Oxford NOT JUST for the rich

[sieglinde]

I was fascinated by this. Oxford is in fact only 12th in this list of unis for the rich, measured by the number of students with student loans.

Unis which are often seen as Sturdier and More Sensible - Nottingham, Glasgow, Manchester - actually have a higher proportion of rich students.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8882007/Universities-with-the-richest-students-or-parents.html?image=11

Define 'rich.'

The piece defines it as not needing a student loan.

Quite a few Scottish universities (no fees for home students) and London colleges (with large contingents of overseas undergraduates) up there though.

Any idea where these statistics came from? Does it include overseas students? I don't know of any of my DCs friends who didn't apply for a student loan ... and the DCs went to independent day schools.

Yes, I agree. My sense is that this is a bit of a broad-brush measure, too. But is IS nonetheless a sign that Oxford is NOT just for people like dear Dave.

Isn't the point though that Oxford is perceived as for the "privileged" rather than the rich.What proportion at Oxford were the first in their family to go to University or the first from their school,there is still a perception that there is some magic formula to getting in which you have to know and which is largely handed on through experience.

Afraid I don't know the answers, outtoluncch; they'd be worth knowing, though.

If anyone know some magic formula for getting in, do tell me. I've been stupidly admitting people for 13 years on academic merit alone.

And FWIW, my own mother didn't finish secondary school, though my father has an engineering degree, which he funded by working at night as a taxi driver. If you think I'm likely to side with the rich OR privileged, think again.

"there is some magic formula to getting in"

I'm never sure whether it's the ones whose know their kids are borderline despite having tried in every way to secure an advantage [and hope the smoke and mirrors narrow the competition], or the inexplicable fear of the unknown, that is behind this.

If you don't try, you won't get, you can't complain, you can only regret. Everyone who applies for 5 universities will not go to 4 they listed. Does it matter who turned who down?

OP how about some fee sport, to wind up Cambridge if no one else... say a lottery, non-means tested, for 100 half-price places? That may spice things up.

defined as not needing a maintenance loan in the small print. I'd like to know how many of the students live at home/are overseas students/ are mature students before using it as an argument to say Oxford isn't for the rich.

If you cared to compare the figures for how many of the students were entitled to EMA I suspect you'd see a very different picture. Now EMA has been abolished perhaps the universities would care to publish the % of their students who receive full grants from them? This is an old article but shows Kings takes far more students on free school meals www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/22/percentage-poor-pupils-oxbridge-one-percent The comparison between Oxford and Harvard is interesting.

There are many reasons why it's easier to get into Oxbridge if you are from a privileged family. If you ignore schooling, that's been discussed at length, you're also possibly more likely to have a job. There are smaller things like your parents buying you books to read, providing unlimited internet access, having taken you into that sort of environment so you feel less uncomfortable at interview.

Do you ever look at what happens to those not admitted, sieglinde? You admit those you believe show academic merit but how is that to be judged? There is an interesting table showing that Oxford turned down quite a lot of students who go on to get the highest grades while accepting as many with lower grades.

Hmm. My understanding was that rich students will get student loans to invest due to the low interest rates compared to the potential returns their financial adviser can get them. Certainly that happened when I was that age.

I used perceived deliberately because i am not convinced there is a magic formula but certainly there are people who perceive it to be so.

I agree with Ellis ,privilege is about so much more than money.I can think of two cases that I know of that illustrate this;one a girl very much at the lower end of the financial scale but with parents who both went to Oxford ;education has been valued from day one ,bursary to independent school ,music lessons ,lots of books and "intellectual conversation" and Radio 4 from day one .Lots of friends at Oxbridge.

Girl 2 very wealthy only child of self made parents ,eager to do their best for their daughter but knowledge of the "system' patchy ,take the view that as long as you work hard and are yourself you'll win through .Never been to Oxford,very overawed.

Girls have same predicted grades in fact girl 2 may have in the end got the better results but ,and here's the rub girl 1 got offer girl 2 didn't .She is very happy at another RG university but difficult not to think knowledge of the system helped

ellisbell if I understand sieglinde correctly (from all her posts), she's saying not that she 'believes' independently of external evidence that the students she admits are academically meritorious. But that she looks at all the available evidence, as adjusted for social and educational disadvantage/ advantage etc., including evidence of intellectual spark at interview, and offers accordingly.

Of course there are always going to be disappointed applicants and parents, but those who wave at grades achieved in public exams alone may be missing the point of the fairly rigorous process. There will always be hard cases - but don't you agree that on the whole the best seem to get in and the borderliners or no hopers don't? And if you disagree, what is your evidence for that?

