Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Oxbridge actively targeting private school pupils

483 replies

mumsqna · 31/10/2022 11:06

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.

OP posts:
RichardOsmansXraySpecs · 31/10/2022 14:55

Sorry @mumsqna, you're sounding more and more unhinged the more you post 😆

midgetastic · 31/10/2022 14:57

OP
Read about regression to the norm for starters

Original poster
mumsqna · 31/10/2022 14:58

hoooops · 31/10/2022 14:49

Don’t you think that someone who hasn’t grown up well off (because they’re parents lacked access to education) but then has gone to a good university and has gotten a job as a banker/lawyer/doctor/accountant will then not have a clever child?

How on earth does this back up your theory that smart people are more likely to cone from affluent homes - a story about a smart person coming from a poor home?

They’re much more like in 2022. My argument is that in 2022 after decades of free education which has enabled social mobility

OP posts:
Original poster
mumsqna · 31/10/2022 14:59

Lily7050 · 31/10/2022 14:48

Well, I have read that Oxbridge actively targeting foreign students and reducing number of places for UK students both private and state educated.
This is because foreign students pay higher fees plus the quality of education of foreign students is better that British students even privately educated.

Yeah there’s that too which where some places are being lost

OP posts:
hoooops · 31/10/2022 15:01

Once things are accessible to the poor, they are not wanted by the rich.

Oxbridge has been "accessible to the poor" as you put it, for quite a while. Entry has been more than 50% state for more than 20 years and yet private school parents are still on here moaning about how unfair it is that their children are being discriminated against. So no sign of Oxbridge being undesirable yet as far as I can see.

Meadowbreeze · 31/10/2022 15:03

@mumsqna I don't think education necessarily equals social mobility in this country though. The way the education system is set up here actually discourages it. Lots of unmet SEN needs, lots of selection based off who can afford tutors, housing in the right post code etc, cuts to vocational courses, closure of polytechnics. Not to mention the amount of unis that are accepting far far more students than ever before (see Bristol increase in pupil numbers as one example), not being able to provide sufficient affordable student housing, and actually so many people having degrees is making them a lot less useful than they were even 20 years ago.
I personally think it is MUCH more difficult to climb the social ladder than it was a generation ago, even with all these incentives.

Meadowbreeze · 31/10/2022 15:04

@hoooops that's interesting.

DontMakeMeShushYou · 31/10/2022 15:04

Lily7050 · 31/10/2022 14:48

Well, I have read that Oxbridge actively targeting foreign students and reducing number of places for UK students both private and state educated.
This is because foreign students pay higher fees plus the quality of education of foreign students is better that British students even privately educated.

Well yes!
Because to stay at the top means attracting the world's best, whether that be students, academics, researchers, or even staff. Because the best brains produce the best research, and the best research results in the top rankings, and top ranking universities attract the most funding and the most prestige. Which is why Oxbridge will stay at the top for a long time, old boy network or not, and everyone whose precious little darlings don't get into an Oxbridge uni will fall over themselves to get them a place at a RG uni.

hoooops · 31/10/2022 15:05

They’re much more like in 2022. My argument is that in 2022 after decades of free education which has enabled social mobility

How does the genetics bit work - do you think genes change as you get richer? So that you're more likely to have a clever child?

Presumably you think this person has the smart / wealthy gene if you expect them to have a clever child. But where did they get their smart/wealthy gene from, presumably not their poor parents?

Meadowbreeze · 31/10/2022 15:06

@hoooops I presume they think clever= clever enough to get a good job= richer.
A bit out of touch with reality but I can see the thought process.

Duchessofmuchness · 31/10/2022 15:08

Lily7050 · 31/10/2022 14:48

Well, I have read that Oxbridge actively targeting foreign students and reducing number of places for UK students both private and state educated.
This is because foreign students pay higher fees plus the quality of education of foreign students is better that British students even privately educated.

Going from the Oxford data that is not the case. Uk students admitted in 2017 were 77.9% of admissions. 2022 81.6%. And the absolute number had increased also.

Maybe you have other data source? Or perhaps Cambridge skews it?

hoooops · 31/10/2022 15:08

I see that but don't understand the genetics link when this clever person started life in a poor household.

midgetastic · 31/10/2022 15:09

Rich people afford better education than poor people and have better connections

So rich people get better jobs

So they stay rich

And as long as there is a difference in the quality of education between private and state , the rich will get better grades despite not being any cleverer

You made a real error there OP in thinking free education was good enough to ensure full meritocracy

Rather proving the point that just because you can afford it doesn't mean that you or your children are that bright

CocoC · 31/10/2022 15:10

Confuciusornis · 31/10/2022 14:37

Actually the point is that Oxbridge very much does think a private education is better. That is (part of) the logic behind the approach the OP describes as ‘targeting’ private school pupils. Put simply, if the interviewing panel have two prospective students who have the same grades, same quality of written work samples and so on but one went to Winchester and the other to a low ranked comprehensive, they are more likely to choose the comp kid on the grounds that he or she will have had far less help to reach that level of achievement than the Winchester boy, who will have been crammed, prepped and polished. That’s the theory and it’s sort of true some of the time. The counter argument, which is also true to some extent, is that private schools like Winchester or St Paul’s are highly selective academically, so the talent pool there is always going to be stronger on average than that of a comprehensive (or non selective private school), so it’s to be expected, and is probably fair, if a greater proportion of students from the highly selective school go on to Oxbridge.

