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.

' it would be unfair to accept students with lower grades as they may struggle.'

And again.... Oxbridge aren't accepting students with lower grades - apart from fairness, this is why. Particularly in STEM subjects, a student who doesn't have the necessary grasp on the required A level subject content won't thrive.

Maybe you should start another thread about the universities which do make lower contextual offers?

Costanza, I suspect it varies. I am not an expert, but I think LSE, which is an extreme, only receives about 10% of its income from the Government and only 25% of its students from thd UK. Their priority will therefore be more aligned to retain their international reputation, though I think they are genuinely interested in picking up some of the best and brightest from deprived communities within the UK as part of enhancing their diversity. But it means that they are in a good position to resist Government pressure that they might consider unhelpful. (Like the student satisfaction debacle.)

Similarly some Oxbridge colleges are very rich indeed. One or two have already dropped out of a key University pension scheme. There is the danger that if the Government pushes a diversity or other agenda that these colleges consider harmful to long term aims, they just walk. And we end up, like the US, with some of our best Universities, essentially run as private institutions.

I understand how it works needmore
Universities used to be considered autonomous fields who had freedom to make their own rules but the general consensus is that they've largely lost this autonomy. Now, some institutions still have some autonomy and are in a position to make and set the rules but there is so much political interference in the HE sector it's ridiculous.

Its squaring a circle....people wont accept lower grades (commendable) for Oxbridge as content is justifiably hard but around a 1/3 top A levels are gained by private school pupils and still they are bemoaned for being over represented.

Going back to the initial leading question about who loses out.....well if the number of students remain approximately constant it really must be the 'advantaged' and I think there are going to be a number of young people who have strived hard at school and parents that have been supportive of their educational choices that will feel disappointed if the figure of 25% is true (and the exact nature of poor is debatable

Needsmoresleep - I think you are absolutely right about the wealth of oxbrdige colleges and their ability to become truly autonomous if they so chose and have the wealth and status to resist government.

I think outreach programs are laudable but by forcing colleges to accept a certain proportion of students from certain societal groups will only lead to accusations of social engineering and colleges freeing themselves from the state system.

Oxbridge could easily thrive in the private sector and charge fees in line with Harvard and Yale, this with large corporate and research grants with their very very large endowments.

The signals public school associations are making do show that this group (rightly or wrongly) do feel unfairly done by and they could be a powerful lobby...

Mids2019 - fees are capped. Higher fees are dependent on approval from OfS which includes addressing gaps amongst the disadvantaged. OfS has to fund expensive courses. Med places are capped. Augar recommended an academic threshold for maintenance loans. Augar recommended no funding for foundation year. All those things are political. We cannot function in anywhere near an autonomous way at all and you are ridiculously naive to think that can ever be the case.

Secondly yes SOME parents are free to choose their offsprings education, most though are not. Yes we'd all agree that there is massive disparity at primary and secondary level and that causes massive issues - I said further down that it's not fair to expect universities to be responsible for putting right all the ills in the current state education system.

It is fair that those inequities are acknowledged though, and that applicants who have the required ability are admitted to Oxford, Bristol etc. Fortunately universities are clever enough, aware enough and have plenty of evidence to show that disadvantaged applicants may achieve an A level grade lower than their hugely advantaged peers, but that is because of their disadvantage, not because of their lack of ability.

Augar recommended no funding for foundation year.

That seems like a potentially regressive step - does anyone know the reasoning behind that?

Its squaring a circle....people wont accept lower grades (commendable) for Oxbridge as content is justifiably hard but around a 1/3 top A levels are gained by private school pupils and still they are bemoaned for being over represented

Do you understand why this is the case though? Why private schools get better grades?

and the exact nature of poor is debatable There are some well established measures of disadvantage which are used across the sector

I think outreach programs are laudable but by forcing colleges to accept a certain proportion of students from certain societal groups will only lead to accusations of social engineering and colleges freeing themselves from the state system.

Nobody is forcing anything. Its about making the system fairer for all. Oxbridge will still get their high achievers any they might actually end up with a better set of students by widening access to involve those who traditionally haven;t attended.
What's the alternative? We do nothing? Those young people who have the potential to succeed and achieve don't because of where they are born, their parents education or the school they attended....do we just shrug our shoulders and say 'tough luck'?

Oxford isn't being forced by the way. They are being forced to address an issue. But they have decided on this as a target.

Again as I've mentioned before, Oxford as with all universities are likely to lose a chunk of EU students - so they could simply replace this lost number with a few more disadvantaged students, keeping intake of advantaged students exactly the same.

I was just about to say everythingtitchy just said.....

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 see, I don't understand this point of view. Why would they be of higher ability than the Etonian who may well be the second Stephen Hawking? What about someone who got A* from a comprehensive school? Are they "better" than them? They may indeed be better, or the same, or worse. But you can't say that all disadvantaged applicants are all better than all advantaged ones. It just doesn't work like that.

