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.

Interest rates do increase yes

I'd somehow missed or forgotten that there was a sliding scale, I was thinking it went from RPI under the threshold straight to RPI plus 3% but that would have been terrible!

Part of my DHs Company is based on Teesside. They don’t earn as much there as the employees in the south but they don’t need to. Housing is way cheaper. The housing ladder is pretty easy to access on a grad engineering salary a few years down the line. It’s even better if you have two salaries in the pot! This housing angst is not applicable everywhere.

The best universities and courses give the best access to higher paying jobs. Also movement within the jobs market. That’s why they are worth it and others are not!

I’m surprised to find that I haven’t commented on this thread. But there’s another thread currently running which seems connected to the ‘not for the likes of us’ theme. Here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/preteens/3596933-Mum-says-my-ds-looked-scruffy-does-she-have-a-point?msgid=87371725

Interesting discussion

I think there needs to be a differentiation between outreach work where the children of all backgrounds with sufficient ability are urged to apply and contextualized offers which to my mind is positive discrimination in essence.

The idea of contextualized offers (where those from disadvantaged backgrounds are offered lower grade offers or a more lenient ingerview) is inherently discriminatory (although laudable) and this cannot in reality be avoided as a conclusion.

The children from advantaged backgrounds are required to achieve a higher standard for the same course and it is no fault of the children of those families that they have those advantages so one can ask why should they be penalised?

We do not have contextualized offers in other competitive realms of life e.g. lucrative jobs or medical degrees and so is it fair there is quite a strong spotlight on Oxbridge in this respect?

Others have pointed out these universities should be beacons of excellence attracting the best student intake available (and yes that is elitist if we want to use that word) and their make up shouldn't necessarily be forced to be a proportionate representation of society.

In reality (I loathe to say this) but to many low offers for Oxbridge will ultimately have an influence on the way employers view these institutions and a byproduct could be a strengthening of other university reputations where very able middle class students will be displaced to.

Another point and again this is controversial is that social integration a extremely important at the time of late teenage years and early adult hood and I think at least some thought needs to be given to this when bright disadvantaged children are making university decisions so they are happy with their social environment.

I write as someone from a NE pit village who did reasonably well at school, applied to Cambridge, got pooled but rejected. I went to a reasonably good popular university in the Midlands region and found the it socially disorienting as I did not have the personal skills or background to mix successfully with children from middle class backgrounds and I may use another thread and therapy for this as it was not a pleasant experience! I believe something similar may have happened at Cambridge (or maybe not)........

• I think there needs to be a differentiation between outreach work where the children of all backgrounds with sufficient ability are urged to apply and contextualized offers which to my mind is positive discrimination in essence.

The idea of contextualized offers (where those from disadvantaged backgrounds are offered lower grade offers or a more lenient ingerview) is inherently discriminatory (although laudable) and this cannot in reality be avoided as a conclusion.*

Which Oxbridge evidently agrees with, as they are doing the former and not the latter. Certainly not dropped grades.

There's various measures they use to determine if you are from an underrepresented group and family income only forms part of it, my dd fitted 4/6 categories and not family income so if they use a similar system it's not just about free school meals. Areas like where I am simply haven't sent kids to Oxford, even the ones with 4 a*'s simply don't apply. They are the kids they are targeting as much as the lowest incomes.

Your postcode will matter basically, if there's disabilities, first in family to go to higher ed, family income, can't remember the other 2 off hand.

There were some posts about contextualized offers being in effect lower offers to accommodate the fact that an applicant is disadvantaged and similarly background may be accounted for in interview.

My point is that applicants from all backgrounds should be encouraged to apply and those with high grades from a less than optimal start in life are certainly to be congratulated (and hopefully be succesful)

However isn't it not entirely unproblematic that lower offers are made for those with disadvantaged circumstances? It is unfortunate we do not have an equal playing field in society and there are indeed tragedies in families however as I said before which other competitive institutions or employers have the onus placed on them to be more lenient on some applicants more than others?

I also think that the idea of bringing in family economics, schooling, and social circumstances into applications is political in nature and Oxbridge are a political institutions like other public bodies and is it fair to have political interference in their admissions criteria?

It is not the university's fault there is inequality in society and by proxy schooling (those on the left argue it should be reducex).and this is something Mr Cornyn and the next PM will talk about a lot I very much suspect!).

