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.

Monty: the different things you describe are all part of getting to Oxford. They are all in the mix of an individual. Innate ability, for example isn’t enough. It has to manifest itself with results.

I read a newspaper article last week where any change to Oxford to make it appear suitable for DC who think it’s too stuffy would be utterly patronising. The journalist thought this wasn’t right. It’s like saying you are good enough to come but you are not good enough to have all the benefits of the university, only some of them. The foundation courses could be seen as patronising second class too. It’s difficult, that’s for sure.

My DH has a hugely successful business. That’s how money is made. Millions of people are business minded but not all make a great success of it, in financial terms, that allows for a private education for DC.

You're right it's is a difficult task bubbles there is a lot of talk about having the right social and cultural capital to get into Oxford and that those who don't have it are lacking in some way....is that fair? Who decided one kind of capital we better than another?

It's a difficult topic and one that causes a great deal of debate!

It seems that you can have all the capital, and still not get whatever you want from other people. I have seen an unending stream of parents exercising their elbows at every stage from birth, and a few have the wisdom to also hold the awareness that their child/ren may follow paths that they may not have foreseen, let alone aspired to. Perhaps the majority gain some measure of awareness over the years. I have seen a fair few children who were by the age of 3, definitely by 7, who were going to fly high. A few of these were not loved and had little family advantage of any sort, yet you could see they were going to be fine, spectacularly so.

The overwhelming majority of Oxford undergrads are not of this calibre. Which is probably why this thread has gone on and on. Thankfully Oxford will have seen all this in far more abundance than I have, and have already taken account of it. Likewise they are right to take on suitable if not stellar candidates who bring capital for new facilities, which unsurprisingly their fellow non-stellar undergrads are very happy to enjoy despite their parents bad-mouthing the children of such donors.

All this noise just because some child who has been through the sort of hell you cannot imagine or would survive has been given a chance, perhaps for the first time in their lives, and are far more likely to repay the favour in spades, than 99.9% of Oxonians. Quite possibly most of these beneficiaries may not realise their potential, but that would be no worse than almost every one of their peers at Oxford.

Mary most of the kids with contextual offers won’t have been through hell.

All universities have outreach teams and access agreements.....they have for years
I am referring specifically to outreach by the foundation year scheme targeted at very able disadvantaged students. That is not available at most universities.

No but it doesn't need to be and would just add an additional years student loan so wouldn't be popular.

And most universities couldn't afford to fund it themselves.

Bubbles as is often the case you pinpoint issues that are important to consider.

Of course it is patronising just as outreach and help at primary level would be.
However it is even worse in my view for these students to feel as though they are holding back others during the main degree years as well as always on a back foot playing catch-up with academic skills they have n’t had a chance to be taught. The exceptionally bright may well not need a foundation year through self teaching but that is applicable to very few indeed.

BTW International students are happy to accept foundation years as a step into a main degree without viewing it as patronising.

Some universities do work with primary schools.....it's not patronising.

I disagree Constanza. It needs to be rolled out to other universities.

As I have stated previously, the government should take on the cost of the foundation year for these very able disadvantaged students; they would lose a minimal amount compared to unpaid student loans.

All such efforts can be viewed as patronising depending on point of view.
It is of course not meant to be patronising.

I can't see how it would be of huge benefit... apart from at a very select few universities like Oxbridge. The HE sector is very diverse and Oxford and Cambridge etc. are very different the the majority of HE providers which is why it's of benefit.

Plus the government just wouldn't fund it on a large-scale basis.

I worked on a large scale primary project years ago which utilised student ambassadors ... We sent them back into their old primary schools or just back to the geographical area. It was wonderful project which did amazing things but it's funding was axed by the coalition government.

Interestingly, some universities have moved away from the term outreach to avoid sounding patronising.

most of the kids with contextual offers won’t have been through hell.

F1zzB1zz, I guess that's just too bad for those without contextual offers, isn't it? If Oxford chooses someone else over you, they just don't want you, and applicants have no entitlement whatsoever in that situation.

Some people might think it worth their while to gain some contextual data... Some would say that's a looser mentality even if it 'worked'

How to offer patronage without being 'patronising' ... the notion of talented people from working class backgrounds needing 'patronage' isn't exactly new.

or even a loser, or both loose in morals and losing in the game...

Loads of places have Foundation Years for those who don't quite meet the standard entry qualifications!

