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.

Haven’t selective state schools just picked the bright ones at an earlier age ? I don’t think you can compare them to private in terms of privilege. Unless it is true that it’s easy to pay to tutor your kids into them. I come from an affluent non grammar and none private school area. So all of this baffles me anyway.

Why shouldn't I be angry that private school students are over represented at Uni?

Private school students should be taking 10% to 15% of places seen as they are only 7% of the student cohort. How gracious of you to suggest that 65% of state students might be allowed to get a place at Uni.

You have no idea of the what most state schools are like if you think that state educated students are not, in the main, disadvantaged. Of course their results should be seen as better than privately educated kids.

My high school had a pass rate of 36% I managed to get into a top 5 Uni. Imagine what I could have done if I had been to a private school with excellent facilities, small class sizes, a positive ethos...

Your post has made me so angry and smacks of entitlement.

Where did you see me say that. I said it should be 65-35

By caring about these things and choosing to pay for them to be provided on tap you have placed your children in an environment where they are also being spoon fed lessons in a small classroom, told what to read, taught to test etc. So consequently their grades are viewed as less hard earned and they are 'rounded' in a very simplistic way.

I challenge your roundedness and ask who could be more 'rounded' than a young carer? Physically strong (from lifting mum), excellent at problem solving (how to make £50 feed 3 people for a week), resilient, determined (excellent GCSE grades), incredibly well read (what else do you do when you have no wifi and you are on call all the time), and with a genuine huge passion for the subject (in this case PPE - they want to be an MP and in Government). This person has a proven track record that they can work under stress, maintain standards under time pressure and produce excellent work alone (A* EPQ written alone over the summer). I know who I would pick and I am extremely glad that the new entrance requirements do not discriminate against them in preference of young people with every privilege.

Oxford use their own exams as the main decider and the private schools are not as good at teaching these as they were, and the internet has spread the old boys secrets far and wide. Those crafty clever little peasants are weaselling in on their own graft and merit, with no hockey, violin or rowing lessons to distract them.

The company we use for tuition are staffed by Students on the very courses they want to access and they are gleeful about beating the private and public schools results.

It’s a pool of 20%, 20% of kids who go to uni are privately educated.

that’s precisely my argument. You should expect children of intelligent people who are well nurtured to do very well and subsequently be over represented at the nations best unis

i make the assumption that intelligent people are overrepresented amongst people who are well paid

OP Why 35% to private?

18% of 6th students are privately educated, so that's one benchmark and some might say fair. However on the other hand that might call into question whether state educated children are being give places they haven't earned through their excellent grades. A common complaint but one that doesn't seem supported by the facts.

76.9% of AAA grade or above went to state school students and 23.1% to private. And 73.7% of A star, A Star, A and above to state and 26.3% to independent. So that alone could be another benchmark? Just using A level grades maybe it would be fair to say 26% of places would be a fair comparison.

That's before any individual account might be taken of context of upbringing etc.

So 18% of kids, 26% of best grades which compares to 32% Oxford places. Seems like private still have an advantage?

It's true that the advantage since 2017 has declined. In 2017 58% of places went to state pupils and in 2021 it was 68%.

For additional context we are talking of a movement of only approx 200 places over that time period that used to be given to private and now go to state. Oxford in total only has about 2600 places for domestic students.

I have no inside knowledge here, simply going from the published info on the Oxford site.

Applying for and being accepted to top unis including Oxbridge is incredibly competitive. Sadly there are simply not enough places for the number of bright talented kids there are in all schools. Probably most students who apply from any background are unsuccessful. It seems incredibly unfair to suggest that state educated children are not getting there by merit and it doesn't seem to be the case from the statistics I'm reading.

I haven't read the article in the telegraph and think it must be behind the paywall. Were they suggesting unfair advantage to state school students? What data did they share to support it?

You do like using the term kids
not very oxbridge , you need to be nurturing a wide vocabulary for your child.

Dear OP.
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.
For the person who wrote the above to accuse others of ignorance and lazy thinking is risible.

I agree with your point that that at the interview stage the kid from the comp is at a disadvantage and will need a leg up.

i also agree that the last 12 years have shown that they’re not great. Although the gals from state school haven’t been much better.

I think when selecting leaders the schools they went to should not be part of the consideration

@badbaduncle I'm not sure talking about the extreme cases (young carers etc) here is relevant - there probably aren't enough to affect the statistics, and they should obviously be judged on different criteria anyway. But equally you can't assume that all state pupils are disadvantaged compared to private pupils - there are plenty whose parents have bought properties in catchment/topped up with tutoring etc - and tbh all that will happen is that more people who could have gone private will do this if their kids are bright enough to aim for Oxbridge. Admissions needs to be on merit alone - some adjustment for private vs state maybe but not the blanket assumption that a pupil with an A" from state is better than one from private.

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.

Absolutely bloody clueless.

That’s generally how people see it? What else can it be? Disability or English speaking skills?

I think we should stop allowing oxbridge grads to get the top jobs when a degree is entirely unnecessary. I have worked in several companies where oxbridge grads have got the top jobs for no reason other than their degree, I hope for more aptitude tests to show actual ability and more social mobility, especially for those not granted the opportunity to go to university at all.

I’m not saying 35% should be reserved for private school kids, I’m saying 65% should be reserved for state school kids.
In the sense that we should be given a leg up to people.

This is the most mind-blowingly ignorant thing I think I've ever read on here.

OP, of all the students who get Astar Astar A or better at A level, around 75% of them are from the state sector (2019 figures).

Once more for the hard of thinking: ~75% of our brightest young people study at state schools. That's not making any allowances for it being harder to achieve top grades in the state sector.

So why on earth do you think that reserving 65% of places for them, which would mean excluding some of the very brightest in favour of stupider private school students, is in any way giving them a leg up?

I’m saying that you shouldn’t be surprised when they are because over time quite a high percentage of intelligent people will send their intelligent kids to private school

It must sting to pay thousands and thousands on your little darling's education for them to not have any guaranteed advantage when it comes to university admission.

Well yes, especially when I’m rushing. I’m glad my job doesn’t require it as I’d be screwed. Can always get someone to review it and also there’s Grammarly and take more time.

Funny enough, I was worse until uni. Used to write very long winded sentences. I got lucky because I couldn’t concentrate in my lectures so I had to get tested. Got diagnosed with an SPLD (ADHD, Dyslexia).

Basically got told that my writing is poorer than expected given my underlying processing ability. Anything that’s just numbers or requires creativity I’m good. If it’s written work, I’m not the best :)

No, they really won't. Not a high proportion.

There are plenty of careers undertaken by very intelligent people that don't pay enough to fund a couple of kids at private school.

Some intelligent people actively decide not to send their intelligent children to private school. They use their intelligence aka critical thinking skills and decide that private school is not the be all and end all.

No-one is asking for a guaranteed advantage. I want a level playing field where a child of the same ability will be admitted regardless of where they went to school. How you measure that is a different question but assuming a child with an A" from state is automatically better than one from private is not the way.

Also, there are plenty of not very bright wealthy people sending their not very bright children to private school.

I mean, the royal family are all private-schooled, but they're not exactly academic overachievers, are they? And there are plenty more wealthy families like that.

Equating ability to pay with intelligence is quite a stupid thing to do.

Brilliant, you’ve absolutely smashed it

Yup

No-one is asking for a guaranteed advantage

It would appear the OP is.
35 % intake from private is a guaranteed advantage.

Exactly.