In my humble opinion schooling standards in general should be advanced but Oxbridge shouldn't reduce standards as a response to systemic failures in some parts of our education system.

Stucknoe under representation is a complex subject and I don't think there is a societal magic bullet. I do not think positive discrimination or quotas are necessarily the answer.......more outreach work and encouraging applications seems to my mind an acceptable alternative.

Again the question is for someone with a more advantages background would they be happy with in reality having a slightly harder target because of
their upbringing? In a communist system there would be less inequality and I guess the questions of relative advantage and disadvantage become less relevant but the revolution hasn't happened (yet).

An interesting question is should the idea contexualisarion be extended to other educational spheres e.g. Grammar school application of even school examination award?

Oxbridge shouldn't reduce standards as a response to systemic failures in some parts of our education system.

They are not proposing to reduce standards at all. As far as I understand it the aim is to identify potential students who would be capable of achieving higher grades were they not disadvantaged by environmental circumstances. (This point has already been made several times!)

The children from advantaged backgrounds are required to achieve a higher standard for the same course and it is no fault of the children of those families that they have those advantages so one can ask why should they be penalised?

They're not being penalised. Their grade offers simply aren't amended to reflect disadvantage, on the grounds that they haven't suffered any.

However isn't it not entirely unproblematic that lower offers are made for those with disadvantaged circumstances?

!!!!

Again the question is for someone with a more advantaged background would they be happy with in reality having a slightly harder target because of their upbringing?

I can answer a very strong affirmative to that one, in the case of my DC. Their advantage comes from having been to grammar school (as opposed to lots of money swilling around) and on that ground alone they think it completely right that they should be expected to get the standard grades for Oxford with no leeway at interview while people at less good schools get lower offers/ leeway to reflect the difference in education. No question in their minds at all.

An interesting question is should the idea of contexualisation be extended to other educational spheres e.g. Grammar school application

Grammars have already introduced a limited concept of contextualisation for applicants entitled to Pupil Premium, are actively looking at Polar/ Acorn/ other markers of social deprivation which might be used and are also talking to the DfE about re-introducing contextualisation for applications eg looking at school books etc (the Admissions Code has been a thorn). It's a key part of their agenda and hopefully will be implemented soon.

That post didn't bother to address the question of whether Oxford is actually thinking of lower grades, which it doesn't seem to be :)

Yes, and give them essentially a catch up year - with the offer for the degree being contingent on how well that goes.

Sorry, I was adding to George's reply.

Goodbyestranger....thank you for the above response.

I think a lot of this has to do with whether we are happy for A levels to be an objective standard which are agreed as an indication of achievement and those standards should be upheld independent of other circumstances.

Unfortunately I'm a lot of areas in life your background isn't going to be a factor in the assessment of suitability for a role e.g. a standard job where ability is all that counts so again why look at offer modification in higher education.

The identification of potential is of course important but this does introduce a degree of subjectivity into the application process and does less than optimal A levels coupled with an identification of potential necessarily work?

I think if you were to honestly ask the question of a privately educated child whether their child was happy (or the child themselves of course)that they may have lost a place to someone from a different background as they were judged differently(and arguably to a lower standard ) I think the response may be in some cases different t to the one above.

I also think the idea of bringing background into this is instinctively political in that allowing advantage (or at least compensating for disadvantage) is left leaning in the political spectrum and I am guessing your views may be of that persuasion. The point I was making before is should Oxbridge be a political football for those with differing opinions on educational policy in general?

One could argue abolishing public schools would definitely aid with ensuring a level playing field but we as a society are not there yet. If we are happy with public schooling in general don't we implicitly agree that there are advantages that accrue from them and Oxbridge applications are one of them?

Shouldn't those from.disadvantaged backgrounds be assured their successful applications are from merit only and not the result of a compensation for background?

Everything is relative amending the grade offer for disadvantaged pupils does act as penalty for the advantaged as they require a higher (albeit unamended) grade. With a constant number of places this means the advantaged potentially may lose a place he would have gained if the contexualiasation wasn't in place (definite penalty).....Again is this fair?

A system whereby an applicant with some external advantage (ie other than their own ability and character) has that advantage somewhat discounted, that seems quite fair.

Private education and selective education are themselves forms of 'social engineering'.

The identification of potential is of course important but this does introduce a degree of subjectivity into the application process ...

