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.

Talkinpeece: I agree about the logistics of getting to interview being difficult. However, interviews often have surprising results that operate in the favour of state school students. An applicant with lower marks on their UCAS form may turn out in interview to be passionate about their subject, and will then be admitted instead of an applicant with higher marks.

Also, after you've done hundreds of interviews over the years, it is often quite easy to spot the people who have had interview coaching and those who haven't. Whether an applicant has had it or not had it should not affect their chances of being admitted. But sometimes the people who have been coached do less well as they do not want to deviate from their polished, pre-planned answers, whereas we are trying to get them to be flexible and think on the spot.

Admissions tutors are also trained to think about their own conscious and unconscious biases. Obviously tutors are humans, not robots, so we are not all going to react to applicants in the same way, but we do try to be aware.

Also, every person interviewed gets at least two interviews with different tutors, so the decision to admit someone is never made solely on the basis of one person's impression.

I have been looking for a place to comment on this news item because it really, really infuriated me.

The thing that got me more than anything was that 20 of the Oxbridge colleges have not given an offer to a black A level student in the last 5 years.

On the back of that the admissions statement said they select on academic acheivement only.

So, let me get that right, there is not one single black student clever enough to compete with all those clever white kids?
Not one who has applied to those colleges?

That is bullshit.

and so is this:

How many black British students got 3As at A level or anything approaching that?

Of course we have an issue with certain groups within the community who underachieve, we know that from the statistics, just as we also have a problem with white working class boys, and I'm not saying that there aren't issues that need addressing, but I say it again, NOT ONE black kid got 3 A* and applied to those colleges?

I don't beleive that for a minute. There are many aspirational middle class black families in UK.

I think one reason this makes me so angry is that my niece is mixed race and outstandingly (scarily) clever, and wants to go to oxbridge to study law. I am so angry that she will be discriminated against.

'Did you know that many of the state schools in Oxford are in fact historically NOT very good, '

Yes, which is precisely why I specified good Oxford state schools rather than all Oxford state schools.
You might be very aware of the differences personally but I know someone who tutors at one college who has kids at Cherwell school (and certainly not a million pound house) and very little idea how atypical their children's state education is - we have argued in the past when he has been judgy about people who use private schools, not getting that people who send their kids private don't always have the choice of a state school like Cherwell just up the road.

I don't think the problem is deliberate exclusivity in the least. But I think there is complacency among many tutors and lack of awareness of how deep unconscious bias goes. You often come across the attitude of 'of course we want to take more people from state schools, we just wish they would apply!' I am sure they are 100% sincere in this but it will take more willingness to hold the admissions decisions up to scrutiny than is usually expressed.

Then, steppemum, you'll be pleased to know that she WON'T be discriminated against. Your reaction is why Lammy's ill-informed, distorted attack is so damaging - how he thinks it will lead to more black British applicants, I don't know. Perhaps he doesn't care. Otherwise, he wouldn't be engaged in cultural appropriation of 'Northerners' lived experience. I say that as an Oxbridge tutor.

Without conversion rates, this debate has little value.

I think the choosing a college thing puts potential applicants off.

There should be more emphasis on open applications.

Aalyasecura, that's a good point. I can't say for certain what the data would look like in subjects other than my own. But in my own subject I can confidently say that applicants from comprehensives and grammars (comprehensives especially) have a slightly BETTER chance of being admitted than similarly qualified applicants from independent schools, because we are so keen to increase our intake of students from state schools.

Besides, when you see an applicant with top marks from an independent school, you know that they have achieved those marks with personal attention from teachers, small class sizes, etc. When you see an applicant with top marks from a comprehensive, you know that they are likely to have achieved those marks with much less personal attention. Therefore, once they arrive at Oxford and start getting one-on-one tutorial attention of a kind that they haven't had before, they are likely to go from strength to strength.

You can see from the David Lammy data in 2015 Excel file in 2015 for Cambridge:
38 percent of grammar school applicants got a place
38 percent of private school applicants got a place

28 percent of comprehensive school applicants got a place.

