Oxbridge 'favours' students from London and South-East

[jeanne16]

Apparently 48% of students come from London and the South-East with Richmond being a particular hotspot. Should we be surprised by this and accuse the universities of bias? The way I see it is Richmond is full of extremely intelligent people who presumably have intelligent children. They then have the money and resources to support them in all sorts of ways, such as buying books, reading to them, private schooling and/or tutors when needed, sport and other activities.

I really don't see how this is the fault of the universities.

So to answer for a second time, this time having actually read what you'd written and not what I thought you'd written - I think it's not so much about individual histories but about class-based ones. Where whole classes of people have benefited as a result of a system that has create inequities for others, there is some argument for redress.

I don't think it's surely that controversial to say that if you have two kids with 3As, and one has gone to a very expensive school and had extensive help and tutoring, and the other is on free school meals at a poorly-performing comprehensive and hasn't benefited from that help, that the achievements of the second - because they have occurred against the whole grain of the system in which that child has been raised - actually demonstrate a greater natural ability and drive.

To what extent does diversity has a value that goes beyond the individual, and to what extent should organisations, including Oxbridge, take account of this.

There is considerable evidence that increasing the diversity of a cohort/team improves performance - and thus all organisations (including universities) should take account of this. Big organisations don't have diversity actions for "moral" reasons - they have them because they know that increasing diversity will improve performance and thus profits.

I think the story about need's DS being rejected from Economics courses despite having predictions of 5 A stars is interesting but a bit misleading. For those specific courses all those who get offers have very high grades predicted - perhaps those not coming from top private schools didn't have 5 A stars but 3 or 4. Moreover, ultimately the system worked - he did get an offer at LSE. And the reality is, going forwards, that the field he is entering is very competitive - it is ultimately his choice to enter such a field, because he could easily side step into less competitive areas which still pay very well and have very good prospects without requiring the flexibility to move abroad.

I would also comment that he has one single huge advantage in the field he is entering (econometrics) - he is a man. Women working in that field are bullied out. This combined with his educational background means that he is immensely privileged.

I don't think it's surely that controversial to say that if you have two kids with 3As, and one has gone to a very expensive school and had extensive help and tutoring, and the other is on free school meals at a poorly-performing comprehensive and hasn't benefited from that help

But the reality is that these judgements are often not that simple or clear cut - and we don't have all the information needed to make a fair judgement.

What about a kid from a poor/dysfunctional family who went to a modest private school on a bursary versus a kid from a top comprehensive living in a wealthy area? You suspect that the latter had tutoring but can't prove it.

What about a BAME kid from a top London school, whose parents are in highly paid professional jobs, versus a white student from a poorly performing northern school?

The point is that many private schools have less highly performing cohorts than top state schools in London and the SE; many wealthy kids in London and the SE go to state schools while much less wealthy kids end up at private schools in other regions, just because the available state schools aren't doing terrifically etc etc.

Off the subject a bit, but this is interesting

"Women working in that field are bullied out."

Observation is that British girls seem to stay away from quantitative subjects, but that this is not true of Asian girls, particularly Chinese, or Europeans (again noticeably Hungarians/Russians and Poles). Is this observation accurate, do the non British girls simply stall at a later point, or is there something happening in our school system that is causing white or black girls to lack confidence.

I also agree that judgements are not clean cut, and that lack of representation of some groups is often something that cannot be fixed by University admissions. Instead of blaming Oxbridge, Lammy might have taken a more constructive approach of identifying a "problem" and considered causes and solutions.

And DS will be fine. One of the really useful things he gained from his education, more from his international peers than from the school itself, were high aspirations and a belief that these can be achieved with determination and hard work (and some talent.) Also the school's basic advice was to aim (realistically) high, but treat it as a two year process. And we know at least a couple of kids (same subject) who did not get one of their top choices first time round, but got Cambridge on reapplication.

And perhaps part of the answer. London kids are growing up in a world city, quite a tough place to earn a living, and so are both ambitious and realistic.

The tutoring issue is the elephant in the room. A large number of our friends with children in the local comprehensive have used tutors, for reasons I entirely understand. I would do the same.

But on their UCAS form there's nowhere to fill in to show this was the case.

They are all students from prosperous middle-class families.