My daughter seems to be a pauper compared to the rest (of her friends). She couldn't keep up with their spending last term,which is just as well as they are all humanities and she is a science.
What made Oxford give her an offer? Good GCSE grades. What else? job ?interests-probably not.
A spark and the feeling that she would 'fit in' ?

Nottingham has campuses in malaysia and china, which unlike most other universities operating in SE asia, are their own dedicated campuses. Are these included in the figures? (some students also start off their course in SE asia and do part/majority in england).

"There is an interesting table showing that Oxford turned down quite a lot of students who go on to get the highest grades while accepting as many with lower grades."

It is interesting, but because it isn't broken down by subject it doesn't really prove anything. For instance if all the A A A* candidates applied to the most competitive courses (medicine, law etc), then they'd be competing against each other and so some would have to be rejected, whereas the lower graded candidates who were accepted may have applied to less oversubscribed/popular courses (Geography, chemistry etc) where there were not enough higher grade applicants to fill the spaces.

That's before you look at people who may get outstanding scores in their admission tests/interviews but underperform at A level due to illness, or just because the pressure is off and they know they only need AAA.

Hmmm... bollocks.

It's nothing to do with student loans. It's the admissions criteria that demands the highest possible standard which is largely only attainable with private schooling.

I was the first to university in my immediate family, and went to Oxford from a state school.

The school actually suggested I went for it (would never have occurred to me) and my parents supported that (my initial reaction was to laugh tbh).

My friend went to a different state school and asked to apply (her results were v. good) but was told by her teacher that 'people like us don't go there'. Which she was happy to ignore. Unfortunately he also refused to fill in the application bit for the colleges, which meant she couldn't apply. This was 20 odd year ago but we lived in a city that had a tradition of encouraging state school applicants.

I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the biggest problems is still lack of applications from the state sector.

And tbh because oxford and cambridge have some rich colleges (not all) it would be a good choice for a poorer student as there is more opportunity to apply for bursaries etc.

Our (state) school had a relatively high percentage of Oxford/Cambridge applications. I don't think any from my year went to Oxford or Cambridge, but there were certainly a few that had places - they just went to Manchester/Edinburgh/Nottingham

no I don't believe that the academically most able always get in, yellowtip. You want to believe it as you are an Oxford student (unless the name change means you've changed too). Admission to Oxford is about more than academic ability. Admission tutors are clear that it is also about their teaching style but less open about how that favours the privileged. Sieglinde would probably admit there there are some clear admission decisions, some clear rejection decisions and a grey area in the middle. I certainly know of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who didn't get in but who are academically at least as able as members of my family who were offered a place. I have no proof that those admitted come disproportionately from privileged families, other than the well know higher admission rates from public schools. It might be possible to obtain the information but I'm not prepared to pay for the analysis.

Glaurung I agree with your comments about the subject breakdown, the numbers who were sick would be relatively small and underperforming because the pressure was off seems unlikely in a highly competitive group. The table disappeared for a while, I doubt Oxford would publish a subject breakdown.

I agree with jimjams, I think a lot of the problem is children from some schools - often state schools - either not being encouraged to apply, or, as was the case in my state comp, being encouraged but not doing so as they thought it wouldn't be their sort of place.

I did apply and get in, but I had 2 Oxbridge educated parents and various other family members who'd applied- in my family it was unusual not to apply, so I obviously wasn't a typical comp applicant. But other children from my school didn't apply who could have.

Also I think there is a problem with fitting in for some applicants from less privileged backgrounds. At our Oxford interviews, we had a mulled wine reception, whereas at other universities the applicants would have been taken to the pub for a beer. Oxbridge colleges do have a very different social scene to most other universities. Balls, Unions, lots of ski trips, many students who do have quite expensive expectations of how to socialise. I don't think that's changed very much since I was there. There are all sorts of social opportunities, and colleges vary in their habits, but it is distinctly different from other universities and I can quite see why not all 17 year olds are attracted to that. Some are intimidated, others just not wanting to buy into the atmosphere of privilege. I enjoyed my time at Oxford but it was totally different from my later experience at other universities, and not always better.

ellis the phrase I used was 'on the whole'. That is not the same as 'always'.

I have no axe to grind, actually. Even were I an axe-grinder.

Are you comparing older members of your own family who got offers to the disadvantaged students who are currently young? That may be a flawed comparison.

I thought the tutors were very clear indeed about the advantage public school pupils have: hence initiatives such as the red room.