Results at grammar and privates are broadly equivalent so probably no bias there though could argue privates have more resources and support etc

28 percent comprehensives may be fair if results are lower but you probably need some adjustment for results as getting 3A stars is easier in a private school.

Think the main issue though is low level of comprehensive applications.

'Then, steppemum, you'll be pleased to know that she WON'T be discriminated against. '

This is the sort of complacency I mean. You can promise you are TRYING not to discriminate, but there is plenty of evidence that much racial and other discrimination happens when we're not even aware we're doing it. How can you be so certain you have really risen above unconscious bias and that the existing make up of the university will make no difference at all?
Conversion rates could help but even then, that would only prove anything if the groups applying were identical in the first place.

I thought it was very telling on Twitter a black student from Oxbridge got in touch with David Lammy offering to help saying she was a representative already and he ignored her.

I went to Cambridge from a comp in the Midlands that went into special measures a few years after I left. Someone else had gone ten years earlier but it wasn’t a school that had a history of admitting kids to Oxbridge. The interview was tough and quite intimidating as I hadn’t really been pushed academically in that way before and I was surprised to get an offer. I had a fabulous time, made lifelong friends and fitted in socially for the first time in my life.

I then got involved in the access scheme to encourage other people from less typical Oxbridge backgrounds to apply. The unis really do a lot to encourage people to apply, but could still do more. I agree with the comment that the interviews may actually favour state applicants as they do take you outside the a level syllabus and try to get you to think, which to some extent can offset poor teaching at school. I think people do love to bash Oxbridge, the thing that’s hard is the kids who go from comps are paradigms of social mobility, until you graduate and become part of the hated elite 😂

I know someone who tutors at one college who has kids at Cherwell school (and certainly not a million pound house) and very little idea how atypical their children's state education is - we have argued in the past when he has been judgy about people who use private schools, not getting that people who send their kids private don't always have the choice of a state school like Cherwell just up the road.

Hmm, Comtesse, this acquaintance of yours seems a little thick, sorry. The Cherwell catchment is in such high demand in Oxford, and so oversubscribed, that I have trouble believing anyone with DC in Oxford could NOT realise that they are privileged to be in that catchment!

I agree 100% with your comment, Gruffalo.

Gruffalo - I totally understand that you are sincere in your belief, but the figures (and yes I have read the thread and I understand about conversion rates etc etc )

but the figures are quite simple really. Not one offer given by 20 colleges to a black student.

So, as I said NOT ONE black applicant who had 3 A* to any of those colleges? I don't believe that, and I think that there is an element of hand wringing saying 'what can we doooo'

I also agree with the Oxford Sate schools comment. Our local comprehensive is full of kids who have never even thought about university, let alone oxbridge. The few kids who could succeed sink without trace

Great posts from Lily and Glitterbaby.

That statistic is terrible, steppemum, you are right.

I do know that Oxbridge is not immune to racism. We have a long way to go.

But Lammy is very wrong to place all the blame on Oxbridge itself. Inequality in British society runs deep, and Oxbridge cannot on its own remedy all the injustices that children have experienced since birth.

All I can say is that when I interview a black applicant, I will make every effort to admit them: because that is one small step in changing the face of Oxbridge, and making Oxbridge truly accessible for everyone, not just for people who happen to look/speak/think a certain way. And I know many of my colleagues feel the same.

Thanks openday. Great posts from you too.

I went from a comp to Cambridge and they were amazing and still are, kids and I get invited back each year and kids love it. DD 11 tells people she's going there though asked me when we went there this year will it be OK if I only get into Oxford? I liked the only.

Looking at the Cambridge data again the proportion of blacks offered places is below the proportion in the general population but the proportion of Chinese/Asian offered places is above the proportion of the population.

