25% of Oxford places to go to poor students - who loses out?

[IrmaFayLear]

From the BBC website:

If 25% of places are to be targeted at applicants from poorer areas - and in recent years, about 40% of places have gone to pupils from private schools - then that leaves 35% for everyone else.

Even the BBC muses that the losers will be ordinary pupils from ordinary backgrounds - not rich enough for private school but living in nice enough areas.

Of course merit should not be overlooked in favour of gloss when admitting students, but I think this is increasingly less the case anyway. But admitting a large specific quota of students to one of the top universities in the world strikes me as nonsensical and unfair.

Back to the original title - who loses out?
Well the country as a whole certainly doesn’t. We need more people from different walks of life being in positions of power if that’s what, so posters say on here, Oxbridge leads to.

Over and out.

• No one in my family has been to Oxford. In fact we don’t know anyone in our family before my siblings who went to university at all and, of course, I didn’t go.

However by hard work and a business minded DH, we afforded private school. Why are my DC more advantaged than yours? We have no Oxbridge history in our family. Why shouldn’t I want better for my DC?*

Totally laudable aspiration. I don't think quotas which act to penalise private school pupils would be a good thing, I've said that... if you have enough discretionary income (and obviously it's an 'if'), then I can't think of many better things to spend it on than your children's education.

Plans for a new Oxford postgraduate college were announced last year. A new under- and postgraduate college could be tricky due to the size needed - you have to house undergrads of course.

Short terms = more time for research, which is what makes Oxford #1 in the world (and the other place #2). I can't see that changing.

My y13 ds has turned down a Cambridge offer in favour of somewhere else, so I certainly don't think Oxford and Cambridge are the be all and end all of British universities. They are exceptionally good at what they do though.

And have changed enormously in the last few decades - but change takes time - hopefully everyone who is currently complaining that current efforts aren't enough, will still be paying attention in 5/10/15/20 years time to see if those efforts have paid off.

My y13 ds has turned down a Cambridge offer in favour of somewhere else, so I certainly don't think Oxford and Cambridge are the be all and end all of British universities

Mine gave serious consideration between Cambridge and her second choice, DH and I could see pros and cons to both - heck, I even had a thread asking for informed opinion!

Yours are obviously more advantaged Bubbles,the stats show privately educated pupils are.

My family all worked/ work incredibly hard. My dad was exceptionally bright and business minded, he couldn’t however in a million years ever have afforded to provide the benefits of a private education.He’s no different from the vast maj of hard working business minded families though.

There are many of axes of advantage. The children of posters and lurkers on these threads presumably have what is one of the most crucial - a parent who is interested in education.

heck, I even had a thread asking for informed opinion!

I remember it Errol!

F1zzB1zz your family sound a bit like mine. Both my parents were not academic but entrepreneurial. No one from my side or hubby side had ever gone to university. Neither did both of us. So we end up in the local area which is deprived. Dd school is best of the worst. I remember when she was in year 13 there were already 5 girls pregnant. Disruptions in class was the norm. Teachers leaving left right and centre. It was a hell hole. When kids encounter this type of environment you either join them or it makes you alot tougher and work hard to get out of the area. I encouraged my kids to not be afraid and get the heck out of where we live go as far away as they can too. I just wish there were more teachers that could inspire kids to go to some of these prestigious unis at these crappy comps. Alot just encourage them to go to the local one.

I could give you radical solutions they could try - make a new college with none of the formals or traditions, one that had flats with 6/8 students sharing decent sized kitchens and bathrooms like many universities. Making terms the ‘normal’ length so students had a less intense experience
Most of the other very good universities provide what you say and for various practical constraints and historical reasons Oxbridge won’t be able to for its undergraduates.

Each UK university will have restrictions or characteristics that put off a proportion of disadvantaged students. Probably the most important though are distance from home and living expense from location.

As an aside IMO brightness needs to be combined with adventurousness for an individual to have the best chance of social mobility. If an individual is n’t ready to be adventurous age 17/18 (and many are n’t) then they need their local universities to provide the right level of academic environment for a foundation year or even degree.

A parent interested in education is not enough for social mobility. Most parents are interested.

send in addition to location and cost there is the concept of 'fitting in' or 'student-institutional fit' and students from certain backgrounds will place quite a strong emphasis on choosing somewhere where they feel they will fit in and there are people like them. It's one of the reasons non- traditional students are less likely to choose an elite university even when they do have the required entry requirements.

Erroll a parent who is interested in their child's education obviously helps. However, certainly for first generation students interest isn't enough. Students will look to their parents for help and guidance but for FGS their parents often can't offer that.

