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

The Cambridge research hasn't looked at the LNAT for some reason, only the BMAT and TSA. It says the BMAT is useful but the TSA less so because of inconsistent results. What it hasn't done, since it's irrelevant to Cambridge which doesn't use them, is to look at the myriad other tests used by Oxford: the CAT, ELAT, HAT, MAT, PAT etc. A historian applying to Cambridge would only have to submit two school essays with his or her application. An Oxford applicant would submit one essay but also sit the HAT in November after the UCAS application has gone in. These tests form an important, often critical, part of the process. LondonMother's DS may have felt his AS results were not stellar enough for Cambridge but he was bold enough to risk the HAT and clearly did well enough to get an invite to interview and then a place.

Some figures are now around on HAT and ELAT. I hear that latest reports suggest that HAT and ELAT are MORE RELIABLE than school written work as predictors for Mods. They are supposed to help with access, but that is very debatable.

Oxford is an amazing place to study as it has astonishing libraries, all on hand within yards of the accommodation, and all free to use for the student, excellent tuition, and really good academic training, because the students are required to do a lot more essays than elsewhere, and the essays get marked really quickly, and the tutor groups are very small, so there is no where for a slacker to hide, and in short it is academic heaven, and I really do think that very bright children need that opportunity as they will not get it elsewhere (except of course unless they are doing medicine in London which is quite different).

However, and this is a big however, there is a class divide in Oxford and anyone who says there isn't is either not in touch or telling porkies. It is because the social scene on one level costs serious money. In short, the Oxford Union membership and balls, the law society ball, the formal hall with guest, the college May balls, and the rowing kit, are all very seriously expensive. ( Balls nearly £100 or more just for the ticket: clothing and hairdo separate: formal hall £15 or more just for the ticket without a guest: smart dress separate: The Magdalene College commemoration ball is £150 for one person: DD was offered a ticket but said no)
Even if one pretends that these things are pretentious and unnecessary (whilst actually wishing they were affordable), to go to the student concerts, plays and shows often costs a fiver a time and there are humungus masses of these events.
Thus very early on, by the second fortnight, the freshers are socially divided into the haves and have nots. DD is most fortunate to attend a left wing college where these things matter less, but even at her college this has happened. The haves go to formals, and balls, etc and the have-nots don't. It is as simple as that. One has to allow an extra £700 a term or so for all that if one thinks that DC should engage in such activities.
It is perfectly possible not to go to any balls or formals and have a good time but such a choice seems to be confined to those of lower income group parents. When are the Oxford colleges going to wise up and ban the £100 black tie event? Why cant Oxford students exist in jeans and a t shirt like everyone else?

I do think this is important because at other universities the social class divide tends not to be so apparent simply because the available social scene is identical whatever the parental or student income. Certainly there was nothing like this in London either in the past or the present.

What makes me cringe particularly are the professional photographs of the ball goers: available at a price. Its not just that it becomes apparent how many beautiful and phenomenally well dressed and well groomed young ladies there are in the world but in a way it seems a bit like a cattle market and I'm really not sure that I think attending a ball in a long silk gown is an essential part of an undergraduate university education.

And I did pay my DD extra of course as I didn't want her to be a 'have not' but I feel uncomfortable.

Without being too autistic, I never went to commem and never wanted to much.

Most less affluent colleges have what are still called smaller balls - not cheap, but not insane either. Nor do most of my students go to huge quantities of formals and balls. A few, but not hugely.

I didn't go to that many balls in Oxford. Crashed one (that's the best way to do it!), went to a posh expensive one in my final year, went to the one my college ran. Black tie events were fairly common (usually a chance to drink a lot of cocktails) but I had a LBD from Top Shop which was fine and I wore it with thick black tights and clumpy shoes usually. My friends were a mix of privately and state educated. My best friends included an old Etonian and a a few from comprehensives.

I'm not sure the social divide is so apparent from the inside. In fact it's only really no 20 years later that I realise just how wealthy some of my peers were. I really wasn't that aware of it at the time.

Well I dont want to give the wrong impression. Actually DD has friends from all walks of life (in Oxford terms: No one from a poor background at all actually goes to Oxford) and they make friends when doing free zany freshers treasure hunts etc or the college plays or the college bops or whatever.

But the formals and balls are a part of Oxford. To miss out on them is to miss out on a part of Oxford life. I think they should be subsidised. Or confined to third years and postgrads or something.