Need, see the recent BBC article:

www.bbc.com/news/business-41571333

Women are bullied out- they are made to feel unwelcome, particularly in the quantitative end of economics. Yes, it's true that British women already drop out from quantitative subjects earlier on - but the field of econometrics pushes out women from all backgrounds.

user - I agree. I think you'd have to calculate some kind of score on the basis of a number of indicators such as free school meals, parental postcode, parental income, some metric for the school; but even then it would be a rough estimate. But better that, perhaps, than nothing (whether this is, in fact, achievable in practice is another question).

I agree with need that the problem is much, much wider than university admissions, but I do think we should see the university admissions process as one tool tool in solving it.

Econometrics is a strange field. For a very odd series of reasons, I happen to have published a couple of papers in it (with co-authors who are far more qualified in it than I am - my work is largely very theoretical and qualitative). Anyway, I subsequently had them mansplained to me a conference by a guy who thought that all the authors of the paper had to be male! My name isn't even gender neutral - it has a male and a female variant, and he'd mistaken the female one for the male because that was his working assumption. Another of my co-authors was a woman (with a foreign first name that this guy couldn't gender either), so the guys aren't having it all their way!

Hmmm.

I agree that some of the websites are appalling. The most surprising is www.econjobrumors.com which seems to be linked to a respectable academic recruitment site but is unbelieveably racist and sexist. Perhaps they could subcontract their moderation to MN.

The girls we know who have gone to Cambridge to read economics may be disadvantaged because of their sex, but have more than enough contacts and confidence to hold their own, if not better, with their peers. This may not be the case for a child from outside London's international banker community, but this is more a background thing than a sex thing. Observation again, but many London based internationals seem less reticent than the British, in terms of pulling strings and finding openings for their children. There are obviously well documented problems with sexism in some sectors in banking, but I have not heard of significant sexism problems within the public sector.

One problem oddly might be the complete American cultural dominance in economics. I have no idea whether there is a problem at post-grad level in America (though the website above suggests there might be) but it is apparently pretty hard to achieve a senior academic post in the UK without spending some time in the States.

The girls we know who have gone to Cambridge to read economics may be disadvantaged because of their sex, but have more than enough contacts and confidence to hold their own, if not better, with their peers.

I think you are talking about undergraduate level/early career level.

It is very, very difficult for anyone to work in a field day in and day out for 20+ years with hostility, sexism, put downs etc. I have had precisely the same experiences as whiskyowl - men mansplaining me about my own papers, put downs, harassment etc. I have stuck it out. Many of my Oxbridge/Harvard female peers have not. It is not getting better - because, as one of the women in the BBC article writes, it is not acknowledged that the problem actually exists.

BTW in many academic fields it is hard to get an academic job in the UK without spending time abroad. Economics is not unique in this. In fact, at the lower end of the RG it is relatively easy to get economics jobs, compared to other subjects.

Is this a problem across most quantitative subjects?

I am assuming that computing and engineering won't be very different.

Why is this? In part is there an issue that subjects with a lot of equations, tend to attract people with less developed social/emotional intelligence. And that the system, including student satisfaction indices which tend to prefer men, is not providing the right support/education.

(And I was probably referring to UGs wanting to head for professional rather than academic careers. If daddy is a senior banker you have a head start regardless of sex, though the same is true to some extent is you pursue the same career as your parents: plumber; footballer whatever.)

There are some very defeatist attitudes on this thread and some sour grapes too. If your dcs want to go to oxbridge, instead of railing against the perceived injustices, tell you dcs to work like galley slaves, read around heir chosen subject, make use of all the resources on the student room and after all that realise that they are up against extremely stiff competition. You know, some of these kids from private schools are actually very clever!

Ds is from a comp and has never had one second of tutoring. And I think all we could afford in Richmond is a manhole...

You are very focussed on early career - understandably, since you are comparing your DS's experience with that of his cohort. I am commenting about further down the line in the career - where parents' influence is irrelevant, school background is irrelevant etc.

In any field that is dominated by one group of people that group will favour their own. It's as simple as that. Take any field which is 90+% men (as econometrics is), and which has a culture of aggressive behaviour and competition - it is inevitable that (some) men will put women down, take credit for their work, harass them.

Econometrics is not worse than STEM fields which are equally dominated by men but it is still at the early stages of admitting there is a problem.

Again - I've been watching this for several decades now. I had a number of female peers who entered top economics jobs (sometimes helped by connections, definitely helped by Oxbridge/Harvard/LSE education). Very few of them have stuck it out in the "quant" end, where sexism and bullying is still rampant.

