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.

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

Here speaks a voice of profound ignorance.

@lannistunut you seem to have missed the point where I said I think it’s should be 65% -35%. I have no problems with people from state school getting there. Where have an issue is when it seems like they’re try to attack you for doing well and sending your child to an excellent school where they become well rounded

Yes but WHY 35%? Why should Oxbridge reserve 35% of places for less clever private school kids - if your kids can't get there on merit why should they get the place?

What they should perhaps do is auction some places for kids whose parents are rich but they are not clever enough to get in on merit?

You're absolutely correct. I don't know why we bother with entry requirements or fairer admissions at all. We should allocate places at birth based on parent's wealth, occupation or education. That suit you, OP?

You keep saying 'should be'. Maybe so - though I agree that many very intelligent people aren't motivated by money, and I'd also point out that it doesn't take much for financially comfortable to become homeless unless you have family money. But 'should be' doesn't mean 'are'.

You said: 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'.

OK. But your opinion doesn't actually inform university admissions policy (fortunately for the 93% - and for society as a whole - we've suffered enough as a result of this grovelling assumption that rich = smart. Exhibit a: Boris Johnson). The fact is that many very bright kids are in disadvantaged households. It's in the interest of the universities - and the country - to make sure that these kids get the chance to get educated and contribute to their full potential, which is why universities are now trying not to give private school students yet more preferential treatment than they already have.

I've taught children from desperately poor families, and students who attended private school. I have seen no difference in 'brightness'. The main difference I notice is that many privately educated students seem to have a really lovely, engaging social confidence which many state students - particularly the most disadvantaged - don't have. Though some privately educated students do, sadly, seem to come out with the same repulsive sense of entitlement - and expedient ignorance of what society as a whole actually looks like - that is dripping from your post.

(Methinks the OP is a private Year 12 student who is waiting for an offer. It’s that time of year.)
Can you explain those percentages and why, in your opinion, they should be enforced?

On what basis have you dreamed up those proportions?
Nobody is being attacked for doing well. There are simply far more A* applications than places available. There are still plenty of privately educated students at Oxbridge. On my DD's course, wealthy privately educated students from the UK and overseas outnumber the state educated cohort. That's from their own statistics, not a casual headcount.

The proportion of state-to-private at oxbridge should be broadly similar to the proportion of A" A" A (using " instead of a star because MN turns stars into bold) ALevel grades from each. But actually "state" should be broken dowm further as there's a big difference between a comfortable selective grammar state and a normal comprehensive. And there should be sone weighting for pupils in a normal state comprehensive to recognise that it's much harder to get an A* there than anywhere more privileged.

I can't find this exact statistic but I have been able to find stats for the percentage of pupils in a variety of categories of school who got 3 or more A" grades in England: (this is from a few years ago)

Percentage of pupils
Comprehensive State Schools 1.2%
Selective State Schools 5.3%
Modern State Schools 0.2%
Independent Schools 6.7%
Sixth Form Colleges 1.5%
Other FE Sector Colleges 0.6%
All FE Sector colleges 1.2%

You would need to get a breakdown of how many A level entrants there are in each of these categories of school to get a proper figure for what the expected split of oxbridge students should be, but just looking at that 6.7% for independent schools and 1.2% for comprehensives, it does follow that if it was just on A level grades without any WP then you would expect that it would be at least 5.5 times more likely that you might get a place at oxbridge from private than from a comprehensive, even if there's no bias at all in the system.

If anyone can find a breakdown of numbers of alevel entrants split into these categories I would be happy to do the maths.

tbh I didn’t take this seriously enough to have multiple looks. Just trying to see multiple view points

How is the system ‘trying to attack you’?

No one is saying, ‘We don’t want your child because he is from private school’. They are saying, ‘We will take THIS child from state school over yours because he’s clearly cleverer than your child, having reached the standard he’s reached through being self-motivated without intensive tutoring’.

No, you’re not trying to see multiple points of view. You’re just backing down in the face of an unfavourable reaction to your original post.

