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.

I've just had a look at the link posted about the Pembroke College outreach programme for London and the North. They seem to have link schools in those areas and appear to offer seminars in the humanities.

So what if you're at one of the link schools for Pembroke but aren't interested in the humanities and want to study maths? Having individual colleges doing their own thing in their own specialist areas seems somewhat limiting.

LadyinCement

I couldn’t agree more with your post

Having individual colleges doing their own thing in their own specialist areas seems somewhat limiting.

Absolutely. This is one area in which the collegiarte system actively mitigates against doing the right thing at a university scale - exactly as a PP said, 1 admissions person at each college feels they can do nothing, whereas 20 admissions people acting as a unified and co-ordinated whole would achieve SO much more.

So what if you're at one of the link schools for Pembroke but aren't interested in the humanities and want to study maths?

Well, then they pass you onto maths outreach programmes organised by the university/other colleges - and pass you onto their maths DoS/admissions team for individual support.

But Ta1kin you DON'T have to apply to a college to study chemistry at Oxford.

You can - or you can just make an open application and they will allocate you to a college.

Even if you do apply to a particular college that takes your fancy (because you fancy living at Hogwarts perhaps, or love the fact that even the bike sheds are listed) it is the department(i.e. the part of the university that organises the lectures, labs and exams for you course) that will decide whether or not to offer you a place. And that offer may well be at a completely different college. I might have the figure wrong but think about 50% of successful Oxford applicants end up at a college they didn't apply to.

whereas 20 admissions people acting as a unified and co-ordinated whole would achieve SO much more.

Oxbridge has far more than 20 admissions people per subject spending a vast amount of time on admissions/outreach. It is not clear to me that this time is spent less effectively in Oxbridge than in other universities - where typically centralisation detracts from specific subject related outreach.

Again - the mission of universities is education and research. Universities cannot divert more and more time and resources into attempts to fixing society's problems without harming research - decreasing competitiveness in the world market of HE.

then they pass you onto maths outreach programmes

But who is they? Why is the maths student required to be more proactive than the humanities student? And why would the maths student even be passed the details when it doesn't apply to them?

mission of universities is education and research.

They are funded from public money so are not self-sufficient little ivory towers and do, to some extent, also have to work in the public interest.

Part of the issue is around the people they hire to make these decisions as academics and admissions tutors. There's a LOT of snobbery in academia, and to some extent people are consciously/unconsciously hiring in their own image - and this works for class and race. I've heard lecturers say things like "state school pupils just can't catch up with public/private school pupils" or "they won't understand this, they went to a comprehensive".

I believe that kids with 3 As achieved on free school meals at a comprehensive should pretty much automatically qualify for an Oxbridge place.

LadyInCement: we would fit the cash-poor lower middle class bracket.

Dc may well have 'benefitted' from Grammar schools in the past , and benefit from a good comp now. No problem there. I don't think my DC deserve any leg up over and above any other demographic.

Half the time I wonder whether the 'exclusivity' vibe around Oxbridge is maintained and promoted by the alumni as much as members of the institution. Wanting to preserve their own prestige. Wanting to preserve it as something that has it's own cache, even if you did Geography, because saying you went to Oxbridge is the main thing, bit the best degree with which to be an accountant, or teach, or be a theatre director, or a policywonk or an astrophysicist.

I just can't see a world in which it is better to say that you did Geography at Oxbridge (with no particular interest in Geography) rather than particle physics at Southampton when you want to work at CERN.

And yet 'getting to Oxbridge' seems such a thing in and of itself, for so many parents.

Well they possibly shouldn’t if the A levels are not considered very academic.

It is the Oxbridge mission to recruit the best. It wasn't my idea! I fully realise that bright students choose other universities which is why I said that the angst about Oxbridge, in that it produces the chattering classes and certain professions, is possibly misplaced if you take ambition and wants of the students into account. If you want to be an economist, you may well be better off at LSE, ditto sciences at Imperial. If you want to be a judge, you may be better off going to Oxbridge. If you want to stay in the North, and make your career in the North, stay there.

