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* **

@Keepyourkidsafe I know many many people who ‘work their pants off’ and can’t afford private schooling. And no they aren’t spending salary surplus on glam holidays and cars which comes up so often on here as a laughable reason people don’t pay school fees. They have jobs that don’t pay well enough, they don’t have salary surplus! . Cleaners, nurses, delivery drivers, teachers, journalists they don’t earn nearly enough on bare salary (unless there is a higher earning spouse or family money) - I also know doctors, dentists, lawyers, politicians who can’t afford it and they aren’t swaggering around in amazing cars (they might be saving for their pensions but that is a whole different, important, argument) Why should their bright children not be given an equal chance? Private school children are given a head start in the race of life (which is why parents with high incomes/ family money buy in to it) contextual offers and other levelling up policies just make sure the race is started again slightly more fairly! Private schools have priced out the vast majority of British people whilst making an expensive export product (or importing foreign children as well as exporting their schools abroad) do we want a society where 7% kids cream off the type of jobs that might affect us long term as a society even if they aren’t the best for the job?

A fascinating thread, thanks to all the experts who have added their insight.

OP I think it’s totally true to say top private schools have far fewer offers this year in particular - my DC is at one and I reckon numbers are less than half the normal number.

But I would also say you should never make the likelihood of getting into oxbridge a reason for choosing a particular school or not. There is so much luck involved and however good your child there’s an element of risk. Pick the right school for them that they will get the most out of for the five or seven years they are there, and encourage them to find their academic passion, and apply to a range of universities and be pleased with going to any of them.

Oxbridge is great, but so are many other places and we shouldn’t let our DC or their parents think of it as the be all and end all.

You may very well have studied it but I lived it!

Me too!
I grew up in one of the most deprived areas in the uk. My parents were 16 when they had me and only my dad managed to get any GCSEs.
I was the first (still the only one) in my family to go to university and it changed my life.

Widening participation is not about lowering standards. It never has been.

It's about understanding disadvantage and differential attainment. It's about understanding the role of cultural, social and economic capital. And most of all it's about ensuring those with the potential and ability to attend the best universities have the opportunity to do so and aren't disadvantaged due to the school they attended or their parents education.

Keepyourkidsafe you seem to be failing to comprehend the point that those at private school generally speaking already do have a head start in the race. Yes, we a surely do need to level the playing field for ALL, and contextual offers are a very small way of doing so. I can't see the reverse tipping of the balance as you claim ever putting public school children at disadvantage. The contextual offers will make up a tiny % of Oxbridge's intake, it's not as if 99% will be oiks and poor Ptolemy from Eton will be scrabbling for a place.

And further to add, a deprived household where they have to "work off their pants" just to survive will very likely look very different from those working off their pants to afford £20-30k on school fees alone. Surely the disparity is very obvious?

@Keepyourkidsafe maybe if your children are ‘demotivated’ as your post says you should send them to a state school in a deprived area where, as you know, you have to work your a**e to even get a peek above the parapet and you have to be a brilliant self starter to even think of a top university. Might be the best thing you could do for their work ethic.

Honestly, keepyourkidsafe - could you maybe accept that the education that you are so keen on has produced people like TheJerkStore who have moved beyond their own experience and actually researched and studied the CONSIDERABLE volume of knowledge around the very vexed question of social mobility in the UK?

What you're describing isn't a meritocracy. It really isn't. The evidence shows that in the UK a child's life chances are pretty much set by the time they're five. How is that based on a child's ability or potential? My five year old thought she was a cat for a lot of the time. But because she has two degree-educated parents in professional jobs, she's going to have a much smoother path through life than her little school friend who slipped through the system to the extent that nobody realised she wasn't attending school for a full term in Reception. Is that friend any less gifted than my child? At the age of five we cannot possibly know. But we can know that my daughter has been to ballet classes, she's been read stories every night of her life, she has parents who show her that what she says is interesting and worthwhile, and who encourage her to work hard at school. She lives in a world where she hears all the adults talking about their time at university, and it's treated as a natural 'next step' after school. Evidence shows that this is what will set her up for life - not any kind of innate 'merit'. And that's what widening participation and contextual offers try to redress - making up for 18 years of missing out and giving genuinely talented kids a chance to benefit from one of the few remaining social levellers in our increasingly unequal society.

I think many professionals working in this field would agree with me that it's too little too late, but unfortunately since this government massively disinvested in early years support it's all we've got.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Unfortunately, the society today is doing the completely opposite of this great man's vision, in the name of racial and class justice. Can't agree more with @Keepyourkidsafe, best unis for best candidates. The current "Oxbridge affirmative action" doesn't do justice to those who get in on their own merit, irregardless of their ethnicity or background.

