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.

But Oxbridge doesn't think fish knives are important Ta1kin. There is just a perception that they do. That's my point.

It is the perception that you need to be able to handle multiple sets of cutlery that can be off-putting. No-one ever saw how my kids eat during their interviews at either place. It simply isn't a factor for undergraduate selection at any college at either university as far as I know. The tutors don't care how you eat, what you eat or what you wear. But the belief that they do stops people from applying.

The interview practice given to both of mine by their school was entirely social - and entirely unhelpful. They would never have applied if we hadn't gone to see for ourselves what all the fuss was about. The advice both places gave on A levels, Personal Statements and interview preparation was the exact opposite of much of what they were being told by the staff at their outstanding northern comprehensive. And it's not as if the information isn't out there for any school that wants to look for it!!

It is more a perception problem. Some teenagers who presuambly choose not to do a google search to check think cutlery issues matter at Oxbridge (although my point still stands that wanting to learn about those things to improve yourself is quite useful. I have had work dinners with ... wait for it.... three levels of cutlery. As it takes about 3 minutes to search on line to lean you go from the outside in I doubt anyone bright should really ever be put off by a cutlery issue).

I said that if the architecture is intimidating then perhaps you would find Oxford intimidating. I don't mean that in an elitist way at all, even if it sounded like that! There is no getting away from the fact that for good or ill, Oxbridge is a different uni experience from almost anywhere else and not everybody wants that experience. Nowt wrong with that. It's no reflection on somebody's intellect or social standing.
Me - a lass from a mill town, first generation to go to university, I loved it. The Oxford experience was one of the reasons I applied - the buildings, the traditions, the beauty of the place. I felt I deserved it as much as anyone. My college is very unstuffy, gives more bursaries than any other college I believe; no medieval buildings etc. I donate annually to the bursaries fund so that more lower income students can have what I had.
I realise that Oxbridge can seem like an alien world to many people. What saddens me is that every time this sort of controversy arises, intending to publicly shame Oxbridge, it just reinforces stereotypes and puts people off applying.

What saddens me is that every time this sort of controversy arises, intending to publicly shame Oxbridge, it just reinforces stereotypes and puts people off applying.

Is exactly right mateysmum. And the further away someone lives the less likely they are to ever go anywhere near to see for themselves.

It is sad to advise Comp children to apply for the new colleges to increase their chances of getting in. It perpetuates the myth of non southerners having less chance of getting in and the old colleges can say its not their fault if no one applies.

Also Oxbridge say your chance of getting a place is equal for all colleges so it should not matter which college you choose.

The black students at lots of public schools whose parents are rich enough to send them there, will go wherever they want to go around the world. Our fees make no difference to black/rich candidates from such schools. Many have gone to the USA and paid fees there which are way higher than ours. I rather suspect black candidates from public schools are the ones who do get into Oxbridge routinely but they are not necessarily home students.

Comparing the working classes of the middle of the last century and now is fairly meaningless. The true working class now is minuscule in comparison. There are possibly very few students in this category who want Oxbridge or who have the qualifications to apply. However, I think Oxbridge should do more work with the best candidates from schools in the North/Midlands who don't send candidates there. They need to understand what the problems are about applying and try and do something about it if the students/parents are interested in hearing something which challenges their views.

I do think some potential students do look at Oxbridge and think they won't fit in. Overwhelmingly it seems students want to be with people like them and mistakenly think they won't find them at Oxbridge. Therefore one wonders if it really matters? If they are happy with their choice, perhaps it should be left at that? David Lammy is trying to make a political point and isn't going to want to hear that young people are happy elsewhere. The South is being bashed but if the Northern parents and young people are happy, so be it. They want to believe the Northern universities are just as good. Perhaps we should let them?

bubbles
Lammy's issue is the straitjacket that Oxbridge holds on the echelons of power - MP's ~ judges ~ CEOs ~ media ~ civil service
if Oxbridge is deeply unrepresentative of the brightest and best in the country
then no wonder much policy making is so shit

user no-one at school had any advice at all about colleges - far from trying to help them "play the system" they seemed completely clueless other than to suggest they would need to justify their college choice at interview. They didn't.

Is it deeply unrepresentative of the best though? If all the "best" apply there will still be thousands who don't get in. This is what selection does. It rejects people. You cannot ever ensure the "best" go there can you? If students want to go, study languages or other less sought after subjects.

Of course it's political point scoring! There is no reason why the "best" (rejected by Oxbridge) people can't do all the things you suggest ta1kinpeece. After all they are the best too. You could argue that if they wanted to join the chattering classes or be an MP (where Oxbridge background is greatly reduced) they would be beating down the doors of Oxbridge to get accepted. They aren't though. So perhaps they know what they want and David Lammy doesn't.

*I wonder whether partnerships / 'link tutors' might work?

So each admissions team in each college would take on responsibility for a certain number of schools from specific areas, chosen on the basis that some pupils are getting suitable A-level results but there are few Oxbridge applications. *

Oxbridge already do this. Have done for a while. That's why it's important to look at what is already done and what the statistics actually are, rather than dishing out anecdotes

Bubbles
Are you saying that kids not at Oxbridge do not have the intelligence to get there?
That will be news to Imperial then.