Does anyone ever have any worries about who gets into LSE or Imperial? No, we hear next to nothing. All we hear about is how off putting Oxbridge is. What do LSE and Imperial do to widen participation from the working class? How many of their students are overseas? How difficult are they to get into when compared to Oxbridge?

A quick google tells me that LSE tops the social mobility report.

www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2017/09-September/LSE-tops-social-mobility-report

"LSE has increased its proportional intake of disadvantaged students more than any other high-tariff English university over the last five years, a new report has revealed.

The ‘Joining the elite: How top universities can enhance social mobility’ report by the thinktank REFORM assessed the measures adopted by 29 leading universities to increase access and found that from 2011-12 to 2015-16 LSE had made the most progress in this area."

Maybe Oxbridge could learn from them.

I'm not talking about cash poor people. I'm talking about culturally cash poor people. I always trot out the anecdote on here about when I was a school governor and got a rap over the knuckles for suggesting a wider range of music in school (including the music played in assembly/dinner hall). I was grimly informed that "the children can't access classical music" and "it isn't engaging for all pupils". Whaddayado? Talk about keep the masses down.

"Getting into Oxbridge" is a bit of a thing, yes, because you have to be flippin' clever to get there. It is silly to make out that everyone is Bertie Wooster sliding in on a 2EE offer to do Land Economy. That sort of attitude smacks of either ignorance or... jealousy.

I think it's a bit of a myth that some A-levels are not academic - the classic that's always trotted out is "media studies", but actually there's no reason that a top grade in media studies means the student is less solidly prepared for English or History at Oxbridge than, well, English or History. We need to recognise that a student on free school meals at a bog standard comprehensive who gets 3 As has actually done significantly better than a student with the same grades at Eton - and they will have done it off their own initiative as well. Studies show that kids from comprehensives actually do better than peers from posher schools with the same grades. A certain amount of intellect is being able to turn your hand to whatever comes up - increasingly, undergraduates from traditional backgrounds aren't actually very good at this.

Campervamp: let's say state-school pupil - nay, a disadvantaged state-school pupil gets into Oxbridge to do Geography. Then should employers think, "Nah, elitist twit from Oxbridge. Not giving them a job."

At what point does one cast off previous disadvantage and become part of this "alumni problem" ? It's not much incentive to do well, is it, if on the one hand you want to help disadvantaged pupils and are complaining they don't get a chance at Oxbridge, and then at the same time say that they would have been better off going elsewhere. Make your mind up!

Why is everyone picking on geography? It has high employment rates wether you go to Oxbridge or anywhere else. It has a lot of transferable skills that employers like. But Oxbridge and Durham happen to offer the best courses in it so you would choose them if you were a geographer not just as an easy way into Oxbridge

My point was she did get the grades they asked her for. It was their internal test where she got a 2 and not a 1. However they did not refuse her until results day- which I don't understand because presumably they had their internal test results before then. They would not budge an inch despite her outstanding grades, (she also got full marks at GCSE Maths) all of the things she has overcome and the fact that her social poverty had clearly placed her at a disadvantage against the independant school candidates who had had private tuition for the test.
It is not fair.

I'm so sorry lulu - that does sound really unfair.

user - just because those are the best courses doesn't mean they necessarily recruit the best students. Plenty of the brightest will go to Oxbridge because it's Oxbridge and supposed to confer advantages of networking etc. even if the department/course isn't the best in the country. Sadly this is the case for many academic subjects!

If you have not studied History at A level will you get offered a place to read History at Oxford. One A level that’s not considered to be facilitating is fine but all three will be s problem. It’s a bit like schools saying you should do Law A level to read Law. No you shouldn’t. Some pupils just don’t get the correct info and this undoubtedly leads to disappointment. If you can get 3 x A then you must do the subjects the “best” universities actually want whether you are deprived or not!

