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 find it amusing that parents who quote 'classroom disruption' as their reason for sending their kids to private school can't grasp the logical corollary that achieving top grades despite classroom disruption almost certainly makes them stronger candidates than those who didn't have to cope with that.

@mids2019 no one goes into teaching for the money 😂. I used to work in the city and earned 5 x my current salary. But this job is much more rewarding.
Many of our students want a better life and are driven to make money. Teaching would be their last resort !!!

@thing47 i totally grasp that. Achieving very well academically in a disruptive primary class certainly taught my son resilience and almost certainly made him a stronger candidate at 11+. And I suspect that his private secondary made allowances for what was probably a relative lack of polish in his entrance exams compared with prep school candidates. But experiencing that disruption wasn't a lot of fun, and I'm not surprised that parents seek to avoid that if they can.

@mumsneedwine

Fascinating subject what motivates people in life...quite the thread I think.

For the academic there must be a split between those that desire intellectual challenge and those that wish to be well rewarded (money wise)

I think it is a bit spurious to draw lines between career destinations and background. The reality is that these universities are very academic institutions and there will always be a high number of graduates that want to stay in academia for the love of their subject and financial gain is just not their motivator, irrespective of background. My sector of work is one of the lucrative ones you mention that has traditionally been characterised by Oxbridge degrees at point of entry. In my experience the background of those graduates varies greatly but, generally speaking, probably the most driven ones I have met have been those from most modest backgrounds. Conversely, we have friends with ridiculous amounts of inherited family wealth. They are both Oxbridge educated and one works practically pro bono for a charity close to their heart and the other works in rare antiquarian books for the love of them. Salaries at the total opposite end of the scale to their background. My DC have both pursued medicine with no medics in our family. They will earn significantly less as junior doctors than I did at that stage in my career. I think sparky DC will generally want to chart their own courses and if they are talented and confident enough to get into top universities, they are most likely not going to be held back by the boundaries of the jobs that their parents did.

@lechatsmiaou sadly I do think there are people who think like that. I have had parents make such comments about less able comprehensive school DC taking their DC's Oxbridge places, assuming that I would hold the same views (I don't). Yes the pace of change over the past few years has been quite rapid but we need to keep a focus on the absolute percentages rather than the rate of change. Top selective schools continue to be very well represented at Oxbridge and that is what is key. It's like @mumsneedwine said earlier on the thread how fairness can feel unfair when the status quo has been unfairness for so long.

I wonder if there are a greater number of applications from private schools (adjusted for size)? One reason could be that pupils from schools like Eton would have Oxbridge in their conscious from day 1 and it would be a natural goal academically. In some state schools pupils may not hear of Oxbridge until quite late on and Oxbridge having not been as high profile in their experience might mean highly academic pupils prefer elsewhere?

@opoponax fair enough, and perhaps you're right.

@opoponax

I absolutely take your point that a relatively port background may act as a spur to high paying roles. The motivations for varying careers is profoundly complex.

I was just wondering if on average there is a discernable difference in career aspirations between those that are privately educated and those that are not. There may well not be??

Out of interest, of the six undergrads doing my course in my year at my Oxford college, three of them are now teachers and two are in public sector jobs. One I don't know about. Four of the six came from private schools themselves.

@lechatsmiaou

That's interesting. Were these undergraduates motivated by giving back to the community and was it a way of keeping an interest in their subject of study while inspiring a younger generation?

You don't hear too many people talking about state school pupils having unfair advantages over private school pupils for teaching roles so is the passion over Oxbridge really a rivalry over paths to sell paid/high status roles (obviously teaching should be and it's societal status is a subject for another thread)

@mids2019 I agree that it is complex. Anecdotal but I have a close friend with two sons who went to a top London selective school two years apart. Same high achieving parents, shared childhood and very close family, both very able boys, similar friendship groups etc.. One is studying law at Oxbridge and practically has his future magic circle law firm career mapped out in his head. The other, on track for the same A star A Levels, isn't too keen on the idea of university and just wants to travel the world funded by bar work and eventually run his own dive school. Voila!

@mids2019 Good question. Of the two teachers I know well enough to remember, I wouldn't say it was exactly a desire to give back. More that they were vocational teachers - they always only wanted to teach. And they loved their subjects. The third, I'm not sure. NB all three teachers were private school educated. The two state school kids were me (public sector but not education) and the other one whose career I don't know (I dimly remember him going for a blue chip graduate management programme, but he was a conceited arse so I didn't feel a strong desire to keep in touch!).

