Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Higher education

Talk to other parents whose children are preparing for university on our Higher Education forum.

Looking for the helpful Cambridge admissions tutor who posted a while age..

357 replies

seeker · 20/05/2013 22:16

......if you're around, could I ask a couple of questions, please?

OP posts:
funnyperson · 11/06/2013 08:24

Though in fact of course the evidence is always ignored so I shouldn't worry really.

LittleFrieda · 11/06/2013 10:37

A friend of my son's was devastated 3 years ago when he missed his firm and conditional offers and ended up at a relatively undesirable uni, via clearing. He was with us last Sunday for lunch and conditional upon attaining a first (which is pretty much certain), he has a place to study postgraduate economics at Cambridge. He said the pain of having under performed at A level was a real driving force in making him work hard over the past three years.

We gain beneficial experience by feeling the consequences of not having worked hard enough/placing our attention elsewhere etc. HAving a helicopter mum who seeks to steal a march against the competition and mitigate against the adverse consequences of each and every hiccough and bad decision is dispiriting and massively unhelpful.

PenelopePipPop · 11/06/2013 13:55

Funnyperson - the link you posted does not mention Oxbridge and the evidence for the claim you are making relates only to admission to Harvard and Yale. In fact the article explicitly states that:
'An admissions system based on non-academic factors often amounting to institutionalized venality would seem strange or even unthinkable among the top universities of most other advanced nations in Europe or Asia.' So the author is drawing a clear distinction between Ivy League admissions and admissions in other universities and other countries.

The claim he is making - that admissions practices were deliberately distorted originally to exclude high-achieving Jewish students - is a fascinating one which I had not encountered before. And he makes the allegation that the same practices are arising today in relation to Asian Americans. That requires a bit more unpicking. Because this relies on first accepting the premise that a very large number of places are being allocated to non-Asian American students (presumably white American students) purely on the basis of privilege and not academic merit and whilst he cites a wealth of data to support the claim that elite universities are not recruiting students whose ability profile matches that of the ability profile of America's ethnic minorities (i.e. whites are over-represented compared to how they do on a range of other indicators of ability) his evidence for systemic bias within admissions is mainly anecdotal and his causal explanation, that the universities don't want Asian students, is a little obscure (why not - he himself admits there is no financial case for discriminating against Asian students, the underlying causes must be multifactorial). Nevertheless it is a very interesting article.

But it is prima facie implausible to suggest that it simply transfers across to the UK.

There is a significant problem with ensuring parity of access for all minority ethnic groups but in this country students from non-White British backgrounds are over-represented in higher education and this trend has been going upwards for many years and looks set to continue to rise. See here.

The trend is not so pronounced but still evident when you look at Oxbridge. See here and here. You''ll note the representation of figures in these sources is obviously for PR purposes. There is a significant problem of measurement and comparison here when we try to define what is a student (f/t v p/t) and who belongs to an ethnic minority and if there is no data available whether we just assume the student is White British. And as I say we know that uptake of different courses is very patchy and maybe there are specific access issues which specific disciplines need to address.

Nevertheless the data available does not support a claim that universities generally or Oxbridge specifically are systematically trying to engineer Asian students out of places at their institutions.

I am involved in university admissions and seriously we just do not think about it that deeply. We are over-subscribed and we want to ensure that out of the 1500 applications we get for 200 places we get the smartest 200. That is all. That may mean that certain students are placed at a practical disadvantage in accessing the uni. I think that is a deep hard problem which a single university department probably doesn't hold the keys to and the article you linked to is right to highlight that university education has become a critical if not determinative route to securing privilege in our society. So if our admissions procedures routinely exclude specific social groups from access then universities will play an increasingly anti-progressive role in society. We should be self-critical and sensitive to the criticisms people make of us.

But the idea that we read applications from students from Black British backgrounds and think 'She's a high achiever, very suspicious, unless I can see a Gold DoE on the PS that's a no' - I think I can state categorically that probably isn't happening and it certainly isn't happening in my dept.

Yellowtip · 11/06/2013 14:01

Penelope why are you surprised about the claims in relation to the exclusion of Jewish applicants?