That’s very interesting about LSE. What’s the position at Imperial? I also know that Chinese and Indian ethnic pupils do better when in receipt of fsm than other ethnic groups. Do they skew the fsm students at LSE?

Lulu: Everyone can find someone who didn’t get into Oxbridge and it wasn’t fair. I guess if you set the criteria as needing a 1, then it’s a 1. I thought if you went for interview, you were accepted or rejected fairly shortly after that. Not on results day which is obviously A level results not university test results. Was she not offered/rejected after interview? There seems a bit of info missing here.

Lulu I presume you are talking about the STEP test which Cambridge - and I believe, Imperial too - requires a student to pass in addition to achieving A Level grades. It's brutal, but it's the final terrible hurdle in the quest to find the absolute best. In some ways it's fairer than interviews, as it requires no self-confidence, interview technique training etc - just the ability to do (very hard) Maths.

Sorry Whiskyow I was just pointing out that geography is a good subject not disagreeing with you. I will say my dd has applied to Oxbridge and Durham this year from a non selective state comprehensive. With Durham the University decide if they will have you for the course and then college is allocated when you have an academic offer. She may or may not get in Thats fine. With Oxbridge I am worrying about wether we choose the wring college and that will be the downfall rather than wether or not she is good enough at her subject. For both she has choosen old popular colleges, if they dont have her in that college at Durham it doesn't mean the subject department won't have her but pooling or not at Oxbridge it does feel if she gets in will not be on her ability but her college choice. We did college choice by pin as we had no intelligent way of choosing not knowing past students who had gone in sufficient numbers from our school for anyone to advise us. This did not matter for Durham but does for the Oxbridge system. And if we did open application for Oxbridge it would still be the college selecting her not the department.

Lady - but can people be taught to do better in the STEP test than they might do if not taught? Is it coachable / teachable / does improvement occur with practice? If it is teachable to any degree, then it is NOT fairer - because those from schools with experience of preparing for it will be at an advantage.

It would be better to give offers with STEP (or with STEP at different levels) for some schools and without for others, to level the playground so that mathematicians of the same ability from very different schools have a more equal chance to succeed.

"If you have not studied History at A level will you get offered a place to read History at Oxford"

And I'm saying I think that's totally silly, for precisely the reason you indicate - a very able student can have had poor advice. To be honest, the kids coming into university are so fucking ignorant of anything except hoop-jumping these days, they might as well have an A-level in golf studies (not their fault or a reflection on their abilities, but that of schools/syllabi/teaching to the test). I think we should be far more interested in raw ability and drive - and anyone who can get 3As as a free school meals student in a comprehensive has that in spades.

Before someone accuses me of ignorance, I have a PhD and am in academia, DH is a Prof and Head of Dept in a subject that may be pretty darn near to the one we are discussing on this thread a lot for some reason. He might even teach at one of the unis mentioned.

user - I am keeping my fingers crossed for your DD. It's such a nerve-wracking time. She must be super-bright to be applying to both of those places from a comprehensive, and I hope they recognise that. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd have differential admissions grades in a flash for students like her.

Its interesting reading this thread
there are two clear - non academic - obstacles that most posters seem to agree are part of the problem

(a) The College first / subject second nature of applications.

(b) the 100% interview rule

Both of these could be dropped while still demanding the same level of academic rigour

Out of interest, are all overseas students (the ones paying £35,000 a year) required to attend for a face to face chat?

I don't think History is a very good example, really. Probably Law is a better one. I have encountered kids who rush into taking Law A Level - well, because it's Law. And schools/colleges seem to be allergic to telling students (their parents) about facilitating subjects. Sil, who is a teacher, had to wade in and stop a very able pupil taking Health & Social Care. Another teacher had recommended it as the pupil wanted to be a doctor. Sil was told she was being "elitist".

That being said, I know a girl who did A Levels in Law, Drama and something else not on the "approved" list. She went on to do Law at a former polytechnic... and got a place at a Magic Circle firm. This is obviously the exception but it just shows all is definitely not lost by making some ill-informed choices.