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.

I've no idea if my son will apply for Oxbridge. I suspect not. He's certainly got the raw academic potential (that was obvious in state primary, nothing to do with his private education later), and he may well get the grades if he works hard enough, but to be honest I don't think he's got the subject commitment and the ambition. If he wants to go for it then that's up to him and he will need to show he's got the drive

I personally think this is what it comes down to. Is Oxbridge right for your child or not ? They're the ones who'll have to study there for 3 years and there's no point if it's not right for them even if they get the grades. I think a lot of parents lose sight of this.

I went to a good RG uni on a highly regarded course full of private school students (I was from a local comp[. We all got the grades and had passed the interviews, but there was a good % who dropped out by the end of 1st year as it was a subject which needed commitment. A lot of private school students had been pushed there by their parents and it wasn't what they wanted to do.

In the end there wasn't any difference between the private and state sector students who graduated, we all worked hard.

Going back to the OPs assertion that the richest tend to have more intelligent children, I'd massively dispute this. I know this is anecdotal but from the Oxbridge graduates I know none are on massive, big buck salaries. They've all done well; none are scaping by on minimum wage. The most intelligent went into academia and lives a very modest life (but is completely immerged in his subject[ - think nutty professor type.

I imagine Oxbridge want the self-motivated ones who'll make it through the course, no matter where they come from.

@Tiggernpoo I only responded to you as you made the comment I was responding to. Not sure there's anymore to read into it 🤷‍♀️

@hoooops assessment is run the same way at Cambridge. Schools are assessed in more detail than just state/indie. However due to the collegiate system, % of state school applicants and offers varies according to the philosophy of the college initially applied to. I don’t always agree with it which is why I prefer my more progressive college. Some more ‘traditional’ colleges take disadvantages such as being a young carer or estranged as being ‘too much on the student’s plate to cope with the demands of Cambridge’, and try to frame a rejection as being for the applicant’s benefit. The fringe colleges see it as you have described- proof of ability.

Some more ‘traditional’ colleges take disadvantages such as being a young carer or estranged as being ‘too much on the student’s plate to cope with the demands of Cambridge’, and try to frame a rejection as being for the applicant’s benefit.

Ugh.

@hoooops it makes me so angry :’)
my role means pushing them on this, but due to the unwillingness to change they also do not want me there. I am mostly based at a progressive college which is more enjoyable as I see improvements made more quickly and willingly, but it isn’t as significant a change as if the ‘traditional’ ones accepted it.
I love the university and want so much to drag it past its flaws.

I have nothing of any note to add to this post as my children aren't headed for Oxbridge, aren't at private school and I am broadly in support of what these institutions are trying to do.
The only thing I can add is when I read the OP's posts they remind me of a girl I work with who is 10. If anyone in the group I work with is going to say 'it's not fair' it is her. I can almost predict the moments when she is going to say it (eg someone else had two turns at something but there was only time for one person to have two turns not everyone etc....)As I read the OP's posts I could picture her as this girl, with the look she has on her face when she is complaining about her rights within the group. We spend a lot of time discussing things with her which could actually be spent making sure the whole group gets more out of the sessions.
And the only answer I have for the girl when she has a moan is that 'life isn't perfectly fair, but wherever you look there are some very good people trying their best." Which sums up what I think about this as yet imperfect but very much improved system of admissions. I am sorry OP that life hasn't been perfectly fair for your DC, but if you take the philosophy creed that we should do the 'greater good for the greater number' then I think even your DC could see that what is happening is right.
And also; your DC are going to be just fine wherever they end up, because they can take a well-heated home and a loving and supportive family for granted. I suspect the lesson you need to teach them is that life isn't 'perfectly fair' as it will stand them in good stead for the real world.

Privilege is invisible to those who have it. Until it's challenged, and then they assume it's unfair that their privilege is gone.

Someone said that much better than me, but it's so true. Life is unfair, so suck it up and get on with your life.
I am always amazed by the kindness and empathy shown by some of my most disadvantaged students who have nothing, yet give their time to volunteer to help others. They know life is unfair, they live it, but rather than whine they get on and try and make the world better. And that might also be why Unis like them.

Just to add, data shows that in general students from state schools do better at university than students from private schools with the same A level grades.

So to that extent at least it is perfectly logical for Oxbridge to favour state-educated students who have achieved the entrance requirements over privately educated students who have done so.

Whether it is also logical to make lower offers to state-educated students is more of a grey area, but I'm not sure this happens anyway. Most of the swing towards state-educated students comes from their growing success in the pool selections, I'm not sure you can really argue against the fairness of that – outstanding students from any school are still getting offers.

Oxbridge contextual offers, as in lower grades required, don't exist, and can not therefore be considered a grey area.

I did say I'm not sure this happens anyway @DahliaMacNamara…

I know you did, @thing47 , but not everybody reads the whole thread, and the myth comes up repeatedly on threads like these, however frequently it's debunked.

I don't see why this should be controversial. It has simply become more competitive to get a place on the top courses/at top universities because more DC are applying. This includes high-achieving DC from state schools. So, if you are applying from a private school that traditionally gets a lot of DC into Oxbridge etc. , you need to be better than you would have to have been before. All WP is doing is looking at acheivements in context. Surely it is easy to see that is fair. Particularly with Oxbridge when, as PP said, there are no contextual offers.