I came to teaching v late after a v nice career in the City. Sort of fell into it rather than having a massive desire to do it, but found I quite like teenagers. Especially the 'less desirable' ones. When they come back and tell me what they're up to I feel like a proud auntie.
Some go into those highly paid careers, many go into caring roles (we produce a lot of medical people and social workers), but we have also produced a surf school owner (if I ever make it to Sydney I'm sorted) and a few went travelling and got stuck teaching or running bars somewhere hot and sandy.
Suppose what I'm saying is that most people are the same. Regardless of background they just want to be happy in what they do.

DD2's Masters tutor is a well-known academic in her field with tons of papers to her name and involvement in cutting edge research in high-tech bio-secure labs. Her DH is in exactly the same field but went into industry – nobody knows who he is, as such, but on the other hand he makes about 5x what she does.

DD2 is unsure which path she wants to follow, in an ideal world she'd like to do both…! Though I suspect she is more likely to work for a charity or an NGO than big pharma because we aren't a family who value money above job satisfaction and work-life balance.

I find the whole question of motivation a fascinating subject, so very interested in these posts about what Oxbridge graduates do next, thanks.

We have one Oxbridge graduate in our family, got a first and is now a teacher in a not very good secondary school. I didn't realise how common it is for Oxbridge grads to go into teaching, I must say.

@hoooops v common from my limited experience. Having done a few jobs in my time I think they've made a wise choice - money is not everything. Yes this job is exhausting, but it's unbelievably rewarding. If we could just sort out some decent funding so we can have more time to actually resource and teach !

Yes, isn't it great? He is very happy, works incredibly hard and is slowly starting to get the odd one or two to follow in his footsteps too. I don't think anyone had ever gone to Oxbridge from there before. His best friend from uni went into corporate finance and is rich but miserable.

I don't understand the assumption that high salary = high success that comes up all the time on MN. Some of the most unhappy (and unhealthy) people I know earn the highest salaries. Some of their jobs are really, really boring too. Not sour grapes as I started off on that trajectory myself and switched late 30s into something related but far more balanced and meaningful. I have never tried to influence my DC's career choices but I am quietly relieved that neither of them ever showed any interest in highly paid corporate jobs.

I’m sorry there are not quotas but there are target to meet and the colleagues do then translate that in to the number of applicants they will take from state and private schools. And sadly I do know of cases where private school pupils were told they were stronger than state school applicants but couldn’t be offered as the college could only offer to x number of private school pupils.

@Dancingdreamer thankfully our Oxbridge outreach colleges tell us differently. So if that is going on I'll mention it to them next week as they are both in for a talk. To be honest, I've no idea what 'better' means as they are all bright kids with v similar grades.

@Dancingdreamer - seems am exceptionally odd thing to tell an applicant - like telling a job applicant they were better than the person who was actually given the job (ie something you would only do if you wanted to be challenged on your decision). So, why do you think applicants might be told this? Got any evidence of this in writing? Or is this verbal anecdote (from people not wanting to lose face…)? In what way are these people saying they have have been told they were “stronger”? Likely to get better grades? More confident and polished?…

And sadly I do know of cases where private school pupils were told they were stronger than state school applicants but couldn’t be offered as the college could only offer to x number of private school pupils.

Really? By who? In what form? In their official rejection letter? In the more detailed letter to the school? Or verbally? When are they having these cosy chats with the admissions tutors? Sounds deeply implausible.

And sadly I do know of cases where private school pupils were told they were stronger than state school applicants but couldn’t be offered as the college could only offer to x number of private school pupils.

This is absolutely not a thing. Cambridge doesn’t give out post-interview feedback as a rule anyway, and it certainly wouldn’t say this (because it isn’t true)

@Dancingdreamer told by whom? Surely not universities? Their parents possibly? Sounds like the same type of damaging urban myth as "state schools taking all the Oxbridge places" which just doesn't stack up when you look at the hard and absolute figures.

There's no way an Oxbridge admissions tutor told a 17-year-old applicant that he/she was a stronger candidate than the one who was offered the place. I'm sorry but that didn't happen.