Are you denying that Oxbridge are grossly over represented among the decision making cohort
and the fact that they do not seem to select in a transparent manner much mention of interviews up thread
is not good for a society where the current crop of politicians - disproportionately Oxbridge still - are muppets of the first order

No need for the biscuit.

The teachers at oxbridge experienced private schools study these stats
www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

And advise their pupils accordingly.

Why shouldn't state school pupils not have access to this information which clearly shows that the chances of acceptance increases at some colleges and in some subjects.

I am as "best" as my Oxbridge siblings. It's not mattered at all I didn't try to get in. Ditto my children really but it is a problem if people who might go somewhere good don't. I am not so bothered whether they choose LSE in place of Oxford. It is when they don't leave Sunderland even for Durham etc but could have gone to a university that would have given them better chances and don't try for whatever reason. (My sons from a mostly non white school have friends who have picked London universities for the bigger cultural mix and also sometimes because they will be living at home when at university too and all those of them off to those very good London universities will do very well)

I think interviews are a very good idea except making sure allowances are made for some people being shy etc. As if you are trying to distinguish a lot of students all who have As you need to see how their brains work, how they can argue, how they deal with points. For me it ias never mattered one iota where people are from, but what is immediately obvious is if they have that quick fire ability to push ideas around, pick up on what is being said straight away, have interesting views etc. An interviews gives you the chance to assess that.

Oxbridge already do this. Have done for a while. That's why it's important to look at what is already done and what the statistics actually are, rather than dishing out anecdotes

I appreciate that I phrased my point badly. What is it that these link people DO? Do they visit the schools to give slightly nauseating talks, as they did in my day? Do they attend careers fairs?

Or do they get really involved in the nitty gritty end-of-the-phone or face to face advice and coaching, including interview practice, review of personal statements, and ensuring all prospective candidates have visited the university as a whole (both old and new colleges and appropriate departments), as well as putting them in contact with as many students as possible from similar backgrounds? Do they mentor school staff to ensure that they advise prospective candidates as well as possible, and create networks in each area that include both schools that send many children to Oxbridge and those that send none?

I would rather that fewer schools were involved, but in a MUCH more personal and pro-active way, rather that a nominal 'link tutor;' who isn't really very involved at all.

some misconceptions on this thread . There are outreach programmes with each college linked to certain parts of the country. Cambridge invites groups of students to the university where they are shown round by undergarduates. There is also the shadowing scheme www.applytocambridge.com/shadowing/apply/ - my child was involved with this and while the quality of the experience varies a bit with the student host most of those who go seems to enjoy it. If the student being shadowed isnt great they can often get "adopted" by someone else. I believe Cambridge is now working with younger pupils in schools but dont have the details.

Maths at Cambridge is a different league - but there is help with STEP
www.maths.cam.ac.uk/step-preparation-support-widening-participation

If you have mentored disadvantaged young people I dont think there is any way you'd see the process as fair. Unless minority students who do practise interviews well suddenly have a complete melt down in the real interviews there is bias in the system. Seems to me this is more prevalent at Oxford than at Cambridge, probably because Cambridge has placed less emphasis on interviews, and that some colleges are worse than others.

I dont believe most admissions people do have a real understanding of the difficulties or make sufficient allowance for them or that they spot the prepared student. The ability to discuss your thoughts with adults is something that can be practised and I know that some applicants have many hours of tuition. Mentors cant provide the same level of input.

Still the universities are making an effort to improve, it's only one choice on an application form and the more who apply the less excuse Oxbridge have for not admitting them. Women ought to recognise that the arguments trotted out now for the low numbers of BME candidates are the same sort of statements that used to be made about the number of women.

already,

Yes, I know about those schemes. They existed even in my day, and that is a long time ago, and not what I meant.

Pupils applying from schools with no history of Oxbridge entrance need more than that. They need identifying, and encouraging as prospective candidates. They need help with personal statements. They need help navigating the layers of the application process. They need broad access to the whole university to see the diversity of colleges. They need interview practice, and they need advice on the end of a phone or e-mail from a real professional in the area, to substitute for the expert teachers schools with many applicants will have. They possibly need money for transport and clothes for interview, they need a friend to meet them at the bus station and may need someone to speak to their parents to allow them to even consider it ... and that's probably a bare minimum list.

Women ought to recognise that the arguments trotted out now for the low numbers of BME candidates are the same sort of statements that used to be made about the number of women.

They are STILL made about the number of women. But nobody on this thread seems to care that women are still very much under-represented in some subjects - people will say that women just don't want to do these subjects, even when the evidence shows that Oxbridge takes a smaller fraction of women than other high tariff universities.

Oxbridge outreach teams do work with specific schools. They do send ambassadors into specific schools to work with kids. But ultimately the primary goals of Oxbridge, as research intensive universities, are teaching and research. There is a limit to how much time/money that can be spent on working with schools.