If you look at medicine across all medical schools, not just Oxbridge, which is a very specific type of course that many would-be medics don't want, it's exactly the same principles. The clinical entrance exam (UCAT) threshold has gone up significantly because more DC are applying. A score of 2,700 would have been enough to get you an interview a few years ago, now you are looking at closer to 3,000 for some medical schools. Basic supply/demand principles.

Yes, and I don't really think anyone sensible would argue that that"s unfair. But some of the comments on this thread and elsewhere go much further than that, and amount to a gleeful hand-rubbing that little Ruperts might now be losing out.

Well I'm not gleeful about anyone missing out on anything but I am happy about opportunities being opened up. It's all about getting the best DC, whatever their provenance.

Incidentally, you don't have to agree with the OP's assertion that richer kids are genetically cleverer to see why private schools might be legitimately over-represented at Oxbridge. Sadly, disadvantaged children tend to start falling behind developmentally from the moment they're born. We've probably all seen that - I know I have - kids who start Reception with very clear academic potential but fall behind year on year due to difficult family circumstances, and finish Year 6 well behind their peers. Or even those who are not particularly disadvantaged but go to poor secondary schools - a combination of poor/disrupted teaching and an unsupportive peer culture doesn't make for great GCSE grades. Of course, universities like Oxbridge can try to make allowances for that, but they've still got to be confident that a candidate is at a sufficient level to cope with the course - there is only so much catching up that can be done. Children born into privileged households, even if not born any cleverer, are still more likely to arrive at age 17 at a sufficient standard where Oxbridge is still a feasible possibility. Add in the fact that private schools are much more likely to be academically selective, and the fact that parents won't have the same concerns about university debt, and it's hardly surprising that they might account for a disproportionately high percentage of credible Oxbridge applicants.

@opoponax no I wasn't suggesting you were bei g gleeful, and I 100% agree with you.

Just to say again this very useful stat - of all the brightest DC in the country, the ones who achieve Astar Astar A or better at A level, only 25% of them are in private education. The fact that some schools are selective is irrelevant when you are looking at these figures. (Anyway aren't all sixth forms selective - you can't do A levels at our local comp unless you have the right grades at GCSE.) Selective / non-selective is a complete red herring.

So 25% of the brightest kids study at private schools. And yet they make up 32% of the Oxford intake, which suggests that there are some super bright state school students either still not applying, or losing out to less bright privately educated students. This disproportionate representation of privately educated students is what the WP programmes are trying to fix.

Interesting - but also interested in how and when that 'brightness' is measured, if not by exam grades. (Genuinely interested not snarkily interested.) Where is there an objective measure of that brightness on a sufficiently large scale (given that eg most prep school kids don't take SATS and most state school kids don't take CATS)?

And yes, I'm sure there are other reasons why less privileged bright kids might not apply - concern about debt being one of them, and assumptions about Oxbridge culture (true or not) being another.

Also worth repeating is the stats that show state-educated pupils get better degree results than privately-educated pupils with the same A level grades. In general.

So that also contradicts the idea that we should expect privately-educated pupils to be over-represented.

I'm not sure that follows, when you add in the other potential barriers. I don't think the fact that those straight A state school students who make it into Oxbridge and graduate perform better, is incompatible with the idea that private school pupils might be disproportionately more likely to be credibly able to and also want to apply.

I have often wondered why state primary schools don't do CATs across the board. I know some do. SATs seem more of a tick box mechanism, where content is learned and they don't really seem to be a useful indicator of academic potential, more a measure of the school's success in drilling in the curriculum. I would think routine CATs tests would be very useful to objectively pick up high potential in DC before they go on to secondary. I know there is much more to realising potential than just CATs scores but in my experience with my own DC and their peers, they have been uncannily accurate in how the DC have fared later on in their education.

Around us, there's an increasing trend for state secondaries to CAT test all their Year 6 joiners before they start, and to use that data for setting instead of SATS. Our primary did do universal Year 5 CATS, but that's pretty unusual outside of grammar school areas I think.

Interesting - but also interested in how and when that 'brightness' is measured, if not by exam grades. (Genuinely interested not snarkily interested.) Where is there an objective measure of that brightness on a sufficiently large scale (given that eg most prep school kids don't take SATS and most state school kids don't take CATS)?

I'm not sure how you would measure brightness except by using exams - that seems a good way for universities to do it given that success there will also depend on exam performance. And using one set of results at 16 and another just before they go to university seems a good time, so much changes during secondary school, some DC fade away early and some emerge later. Exams are not perfect but they do at least aim for objectivity and thousands of DC across all settings take them. Maybe not wholly fair given the wide range of teaching quality / covid response / class size / resources etc but I guess they think the exceptional people they are looking for will succeed regardless.

SATS are also exams aren't they? (Sorry, we don't have those here.)

Of course Oxbridge also use their own entrance tests, which are supposed to identify raw whatever it is that they're looking for, and interviews. I think with all that they must get a pretty good idea of each DC's abilities and potential.

That's good @lechatsmiaou. I know a DC in a state primary who was pretty average and somewhat disengaged in school and his teachers were astounded when he got 141 in all sections in year 6 CATS. He had been really bored and was just switching off. It was so useful to know what was going on before secondary. He has just graduated with a first from Oxford.

The difference with CATS is that they are measuring purely raw ability rather than learned content, like SATS and other curriculum based exams, and so possibly a useful tool in assessing potential, ironing out the variation of previous teaching . Just my view but I wonder if they were standard, would that help to pick up early high potential.