I knew a number of poor people at Oxford. Maybe it's changed, but I would have hoped it had moved in the opposite direction in 20 years with greater access. Certainly as I said upthread I think it's a good place financially for a poorer student to study as there is a much more access to college accommodation and hardship funds compared to the other universities I have been involved with or attended.

I didn't find that people were going to loads of balls tbh. May morning yes (free), punting yes, bops yes. But not balls. IME people went to their college ball - which wasn't held every year and maybe a ball in their final year when you went as a group. A ball without a big group isn't much fun! I went to loads of black tie's but I don't remember paying much for them, they were usually a club event. I think I saw the black tie events as a good way to get cheap alcohol I didn't particularly want to go to the final ball, just did because everyone else was.

I don't know I've been at other universities as well and although the general events on offer were a bit different (more black tie at Oxford, but as I said I wore cheap high street stuff to those) I don't recall spending more at Oxford. Many universities seem to have some sort of annual ball which is a silly price (some of the other universities I've been to certainly do) but I'm not sure there's ever a huge pressure to go.

Sorry to disagree funny but I do strongly disagree. My three are all going to the Commem ball at Magdalen this year but are doing it within their student loans and haven't asked me for a penny. I find their social groups at their respective colleges very mixed, which is interesting given that the three colleges are very different from each other in character. I could certainly identify students who are from less well off backgrounds at each, no question at all. Middle income too as well as stratospherically rich. That;s how it should be. I just don't get that the leveller is parental income, these kids are too bright.

3 to a commem ball= £450 spent on one day.

Why all this discussion about balls? They were completely irrelevant to my time at Oxford. I did pay for one big one during my time there (univ iirc), but mainly because i thought you ought to and post finals a group of us decided to go. I don't think anyone was particularly hankering after going to a ball each year.

I have to agree with yellowtip - as a student at the poorer end of the spectrum I didn't feel I missed out at all. And my close friends varied wildly in background.

Well I don't see balls and formals as irrelevant at Oxford: they are very popular, occur more than once every 3 years for the majority of students, and I think it is better if a parent budgets for them. For example formal hall might be at least once a term, and a college student might want to take a guest. The Oxford Union sub costs money. I do think that instead of saying that students don't go or don't want to go to such things it would be nicer if they were less expensive.

Yellowtip you top up your children's student loans very generously, as I recall.

Oh what would I know? I only went there with a regular grant topped by working in sainbury's during holidays . Your post reminds me I need to cancel the fiver a year I still seem to be paying to the union.

"Although oxbridge may have improved a little under pressure there still seems to be little understanding of how much harder a student from a disadvantaged background has to work to get to the interview stage or why they may not present as well when they get there. "

Problem is with that as someone I know who is in charge of admissions at her Oxford college tells me, is that private school students routinely turn up both academically able and have been schooled and polished so well.

She says that she has to turn down the bright comprehensive school applicant who simply has not learned enough or been schooled well enough to hit the ground running on day one in the lecture theatre. There is only so much 'hand holding' of poorly schooled state school students she can do. Of course she does look past the schooling and where she sees promise and thinks that an applicant can catch up with hard work she takes a risk. Sometimes they don't catch up though and as admisisons tutor she knows that is a wasted place she could have given to a polished but slightly less bright private school student who gets a good 2:1 degree.

Oxford does try hard to take a more diverse range of students but frankly, it is not there to take poorly schooled students. Of course there are well schooled state school students and poorly schooled private school students too.

I wish funny: no, I'm ashamed to say that each survives entirely on their loan with no supplement at all, I simply provide home for the holidays. Each has also worked since Y9.

I had an idea that this year the cost of the ball was £170. Even so, amortised over three academic years of nine months each that's about .20p each a day. I just hope it's sunny.

This thread is fascinating. Dd1 bought home a letter yesterday about attending a talk from an admissions tutor from an Oxford college. I appear to be missing the tiger mother gene as I can only say my heart sank. No danger of dd being 'pushed' in to applying. If she wants to go for it, we'll go for it.

Lots of Scottish students live at home to go to uni so don't really need maintenance loans unless their parents charge them digs which I've never heard if actually happening.

Northernlurker, why did your heart sink? Fear of disappointment?

Morebeta, I'm not sure your friend is typical.

Personally I don't always warm to the 'schooled' from the indy sector. It can seem like just so much rubbish to cart away. (Sorry, teachers)

That said, what she MIGHT mean is going beyond the A-Level syllabus, and it's true that indy schools do this much more often - so in History they have historiography discussions, say, or in Classics they read well outside the set texts, or in English they read works not originally in English. But ANYONE CAN DO THIS. The top student in my current 2nd year is from a tiny rural comp, and he's done shedloads of extra stuff, all of which was apparent at interview, and none of which was prompted by the school. Some comp teachers have sometimes told me these expectations are unrealistic - maybe so, but they are widespread, so I hope this post will help spread the word. Just go to the library a lot. Just use Gutenberg a lot. Just buy a couple of textbooks beyond A-Level.