My ds went to a middle-ranking comp in Nowheresville. No disadvantages. But no great advantages either, particularly in the teaching which was Bland in the extreme. It really was a race to the middle at his school. My original OP was what about kids at these schools? Zero flags for anything, no one coming to give them inspirational aim higher talks or trips. I think it will be these kids who will be squeezed out as they just aren't headline-grabbing sexy candidates who can be touted round as emblems of increasing inclusion.

Augar's Foundation Year recommendations - don't forget it is a post 18 review that included FE. I suspect this is viewed as a way of moving some money and access-type provision back to FE which has been well and truly shafted recently.

You see, I don't understand this point of view. Why would they be of higher ability than the Etonian

Ok maybe not higher, but certainly at least as equal. Someone who has largely self taught themselves the Maths A level syllabus and managed to get an A is clearly a very very capable mathematician, who would easily have achieved an Astar had they gone to at least a 'bog standard comp', and probably full marks if they'd gone to Eton.

Can you really not see that?

Oxbridge could easily thrive in the private sector and charge fees in line with Harvard and Yale, this with large corporate and research grants with their very very large endowments.

Yes but very few U.K. students could attend as if they were truly private (ie not registered) students couldn't access loans. So they'd shrink quite a lot!

Oxbridge could easily thrive in the private sector and charge fees in line with Harvard and Yale, this with large corporate and research grants with their very very large endowments

Yes but very few U.K. students could attend as if they were truly private (ie not registered) students couldn't access loans. So they'd shrink quite a lot!

This^

And students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds would be even more disadvantaged!

Irma - I have little doubt that the overall state/private percentages will be monitored (not least by the media) and that the pressure will be to increase that alongside 'inclusion'.

And 'losing out' by going to one of the good London unis, Bristol etc isn't too much of a cause for woe.

But, titchy, you keep citing extreme examples from the margins. It's not all thicko Bertie Wooster-type Etonian vs genius sink school kid. . That's perpetuating a silly myth.

That's perpetuating a silly myth

As someone who researches this for a living I can assure you it's no myth.

IrmaLaFey- valid point and it is often the middle that is less vocal than others. The bright children of middle of the road schools in middle of the road areas are the ones going to be left wwhether its worth making an application at all.

Titchy - OK Oxbridge is accountable to the government ultimately and is funded to some extent publicly but I would questions whether the DoE would micromanage aspects of policy.

The argument that a B in a bog standard comp is equivalent to the A star from Eton does have flaws...

The A level by definition is an objective assessment of ability that is standardized more or less across the whole country and is closely monitored in terms of standards. The whole point of a universal examination is that it removes the school as a factor and wholly tests absolute ability (in the interests of fairness)

If we start equating one grade from a school with another from another school we are in effect undermining the examination by allowing our personal judgment (of the child's circumstance) influence the value of a particular grade.

The logical conclusion to such an argument would be allow schools to set their local grade boundaries determined by school intake, levels of disadvantage etc or have some sort of relative A level grade introduced. The point is an A level is an absolute measure not a relative one.

The reduction of offer grades could lead to stigmatization of applicants if made known. You also risk having candidates unable to cope with the course as they have achieved poorer than expected grades for the course with the hope that the untapped unquantifiable potential that led to the low offer will surmount this.

With non-oxbridge universities where student limits are a little more flexible unscrupulous institutions could accept low tariff individuals, pocket the tuition fees with the risk of the student achieving a low degree classification or dropping out.

Wider access is to be commended but should not come at expense of educational standards.

Actually it often is. At least from the deprived end. Most kids go to reasonable schools, with reasonable parental support, reasonable aspirations. There's a subset of those who are very very very advantaged, but no evidence the huge amount of extra that a few kids have, does anything more than add a couple of percentage points to an A level. Which might translate to one or two higher grades out of 40 taken by a cohort. It's an advantage yes, but not such a massive one.

The disadvantage the bottom one or two quintile students suffer however can be enormous and DOES lead to inequity in results, despite similar potential.

You can for example take students with 10 grade 8 or 9 GCSEs and then look at their A level attainment. Middle of the road schools ie the comp my kids went to, and private schools will produce more or less the same results. Really poor schools though won't. Contextual offers simply recognise that.

I meant the whole concept of disadvantage.....some people on this thread don't seem to think it matters or has a significant impact 🙄

There seems to be this idea that universities don't know what they're doing and pluck initiatives out of thin air just for the lols.

We're actually an extremely evidence based sector, able to consider and act on a robust evidence base that fits with our individual institutional contexts. We are by definition staffed by experts, however much certain politician disparage that expertise.

I would questions whether the DoE would micromanage aspects of policy.

I can assure you the Office for Students does.

mid an important premise of widening access is not to negatively impact educational standards but to understand that not everyone is coming from the same starting point ....which can impact on attainment. That's what contextual offers are about.

The argument that a B in a bog standard comp is equivalent to the A star from Eton does have flaws...

The argument is that a B from a very low achieving 'sink' school equals an A from Eton. A B from a bog standard comp equals a B.