Let me put it this way: I am an academic. I already work 60+ hours per week on research, education and management. Suppose that working more with schools requires all academics to work an extra 3 hours per week (unpaid) on average, at the expense of either research or personal life. That's just not going to happen, when Oxbridge (and in general UK) academics already spend much more time on education and administration than academics in other countries do.

There appears to be this scheme for black students:

targetoxbridge.co.uk/the_programme.html

I'm no expert though, I went years ago and so only go to my old college every year, hopefully someone who knows the current schemes will answer you but this one looks quite thorough if small.

can'tkeepaway - here is an example of one College's work with their link areas www.pmb.ox.ac.uk/content/access-outreach I've pointed to that one as the webpage is quite informative so you can look through and see the kinds of things they are doing.

You've been asking about college outreach 'teams' but do remember that a lot of the colleges are not particularly wealthy, certainly not in expendable resources. Quite a few are running close to or in deficit so can't finance really large scale projects. The college 'outreach team' is often one individual with some help from the admissions assistant, so giving intense targeted support to particular schools/individuals is going to mean that they are only going to reach a limited number of people. That might be the best approach but it's a trade off that each college will have to consider. Of course a lot of the value comes from existing academics and students giving their time and loads do but again remember that colleges actually have a relatively small number of academics and user makes a pretty good point that:

I already work 60+ hours per week on research, education and management. Suppose that working more with schools requires all academics to work an extra 3 hours per week (unpaid) on average, at the expense of either research or personal life. That's just not going to happen, when Oxbridge (and in general UK) academics already spend much more time on education and administration than academics in other countries do.

Add on to all of that that only something like 1 in 6 applicants get a place and also that there is now a lot of shuffling applicants between colleges in the admissions process to try to equalise chances, you can see that a significant aim in outreach is trying to raise aspiration and encourage people to apply to university and only a limited amount actually feeds through to an individual becoming a member of that specific college.

I womder whether David Lammy applied to Oxbridge.

He is an interesting example of a clever but poor black boy who got a scholarship to a private school and did well. But he chose London (SOAS) and Harvard.

Slightly surprised that these data sets are published. We can identify at least two of the black A level entrants - and they are definitely not from underprivileged backgrounds!

Ds is a comprehensive boy who is at Oxbridge at an old college. Not paid a penny for his education (until now...).

Discussed this with ds and the main point is that as others have said, the "damage" is done - at least for Arts candidates - very early on. Oxbridge expects you to hit the ground running - in fact, sprinting - and however much raw talent someone may have it is not the job of any university to address this. It is the job of schools to identify clever pupils. From quite a few threads on MN you can see that some teachers see nurturing the ability of top pupils as somehow being unfair on everyone else. See Equality of Outcome as opposed to Opportunity - ie a race to the bottom.

There is also the numbers factor. There are heaps of applicants for not many places. Masses of clever people (yes, even posh ones!) get rejected every year or fail to get the requisite grades.

And what I don't understand is this idea that there needs to be dumbing down in order to attract "oiks". Surely the attraction of Oxbridge is the difference? Ds may not have been in the habit of passing the port and wielding a fish knife (??!!) but he wanted to go to Oxbridge because he wanted a fierce intellectual challenge, he liked the ancient buildings and loves the twiddly bits like wearing his gown. If all this was swept away to allow people like him a more familiar experience, then the attraction would be reduced and it would be extremely patronising.

Furthermore I'm sure there are many more "posh" students at places like Durham and St Andrews.

tealdeal
Why shouldn't state school pupils not have access to this information which clearly shows that the chances of acceptance increases at some colleges and in some subjects.

But you are still utterly missing my point.

If you want to study Chemistry at Oxford, why should you have to apply to a college as well to get your place to read Chemistry

and frankly its snobbish in the extreme to conclude from the link you gave that comp kids should apply to "easier" colleges

you clearly approve of the archaic hurdles that are put up to stop northerners and state school kids polluting the shades of the great historic colleges.

and until those at Oxbridge realise that THEY are the problem, they will be rightly bashed.

Well, ds is a state-school pupil busy polluting an old college. He had no help to get in except from The Student Room, MN and his own effort.

I agree with poster upthread who said the rot sets in with table manners from the word go. I went to a small, rural primary school in the 1970s, with pupils from all walks of life. One and all left with excellent table manners - because we all had to sit at tables and eat with a knife and fork - no holding a knife like a pen - and the headmaster would stalk around and correct any transgressors. So whatever someone's home life, the school made sure that all pupils had good manners - table and otherwise.

Anyway, I'll check with ds, but I'm quite sure at interview they did not test whether he could eat a Jerusalem artichoke correctly.

The point about "poor pupils" always misses the point that who are nowadays underrepresented at top institutions are bright "lower middle-class" children. These are the ones who would have in the past benefitted from a grammar school education.

At ds's comp there are very, very few on free school meals. But this totally misses the fact that most there are not wealthy at all. They are very middling but don't appear on any radar for extra help. No Sutton Trust calling there. They would turn their noses up at the vast swathes of ordinary kids from ordinary homes. This is a demographic that deserves a leg up, in my opinion but are considered unsexy in these type of discussions.