Which Oxbridge Courses / Colleges take most state school students?

[KingscoteStaff]

Is the state school/independent school split very different on different courses? Is it very different at different colleges?

Is this data available for last years offers/places?

Is it available for this year's offers?

Why would you want this data?

Do you really think that a straight split private v state is meaningful, when both types of schools cover a spectrum?

Do you really think that kids who go to highly selective London grammars such as Henrietta Barnett or Latymer aren't hugely advantaged compared to those coming from schools in special measures?

Who do you think would be more privileged: a government minister's child in a top London state school, or a child from a family with no history of university education on a bursary at a small mixed ability private school?

You can definitely get the data for Cambridge - this is for 2017 and summary here

Why would you want to know? Obviously well out of date, but the stats would have been very similar I am absolutely certain when I was a student, and the state school heavy colleges had a rather different feel to them. (Neither were 'right' or 'wrong' as such, just different)

And certainly back then the state school students at the private dominated colleges tended to be of the selective grammar / exclusive London comp type school.

The more state school heavy colleges (I guess inevitably) had more students from what you might call 'typical' state schools. Whether that is still the case I don't know, but I suspect it may be.

I can understand why you might want this date, Kingscote. It tells you something about the ethos of the college and the efforts they make to widen access. My DD has had an offer from St John's Oxford, which is well known for encouraging state school applications and has a higher proportion of state school students than most.

*data

www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/Oxford%202018%20Annual%20Admissions%20Report.pdf

But bear in mind that in the data reported there, "admitted" means admitted by some Oxford College. Some students apply to one College but are admitted elsewhere, but in this data will show up under the original College.

The data is available but as others have said is meaningless without knowing if those kids were coached/affluent parents etc. What is certain is that some courses are far more competitive than others in terms of applications per place eg statistically it's easier to get a place in the languages department than law or medicine - with grade requirements varying accordingly eg offers of aaa or even aaa rather than aa*a and even not everyone with that prediction gets a place. That said you can't game the system, you need to choose a course you want to do. As far as the colleges, they vary in size and the more famous ones tend to get more applicants

IIRC, Kingscote's DC are privately educated.

Most colleges who do outreach will flag that up on their website or social media - worth having a look.

Haha, RoseandRose - there was me assuming that outreach would be viewed positively!

Not for my kids but for 2 ex-pupils of mine whose parents are convinced there’s no point them applying for MFL as their school has never had a successful languages applicant - lots for Humanities.

Well, the figures generally show MFL candidates stand a better chance than say English candidates across all types of school. Oxbridge is swamped with English candidates. I'd say go for it. Also if they don't get in first time, take a gap year (assuming great grades), Work abroad using the language, and apply again. Cambridge figs (when DS applied and got it) showed Kings and Girton we're particularly good for stage pupils. But not good enough - the odds are still stacked. I can't link from here but somewhere on Cambridge's website there's a breakdown across several years.

Apparently Kings College Cambridge actively discriminates against private school pupils. So this is a good one for State school applicants.

Where is the evidence for this? I'd love to see it.

Kings always rides high in the Tomkins table so it obviously does it no harm! Girton is different bc that has more pooled candidates

But not good enough - the odds are still stacked.

Can you quote evidence that shows discrimination between comparable candidates from state and private schools?

State school candidates having a lower success rate would not in itself show discrimination if candidates don't have comparable grades, scores in aptitude tests and so on.

It's a fact the odds are stacked. That doesn't necessarily claim discrimination in the way it's claimed Kings treat private kids.

It's a fact the odds are stacked.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it true. Evidence please.

www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/oxbridge-over-recruits-from-eight-schools/

Just one example.
And how can you dispute the odds are stacked?
I am not saying there is discrimination (unlike the poster who said Kings did so against independent pupils). Just the odds are against state pupils. You can not argue otherwise. Look I have no axe to grind - my state DS got in (with no positive discrimination - he had a full
Set of perfect grades at GCSE and A level) and is out the other end and in work).
But i worry about state kids' chances in general.
Evidence now about Kings please!

The trouble with the Sutton Trust is that they use their "statistics" for an agenda. The real reason there are more pupils accepted from those elite schools is that most of their students apply, therefore more at Oxbridge. We need to get more state school pupils applying. That's the issue.

The real reason there are more pupils accepted from those elite schools is that most of their students apply, therefore more at Oxbridge.

Exactly. You need to include the number of applications from kids with the right subjects and predicted grades by school in the calculation.

If 80% of kids from private schools with 3 x A star predicted in History, English Lit and Politics and HAT score were offered places on a History degree, vs 20% of applicants with the same predictions in same subjects with the same HAT, but from state schools, then I'd agree there's a problem. But there is no evidence at all to back this up.

Of those 8 at least 2 are state schools though! However I know a fair proportion of ķids at one of those two leave independent education to go to this state 6th form.

I think your friends are limiting their children's horizons. They need to start with whether they are Oxbridge calibre. If they are, then all Oxford and Cambridge colleges will welcome their application.

Though the press might lead people to believe otherwise, the majority of Oxford and Cambridge students were state educated. There are subjects in which the percentage of state school applicants is lower (eg Classics). This means state school applicants will stand out from the crowd, which may even lead to improved chances of success. Now that Cambridge offer a 4 year Classics degree for those who haven't had the chance to study ancient languages at school, a Classics degree is a serious option for able MFL students who are interested in a new challenge.

That’s really interesting about the 4 year Classics degree - I will see if they’ve spotted that. They are at a bog standard comp that has had no luck with Maths or Science or MFL Oxbridge offers, but quite a few successes in History, English, Politics, Geography, Philosophy.

I originally thought that it must be due to really good / really weak teaching staff in those subjects, or perhaps pessimistic predictions from certain teachers, but the school’s results seem similar across the subjects.

Anyway, I’ve nagged them into booking an open day and I’ll give them a tour round my old college. They were in the first class I taught, so I have a soft spot for them!