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* **

I send my daughter to a highly selective private school but I am state educated. There are brilliant people in both sectors. The idea that something is being lost or is unfair in the rebalancing really isn't true.

I'm not sure anyone besides those affected care if brilliant state pupils replace brilliant independent pupils that achieved the same grades- don't forget independent pupils are over represented relative to their share of top grades still. This is probably for the general public the least controversial thing in the world.

Foundation courses are social engineering in that they look to address social inequity and support cultivating talent that would otherwise go wasted. Without proactive measures, wealth and power will just self-perpetuate with very little chance of social mobility which isn't just and will ultimately lead to populist discontent.

@mids2019 that post was for you

mids2019

No one thinks Public Schools and by extension Independent schools are packed full of "Nice but Dim Tims" though are they? How can we when many of our Nation's best brains+ talents are products of these institutions? Plus there are at least 2 people currently posting who readily admit their wards attend Independent schools.

I must say I don't envy the Oxbridge officers one bit as one side is bound to loose either way. KCS and other Academically Elite Independents however have every right to voice their grievances if they feel they are being sidestepped.

No one thinks Public Schools and by extension Independent schools are packed full of "Nice but Dim Tims" though are they? How can we when many of our Nation's best brains+ talents are products of these institutions?

The whole point of this thread is that maybe there are better brains+talents out there, but the historic bias towards pupils from fee-paying schools at Oxbridge has excluded them?
Hence the struggle to open up admissions from state schools without also precluding genuine top brains+talents from fee-paying schools.

Apologies for the Tim nice but fun comment .

It certainly wasn't a personal opinion and if course it's untrue.

In fact it was referenced in a comment about the late great Stephen Hawking to show that extremely great minds come from public school.

In this day everyone who gets to Oxbridge is extremely bright. I think the question is how you differentiate between the extremely bright.

There are always going to be more equally bright pupils than places at Oxbridge. Further grade differentiation is unlikely to make a huge difference.

The question is how you parcel out access in light of this fact. Right now, a disproportionate share (relative to grades attained) is going to a certain demographic in society.

The goal is to widen access so that all equally talented pupils have equal access to an Oxbridge education.

That does mean that the current disproportionate access of privately educated pupils will be reduced. But that in and of itself isn't unfair. Private school pupils don't have a right to a disproportionate access to an elite education.

something Oxbridge should definitely do is publicise the grades that they're admitting state and private schools are getting in with [afaik over half get in with straight A but plenty get in with AAA and a non-trivial rump get in with AAA, it's in these second two groups in particular where the case for intervention is strongest].

right now it seems to me that both sides of the debate suspects that the other half tends to get in with slightly poorer grades, but afaik there's no reliable information out there.

In this day everyone who gets to Oxbridge is extremely bright. I think the question is how you differentiate between the extremely bright.

I would have to say that our DC (who has an Oxford offer) strikes us as bright but not 'extremely bright'; whereas the sib who didn't get it is patchily brilliant.

@rattusrattus20

something Oxbridge should definitely do is publicise the grades that they're admitting state and private schools are getting in with [afaik over half get in with straight A but plenty get in with AAA and a non-trivial rump get in with AAA, it's in these second two groups in particular where the case for intervention is strongest].

right now it seems to me that both sides of the debate suspects that the other half tends to get in with slightly poorer grades, but afaik there's no reliable information out there.

Completely agree. The grades alone aren't a big deal.

@WelcomeMarch

In this day everyone who gets to Oxbridge is extremely bright. I think the question is how you differentiate between the extremely bright.

I would have to say that our DC (who has an Oxford offer) strikes us as bright but not 'extremely bright'; whereas the sib who didn't get it is patchily brilliant.

Agree

The intake is bright and diligent but not universally intellectually gifted at all though of course there are those in the mix as well.

@WelcomeMarch

In this day everyone who gets to Oxbridge is extremely bright. I think the question is how you differentiate between the extremely bright.

I would have to say that our DC (who has an Oxford offer) strikes us as bright but not 'extremely bright'; whereas the sib who didn't get it is patchily brilliant.

I really have no idea why anyone suspects this.

The breakdown of what proportion of AAA and AAA* grades each sector gets is part of the benchmarking information Oxbridge publish.

It quite obvious there are more than enough (proportionally and in absolute terms) able students in the state sector to take the additional places without the scales being tipped. All Oxbridge needs to do is encourage them to apply in increasing numbers which has been the entire point of its multi-million pound successful outreach programme.

Larger numbers of qualified state school students are applying and being accepted.