[quote dipdips]@Keepyourkidsafe I know many many people who ‘work their pants off’ and can’t afford private schooling. And no they aren’t spending salary surplus on glam holidays and cars which comes up so often on here as a laughable reason people don’t pay school fees. They have jobs that don’t pay well enough, they don’t have salary surplus! . Cleaners, nurses, delivery drivers, teachers, journalists they don’t earn nearly enough on bare salary (unless there is a higher earning spouse or family money) - I also know doctors, dentists, lawyers, politicians who can’t afford it and they aren’t swaggering around in amazing cars (they might be saving for their pensions but that is a whole different, important, argument) Why should their bright children not be given an equal chance? Private school children are given a head start in the race of life (which is why parents with high incomes/ family money buy in to it) contextual offers and other levelling up policies just make sure the race is started again slightly more fairly! Private schools have priced out the vast majority of British people whilst making an expensive export product (or importing foreign children as well as exporting their schools abroad) do we want a society where 7% kids cream off the type of jobs that might affect us long term as a society even if they aren’t the best for the job?[/quote]
I agree with everything you said except the 7%. By the time you are at A-levels 17-18% of pupils are privately educated.

The 7% is all pupils including primary but isn't the appropriate number to use when talking about university admissions / levelling / contextual offers or future careers.

@SouthLondonMommy point taken. but I think we will see a change there as people move their children to state for 6th form to game the system. I wonder what next years figures for British 6th formers will be? Interesting to watch and see.

@SouthLondonMommy Although now I think about it am I right in saying contextual offers are based on place of GCSE study as the Uni's got wise to this? Does anyone know if that is true?

best unis for best candidates.

This is what widening participation is all about. In order to do this you need to understand differential attainment and the role of social, cultural and economic capital.
Unless you're suggesting that wealthy people are more intelligent and therefore more worthy of a place at an elite university? Because if it is a fair system where the best candidates are being selected this is what it looks like.

Also, the evidence is clear that children from less privileged backgrounds with the same grades as a privately educated pupils outperform their privately educated peers once admitted to the same university.

An A from a comp in a deprived area predicts stronger performance and ability than an A from a private school. Once they are in the same setting receiving the same quality of teaching its clear that the comp student is more able.

Contextual offers simply recognise that it is easier to get higher grades in private school / leafy areas / and grammar schools. It is born out by the data that is pretty irrefutable. It is also the very reason people are willing to pay for private education and scramble for grammar school places.

Locking able children out of higher education opportunities because they haven't been fortunate to access the highest quality of teaching isn't fair or meritocratic and addressing it certainly isn't reverse discrimination...

I am state educated and using the private system for my children. I happily accept that my daughters' grades will be judged relative to the quality of teaching they've had and that's totally fair. Otherwise, people with money simply get to buy a better education for their kids as well as lock everyone else out of opportunities which is deeply unfair.

[quote dipdips]@SouthLondonMommy point taken. but I think we will see a change there as people move their children to state for 6th form to game the system. I wonder what next years figures for British 6th formers will be? Interesting to watch and see.[/quote]
No, contextual offers are based on where you sat your GCSE's as well for the very reason you state.

I just don't want to overstate the problem. Oxbridge twice the number of privately educated pupils you'd anticipate just based on proportions. However, part of this is able children in the state sector not applying. Based on grades alone, only circa 25% of places should go to the privately educated and once adjusted for context fall to around 18%. However, private school pupils apply in much larger numbers to Oxbridge that state applicants so its closer to 36% of pupils are privately educated.

Outreach and getting people to apply is one of the big hurdles to overcome

Unless you're suggesting that wealthy people are more intelligent and therefore more worthy of a place at an elite university?

If you peel back the layers then I think this is actually what people mean. Someone up thread said about the real value of Oxbridge being about networking opportunities, and that widening participation takes the shine of that. The crux is that there is a fear that by opening up elite universities to the plebs in council estates that the social standing will fall.

If you peel back the layers then I think this is actually what people mean. Someone up thread said about the real value of Oxbridge being about networking opportunities, and that widening participation takes the shine of that. The crux is that there is a fear that by opening up elite universities to the plebs in council estates that the social standing will fall.

Unfortunately there is an element of this.

The question should be: should "wealthy" people be penalised for being able to afford private schooling? We are not talking about Oxbridge entry here but some form of Utopian Socialism. A lot of parents are working their a@#% off to send their kids to private schools, whilst as high as 15% of their kids' peers are on full bursary or means tested bursary or scholarships. Who wants to talk about fairness?

@FreiasBathtub

Honestly, keepyourkidsafe - could you maybe accept that the education that you are so keen on has produced people like TheJerkStore who have moved beyond their own experience and actually researched and studied the CONSIDERABLE volume of knowledge around the very vexed question of social mobility in the UK?

