No pancakemum, it was my comment that my Yorkshire Dc struggled to understand some of his southern counterparts and they struggled with his accent and phrase's, they now understand each other. He was also shocked that he was most northern on course, he looks at Newcastle, Penrith and Scotland as truly northern.
So as my DC, aren't Oxford material, I thought I must be wrong, after all you lovely people said Oxford, is for all, so I googled outreach visits to our area and neighbouring city, not one came up. just how to contact our link college, and a piece by them on how well they are doing, though they showcased London visits.
I can't link, but look up the Guardian article, from 19/9/2018, so recent. Titled Oxford spends £108000 to recruit each extra low income student
Comments in it
Of the 5000 students in the 2 most disadvantaged postcode categories, who got the grades to attend Oxbridge, Oxford only got 220 in 2015/16.
By 2020/1 Oxford aims to increase to 9.5% of it's admissions to be from deprived areas, which equates to 23 extra students, less than one per college says the head of Lady Margaret Hall college, for comparison St Pauls school had 38 boys accepted last year! he said.
The warden of Wadham College says we "have to recognise that people in failing schools with difficult socio-economic backgrounds who get themselves in a position to make a competitive application have achieved something extraordinary" he continues "I mean someone who got an A and two B's from a crap comprehensive in Hull is capable of being as clever, if not cleverer, than someone 3 A*'s from Westminster"
So it appear that my doom laden perceptions, far from being false are too sadly backed by Oxford's own figures, and even 3 of it's own college heads admit they are failing poor kids badly.
But then again if a pp classes Margaret Thatcher, as comimg from a work class background, her father owned 2, yes 2, grocery shops and was a prominent local councillor, then I suppose to MN and Oxford they are accepting poor and disadvantaged kids.
Finally I still am intrigued to find why Oxford's Lincoln College, visited a Grammar which averages 5 entrants/year, when our 6 local comprehensives between can't get 5 in a year, I believe they haven't got 5 into Oxford in the same 8 years, using Oxfords own pages, as OP DD's school which managed 40 kids! Because that girl who mentioned earlier in my DS1 year got A* and A's from a failing comprehensive, not an A and 2 B's, FGS.
No doubt all on here and Oxford will again blame the schools and parents like my friends and I for permitting the "not for the likes of us" myths. But may be looking in the mirror might help, but I suppose if you keep going back to successful schools, you can keep the headline stat of more than 50% of our students are state educated!
I notice No one ever says but less then 9% are poor, apart to be far David Lammy MP, who is then slated on here and the media, for upsetting the cosy world of Oxbridge.
Food for thought, surely