The problem the elite universities have is as others have alluded to, getting bright kids, first in family, living in council estates who attend RI comps, to aspire to them, to believe that Oxford, or Durham, rather than the local ex-poly will welcome them and that they will fit in.

That's the biggest hurdle, not missing the 3 x A offers.

But that is the point. Oxbridge have said they want every bright child in the country to think they have a realistic chance at Oxbridge. This isn’t achieving that.You need to go to a private school pref one of the big 8 or live in an identified postcode. The 35% of places left will go to the vast maj. They aren’t doing what they say.I have bright kids, 2 could be Oxbridge material. I know Oxbridge don’t want them, they just need to be honest and it admit it.

Also you can live in an identified postcode area and still earn a decent salary.

When i did my masters 10 years ago I looked at a number of university access agreements...Inc Oxford's. I distinctly remember reading that Oxford welcome all students who will fit in with the Oxford way of doing things.....I've never forgotten that.

This isn’t achieving that.You need to go to a private school pref one of the big 8 or live in an identified postcode. The 35% of places left will go to the vast maj.

I don't understand you fizz. Are you saying that if they take 65% from one of the top private schools, then all the rest will be disadvantaged? Or are you saying that they should reserve the 35% for those from low participation neighbourhoods?

Agree about postcode though - it's a proxy for disadvantage, but doesn't measure individual disadvantage at all.

It's probably the least bad measure though!

Oxbridge have said they want every bright child in the country to think they have a realistic chance at Oxbridge.

Every bright child could have a realistic chance. Not every one will realize that chance. No place wants everyone, because that's quite impossible. Surely that's obvious? It does seem quite entitled to think that just because you're selling what you think is worthy, someone must buy it. Someone else selling could be better, cheaper, faster, just more.

Where is Oxbridge?

* You need to go to a private school pref one of the big 8 or live in an identified postcode. The 35% of places left will go to the vast maj.*

I've no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. Almost certainly, any gain in numbers from poorer locations will cause attrition in the numbers from private school just as much if not more than from the state middle class kids.

This isn’t achieving that. ... .I have bright kids, 2 could be Oxbridge material. I know Oxbridge don’t want them

It must be like turning round an oil tanker, trying to overcome attitudes like that. How the heck can you assert at this point that Oxbridge doesn't want your kids? I've seen your description of your DS on another thread - I've got some first hand knowledge of what Cambridge actually do want in an engineering student and he sounds very much like the sort of kid who should give it a go. And of course, it's a 'nothing ventured, nothing gained' situation - my DD didn't have spectacular GCSEs but decided to give it a go, no shame in not getting a place.

Seriously, don't go giving your kids imposter syndrome. The only way of a bright kid definitely not getting a place is to not apply. If they get a place then clearly they are the sort that Oxbridge wants.

I post on these threads because I've got a bee in my bonnet about the importance of education for social mobility and every child fulfilling their potential. Be that poor or merely 'ordinary' bright kids having a shot at top unis, or some choosing a vocational trade rather than doing a degree that isn't right for them.

"I post on these threads because I've got a bee in my bonnet about the importance of education for social mobility and every child fulfilling their potential. Be that poor or merely 'ordinary' bright kids having a shot at top unis, or some choosing a vocational trade rather than doing a degree that isn't right for them."

I agree that education is so important. OH came from a very poor rural background. Single parent, first in the family to go to university. If he hadn't had the education he did he would probably have been a farm labourer or a miner after leaving school. Instead he went to a good university, and is now pretty much at the top of his game. He is a freelance consultant and never has to look for work as he gets recommended by word of mouth.

When you take the percentage from private schools and add it the new percentage to be reserved for the 25% with the right postcode that leaves 35% for everybody else/ Joe Bloggs. The attrition won’t be from private schools, State schools are getting a hammering and we’re constantly told how confident private pupils are and good at speaking. The schools parents are paying for will up the anti even more.

I’m just being realistic and honest, Oxbridge need to too.They’ll go somewhere else and it will be Oxbridge’s loss but they will end up not getting top jobs if Oxbridge candidates apply as that is the way it works.

I find the way this country looks at social mobility incredibly frustrating. My dh came from a disadvantaged family and was the first member of his family to be in school post 16 let alone go to uni which he did all by himself. It’s ironic having worked his way up and bring exactly the type to fit these new measures his kids will be kept from Oxbridge and top jobs just the same. You can go so far and no further.