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.

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

There is so much flawed in this deduction that one doesn't know where to start

I think there are regional differences too between indies requiring bums on seats and areas where they are oversubscribed with between 5 and 10 applicants per place which again may show why there are fewer applicants to Oxbridge from certain areas of the country as discussed upthread.

Our local high achieving indie wants 6 6s and 7s in subjects chosen at A level. No diff to the state options wer’re looking at.

Not sure what was wrong with my comment re GCSEs. The better the gcse grade the better you do at A level, why else would there be course requirements for Alevels everywhere?

Our local high achieving indie wants 6 6s and 7s in subjects chosen at A level. No diff to the state options wer’re looking at.
So your local independent wants six Bs and As in proposed A levels, that's what comprehensive sixth forms want. You wouldn't even get considered by sixth form grammars with that profile. You'd be lucky to get into an independent that sends regularly to O and C with six A/As and that's only if you are competitive in their internal tests, which would in turn mean having a really bad subsequent six months to be getting only six As in the summer. Most will have nine (contextual) to twelve (run-of-the-mill) As, to be part of the subset applying to O or C. If your local applicants are succeeding with six Bs and 3As, there will be a stampede of Louboutins headed your way.

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

Well to start, correlation does not imply that causation, that is your allegation that paying will get you higher grades. At least give some credit to the 16-year olds involved.

And, since paying gets you a 25% chance of success while not paying gets a 22% success rate, despite the non-payers going for more competitive courses which should result in a larger differential, I'd say that Oxford's latest endeavours will directly impact the difference in success rates. That's not unexpected, because they would have thought about it by examining facts, and are keen to stay competitive in a field of increasing options.

That's not unexpected, because they would have thought about it by examining facts, and are keen to stay competitive in a field of increasing options.

I knew. The idea that Oxford is happy to risk not being able to charge over £9,000 a year in fees just for the lols is ridiculous.

No the grammars are the same.

No the grammars are the same.

The same what? Do all your local school options have the same success rate? So what's the problem?

Looks like you already have an unfair advantage over everywhere else in the country where provision is far more diverse, not to speak of the world outside these shores who face much more unfair barriers to entry. Even with your many unfair advantages, you find Oxford's plans hard to stomach?

This article published earlier this year by the master of Selwyn college attempts to dispel some of the myths and explain some of the measures they use to try to level the playing field.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2019/01/here-s-how-cambridge-admissions-process-looks-inside.

That 40% private figure is already history, it's being progressively chipped away at but it's an iterative process - they can only admit from the pool of people who apply.

The grammars have the same entry requirement for 6th form. The problem is that even though they have the same 6th form entry requirements going by the stats kids from the private schools will have more chance of gaining Oxbridge places.

I’d love to think it was just a case of kids who could not applying but the sceptic in me thinks otherwise. I guess we’ll just have to see how it all pans out across the board with the new measures.

I guess we’ll just have to see how it all pans out across the board with the new measures.

Yes indeed!

The only fair way is to try to recruit the best, after making efforts to level the playing field.

Some private schools get very few Oxbridge places, however the top 10 will get a surprising number. However these schools are very selective and then go on to teach well. Some very able kids went to Oxbridge.

What are you proposing. A quota per school? That would be silly.

No I didn’t suggest a school quota.

How would you level the playing field?

The piece I just linked to gives some clues.

The grammars have the same entry requirement for 6th form. The problem is that even though they have the same 6th form entry requirements going by the stats kids from the private schools will have more chance of gaining Oxbridge places.

Which stats do you mean? It would be really helpful if you could link to them because I think we must be looking at very different ones. I am looking at the Oxford website which here has 25% success rate for independent candidates and 23% for grammar, though no doubt there are a fair few academies that are essentially grammars and have a 22% success rate. That doesn't seem much of a difference, esp given the point on differential subject applications. Would you mind linking to the stats you are looking at because they seem to be very different.

From what I can see, the state/private divide is not the most important one to look at. If you just focus efforts there then you're just likely to advantage the middle class kids at good comps and grammars. That's why Oxford is focusing these initiatives on more disadvantaged groups rather than just 'state vs private'.

Link not working

By setting out to recruit those with the most potential and likely to benefit most from an Oxbridge education, and indeed most likely to contribute to the intellectual life of the University.

I don't have the knowledge that Oxbridge does, but assume they will continue to try new things and refine what they do already.

I find your idea of rigid quotas which might deny some 17 year olds places at University simply because of their background, abhorrent. Sure add in some contextual elements to level out the playing field and work hard on outreach to increase the number of strong applicants from all backgrounds. But to say a child for a non selective private school cannot have a place because half a dozen very selective schools on the other side of the country bagged a load of places and the quota was reach, would be wrong, and probably illegal.

And also the proportions will vary from subject to subject. Do you tell a would be scientist that they can't have a place because too many private school kids got places in Russian or German.

And why the obsession with Oxbridge. Both my DC have thrived on more suitable courses at other Universities. As will many others. I dont get this University snobbery.

My link? It does for me. public.tableau.com/views/UniversityofOxford-AdmissionsStatistics-SchoolType/SchoolType?:embed=y&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y&:showVizHome=no

Well in my field, a graduate with an Oxbridge degree in classics or music wouldn't make it as far as a first interview with four household name organisations, whereas those with history, economics or maths from Cardiff, Birmingham or Manchester would have a decent chance of getting an interview.

and the most recent detailed annual report is here as it is dates May 2018, presumably another is about to be released.

Link worked for me ao I screen shot.

The link worked for me.

The Cambridge stats for 2017 are all in here:

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/ugadmissionssstatistics20177cycle_4.pdf

Links to previous years data are available here:

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/publications/undergraduate-admissions-statistics

I’d love to think it was just a case of kids who could not applying

It's VERY much a case of kids who could apply not doing so. 'It's full of posh people.' 'It's not for the likes of me.' 'I don't stand a chance against those confident private school kids.'

All the stuff you've said - you've perpetuated the myth!

Looking at the data Oxford and Cambridge do bloody well in their widening access efforts. There's a bit more to go, but not that much.

The bulk of the effort is in getting bright kids to apply in the first place. Nothing can change if they don't!

Interesting side note about ethnic diversity - a couple of years ago three high tariff universities did a name-blind admissions trial (the then HEFCE thought BAME kids weren't going to university because their names gave away their ethnicity thus leading to rejections not offers). Result - far more white kids were admitted that year! Trail swiftly abandoned.

The schools in your area FizzBizz are anecdotal to your area and do not necessarily represent those in the country as a whole. The "main" selective indie in my town requires a minimum of 7 x A/7s and 1 x B/6. Cohort is 180 per year group.
The "main" selective grammar wants an average of 6s but at least 7 for A level maths and sciences and at least an 8 for FM. Cohort is 1500 per year group. So although the bar is lower there are probably still a high number of pupils who do have at least 7 x A/7 and 1 x 6. But there are also many who do "just" have 6s.

This anecdotal to my town. But not representative of the country as a whole. The stats Mia has posted are.

It can be seen that the current outreach has been working and the new measures will hopefully take it a step further.

It was Errol’s link I was interested in looking at.The data I’ve always gone by is that in the media.

So are you saying any kid with 3 As has an equal chance? That interviews don’t really matter?