Oxbridge actively targeting private school pupils

[mumsqna]

Read in the telegraph this week that oxbridge and some other top unis are actively trying to reduce the number of private school students they give offers to.

Right now it’s 72% to state and 28% private schools in Cambridge. I personally think it’s should be about 65% to 35%. After decades of free education there can’t be that many children in this country that are very bright that can realistically be classed as ‘disadvantaged’ imo. Most should be in homes that are the top 20% of household incomes for their region. Most of bright but disadvantage should be ethnic minorities coming from immigrant households.

I’m quite annoyed by this, it feels like some academics trying to force you into the state system. So put off I’ve just decided that they can fuck off as there are universities around the world.

like my drive to work comes from wanting to give my children the best education available in the world. Just feeling deflated.

@antelopevalley I just checked. General UCAS deadline is 25/01/2023, Oxbridge is 15/10/2022. I believe most interviews take place before Xmas. I remember quite a lot of us writing personal statements in the Xmas hols.

www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/news/state-school-pupils-do-better-at-university-cambridge-assessment-research-confirms/

@ZandathePanda That doesn't really surprise me. They've needed to get those grades in a much more self directed and self motivated way which is a lot like university.
It also wouldn't surpise me that some kids from ultra selective indies are simply burned out by the time they get to university and cannot cope.

Yes - so we have 75% of top grades being achieved at state schools, those grades are harder to achieve for state school students, and these students go on to perform better than private school students as undergraduates. It all combines to make a pretty powerful argument.

And yet only 68% of Oxford intake is from state. AND even then, with such blatant unearned privilege, private school parents are complaining about how unfair the "social engineering" is 🤦‍♀️

The telegraph is a terrible rag so I would love to be able to validate their numbers.

"The findings come after The Telegraph revealed last week that the overall chance of getting an Oxbridge offer for pupils across 50 leading private schools has dropped by a third in five years. The universities, which analyse a candidate’s school to judge their achievements but do not lower entry grades in the same way as some Russell Group institutions, deny any discrimination." I know I'm only referring to Oxford numbers as I haven't looked up Cambridge yet, but I'm not sure how to reconcile this. The number of admissions from private students at Oxford has dropped from 1431 in 4104 from 17 to 21. That's a drop of 3%? For the top 50 schools to have seen a drop of a third implies that other independent students attending schools outside of the top 50 have picked up the places not state schools!

The situation outlined in the telegraph article does make me uncomfortable.

But their sweeping rhetoric also makes me uncomfortable so I'd like to verify the facts myself. My point above suggest their interpretation of data may be shaky. Anyone have good sources of data on contextual offers.

Overall State vs independent is too blunt an instrument on its own. Kings in the article say they don't do that. It's not clear if others do or not. If you come from disadvantaged background, a school with poor record of sending students to uni, then I think it's fair that a uni might offer lower grades than someone who has had the advantage of family background and school. But the article seems to be describing something more sinister than that. Not all state schools are the same. Not all private schools are the same.

Yes, but consider also the application rates. Presumably pretty much 100% of those 'top grade' students at private schools apply to university, and many of them to Oxbridge.
However, due to financial constraints at a minimum, unfortunately not all of those state school top grade students will be able to apply.
So when you look at it like that, I would bet it goes some way to explaining the gap (which is 7 points - not what it should be, but not enormous either).

Honestly, I think social engineering or however people phrase it, will always happen. It just won't always benefit your kid. It's interesting when it happens to the rich because they're so used to money buying them anything.
The numbers are clear that state school kids are still at a huge disadvantage. It would be very interesting to break up those state school numbers into grammar/ leafy comps/ bog standard comp. I'm sure a negligible percentage are coming from non selective comps.

whose smarter the kids who goes to a state school with 30 kids in class with different educational needs, shares a computer with their siblings and no tutors who gets 4 A*
Or the child in 10 person classes extracurriculars, free enrichment, specialised tutoring and coaching who gets 4 A*

I'd quite easily say that the level of work required by most state students vs private students means the level of graft required should obviously put them at the front of the list.
Jus because you've paid for a privileged education doesn't give you the right tot push to front in a meritocracy.

@beAsensible1 what about the poor kids on a bursary, or non selective private school where they were with other SEN kids and have to also graft for their grades and were funded by their LA. There's no winning. It's an elite institution and will only stay elite if it's discriminatory. Just a case of who it discriminates. Someone will always be upset.

yes absolutely, its all a bit silly and elitist tbh.

Good. Working class state school 1st gen Oxbridge alumna here. I refuse to send my DC private (although their state school is miles better than mine was).

I'm sure a negligible percentage are coming from non selective comps.

I don't think there are figures comparing selective schools with non-selective in the Oxford report, but the acceptance rates for grammars / academies / sixth form colleges and comps are all the same.

It also shows a large increase in admissions of students from ACORN 4 and 5 (gone up by 63% in last 4 yrs) and areas of low progression (gone up by 32% in last 4 yrs).

Contextual offers are done on postcode anyway not school. There's nothing in UCAS that lets you filter by school. It's where you live that counts. Whether that's abroad for fee purposes or within low participation areas for offer purposes. So if you've really got your mythical dirt poor scholarship pupil (as opposed to just one who would be going private anyway but they get a bit of bursary bunce because reasons) they'll get a contextual offer.

And even with contextual offers they still need to have the same good predicted grades otherwise they won't be getting any kind of offer at all. It's just about making the university more appealing to cohorts who haven't traditionally been in contact with the HE system.

what about the poor kids on a bursary

Well if you're trying to negate the advantage of a private education, these kids do still have that advantage.

or non selective private school where they were with other SEN kids

Having said that above, performance is contextualised by school, so they look at how easy it was for you to get your top grades judging by the performance of your cohort. If you get three Astars at a school where loads of people do that, it's not as impressive as getting three Astars at a school where nobody else did it, it doesn't matter which sector the school is in. So it's not as simple as state vs private. It's how great was your achievement in the context of the school you achieved it in. At least that is how Oxford do it. They also look at percentage of FSM, your ACORN and POLAR info, whether you yourself received FSM and whether you have been in care.