Bonsoir · 11/06/2013 14:10

funnyperson - that was an interesting article about the US. The US college application process is wildly different to the British one - in particular, the focus on grades and academic aptitude/motivation for a particular subject to the exclusion of almost everything else is massively important in the UK.

PenelopePipPop · 11/06/2013 14:11

I'm not surprised by anti-semitism obviously. I hadn't encountered the theory that the introduction of the idea of the well-rounded candidate was invented by Harvard and Yale so they could keep out Jewish students who otherwise massively outperformed WASPs on standardised admissions tests. I haven't read the book he cites so don't feel well-informed enough to evaluate the claim but it is an interesting idea.

Yellowtip · 11/06/2013 14:15

It's certainly interesting and exactly mirrors what was going on in the ancient universities of Europe at the same time.

PenelopePipPop · 11/06/2013 14:30

Really? The time period is 1925-1945 which is when Germany passed the Nuremberg laws. Which was certainly one way to keep Jewish people out of university, but strikes me as vastly less subtle than changing your criteria for what you look for in a student so you can covertly discriminate against them.

I think it is safe to say Jewish people in Europe faced far worse problems than merely unfair university admissions practices at that time.

Balls I've just mentioned the Nazis and lost the argument.

Bonsoir · 11/06/2013 14:50

Lots of Jewish refugee academics ended up in English universities.

Anyway, thanks to that article we now know that Jews are massively over-represented in US élite universities. That is also, by the way, the case in France where Jews are massively over-represented in Grandes Ecoles. I have forwarded the article to my (Jewish) DP who has done admissions interviews at his alma mater Grande Ecole for over 20 years...

Yellowtip · 11/06/2013 14:54

I haven't read the book either but doesn't the article say the changes were introduced in the 1926/7 or thereabouts?

Yellowtip · 11/06/2013 15:17

I've now nipped back to the article and it says that the new admissions format kicked in in 1926, so almost a decade before the Nuremberg Laws. My father's great uncle was rector of one of the old European universities at exactly that time. He had no truck with attempts to keep Jewish students out, but I know he had quite a fight on his hands.

PenelopePipPop · 11/06/2013 15:17

I got the impression the changes were progressive Yellowtip but fair point.

I was only making the point that in much of Europe things were bad and getting worse - and that in some European countries the discriminatory practices were the opposite of sophisticated. So hardly equivalent...

And in the UK I imagine admission practices were completely non-transparent so we had the reverse issue. I've no idea what raw numbers of admissions for Jewish students were at that time, but the reality was that until relatively recently privilege very obviously did buy you a place at the best universities (and perhaps it still does but you have to be way sneakier about it if so). The under and over-representation of ethnic groups in HE has only become a cause for concern in the last 3 decades or so. So although we can proudly saw we did not exclude Jewish students from Oxbridge at that time, just as anyone can enter the Ritz hotel, it might not have signified much in practice.

Bonsoir · 11/06/2013 15:20

Being Jewish did not preclude being privileged in England in the 20th century.

Yellowtip · 11/06/2013 15:20

Bonsoir it wouldn't surprise me at all if students with Jewish backgrounds, or partly Jewish backgrounds, weren't also 'over-represented' at Oxford and Cambridge. Please note the inverted commas. Heavily represented may be a better term.

Bonsoir · 11/06/2013 15:24

Given that we are talking about overrepresentations in the 300 and 400 percents and more I am not sure "heavily" expresses the reality.

Yellowtip · 11/06/2013 15:29

I think with reference to Oxford and Cambridge, 'heavy' representation will do. Also, there's only over representation if the representation fails to correlate with academic merit.

UptheChimney · 11/06/2013 15:30

I posted the link to give the detail on the stereotype which had never been encountered by upthechimney

Well, I read the article: it seems to come from a very particular point of view, and discusses a very particular admissions system: the US Ivies. And it invokes systems which were put in place as blatantly anti-semitic -- and I would add, although the wrter doesn't mention this, anti-women.

It's quite well known that the main way of admitting on academic qualifications, in the US SATS were doctored because "too many" women were obtaining places over men in the 1920s to 1960s.