What you're describing isn't a meritocracy. It really isn't. The evidence shows that in the UK a child's life chances are pretty much set by the time they're five. How is that based on a child's ability or potential? My five year old thought she was a cat for a lot of the time. But because she has two degree-educated parents in professional jobs, she's going to have a much smoother path through life than her little school friend who slipped through the system to the extent that nobody realised she wasn't attending school for a full term in Reception. Is that friend any less gifted than my child? At the age of five we cannot possibly know. But we can know that my daughter has been to ballet classes, she's been read stories every night of her life, she has parents who show her that what she says is interesting and worthwhile, and who encourage her to work hard at school. She lives in a world where she hears all the adults talking about their time at university, and it's treated as a natural 'next step' after school. Evidence shows that this is what will set her up for life - not any kind of innate 'merit'. And that's what widening participation and contextual offers try to redress - making up for 18 years of missing out and giving genuinely talented kids a chance to benefit from one of the few remaining social levellers in our increasingly unequal society.

I think many professionals working in this field would agree with me that it's too little too late, but unfortunately since this government massively disinvested in early years support it's all we've got.

Absolutely. The biggest predictor of your future earnings is your parents education and occupation.

Obviously it would be fabulous if we could raise the quality of all schools but until we have a government that is willing to invest in education then it's not going to happen.

Widening participation projects alongside excellent careers guidance ( another woefully underfunded area) can make a difference.

@Drminime

The question should be: should "wealthy" people be penalised for being able to afford private schooling? We are not talking about Oxbridge entry here but some form of Utopian Socialism. A lot of parents are working their a@#% off to send their kids to private schools, whilst as high as 15% of their kids' peers are on full bursary or means tested bursary or scholarships. Who wants to talk about fairness?

But wealthy people aren't being disadvantaged.

They are just having to compete against a wider field of applicants.

Universities should be striving to get the best applicants for their courses and shock horror- these might be people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

@Drminime

The question should be: should "wealthy" people be penalised for being able to afford private schooling? We are not talking about Oxbridge entry here but some form of Utopian Socialism. A lot of parents are working their a@#% off to send their kids to private schools, whilst as high as 15% of their kids' peers are on full bursary or means tested bursary or scholarships. Who wants to talk about fairness?

@Drminime no, the question is should wealthy people be able to buy better grades and therefore horde disproportionate access to top higher education institutions.

I say this as a fairly wealthy person who didn't grow up wealthy so can genuinely see it from both sides.

I don't know how much you know of Oxbridge entry , but under the current social trend, with race, gender, "state/private" school equality this and that, these top unis now have semi-open-but-unspoken quota for each.

@Drminime No one is saying that there is a perfect answer but it really is about time that this is happening. And I would imagine bursary children have their post codes taken into account - these form part of the contextual offers in most uni's.

Also to refer to your point I know many, many people working their a@#% off as you put it, to -

Stay off the dole
Support disabled family members
Get their children to state school in the right uniform with breakfast
Work in jobs they really believe in but that don't pay well (nurses, social care, lower paid law jobs that support people in need)
Deal with their own childhood issues from having parents with drug abuse problems

Paying for private school places isn't even on their radar, so please don't belittle their hard working efforts by suggesting that those who work hard in high income jobs are any more worthy or deserving for the best for their children - I see people working hard all over this country, not just those in the very top income brackets. The pandemic has done many things and one of those is to highlight just this.

Surely the bright children of these hard working people deserve a place as much as any other children, and this is just a way of getting everyone back to the starting line and setting off the starting gun before the fee paying school kids get a head start at the next stage of life.

@Drminime

I don't know how much you know of Oxbridge entry , but under the current social trend, with race, gender, "state/private" school equality this and that, these top unis now have semi-open-but-unspoken quota for each.

I'm a university academic specialising in fair access to higher education. I teach a module on higher education policy and practice. I've worked in the career development sector for 20 years and on a number of widening participation projects. My MA dissertation looked at fair access to higher education and specifically referenced Oxbridge admissions and their access agreement. My PhD looked at non traditional students and their university application journey.

So yeah, I know a bit 😉

@Drminime This and that Goodness you really are from another era.

These threads always seem to assume private/independent schools are all £20k/£30k elitist institutions, or are London super selectives with parents to match, lots if international students etc etc. Of course some are, but I would suggest the majority are £10k/£15k small local town indies, who parents are actually middle earners, could have gone to local state, but chose, for whatever reason, to send their DC's to private. They tend to be in nicer areas, and the local comp will also not benefit from contextualised, their DC's will likely have extra tutoring, because the same parents, doing the same kind of jobs, live in the same houses, in the same postcodes, and have the same wealth and experience. They are all therefore equally privileged.

These are the DC's who will be squeezed out of Oxbridge. They all end up in other v.good Unis, they have to go somewhere, right, who will then be accused of not being socially diverse enough ie: Durham, Imperial, St Andrews, Bristol, UCL, LSE, Exeter, Bath.