@SouthLondonMommy - why suspect this?

on the 'pro state' side, it's the age old [probably dated] stereotypes about bumbling poshoes getting onto a 'land economy' course or getting in as a choral scholar or whatever with modest academic credentials.

on the 'pro private' side, well, just take a look at the comments in a mail or telegraph article about brampton manor or whatever, there's a clear undercurrent of opinion that these kids have only been allowed in as a result of some kind of [always unspecified] 'dumbing down'.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, but I really don't think Oxbridge do publish the information i specified, namely what average grades they admit state vs private kids with.

Ok....so 13% of students got 3 grade A levels (or above) this year and there are around 250 000 A level entrants (in England).....there are around 7000 entrants of Oxford and Cambridge each year. So if hypothetically all these 3A and above students try for oxbridge then you still have to another filter for selectivity. (This is not accounting for international students or re applicants).

Also consider predicted grades may overestimate the above.....

This means that the interview (and other assessment processes) are important and where any purported bias may creep in.

We have had A level inflation for a long period of time and eventually you have significant numbers of potential oxbridge candidates and this generates an intense and perhaps unfair competition where there are probably enough state pupils to be the entire oxbridge intake (in theory).

That is why I mentioned a need to further differentiate candidates at A level. (There are actually 3000 pupils achieving 3A*). Reducing the proportion of A grades awarded generally would ease the problem admissions tutors face in my opinion.

Basically it can be put forward there are far too many adequately qualified students out there for oxbridge to take based on current numbers of grades awarded and oxbridge standard offers.

Its all very competitive and this is just going to worsen in future. It seems at the moment easy to squeeze out very good candidates from either public or private sector and this is adding to the tension in the debate.

Very divisive topic but with 25% of undergraduates coming from abroad does thought need to be given the fearsome home student competition? I think the 25% may have a significant proportion of (possibly elite) private school pupils and their numbers are not scrutinized.

A number of students from out elite public schools have the flexibility to choose prestigious foreign universities (mainly US) but this option presumably open to all in the UK so there is also a question of international fairness.

@rattusrattus20

I see. I don't think the publish that information either. Personally, I don't suspect anything nefarious on either side except potential (unconscious) bias in favour of private school pupils in the interview process. I imagine the grades for the specific courses will be identical.

However, state school students dominate the most competitive courses (because the apply for them in higher numbers) where admission requirements will therefore be the highest.

So for instance, Physics, Computer Science, and Maths have 70-75% state pupils while Classics has 25% state pupils. For the former courses, less than 10% of applicants are accepted while for Classics the offer rate is almost 50%!

I'm not sure looking at it only by sector would be that flattering for the independent sector actually... You'd have to compare course and sector which like I said, is probably identical.

@mids2019

I think the minimum standards of AAA do get shifted to AAA* essentially for the most competitive courses.

The reality is that no matter how you grade it, there will probably always be too many qualified students relative to places unless you do something like the SAT where it can be down to a 1 point difference in total score / performance.

As long as both sectors are getting their fair share (which currently isn't the case) then its not really a problem. It's the imbalance toward the private sector that's the issue. The imbalance is because state school students with top grades have historically under applied but outreach is changing that rapidly.

@mids2019

Very divisive topic but with 25% of undergraduates coming from abroad does thought need to be given the fearsome home student competition? I think the 25% may have a significant proportion of (possibly elite) private school pupils and their numbers are not scrutinized.

A number of students from out elite public schools have the flexibility to choose prestigious foreign universities (mainly US) but this option presumably open to all in the UK so there is also a question of international fairness.

haha yeah, the proportion of state school kids getting into Oxbridge has increased quite a bit over the years, but the absolute number I believe has not at all, for this reason?

i suppose it's eminently possible, when the papers are trumpeting about brampton manor's gains and eton's losses, that eton's losses have been caused by places going overseas, and BM's gains won at the expense of other UK state schools.

i guess with international students it's a purely business transaction between Oxbridge & the international students, with little to no role for the UK government, we wouldn't expect it to intervene, just as it e.g. doesn't intervene in Mayfair propert being hoovered up by buyers from the Middle East.

grade inflation is an undoubted issue.

mind you, so is the slightly antiquated practice of 'blind' applications before students know what their actual grades are going to be.

@SouthLondonMommy

I think with your arguments its hard to put forward a counter argument without appearing cold hearted as there is an obvious moral appeal to what you say.

However.....the word 'fair' thought only four letters could take a few philosophical or political tomes to discuss in entirety.

One persons idea of fair is different to another's sometimes linked to their political persuasion.

We have multitudes of areas of inequality that many would say were unfair (e.g. wealth distribution) and we can watch Keir Starmer make this clear to Boris Johnson every week . .not everyone sides with Keir.