The same thing happened here in the UK with the 11+. "Too many" girls were achieving places over boys, and so they made the cut off for girls higher than that for boys.

That's why I implode when I read stuff about "Schooling failing our boys" nowadays. We are almost getting to a level playing field gender-wise, but not quite there yet, and still male privilege is protected ... but that's another thread.

But funnyperson I really can't see how the article you link to is relevant for the UK debate over universities admissions (but as I've just come from being the professor on display at a big admissions event, my brain is now a bit addled).

UptheChimney · 11/06/2013 15:33

That may mean that certain students are placed at a practical disadvantage in accessing the uni. I think that is a deep hard problem which a single university department probably doesn't hold the keys to

Nor a single university, nor indeed the entire HE system. Educational disadvantage via socio-economic disadvantage starts early, that's why SureStart was such a brilliant programme.

And the reverse: economic means to purchase educational advantage starts early.

Yellowtip · 11/06/2013 15:34

And now boys are now doing better at the multiple choice 11+ tests UptheChimney but will you mind if the tests are calibrated back? :)

PenelopePipPop · 11/06/2013 15:56

"Being Jewish did not preclude being privileged in England in the 20th century"

Of course it didn't, but if the system was set up to (misguidedly rather than overtly) favour financial privilege not just attainment then Oxford and Cambridge did not need to come up with some kind of systematic strategy to exclude Jewish students with high levels of attainment. If your admissions process is non-transparent and you don't want Jewish students you just don't admit them and don't say why. I'm not suggesting this happened obviously (my gut feeling is it probably didn't but I have absolutely no empirical data to support that claim, just a general sense that academics then and now were more ornery than that) - only the observable trend in the US won't map to the UK for the same period. Which I think we certainly agree on.

In the US it is suggested they had to admit Jewish students with high attainments so had to move the goalposts to keep them out. There was no equivalent problem at least at Cambridge where the very idea of introducing an entrance exam had been pretty controversial in the early 1920s although it was eventually agreed upon in 1924 to reduce the number of students graduating with a 'Pass' degree. In other words at that point the idea that students be a) selected and b) selected on merit were still pretty new to university education. We were not using tests to keep people out. The main thing which determined getting in was being able to afford it.

PenelopePipPop · 11/06/2013 16:02

"Nor a single university, nor indeed the entire HE system. Educational disadvantage via socio-economic disadvantage starts early,"

Yes I agree. But since I work in law not early years the only bit I can practically do anything about is thinking sincerely and conscientiously about how we contribute at our end of the chain.

UptheChimney · 11/06/2013 16:07

Yes, PenelopePipPop I hope all of us in HE also try to think about our decisions -- I know my department & colleagues do so all the time. But we are also under a lot of pressure to take the best & brightest, even though we know that the best & brightest are often that way in part because they may also be from affluent & stable backgrounds.

PenelopePipPop · 11/06/2013 16:28

Yup, though WP has made a big difference for us. Not enough - no level playing field - but especially since the introduction of the A offer it is the only way we can make it possible for students in some schools which are unlikely to ever predict A to get an offer.

I think where we can make a difference is in emphasising that the processes may seem complex and intransparent (because frankly they are) but there is less discretion and therefore less scope for arbitrariness in the system than students typically realise and therefore students from all backgrounds have everything to gain by applying. Which is why, like you, I was a bit amazed at the suggestion that we might be systematically discriminating against students of colour on the basis of a belief that they have only gained their grades because their parents pushed them. Aside from the fact it probably ain't true even if I did believe that I'd still think 'Come away in'.

UptheChimney · 11/06/2013 16:39

Yes, so would I!

My only concern about any pupil being pushed by parents is that it just doesn't work at university.

And if an applicant gets a place by parental pushing, then that student is likely to fall apart sometime during his/her degree. I've seen it happen too many times (well, seeing it happen once is one too many times).

OK, back to REF documentation ...

UptheChimney · 11/06/2013 16:44

One more thing re UK vs US academic admissions system. In the US, it's handled largely by non-academics. Here in the UK, we that is teaching staff are all involved. Even us apparently no-good-at-teaching-because-we-do-research research professors ....

Swipe left for the next trending thread