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* **

Again, let me quote Martin Luther King that our children shouldn't be judged by the colour of their skin but by their contents. Also, admission is reflective of the ethnicity of the population. If BAME accounts for around 14% of the population and I'm sure lesser in "our era", why would one expect the % to be so different from the population? This just shows how ignorant your Oxbridge likes were. So why bother going there in the first place?

Why do you keep banging on about race?

The lowest performing group academically in the U.K. are working class white males. Contextual offers help everyone from disadvantaged backgrounds access higher education by recognising their results like for like indicate greater achievement compared to those from more affluent backgrounds.

But I would argue that it's hard to unbundle the impact of wealth/privilege from some of these e.g.
League table positions are partly influenced by the UCAS points of incoming students based not just on A level results but on a myriad of other qualifications including music/ drama/ dance exams, which are much more prevalent in independent/grammar schools ( as is a 4th A level). It's no coincidence that the 'Top 10' universities in league tables often co-incide with the universities with the highest level of private school students.

Different league tables use different metrics. Yes, the entry profile is one of those metrics and some league tables will place more emphasis on this than others. However, as with everything it isn't straight forward especially with the prevalence of unconditional offers across the sector.
There isn't anything wrong with high entry requirements, it is one way of measuring the quality of the course. What those involved in WP do is start to unpick why independent school students perform better and recognize the varying advantage and disadvantage which can impact on attainment.
It has never been about lowering standards or preventing wealthy students form entering higher education. It's about recognizing potential.

-Graduate prospects - are these due to the university itself, or simply a continuation of helpful family/independent school contacts for internships/ work experience etc?

Both.
Careers staff at non-elite universities have to work much harder to get their students access to top graduate employers. It's getting better as more and more employers understand that there are good graduates across the whole sector!
Another big issue is unpaid internships - these can often lead on to employment but not all students can afford to work for free. My university is based in the north of England and we run a music tech course - a vast majority of placements and internships are based in London. Many of our students just can't afford to do these.

bold fail...hope it still makes sense

@LondonGirl83, I also don't understand why it all became a racial issue....I was responding to a question that @OverTheRubicon asked me....

Let's not forget grammar schools where people from all sorts of backgrounds compete fair and square based on abilities. Nobody mentioned about Oxbridge intake from top grammar schools like HB and Tiffins so far.

Hahaha yeah because parents who can afford it don't pay for tutors or move into the expensive catchment areas to ensure they qualify for a place.......

In the end, everyone who opts to send their child to a private school or grammar school does so because they believe / understand that they are accessing a better education that will presumably result in better grades.

Just ask yourself if your ability to access a better education for your children should also entitle them to greater access to future higher education.

How could this really be fair?

@Drminime - actually I only ever refer to private/grammar - it is absolutely the same at Grammar schools. In London, in order to even get into a grammar school you basically have to tutor for two years or go from private to grammar - so grammars are no different. Perhaps the socio-economic level of the parents is a tiny bit different but not by much i.e. lets say kids of GPs rather than consultants for example but in the grand scheme of things grammar school kids especially from the South East and privately educated kids are much the same

[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]
dipdips - I agree and identify with the problem...., "we don't 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".
Also, fees for these schools are way beyond the reach for many British folks.

But again, contextual offers are not the way for the reasons described in my last post.

I identify with the problems but not with the solution that is currently being applied via contextual offers and I believe this will seriously blow up in our face in 10-15years time when we suffer on the international competitiveness scene both politically and economically.

We must find another way - perhaps have solid forced quotas for the less privileged in to the independent schools.....international parents can fund this by slowly increasing the fees - they have been happy to double up on the current fees in the last 10-15yrs.
Also, the elite schools should also open up satellite schools outside the south-east (i.e. Scotland, Wales, NI, NE, NW, SW).
Eton I believe has allocated £100m to recruit more diversely across the whole of the UK and not just the usual prep schools in the SE. More state kids from outside SE should rise in the next 5yrs.

My point is we should expand these elite schools to educate more of the less privileged.......Most posters appear to point out that these schools offer an advantage (including feeling aggrieved by this) but then counterintuitively aspire for mediocrity as opposed to aspiring for the best.....reminds me of when the UK introduced comps enmass.

Let's accept the elite schools and everything they offer are by in large better than most state schools and make these schools help raise the standards of other schools OR better still - open up satellite schools in other parts of the UK where they include significant numbers of talented but under privileged students.
Let's also do the same for the leading state schools and repeat the recipe.
But let's also keep diversity in the types of schools including grammar, comp, independent.
But I fear many posters like all colours....so long as it is red

I mentioned that grammar schools are over represented multiple times.