Have you led a really sheltered life? Are you genuinely trying to claim that there has been no subjectivity in the selection of candidates for desirable jobs for a million years?

I hope someone else can explain this to you. The threat to my blood pressure forces me to withdraw I’m afraid.

I think if you were to honestly ask the question of a privately educated child whether their child was happy (or the child themselves of course)that they may have lost a place to someone from a different background as they were judged differently(and arguably to a lower standard ) I think the response may be in some cases different t to the one above.

mids2019 with six DC having recently graduated from Oxford and having had exactly this conversation with all of them I think I'm in a strong position to 'honestly' (!) answer the question. The fact that their education is privileged by virtue of having attended a grammar rather than a private school is utterly besides the point.

Of course, you may well get a different answer from people with a massive sense of entitlement. There are cases of parents who really did think they could buy exam grades and university places - their ire generally seems to be directed at schools which didn't deliver the expected 'product'. Not even the smallest of violins for those (though I may feel pity for their kids).

Oh dear God where to start mid2019. Blood pressure pills probably.... please don't become an MP, or lobbyist.

But briefly, Oxford et al are publicly funded and thus have a public responsibility and like all public sector institutions will find themselves at the heart of political whim. Same as the NHS, academies, defence spending etc.

Shouldn't those from.disadvantaged backgrounds be assured their successful applications are from merit only and not the result of a compensation for background?

Of COURSE there should be acknowledgement of someone's difficulties. I wish all the high tariff universities used contextual offers. Why on earth would you think someone from a sink school who had 8 teachers for Maths A level, not one of them with a Maths degree, who still managed to get an A grade wasn't of much higher ability than the old Etonian who got an Astar. You still think they should be denied the place despite the fact that they are undoubtedly MUCH better at Maths than the Eton kid? You'd have to be an absolutely nasty piece of work to resent the sink school kid being offered a place with one grade lower than everyone else.

(You've also assumed a fixed number of places btw - big assumption!)

Maybe you also think that A level exam boards shouldn't take e.g. a bereavement into account when marking a candidate's work. After all it's not fair on those who didn't suffer a bereavement

Shouldn't those from.disadvantaged backgrounds be assured their successful applications are from merit only and not the result of a compensation for background?

Really just need to turn that around:
'Shouldn't those from advantaged backgrounds be assured their successful applications are from merit only and not the result of benefit from their background?'

I don't think my DD or goodbyes DCs would be at all happy if they felt they weren't truly deserving of their places.

Ouch.....

don't worry I have no ambition of becoming an MP... maybe trying to give an alternative perspective to an issue which obviously raises opinions (!)

Can I put it out there that i within current society (I will not comment politically about this) you are entitled to choose the education for your child and I suppose the choice of private education is to confer advantage (of course every parent wants the best for her child) in an understandable way.

OK this advantage isn't fair in some eyes, but is educational and wealth inequality fair in general? If society is structured in a way public school children have an advantage is that in any way the fault of universities or is it an indictment on a society that allows 'sink schools' without adequate funding? I am all for increasing educational standard at schools rather than the reduction of university tariffs.

You could argue that a particular Oxbridge course has a high grade offers simply because the courses are demanding and it would be unfair to accept students with lower grades as they may struggle.

It is not the responsibility or fault of those who lecture at universities to help solve social inequality or to mitigate it's effects.I

Should we abolish A levels as a means of assessment as high results are disproportionately gained by the economically advantaged or do not take into account the specific social considerations of each of the applicants?

I would argue A levels are possibly a fair and objective measure of measuring ability perhaps not perfect but good enough. If they are to remain a fair and respected qualification should we not equate a given grade with a given ability without the complex and subjective task of social modification?

Universities are public bodies indeed so should they treat people equitably and offer the same grades to everyone for the same degree? We would expect the NHS to treat an Etonian in the same manner as someone from a comprehensive in the interests of fairness so shouldn't we apply the same principles in higher education?

I

I think universities are pretty autonomous and don't react readily to political interference (look at the Laura Spence affair with Gordon Brown) and maybe this is a good thing? If we get a Labour government in the future I am sure there are those that would look at Oxbridge i with a view to decreasing public school participation and possibly the stances of both universities to social inclusion is in preemption of this.....

mids2019 your complete lack of understanding on this issue shines through in your last post. I don't even know where to begin.. .

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 at the idea of universities being autonomous and free from political pressure