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.

I really think you're wrong about the private school thing... the people doing Oxbridge admissions aren't idiots. And the 25% is a target which may or may not be reached.

The first step is the aptitude test. This is nothing like the old test which required special tutoring. Of course, no exam is tutor-proof, but it seems to be a gate that any applicant of the right ability should be able to pass.

Then the interview... there have been articles published about what they're actually looking for, and it doesn't really seem to be about confidence or speaking well. Well, sure, the applicant needs sufficient confidence to talk to an unknown clever adult, but that adult knows that many students find it an ordeal.

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,

That's just plain wrong! Why do assume the attrition won't be from private schools? An increased number from LPNs, with the same number from private and everywhere else means a larger proportion. No attrition.

You also assume no overlap in the groups - there will be some.

Private schools won't up the ante - how can they? What else can they do that they're not doing now?

When you say state school kids are constantly being told how confident private schools kids are - YOU are perpetuating the myth that extrovert confidence is what's needed, you're part of the problem. Academic ability is what's needed, academic confidence, not speaking confidently about yachting or skiing or some other middle class activity.

You are right in that we have an issue with social mobility, but I'm not sure you understand universities' roles in overcoming it.

Oh come on an articulate kid speaking about their subject having been taught for years in tiny classes, help with prep,having their speaking skills honed, experiences in their subject to actually talk about alongside confidence only money can buy will have a much bigger advantage.

Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds can actually be confident too you know. Often because they have to be. I’ve met a few who were the first from their schools to get a place at Oxbridge and those kids were amazing. They had achieved so much in their communities. Not grade 8 piano or a Gold DoE or an essay prize necessarily (although maybe they had) but they had mentored other children, led within their schools, taken part in youth politics, and done all sorts of stuff that meant they presented assertively and eloquently.

I totally agree that the interview situation is different and it’s not disputed that kids who are coached for it after years having their self esteem pumped by private schooling have an advantage, but don’t assume all the other kids go in and stare at the floor.

The fact remains the private intake will stay at 40%, why would it change? That leaves 35% for everybody else when you take out the 25% postal code aims. Can you not see how unfair that is given the numbers in private education?

And thanks for your patronising last comment. Maybe you don’t understand the role of unis in social mobility. Sutton certainly thinks they have a role to play and given the numbers of top jobs that go to those with an Oxbridge degree it’s clear they are involved with keeping the current status quo.

Oh come on an articulate kid speaking about their subject having been taught for years in tiny classes, help with prep,having their speaking skills honed, experiences in their subject to actually talk about alongside confidence only money can buy will have a much bigger advantage.

Ffs Oxbridge interviewers know this perfectly well and are quite capable of cutting through the eloquence to find the genuine. The advantage they have is belief. Not vocabulary.

The fact remains the private intake will stay at 40%, why would it change? That leaves 35% for everybody else when you take out the 25% postal code aims. Can you not see how unfair that is given the numbers in private education?

Why? What if numbers of disadvantaged kids went up, and numbers from private schools stayed the same, and numbers from the middle group stayed the same? No one loses out, those from disadvantaged backgrounds gain.

Of course unis have a role to play in social mobility - but the heavy lifting has to come from schools, housing, benefits, careers guidance. That's where the cultural and structural disadvantages are the highest.

The numbers of privately educated kids at Oxbridge 40%is incredibly unfair given the numbers privately educated 7%. It needs to change not stay the same.

Whilst dd was at her undergrad one of her professor had a passion to try and inspire kids In secondary school from poorer backgrounds who dont really know or understand what university really do as in they not just teach at a higher level but some of the resaerch they do that have shaped the world or the many things that we come into contact with on a daily basis started from the works done at university. He/she (dont want to out the person) would often go to schools that aren't the best. Little steps like this does help.
Some kids will never come into contact with anyone that have been to university. Neither will they ever have anybody who will believe in them. Theres not many teachers that have the time or able to spot potential or able to properly nurture a kid with potential.

given the numbers privately educated 7%

It's more than double that actually at sixth form.

Double it and 40% is still a massive over representation.

Actually this year's Oxford intake is 35% privately educated/65% other so there is 5% inroads already. Fizzbizz - privately educated in sixth form is also closer to 20% and not the 7% in total private education.

Also many people in private education these days are the kids of those state school kids who are of a generation that did access higher education of some type whereas their grandparents did not. Those parents have educated themselves and found themselves in professional or other well paid positions (bright state school kids) and can now afford to send their also bright kids who a generation ago would have stayed in the state system to indie schools. Private schools are not all full of Tim NicebutDim characters a la Harry Enfield, the same way that state schools are not full of Waterloo Road chavs!

Not all private schools have tiny classes. Some operate in a similar manner to grammar schools and have classes of 24 or so. People vandy around things they have heard or historical facts without even knowing how current systems work and perpetuate a mythical 'elite' system. Perhaps this is so at Eton Harrow etc but not the majority of private schools

My DS is fortunate and advantaged to go to a selective indie. (One which I may add has 15% or so of the kids on bursaries up to 100% fees). He is also a clever boy who works bloody hard to achieve his grades. Private school kids do not have their grades simply handed or allotted to them by virtue of being at a private school. I have friends who have similarly clever kids at state schools and who knows perhaps he will achieve an Oxbridge offer or perhaps they will (or hopefully they all will).