I tend to believe (hope) that the very bright will do well anywhere.

Private schools are however exceptionally good at hothousing turd polishing weaker pupils. I suspect a history of mediocre students coming from some private schools is also part of the drive by universities to encourage state school applications.
Money has always bought educational advantage in the UK. It still does, but any erosion of this should be welcomed.

Well I didn’t say they’ve all been taken. My argument is that people see the results from private school kids and think there’s a bunch of thick children who are getting results because of money.

Whereas my argument is that should we be expecting the children of NHS Consultants, Barristers, Bankers, Senior Managers (these are the people who can afford private school right now) to get the best results and subsequently be over represented at the nations best institutions through some mix of nature and nurture?

I also know not every bright person gets a high paying job (Teachers & Academics) but they certainly earn enough to not be considered ‘disadvantaged’

Obviously, I know that there hasn’t been a complete shift. Which is why I said most but looked at the education results for FSM children from ethnic minority communities. There does seem to be a large jump.

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.

Wow.

This cannot possibly be real. No-one is this pig-ignorant, surely?

Am assuming the OP is satirical.

Yup, that’s what I think might happen. Senior people won’t see their children getting in and will say that they too should diversify their grad intake. Shouldn’t just be from oxbridge anymore. Should take more from wherever their kid got in and also direct research funding there too

The system is not attacking you

the system is slowly coming around to realise that an A from a private school is actually worth less than an A from a rough old comp 😉

and that an A from a young carer from a rough old comp is worth even more

oxford are factoring in more of these kind of circumstances, Bristol very good at this too. Cambridge actually lagging behind compared to Oxford

nobody is attacking you or your kids. It’s just that we are slowly moving into the 21st century here (finally!)

I've studied at both Oxbridge and Durham and I assure you that there were a very very large number of very expensively educated but only averagely intelligent people in my Durham college, compared to an almost universal sweep of very bright people (some of whom were privately educated) at my Oxbridge one... privately educated means money, not academic ability (although there is a selection pressure to e.g.: remove children with SEN which might stop them achieving higher grades etc).
The whole point about targets is that true giftedness pops up fairly evenly spread across social class, but if you go to a bad school where the teaching is poor and the culture is to hide your ability, you won't get the grades to show it - whereas if you go to a very driven school they can probably drag most people through a spread of decent results but without all the teacher input behind them those people would then fail at the self-supported university type learning.

I'm not convinced. 😳

As ignorant as the op’s post is, it has been a klaxon to some nasty bastards. See also comments about thick private school and turd polishing.

I honestly can't quite believe what I'm reading.

You genuinely think that bright children will only come from high-earning households?!

So parents who may not be earning well (for a myriad of reasons unrelated to their own intelligence) can't possibly produce and support an intelligent child?

Parents who maybe have a disabled child in the family and have had to curtail their careers can't have another child who's worthy of Oxbridge?

Parents who have a chronic illness/disability which prevents them from working can't have a child who's worthy of Oxbridge?

Parents who choose a career that's vocational rather than well-paid can't have a child that's worthy of Oxbridge?

And so on.

Unbelievable.

Surely you don't believe the tripe you've written... no one could be this bigoted and narrow-minded?!

I think you're a bit confused OP. Did you muck up your a levels? Lots of people did including Jeremy Clarkson and he's doing alright so I shouldn't worry.

Well if 20% of university students were privately educated then only 20% of Oxford places should go to private students!

If it's not satirical, they are an unfortunate combination of deluded, bigoted and staggeringly thick.

Was there a bias or were lots of people not going to university? It was about 15% of so in the 1990s. Tony Blair was the one who came in and said we should increase intake. I am not saying that I’m upset that I can’t buy my way in. You’ve never been able to do that.

im saying that we should expect that they should be over represented because of nature and nurture and should not actively make decisions to ensure that they’re not because that doesn’t make sense.

that’s why I said it should be 65% - 35%