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.

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

The stats largely back that up yes. The interviews matter, but only in the sense of enabling the admissions tutor to assess the applicant's ability.

What is also interesting is the offer/acceptance ratio. More privately educated kids accept the offer than state school kids, with FE college acceptances (FE colleges are dominated by disadvantaged kids) the lowest. Even when given an offer they still don't quite believe they're good enough.

So in interview if you were up against kids from top private schools who had Oxbridge interview mentors, oodles of impressive course related extra curricular to talk about, contacts and confidence you’d be fine? I just find it hard to believe.

I just find it hard to believe.

🤷‍♀️ doesn't mean it isn't so.

Interestingly just did a quick tot in my head to show how many appicants are applying and get a ratio of 8:5 state:indie which in effect brings a 61:39 percentage.

So of those who apply there is a similar outcome in.offers (however more state school offerees do not go on to accept). Thus it still comes down to fewer applicants are applying from the state sector and if these numbers were to increase then the ratio show a greater difference ie. Percentage split between state/indie.

So it is more outreach which is required rather than contextual offers.

Fizz - the interviews are not really interviews in the way that a job interview is. It is run like a tutorial. Most students will have submitted written work or their PS will mention areas of interest to them and it is this that is discussed. Take a look at the Oxford website about how interviews are run.

The stats show a similar percentage of state applicants get offers to a similar number of indie applicants. If a pupil is of the calibre to make an application that gets to interview stage I am.sure they are well versed enough in their subject to talk about it. It remains the fact that 75-80% of very capable candidates (state and indie) will not get an offer.

I am certain if we had historic figures for say 1980 the stats would be very different but it is much more a level.playing field now and they are making a concerted effort to ensure it goes further.

What is also interesting is the offer/acceptance ratio. Yes, there is definitely an impact there. The only thing is that I don't think we can tell exactly what is going on because the figure that they are using for 'acceptance' is when there is a 'finally accepted offer with no conditions outstanding'. So I think that means that the difference between the offer and acceptance figures is partly explained by those students who reject the offer and partly by those who accept the offer and don't get the grades.

There's clearly a difference on those 2017 figures. nearly 90% of independent offers get to acceptance whereas only 82% of comp offers do (the other state options falling between the two). I guess that could be a higher number of those students rejecting the place because they don't think they'll fit in. It might also be admissions tutors being more generous with offers with state applicants (esp from non selective schools) but the student then not making the offer. Difficult to tell without more numbers.

I agree Mia. Do we know if more state students apply to Cambridge than Oxford because Cambridge have again tended to over offer knowing some will fail to make the grade whereas Oxford have already used their assesments, written work to thin numbers down pre offer. With the demise of AS Cambridge introduced some pre assessment tests which they previously didn't have.

Some of it might be money and fear of debt.

My DD was interviewed and they certainly didn’t ask about extra curricular about her subject. She barely had any. She doesn’t have any contacts. She had no advice from school about the interview at all. She did, however, read extra books her teachers suggested, watched films and, luckily, is a confident person. She was asked about a poem she had been asked to read. She was asked to translate and she was asked to discuss elements of the subjects that any interested and keen student could have done. No one coached her in what to expect and certainly there were no trick questions. I think that thinking on your feet, being able to express ideas and thoughts and being enthusiastic and good to converse with are an advantage. I do not see why lots of students cannot do that.

We paid for her to go to an independent school where few ever went to Oxbridge. The few that did were hand picked and coached but my DD wasn’t. She did most of what she needed to do on her own but received academic guidance from two teachers. She was not groomed, not encouraged by extra classes, and not given anything special to help her get in. DH was first to go to university in his family, my DSis the first in mine. We had no idea about Oxford and at that time hadn’t discovered MN. The idea that every private school gives you an advantage is ludicrous.

The subjects studied are important and state schools don’t push MFL. That would help. Classics grads are usually very bright. Plenty convert to Law. Music grads too! There is a lot of prejudice on this thread! Not everyone employs economics or maths grads!