I have no problem with any outreach programmes which will increase social diversity. I also appreciate contextual offers have a role to play (and yes some middle class kids may get them through luck of postcode when perhaps their background would otherwise suggest that they should not be entitled).

The reality remains as many posters have said whilst the nots for the likes of us brigade remain there remains a vicious cycle. My take on it is that outreach does not start early enough. I think it needs to start in early secondary years in order that it sinks in at an earlier stage, so that the right decisions can be made when selecting gcses as well as A levels, so that it becomes the norm for any kid bright enough to apply rather than.an exception.

Another obstacle is that many teachers themselves are anti Oxbridge in the same way they are anti Independent education and this in itself if probably a whole new thread and has been evident on many of the state v indie threads on MN.

The other thing to note is we have seen how stringent the Oxbridge applications are. The tutors are looking for potential. The interviews we are told are more like tutorials so they seriously don't care that Jonny played rugby whereas Matt played football. They care about enthusiasm for their subject.

I am.typing on my phone so apologies for.typos. Also these are random thoughts I am jotting down so I.am.not sure.how coherent they will run together as a whole.

It's more than double that actually at sixth form.

and it's about double that number for the % of sixth formers meeting the minimum A-level offer.

i.e. the numbers are roughly 30% of 6th formers meeting the minimum A-level offer are independently educated.

i.e. the numbers are roughly 30% of 6th formers meeting the minimum A-level offer are independently educated.

Quite. So Oxford entrants are very nearly proportionally represented when looking at type of school attended. Which is as it should be.

Grammars have huge classes where did you get 24 from? And sorry very very few can afford private education.

Don’t care why 40% of Oxbridge students are privately educated, the number still needs to fall.

You're clearly saying private education gives a huge advantage if you’re saying the huge numbers of state educated bright kids aren’t getting the grades needed at 6th form. If that is the case Oxbridge should be giving contextualised offers to all state kids. Unless you’re saying state kids just aren’t bright enough.

You're clearly saying private education gives a huge advantage if you’re saying the huge numbers of state educated bright kids aren’t getting the grades needed at 6th form

It's because they're selective and state sixth forms aren't usually, at least not beyond a fairly basic minimum.

Most state, including grammar, class sizes at sixth form level are under 24.

One of my friends kids attends a college where 63 pupils got oxbridge offers. Whatever they are doing it's working. Its not a private school. But feeds about 27 secondary schools. But when I interact with their kids. You can just see how the teaching and articulation they have confidence. I cant put my finger on it. But they really do hold their own. I can see why they would excel in a oxbridge interview more so than a not so good state school.

State 6th forms are selective.

Don’t care why 40% of Oxbridge students are privately educated, the number still needs to fall.

But surely you need to understand why the number is as it is before you can decide whether it 'needs to fall' and if so what an acceptable number would look like.

There's a huge amount of info on the stats on their website. If you look at that you can see that independent school candidates have a slightly higher success rate than state school candidates (roughly 25% of independent applicants get a place compared to about 22% of state). So independent candidates are more likely to be successful but not by a huge amount, certainly nothing to suggest that there is a strong bias towards independent candidates in the selection process.

Another big issue is the subject choices made by state school applicants are more likely to be for the most competitive courses. So in their latest admissions stat release they say :

" Some courses attract more applications per available place than others, and UK state
students apply disproportionately for the most oversubscribed subjects
• On average, 35% of state applications between 2015 and 2017 were for five of the most
oversubscribed subjects at Oxford (Economics & Management, Medicine, PPE*, Law, and
Mathematics), compared with 29.8% of independent applications.
• In contrast, 21% of independent applications were for five of the least oversubscribed
subjects (Classics, Music, Modern Languages, Chemistry, and English), compared with 16%
of state applications."

I can't see a success rate breakdown by school type for individual subjects to look at that further (but the raw numbers are there so you could work it out yourself if you want to) but I've often heard it said that the best way that Oxford could improve it's % of state school students would be to abolish subjects like Classics and replace them with more places in subjects like Law.

State 6th forms are selective.

Only in the sense that they ask for 5 GCSEs, maybe at B grades in the subjects they want at A level. Some, but not that many, are more selective than that, mostly grammars. The selection criteria for private's is generally far higher than that. 8 grade As wouldn't be unusual.

It's all well and good to say 'it should be this that or the other' but you need to understand education as a whole, without the 'oh it's just not fair' rhetoric. Look at the data, do some analysis.

Do there is no unfairness.

And all these private schools desperate for bums on seats turning kids with 7s away. One wonders how they keep going. Doesnt seem to work like that round here.

Aside from that the higher the gcse the higher the chance of doing well at A level so all these kids attending private schools at gcse level are advantaged before even starting Alevels.

all these private schools desperate for bums on seats turning kids with 7s away. One wonders how they keep going.

Anyone who has cast a cursory glance at private schools will know that those that send to O or C do indeed turn away kids with 7s. In fact they do not even bother giving offers to many of these kids long before GCSEs are examined. They offer after their own exams and interviews.