I read Economics at Cambridge and have worked in Economics for 20 odd years. Only one job have I had to deal with bullying and that was in the City and because I was put on the coverage side rather than Economics team. The bullying wasn't just because I was female though.

Public sector / general industry / other city jobs absolutely fine - current employer couldn't be nice, have school hours, school holidays off, and currently having medical issues so allowed 4 days per week from home. It maybe different in academia but I've always been treated very well bar one employer. Going to the LSE rather than Cambridge will make very little difference to career opportunities, in some way it's easier as jobs are in London.

user - It's depressing to read that in this day and age. It's 2017 for gawd's sake.

Well done for sticking it out. And I truly mean that. It sounds like it's taken a marathon of endurance, and it's sad because it really should have been a joy for you, not a battle.

Nicer not nice

DH also works as an economist in London (public sector), currently with a female boss and a potentially high-flying female subordinate. I have never heard anything that differs from what Lily2007 says.

Is it that the top ranks of academia, where people are aiming to make international names for themselves, are really competitive. Encouraging people to claim credit for themselves when the opportunity arises.

If so and the same people are involved in interviewing students, perhaps there is some truth in the bias' people have been suggesting up thread.

But to add to what others have said, well done for sticking it out, and also a belated thank you for your thoughtful posts over the years.

Loving the dual assumptions that poor = black and black = poor
neither of which have much basis in reality
especially where overseas University students are concerned.

Still waiting to hear the reason why Oxbridge cannot take applications by course first and then by bedroom second

As I understand it, the Oxbridge colleges are much, much more than halls of residence. DD chose her college on the basis of a DOS who had similar interests within the subject as her, Similarly a friend was bumped from studying Biology at a particular Oxford college because another college provided a better fit for his specific 'passion.'

You may have gone there and have a totally different take on it...and I suppose the less tutorial driven and lab based courses ( NatSci/ medicine etc) may be less college dependent.

I've always found public sector amazing at supporting women including flexible working, advancement and zero tolerance to any harassment. Some institutions e.g. EBRD, Bank of England do have a strong preference for PhDs meaning they have a higher number of international people working there due to the relative low numbers doing Masters / PhDs here.

Industry level less good on flexible working but never come across sexism.

The City, well it's very aggressive and the only way to survive is to be aggressive back. It's that or leave or a breakdown or a combination of all three. It's not any worse in Economics than elsewhere and its not particularly directed at women though can be. Public school boys tend to be able to survive this better. In an Economics department you have some protection as the other Economists tend to be nice, out on your own you are in a lions den. It definitely needs to change but not sure it will for some time.

Never came across the preference for America, in fact the opposite, but maybe an academic thing. I didn't find any of my Cambridge professors sexist and many are still there, in fact a couple were trying to persuade me to change my mind and stay on in academia as they said I was like them.

When I went we had lectures centrally but these were just a couple of hours a day for 24 weeks a year and optional. When I saw a professor for the most part it was my professor in my subject in my college but again this was a few hours a week. Anything he didn't know about we went to another college. Rest of the time you were left to your own devices. Very much up to you whether you socialised with people from your college, your subject or clubs. There was also a Dean at each college if you had any problems he would address them. Some subjects had a lot more central lectures.

I wouldn't oppose subjects choosing everyone together rather than colleges choosing by subject but it was nice to meet my professor and be chosen by him. I think interviews are a good thing though for both sides especially as we got to stay overnight, eat there. I knew what it would be like and that probably helps the extremely low drop out rate.

that probably helps the extremely low drop out rate.
This keeps being mentioned .....
anybody got a link ?

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/which-universities-have-the-highest-first-year-dropout-rates

I wonder whether there are statistics for how many repeat a year - I'm sure I read an article giving the % of Oxbridge students who leave and then return to repeat a year due to mental illness, and it was surprisingly high.

OK, so Oxbridge have the lowest drop out rates by a fraction

but if you read on down the link, they are very unlikely to have the sort of students who drop out

they are not "outliers" in any way compared with universities who admit on the algorithm method

and it would be interesting to know the full course retention rates

Looked at the link again.

Cambridge has very few mature students, very few students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and offers few of the courses with high drop-out rates ... so its drop out rates are low.

It's not possible to claim that 'low drop out rates are related to interviews', for example, without ensuring that the main risk factors are equal across the instituions being compared - ie same course, same % mature students and same % students from deprived backgrounds....