What it comes down to, though, in the end, is that some very intelligent and hard working children from both private and state sectors will miss out, whilst some socially confident frauds from Eton and some intellectually weaker but politically appealing kids from state schools will get through. On balance it’s probably fairer than it was, but it’s social tinkering we’re seeing rather than full solutions to the two fundamental problems with the current system which are 1) that state schools just aren’t very good for the most part and the current curriculum doesn’t really educate, it just teaches people how to pass exams, and 2) that this country fetishises two universities out of many, to the detriment of every student who goes elsewhere.

Show quote history

Actually @Confuciusornis , I think the sad reality is that the people who will miss out will be: a) Poor kids on scholarships to private school, b) middle class (not well off) kids whose parents scrimped and saved to send them to private schools, and c) bright kids at top schools who are academically excellent but not within the top 10% of their class (but would be absolutely top of the class at another school).
The 'rich and thick' stopped getting into Oxbridge years ago, times have changed (for the better). And the super wealthy can live without Oxbridge - they can just go to Harvard etc. So it's the bright, middle class but not super rich who will be penalised. And anyone whose parents scrimped to try and do the best for them.

Definitely think the numbers were not fair - but we are going from one extreme too far to the other without looking at the reality of kids who attend private schools in this day and age - and the hard work that comes with that (pressure of academic excellence, often also sporting high performance, playing multiple instruments, etc etc).

CurlsandSwirls · 31/10/2022 15:11

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn on the user's request.

twelly · 31/10/2022 15:14

In my view what has happened is that the top universities have an agenda to widen particpation which has led to reduced offers to those who are the first generation to attend a university, disadvantage post codes etc. Those who are very well off are able to access private schools, private tuition and all the rest of the help available will still be able to gain places - the group that misses out is the "middle" generally those middle classes who attend state schools or the lesser private schools.

Meadowbreeze · 31/10/2022 15:16

@hoooops I'm trying hard to understand it myself. I can only imagine she meant that if someone was smart enough to achieve despite being poor and the issues associated, if they than reproduce it'll likely produce more smart, tough kids? Idk. I don't think it's that deep tbh. I think smart people tend to have kids with smart people. There are plenty of those in poor communities, especially immigrant ones. Lots of them despair at the schools their kids are in but can't do anything about it, as social mobility really isn't that easy in the UK.

Original poster
mumsqna · 31/10/2022 15:19

@Meadowbreeze @hoooops I’m just telling you what I saw in my family.

Today’s well off and privileged was poor. Someone got access to education took it and lifted their family out of poverty. At least that’s what they told me anyways.

His descendants carried on with the same mantra. Get the best education you can get for your kids and the rest will sort itself out.

OP posts:
Meadowbreeze · 31/10/2022 15:24

@mumsqna Well you're right. I think that used to be much easier though. There are loads more kids doing very well at school now. A lot less of: affordable housing, well paid jobs and opportunities to build up equity that will benefit future generations.
A lot of bright kids are feeling scammed after studying very hard and not getting the promised step up the social ladder. This but if your sentence is unfortunately not happening with such ease anymore 'and the rest will sort itself out'.

ChiefWiggumsBoy · 31/10/2022 15:26

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

You really consider the current margins an 'attack'?

antelopevalley · 31/10/2022 15:28

You could not apply to Cambridge through UCAS in the past. Research to show loads of poorer kids did not know that until they got their UCAS form and found they had missed the deadline for Cambridge.

Whenever there is a tiny chipping away at the immense privilege in this country, people squeal loudly.

hoooops · 31/10/2022 15:28

The 'rich and thick' stopped getting into Oxbridge years ago, times have changed

Times have changed a bit but not enough - there are still bright state school students losing out on Oxford places to less bright private school students, if you look at the stats posted earlier (state school students make up ~75% of top grades but only 68% of Oxford places). And that is without considering whether an Astar from a state school is harder to get and therefore worth more than an Astar from a private school.

ZandathePanda · 31/10/2022 15:32

www.suttontrust.com

Here you go OP lots of nice info.

Meadowbreeze · 31/10/2022 15:33

@antelopevalley Isn't it still much earlier than the general deadline? I remember sitting in the common rooms with my friends just before the Christmas holidays of year 13 and we checked it out of interest. They had already done the interviews or something like that.

antelopevalley · 31/10/2022 15:34

@Meadowbreeze It used to be, but I thought it had changed? Maybe I am wrong though?

Swipe left for the next trending thread