Information on applications be ethnic groups isn't given but would be useful to see where the issue lies. There are only 400 black students achieving 3As (below normal offer) according to Lammy and lots of Oxbridge colleges. One thing I have noticed is my daughter's grammar is 98 percent bme, maybe 95 percent Asian which may partly explain higher rates of Asian success.

I have a DD who has applied this year. She is at an average state comprehensive 6th form. I’d say they have been supportive but not always helpful in the application process. DD received Inaccurate and outdated advice when writing her personal statement for example. She was urged to change her first draft to include more about Dof E and other extra curricular activities because they want an “all rounder”- the exact opposite of advice seen over and over on here.

Both DCs were practically laughed at by their "outstanding" northern comp for daring to apply to Oxbridge - just who did they think they were!!! A series of chance encounters, far away from school, persuaded DC1 that maybe Oxbridge was a) a possibility and b) about learning rather than social connections. The message from school was that neither of these things was true.

The school in question is an outstanding northern comp, with well-supported, hardworking students, many of them exceptionally bright, and several Oxbridge educated staff. Oxbridge outreach staff visit each year and yet there is no real belief that their students should set their sights quite so high, and absolutely no indication of how to set yourself up to be in with a chance. This is a school that in all other respects has high aspirations for every student and yet no information was given about Oxbridge open days or the possibility of visiting to shadow an undergrad/stay in a college. For those who do apply the school references talks about what a great school it is rather than highlighting the students academic talents and enthusiasm. Interview preparation is generic (why have you chosen this college etc) rather than a subject based learning conversation.

One disadvantage you have if you attend a school like this is that while your privately educated peers have been guided to gain experiences which will strengthen their applications you have been forced into early entry for GCSEs and ASs to boost the school's performance stats - that D grade AS in a subject you didn't even choose to study is great for the school, but not such a good thing on the UCAS form of an Oxbridge applicant. In this part of the north at least there is an assumption you will apply to Newcastle, Edinburgh or if you are really bright Durham or St Andrews. It is far too embarrassing to admit you are aiming for Oxbridge and aiming so high is actively discouraged by most teachers. This inevitably leads to fewer applicants from these schools.

Perhaps one reason so many places are awarded to applicants from Guildford is that more people apply from a single school in Guildford than whole districts in other parts of the country. If you don't apply you have no chance of receiving an offer.

It seems to me that many of our state schools actively discourage those they do not see as "Oxbridge types" from even applying. And I suspect that that is a far bigger factor than anything that happens at interview.

If you are someone who spends your whole life studying something you are passionate about then I suspect your unconscious bias when interviewing potential students will be towards someone who shares your passion and enthusiasm for your subject and demonstrates a sharp mind with the potential to lead to interesting discussion.

Surely this will be far more important than ethnicity, social class, or southern-ness.

This enthusiasm and sharpness cannot be seen on paper.

Doing away with interviews does not do away with unconscious bias unless all data about the applicant (name, gender etc) is removed. But then how do you make a judgement when all applicants have top grades, glowing references and extensive additional reading etc in their PS?

Thank-you for your input, openday.

Do you believe that private school students are more 'intelligent' than those who attend state schools, given that only 7% of the population attend them yet they represent 40% of Oxbridge under-graduates?

If you don't think they are more intelligent, but more likely to apply and do well at selection, doesn't that point to a failure in Oxbridge's out-reach programmes and a bias in the application process towards students who have been prepared for some time at their private school?

In short, privately educated children are over-represented at Oxbridge because the whole application and selection process is biased towards receiving them, rather than students from state schools?

Causation?

Students from London and South-East 'favour' Oxbridge.

Discuss.

1. International students, including British students with international backgrounds, often favour London, if not the US.

1. Scottish students, usually favour Scotland because of fees.

1. Northern students, and those without Oxbridge links, may favour other Universities which they perceive as being more straightforward to get into, more down to earth and more fun. The "Oxbridge" brand can be a bit of a poison chalice, with a bit of a "not for the likes of us" reaction from students and teachers.

