxbridge places to go round, the competition for them between state and private is basically zero sum, there are always going to be sensible [and often less sensible] discussions about how best to divvy them up.

@Shinyhappypeople762

As A level results are in reality the best objective measurement of intelligence currently (though every measure is imperfect in some way) how can it be said substantively that Bromcote Manor pupils work harder? I think this may be at the crux of the argument as we cant just rely on subjective statements on judgements of children's endeavour, though the problem is complex and yes very much has a political dimension.

The facts you gave about KCS do seem unfair especially the frankly gutting tale of a very bright pupil being rejected from a string of universties. How do you go about motivating such a child in future.... personally I would end up in a mire of cynicism?

Oxbridge should have the reputation of picking the best of the best, our intellectual elite. (Elitist I know but Oxbridge you could say by definition is intellectually elitist) and dont stats like KCLs undermine that principle?

It's a really difficult problem and obviously divisive and I dont think simple narratives are the way forward.

Outreach is a great thing to attract as many able applicants as possible but once we venture into the even perceived perception of positive discrimination things become problematic.

The ambition of Oxbridge to increase state school undergraduates presumably was one decided upon the governing bodies of the Universities or constituent colleges. It could be argued that this policy was done independently of ministerial dictat ( I cant see a conservative Universties minister particularly going in this direction looking at the make up if our Cabinet). Therefore I think we have a bit of an issue in that oxbridge have made a semi political decision based on Guardian articles; sorry I mean perceived public opinion and standing away from the politics a moment this in itself is worthy of scrutiny.

[quote mids2019]@Shinyhappypeople762

As A level results are in reality the best objective measurement of intelligence currently (though every measure is imperfect in some way) how can it be said substantively that Bromcote Manor pupils work harder? I think this may be at the crux of the argument as we cant just rely on subjective statements on judgements of children's endeavour, though the problem is complex and yes very much has a political dimension.

The facts you gave about KCS do seem unfair especially the frankly gutting tale of a very bright pupil being rejected from a string of universties. How do you go about motivating such a child in future.... personally I would end up in a mire of cynicism?

Oxbridge should have the reputation of picking the best of the best, our intellectual elite. (Elitist I know but Oxbridge you could say by definition is intellectually elitist) and dont stats like KCLs undermine that principle?

It's a really difficult problem and obviously divisive and I dont think simple narratives are the way forward.

Outreach is a great thing to attract as many able applicants as possible but once we venture into the even perceived perception of positive discrimination things become problematic.

The ambition of Oxbridge to increase state school undergraduates presumably was one decided upon the governing bodies of the Universities or constituent colleges. It could be argued that this policy was done independently of ministerial dictat ( I cant see a conservative Universties minister particularly going in this direction looking at the make up if our Cabinet). Therefore I think we have a bit of an issue in that oxbridge have made a semi political decision based on Guardian articles; sorry I mean perceived public opinion and standing away from the politics a moment this in itself is worthy of scrutiny.[/quote]
Private. schools. get. a. higher. proportion. of. Oxbridge. places. than. they. do. A* grades.

So. many more "very bright"/'talented'/insert adjective of your choice state school kids aren't getting into Oxbridge than private school ones. Their voices just aren't heard nearly as loudly because they're so much further removed from the wheels of power and influence.