I think the point is increased diversification and inclusivity can not be stated as a goal which is universally accepted and a natural desire of all people. There is as I said before a political undertone to these views

We can get to some challenging arguments if we extend the argument that different sectors in society should have a proportionate representation at oxbridge or any other leading institution.

There is the morally attractive argument that private school children should take up places in proportion to the number of high A level grades awarded but should then we consider proportionate representation of other societal divisions.

e.g. if x% are of a certain ethnicity x% of oxbridge should be from that ethnicity. Definitely.

50% of the population are women 50% of oxbridge should be women. Definitely.

We could could go on with this analogy but you reach a point where the argument is that the Oxbridge community should truly reflect all society and is this achievable?

For instance Oxbridge is by definition academically discriminatory but as there is a correlation between wealth and academic achievement there will be a de facto discrimination against poverty but certainly not by design.

I was reading the VC of Cambridge welcimg the increase in state pupils and congratulating the work of its outreach group. If you inverted the statement and it became 'we welcome the reduction in proportion of private school students....' it suddenly becomes offensive.

The fairness argument you present follows the idea of 'equality of outcome' in political arguments (where there are goals and quotas for differing sectors) rather than 'equality of opportunity' (where everyone has the same initial opportunity but outcome isn't guarenteed).

It would be a good oxbridge politics interview question actually. Should there be limits on private school entrants to elite universities ?? Again I am slightly cautious about statements of increasing diversity being taken unequivocally

@mids2019

My argument is proportionate based on grades not proportionate based on population share.

Proportionate based on achievement is objectively fair and entirely achievable.

@mids2019 if you aren't aware, state school students make up 75% of the students achieving AAA or better and 72% of those attaining AAA*.

However sate students only make up 62% of those admitted to Oxford.

Any arguments about grade inflation etc can't explain why this outcome should stand as both sectors are taking the same tests.

The argument for why rebalancing this so the intake reflects proportionate attainment as a minimum doesn't require an appeal to emotion or lefty sensibilities. Its patently fair and the only argument against it would be objections out of pure self-interest.

@SouthLondonMommy

I think in reality your argument is sensible in terms of place allocation.

Out of curiosity how would you go about achieving this goal? Through maximising opportunity to apply to oxbridge through outreach awareness or imposing mandated quotas on university intake?

I dont know if anything can be objectively fair as surely fairness is subjective?

One could easily say 'It is fair that in a liberal economic society you can accumulate wealth and spend it as you please including giving my children advantage' (and let's face it helping our children is pretty fundamental to our nature).

I think you statement on proportionate acres based on attainment is entirely reasonable.. however some would say the ultimate objective of greater inclusion of state pupils will be to increase diversity by the oxbridge community being more reflective of society including greater proportions from disadvantaged portions of society and this may involve greater use of concepts like grade contexualisation etc

I think that would touch on lefty sensibilities.

Access not acres

In terms of potential positive discrimination looking at the Cambridge foundation year scheme how can this not fit into that description.

It seems on the face of it a compassionate , laudable, egalitarian scheme but in with the unquestionable competition for Cambridge places is this realistic.

I realise people have hard lives, they are taken into care, suffer poverty and are estranged from their loved ones and I on a human level have a huge amount of sympathy for them.

The problem is that it appears you get a qualification equivalent to 3 BBBs which entitles you to attend a year's course to gain a 'CertHE' which if passed automatically gets you into a Cambridge degree. I assume the CertHE education must be impressive to get BBB candidate to a typical level where you can cope with the apparently significant rigours of a Cambridge degree and get a 2:1 or 1st (will this scheme be available more widely).

The course must add significant ability to the candidates as I expect quite a few Cambridge degrees may be difficult for someone that achieves 3Bs at A level (or may be not).

There are only 50 places so between 1 and 2 % of intake but if this is a success should the numbers be expanded? It seems there is a commitment from Cambridge to address educational inequality and very virtuous it is too.

I think it may have some relevance to the debate here as it seems Oxbridge entrance numbers are pretty constant give or take and the foundation course members are effectively members of the student body. I wonder if these places are extra to normal or could it be they are achieved by possibly the displacement of other applicants (maybe from elite schools?)

I just think concepts like this are worth considering when looking at (alleged) positive discrimination.

Is this a benefit for simply having a hard life? Should other universities offer foundation courses such as this? Given the debate here would it be better that other (less.prestigious ) institutions try these schemes before the most elite where there will be potentially the most contreversy?

Other universities do indeed offer foundation courses for students who don't meet the requirements to enter the first year of undergraduate study in a number of subjects. I know someone who got a foundation place at a redbrick when her A level grades weren't high enough to get her straight onto her choice of course. Mature students sometimes follow a similar path.