‘“In both Russell and non-Russell Group universities, students from independent schools were less likely to achieve either a first class degree or at least an upper second class degree than students from comprehensive schools with similar prior attainment”.
The researchers note how previous research has suggested two reasons for the finding: private school students may have lower incentives to perform well at university and therefore may invest more effort in social life rather than academic work; or they may have been ‘coached’ at school and subsequently struggle when they get to university.’

Above quote was from Cambridge

It is extremely short-sighted to think that "the most intelligent kids will have intelligent parents who will be sending their kids to private school".

The most intelligent couple I know don't earn enough to send their kids to private school. He works in cancer research at Oxford University, she does advanced genetics testing. The both have PhDs and several MSc's between them. He's paid through funding (partially from cancer research UK), she's paid by the NHS.

Then there are the single mums - they may have very good jobs, get paid well, but can't afford private school.

Or the kids who are adopted/in care.

And intelligence isn't necessarily inherited. Just because you're intelligent it doesn't mean that you get a highly intelligent child, or vice versa.

FWIW private education should be abolished which would bring in a level playing field, plus much better state education (e.g. Finland, Flanders, etc.).

This thread is very helpful in expanding my knowledge of how some people think, especially the OP.

@ISeeTheLight , I would very much welcome the day when all state education is as good as the best is now, especially for those in more deprived areas, but I don’t see it happening in my lifetime.

I really don’t think abolishing private schools would do anything much for those currently least advantaged.

You have to consider OP, that some of us reasonably well paid quite intelligent folk chose not to send our children to private school. I preferred my children to go to the local comprehensive, as they had a huge range of friends, met all classes of society and generally enjoyed themselves. Both of us parents are educated to doctorate level, (one of us at Cambridge, other RG) not massive high earners but confortable. One child bright, did a vocational degree, got a first, now doing well in their career. Other child extremely bright, applied for Oxford but no interview as entrance exam (maths) they had no school help with, as they would have done in private school. But they only applied there as school pushed them as they didn’t really fancy the culture. Ended up doing a maths based degree at Warwick, got a first. Most of the others in their halls were privately educated. Now at under 30 they are working for an international company at director level and earning that mumsnet favourite, a six figure salary, much more than either of their parents ever did.

If 12% of sixth formers are at private school, there shouldn’t be more than that at Oxbridge. I find your post very depressing and insulting tbh.

Defining "leafy" could get tricky for the "leafy comp" category!

I've seen a few threads in this vein on MN.

Bemoaning that state school students are treated fairly and their privately educated child hasn't the same access to unlimited privilege.

As a parent of a disadvantaged and very clever child at an underperforming state school, I am unable to feel any sympathy for op and her ilk.

I've got no problem with contextual offers, as long as Oxbridge really is still seeking to find the brightest and most passionate students - and I do think there's a risk of passing up potentially brilliant privately educated students. The desire to admit more state school students isn't totally new - when I applied to Oxford 30 years ago, everyone I met there was falling over themselves to get me (first generation to go to uni, state school, female) to apply for what was a male, private school dominated course. But did I really deserve my place? I'm not so sure. I got my 2:1 easily enough - but I didn't have that real subject passion that Oxford values so much. I didn't relish my reading or my lectures, I was never going to go into research or use my subject in later life - Oxford was just a fun and privileged place to be for a few years, from where I could then go off and get a job. I was certainly far less deserving of a place than some of the kids from my children's private school who are brilliant and passionate and committed, but don't get a place. Those kids don't deserve a place more than their state school counterparts - but they don't deserve it less, either. By all means make the playing field more level - by dropping a grade requirement here, or pursuing very active outreach, or offering different funding models or whatever - but what Oxbridge mustn't do IMO is cut off its nose to spite its face by making the admissions process too hostile to the genuinely brilliant private school candidates. It needs to focus on recruiting the true passion and brilliance, regardless of where that comes from.

I've got no problem with contextual offers, as long as Oxbridge really is still seeking to find the brightest and most passionate students

Not sure how many times it needs to be said on this thread, but they don't make contextual offers.

I was certainly far less deserving of a place than some of the kids from my children's private school who are brilliant and passionate and committed, but don't get a place.

Oxbridge entry is much more competitive now than it was 30 years ago. In 1989 the acceptance rate at Oxford was ~32%. In 2021 it was 13.5%. More than 20k people were rejected and an awful lot of them will have been brilliant, passionate and committed.

Those kids don't deserve a place more than their state school counterparts - but they don't deserve it less, either.

Don't worry, privately educated people are still disproportionately represented. Bought privilege still exists a bit, although the universities have definitely made improvements.

By all means make the playing field more level - by dropping a grade requirement

They don't make contextual offers.

what Oxbridge mustn't do IMO is cut off its nose to spite its face by making the admissions process too hostile to the genuinely brilliant private school candidates. It needs to focus on recruiting the true passion and brilliance, regardless of where that comes from

The whole point of the admissions process is to find the best people from all sectors. It dawned on Oxbridge that a lot of brilliant people weren't applying, so they have made steps to remedy that, hence the much greater competition for places these days.

Everyone has to get the same high grades. The state school students of course are achieving those grades without the advantages of private education. And then they out-perform privately educated students as undergraduates. It's no wonder really that the universities are seeking out these people.

Only a small part of the country has state selection,/grammars so lots will come from non-selective comprehensives and regular 6th form colleges.