Well why do we talk about debt?? Why are potential students not told it’s a grad tax? Why do we continue to put people off by the rubbish spouted about debt!!! It’s not debt. You might never pay it off! You pay a contribution according to earnings.

It is a debt you have to pay and when you don’t have a lot of spare money debt is scary. Some kids come from families who find debt a very scary prospect.There would be a higher chance of dropping out of Oxbridge than other unis.Some may worry they’d find it too hard and be left with debt for nothing.

Bubbles there could be a clue in my username! In my field, the trainees have 10 days to digest a 1064 page study text and sit an exam in the topic every 3 months. A student with maths & music would have a hope, whilst an Oxbridge classics student (& I have encountered a few) rarely succeed. That is why some major employers in my sector don't even ask which university you have been to anymore.

I'm coming to the conclusion that some people are scraping around trying to find reasons as to why they may not get something they have no idea of, only that it comes with a respectable title. Every single 'unfair' circumstance flagged is false or irrelevant, there are no solutions proposed, no sign that any basic research has been done. Frankly if an applicant for any position were to take this approach they would quite rightly fail at the first hurdle.

I know a largish number of O and C graduates who were the first of their generation in HE, from seriously poor backgrounds who found out more than some 'responsible' parents here. They had the confidence to offer up who they were, and were completely accepted by like-minded others with generations of HE at these places. Those are the ones Oxford will choose, and un-apologetically so.

Also numberaremything makes a good case as to why parents should drop their obsessions with what may have been fashionable in the past.

You are one sector! You cannot apply what you want to everyone and effectively say Classics is useless. It isn’t to all employers!

And no, it’s not a debt you have to pay F1. If you earn less than £25,000 you do not pay 1p. Above that it’s a grad tax on earnings. Millions are now paying it but very many will never get close to paying all of it off. F1. Look at MSE web site for a better explanation. But no, it’s not a debt you pay with little money and quite frankly all grads are equal regarding the £25,000. It’s the same threshold for all!

There would be a higher chance of dropping out of Oxbridge than other unis. What makes you think that? Oxford and Cambridge have the lowest drop out rates of all UK universities (about 1%) (figures for whole sector here

They also have some pretty generous bursaries and hardship grants, though that is a bit difficult to compare across universities.

maryso: who is your post aimed at? I’m certainly not saying anything was unfair. What was fashionable in the past? Who is obsessed? I’m mystified.

Not at you, bubbles.

And Oxbridge has cheaper accommodation than elsewhere. So it’s very affordable.

Although of course if you need to take out a maintenance loan you will owe twice as much as a student supported by their parents.

I have been at work today. Based on historic results, 71% of all students sitting the exam which they have been studying for today will fail the paper next month. Whether they did Classics at Oxford or Digital Marketing at Hull, their degree is largely irrelevant in my profession, as long as they can pass their professional exams, do their job and get along with clients. That's why the large firms they are joining are increasingly doing blind applications. My recent global prize winners have rarely had all the benefits an Oxbridge degree is perceived to give them, but have frequently had an academic background which many who fill these threads would snear at.

Several people including numberaremything have pointed out that O or C are not the only show in town

Before one claims that something is 'unfair' it is usual good manners to base that on fact, and also not use partial and outdated figures. Saying that state sixth forms using the same entry criteria but getting worse results is akin to saying that Oxford requires 4Cs in GCSE sciences and maths to get into medicine, and how unfair it is that DC who has these has failed to get in! Such people are at best naive and almost always disingenuous.

I'm intrigued as to your sector numbers! Actuarial? Accountancy?

I'm sure that Classics may be useful for something, but an RG graduate who needs to whip out their calculator to calculate 10% (& there are many of those) would be a dangerous prospect compared to a graduate from a less prestigious university with an A level in maths who can actually pass their professional exams. Latin & Greek are worthless in that specific context, as I'm sure the shareholders in Patisserie Valerue, Carillion & British Steel would agree!

I would love to know how the spelling algorithm on my phone works, but I will leave that to a computer science grad!