1. Ethnic minority students may prefer cities with large ethnic minorities and indeed, some will want to live at home.

A parallel discussion might be

Some commentators (politicians, journalists, MNetters) "favour" Oxbridge

Often they may be right, though London (Imperial, UCL, LSE) should routinely be added, but rarely is. It depends on course - Oxbridge ain't the place to go to study product design, certain types of engineering or a lot of computer technology stuff. And I would argue that the term model offered elsewhere (12 weeks, 12 weeks then six) allows for a lot more teaching and less stress. The college system suits some, but again not others, etc.

That said, the lack of black students surprises me. London private schools are very diverse. Both mine were in a smallish minority of having 4 British born grandparents, when asked, in Yr 9 geography to plot where their grandparents were born. Black students were a minority, but were there in sufficient numbers to not be remarkable. Some, often the children of ambitious West African parents, who took education very seriously, were on bursaries. But others were the children of black professionals (inter alia Diane Abbott is not alone in having concerns about her son being vulnerable to group pressures in London state schools) or mixed marriages (think Prince Harry). Or think of those black actors, educated at Dulwich or Eton, making it in the States.

The same will apply to London's good comprehensives and grammars.

There is a whole other discussion to be had about educational performance of various groups including white working class, but Oxbridge-capable black students do exist. Why are they not applying/being accepted?

There are plenty of black students at the independent school my dd attended. It is a school where A*/A is the norm and all students are encouraged to aim high. Most of dd’s year were offered interviews at Oxbridge but not a single black student was offered a place. My own view is that the interview process can cause discrimination to creep in.

My dd had a 20 minute interview at her college and was offered a place. She is interested in her subject but not passionate about it. Her black friend who applied to the same college (in the same subject) was very passionate and able to answer all the questions in greater depth than my dd but was not offered a place. The girl said she was made to feel that she didn’t belong there.

I think if Oxbridge continue to use interviews as part of the application process the interviewers should have diversity training and perhaps an external observer in the interview room at colleges where they have not taken any black students and students from less privileged backgrounds.

I do not normally express my views on mumsnet but I am tired of hearing Oxbridge say the reason they don’t have many black students is because they either don’t apply or their grades are not high enough.

Here’s a thought...

I wonder whether more people would apply if Oxford and/or Cambridge opened a college in somewhere like Manchester?

Those universities are composed of several colleges anyway. I don’t see why all the colleges have to be in those towns.

I’m sure the locations put some kids off, partly because of the distance from home and partly because they are “down south”.

That doesn't sound good, bevelino. I assume it was Cambridge, given that there was only one interview? Oxford routinely do two and sometimes three to get a more rounded view of a candidate. When my son applied, I thought it was good feature that he got to stay in college for two or three nights, as it made it easier to gauge whether he'd like it, if offered a place. (He was, and he did.)

It's been touched on above, but I've read in the past that one of the big problems with applicants from some comprehensives getting into any of the top universities is a toxic effect of schools' desperation to do better in league tables and Ofsted.

1. Students get pushed to do too many GCSEs. Ten excellent GCSEs always looks better than 14 with a few Cs in the mix.

1. Early entry is rarely a good idea unless the student is absolutely outstanding and goes straight on to A level. Again, better to wait till they are at A* or A standard before sitting the exam.

1. Subject choice. I don't know if that's as much of a thing now, but a few years ago it certainly seemed to be a major issue to the Russell Group that so many young people were taking 'softer' subjects and not Maths, sciences, languages, or taking (say) Law instead of something more traditional like History or English, in the mistaken belief that that would give them a head start getting on to a Law degree.

I'm afraid I do think there's a tall poppy syndrome in the UK too. I'm strongly in favour of everybody getting praised for hard work and good behaviour, regardless of ability, but there comes a point where teachers do have to accept that some children are cleverer than others. It is a good thing for society to have clever people tackling difficult jobs. It is not a threat to the teacher to have students who are cleverer than they are. They should be proud of their part in getting the students to that stage.