Moreover, I'd really rather NOT have a year fiixated on black ties and balls :)

Well, this thread is making me even more thankful than I already was that I went to Cambridge rather than Oxford. And it is confirming my view that despite her schools preference for Oxford, if she wants to try for one or the other DD1 should definitely go for Cambridge too. I never went to a formal hall in 4 years at Cambridge. Being a vegan who doesn't eat much anyway it never seemed like a sensible thing to do. I did go to one ball, when my college had its first ever May Ball, and a few 'events'. For each of these I wore outfits that were sourced from Camden Market (in the good old days before it became a tourist place - back when it was goth central). I doubt any of my ensembles cost more than £20 altogether. And I was never a member of the Union and nor did I want to be.

sieglinde - I think she partly means what you are saying when she uses the word 'polished'.

It is the ability to sit and talk about the subject in a broad sense, to be well read, to be able to debate, think critically. That is what good private schools do well when preparing their pupils for Oxbridge.

My friend knows not to be fooled by 'private school polish' of course but in some cases, she sees a bright child from a state school who has just barely covered the course material. It is partly to do with lack of rigour in A levels now. Oxbridge needs students on day one who have covered more than the basic A level courses. No matter how bright they are she says some state school children just havent done enough learning of the subject to keep up with the pace in Yr 1.

She equally knows some private school children have a lot of style but digging deeper she knows they really have been spoon fed and crammed with knowledge but have no original ideas of their own so she rejects those candidates too.

I think people who don't know the Oxbridge system feel there is some sort of secret bias in the system when they see pupils with A grades not getting in but in reality the people who do get in are not ordinary A candidates.

Its one of those - 'you know it when you see it' things.

sieglinde - when DCs are sitting through poor lessons all day and have to cover the curriculum properly in their own time in the evenings, there is not always much room for doing what "anyone can do" and reading around the subject.

this thread is making me even more thankful than I already was that I went to Cambridge rather than Oxford

I was just wondering whether there is a difference between the institutions because it was never an issue for me at Cambridge, on a full grant, but then thought that this was 25 years ago so perhaps irrelevant...but this makes me wonder if anyone who knows both universities thinks there is a difference, socially and economically?

I went to a few events which cost quite a lot - enough not to feel deprived - and to Formal Halls which were very inexpensive, and clothing was never a headache - we often borrowed each other's things.

The Cambridge research hasn't looked at the LNAT for some reason, only the BMAT and TSA

I believe this is because the University's research demonstrated that the LNAT is not a good predictor of success in the Cambridge Law Tripos so it uses the Cambridge Law Test instead. I believe I have read there was actually a negative correlation between success in LNAT and the Tripos.

I thought even rich people applied for loands and put them in an ISA or even an offshore bank account. Though don't know anybody who does the latter!

Bonsoir, I/we know all that, and agree with the sentiment. However, it may also be the case in e.g. sciences that the leap from the bare basics to the Oxbridge syllabus won't actually be possible for a student from such circs. I'm not in hard science, so am just repeating my colleagues' remarks. We can't singlehandedly iron out all the unevennesss in the secondary system. That said, if I spot unfulfilled potential and raw ambition and energy in someone unpolished, those are the kids I want to take MOST OF ALL.

IMHO, you can absolutely not go to formal hall ever at my college, and lots of people don't. You can absolutely never go to a Black Tie or a BALL. We of course tend to think in prejudice mode that some Cambridge colleges are MUCH snootier than any in Oxford - hi, Peterhouse, where the History fellow is unsalaried because he has shedloads of family money and actively recruits the aristocracy... But this may be all wrong, all bad bad gossip. Still eveyrone might agree that colleges have slightly different cultures?

Metabilis is there a subtle distiction between, say, the Peterhouse May Ball and the Magdalen one which I'm missing? :)

And on a parochial note, there isn't a preference. It may be that more go to Oxford than Cambridge for geographical reasons as much as anything else. And Oxford provides overnight accomodation free for students and teachers coming from a distance away; Cambridge doesn't. Hence the road trip to one and not the other. Mind you, historically I believe there's the same imbalance at Harrow. Not sure what accounts for the statistics there :)