The grammar schools that send lots of children to Oxbridge are deeply unequal-- you need to live in their catchments which prices most people out and many people who obtain a place do so via hiring expensive tutors for years ahead of the 11+.

where people from all sorts of backgrounds compete fair and square based on abilities

Ha ha! It is absolutely not fair and square!

@Drminime

Again, let me quote Martin Luther King that our children shouldn't be judged by the colour of their skin but by their contents. Also, admission is reflective of the ethnicity of the population. If BAME accounts for around 14% of the population and I'm sure lesser in "our era", why would one expect the % to be so different from the population? This just shows how ignorant your Oxbridge likes were. So why bother going there in the first place?

In 2010, there was one student of Black Caribbean origin accepted to Oxford. 1 of 23,000. 1% of the British population is of Black Caribbean origin. Which would mean 230 people. Luckily, my Oxbridge ignorance nevertheless allows me to see that even quite recently, let alone 'another era', there was massive underrepresentation.

It's improved now, but there is still a fair way to go - in helping children from underrepresented groups (including white children) to achieve stronger academic results, in giving support to young people who may not know how best to apply or present at interview. But being academically strong enough was never enough.

@Keepyourkidsafe

No one is aspiring to mediocrity. I am educating my children privately. I don't think private schools should be abolished in the same way I don't think people should be forced to stop reading to their kids or getting the music lessons just because everyone cannot or does not.

However, the data once at university is clear that a poor student with a B for instance is just as capable as a privately educated student with an A. There is no reason not to acknowledge that as part of the admissions process.

keepyourkidsafe
Contextual offers have officially been used since 2004 AND and are used at universities in other countries too, including top US institutions. They aren't harming us on an international level.

I have nothing against private education. It's just important that we recognize the advantages it offers.

@OverTheRubicon - to be fair thats not actually true. There were other kids of Afro Caribbean origin at Oxford. The key difference is British! Class/race are intertwined in the British context. Oxford is clearly not racist as they obviously are happy to accept plenty of overseas students and take their cash. Thats not the point though. What they have more issue with is managing questions of privilege v admission policies......

The problem with Oxbridge is lot of people find it culturally exclusive and therefore not for them. Its not just a BAME issue. Northerners are also heavily underrepresented. There are plenty of people with top grades who don't go to Oxbridge for a myriad of reasons that need to be addressed.

@SouthLondonMommy

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.

"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."

SouthLondonMommy: Is this simply your belief on what you have heard or read in the media?
If not, then please share the data you are basing this on.
It's probably the spoon feeding effect from independent schools?
I would be interested to see this comparison for state vs underprivileged students on bursaries at leading Independent schools.....but again, I doubt this data exists too?

Not my opinion. Its a Hefce study but I can't link to it because its behind a pay wall. You can google it though its not the only one.

@OverTheRubicon, you will be pleased to know that in 2019, the BME proportion of total
UK students admitted at Oxford is 22.1%.

What is "fair" and "unfair"? I think we would never reach a conclusion/agreement on this. All the best to those with DCs applying to Oxbridge!

@OverTheRubicon The whiteness was striking, wasn't it? I remember realising when I was in 3rd year that my college had a single black undergraduate. It's obviously a complex topic, and hard to judge without looking at the BAME applicant v. Offer breakdown (which they didn't provide last time I checked). It's also the case that schools should be the source of social mobility, but even so it wasn't a good look.

@SouthLondonMommy

Not my opinion. Its a Hefce study but I can't link to it because its behind a pay wall. You can google it though its not the only one.

This is true. I have access to that report and other research on this topic.

And yes, it's the additional resources to support children's learning in the private sector (some of it spoon feeding).

Once the quality of the teaching is the same, it becomes clear.

Intuitively this is quite obvious anyway. Why else would people pay for a private education if the expected outcomes would be identical?

@SouthLondonMommy

The problem with Oxbridge is lot of people find it culturally exclusive and therefore not for them. Its not just a BAME issue. Northerners are also heavily underrepresented. There are plenty of people with top grades who don't go to Oxbridge for a myriad of reasons that need to be addressed.

Yep! I've done research on this and have heard the phrase 'people like me don't go to places like that' far too many times.

The impact is greatest in secondary school. UCL did a study and children with the same GCSEs and same social background get very different results at A-level in private versus state settings.

Anyway, that's why its unfair to essential let rich people by higher grades and then also use those higher grades to gain unmitigated extra access to elite universities. Its perverse.

I educate my children privately because I want the best education for them but I don't expect the fact that they have had this advantage not to be weighed up when assessing how they've performed.