There has been some research which suggested that some students decided again HE because their parents couldn't offer help and guidance. They found that the parents were all incredibly supportive but the students were so used to going to their parents for practical advice and support ,which in this case, they couldn't offer. This impacted on some potential students' decisions.

Don’t things like interview skills impact too?We keep being told on here privately educated kids have more confidence, a more rounded education and better speaking dkills( along with the tiny classes and everything money can buy thrown at getting those top grades).

Pretty sure my state educated kids will get the grades but they sure as hell won’t get the rest. I have tried to provide extra curricular but it all costs too much and they don’t have that confidence I’m pretty sure Oxbridge will expect. Not even sure we could afford to top up the loans anyway.We’re not rich but we’re not poor either so pretty sure it’s pointless even applying and that is what I find incredibly annoying. Families in the massive middle working hard to pay taxes and continuously do the right thing will still be shut out. It’s not fair and not social mobility. Fat lot of good it is moving the poor out of poverty if they just move into an ever growing middle band that can never penetrate the top.

I’d be happier if they just limited the percentage of privately educated kids to the percentage in education and increase outreach alongside limiting the amount of top jobs that go to somebody with an Oxbridge degree.40% of Oxbridge places going to the privately educated is ridiculous and the figure showing how many top jobs go to those with an Oxbridge degree is outrageous.

Most definitely! Social and cultural capital have huge impact. Plus children who have parents who work in the professions have access to those networks too so can get advice, guidance and even work experience in areas that young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds struggle to access.

Bubbles, I think what I'm finding puzzling about your posts is that you keep conflating different things - innate intelligence, educational attainment, and social/cultural capital.

A worked example: I went to Cambridge from a state school (in the 1980s. I am OLD!!). So I looked good as a statistic (also as a woman to a college that had only just gone co-ed). At the time, I vaguely remember that my college was well over 50% independent school pupils, with a hefty sprinkling from the ancient grammar schools.

BUT: Both my parents also went to Cambridge. So it had always been talked about as something attainable and desirable. And I grew up in a household full of books. I don't for a minute discount the advantage and the privilege that gave me. I have never in my life worked harder than for my entrance exams, so that played a part. And I am fairly bright. So all those three factors played a part, as did being at a state sixth form college with excellent teachers who were prepared to give up their free time to teach the Oxbridge entrance exams, although I did have a lot of pretty mixed-quality teaching earlier in my education.

The way I read what Oxford is trying to do is to identify students from state schools who don't come prepacked with my secret, hidden advantages (the bookish upbringing, the Cambridge brainwashing, the additional support at sixth form). Those students will still need to be as bright as, or brighter than, me, and they will still need to work just as hard. Because those extra hidden advantages aren't there, their exam results might not be superficially as good as mine were, but their potential may well be greater.

Constanza proximity far from guarantees that sense of ‘fitting in’ but geographical distance increases the chances of students feeling alienated

send I agree....the students I've interviewed tended to choose local for financial reasons. However, given a choice between local elite and local non-elite non traditional students tend to choose the non-elite university. Now, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that as higher education in its many forms can be transformational but it's important that young people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to attend the best universities if they have the ability and potential to do so.

DD didn't want to go to the two RG universities which are the nearest ones because they were too near. She is looking forward to exploring somewhere new.

Obviously I'm talking about trends based on extensive research. They doesn't account for individual stories.

Yes Tapas, your DD is an example of ‘adventurous’ mindset.
One of my colleagues is of the same demographic that is being targeted (no hidden advantages), was offered an Oxbridge place but turned it down because as an 18 year old he wanted adventure and the Oxbridge university was too close. So one has to be careful not to make generalisations.

Contanza even the non-elite universities could potentially provide the stepping-stone to an elite university through a foundation year targeted to the very bright who are not ready to move outside their comfort zone. There are plenty of talented academics around who could teach and inspire outside Oxbridge.

Although DD isn't undergraduate Oxbridge material (I am being realistic here), she hasn't ruled out the idea of looking at Oxbridge for a post graduate degree.

The problem is send universities are businesses and it's a very competitive market at the moment. Non-elite universities aren't going to spend time and money preparing students to move on to another university. Universities need all the students they can get at the moment.

Of course there are some very talented academics across the sector. Oxbridge doesn't have the monopoly on that just like they don't have the monopoly on bright students.

Contamza non-elite universities like other elite universities may have to through the same pressure that Oxbridge has had over the years to improve outreach. .

However it is easier to tell ‘richer’ universities to do it than to centrally fund a wider reaching scheme that is more likely to be effective.

All universities have outreach teams and access agreements.....they have for years - it's nothing new. I used to manage an outreach team at a non-elite university and have worked with RG universities on WP initiatives.
It's something all universities do it's just they focus on different things depending on the make up of their study body.