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.

Going to Kings isn’t a massive leap though if you are born in London. They didn’t go to Oxford, did they? Yes, Oxford might be missing out. However if people don’t apply, even after outreach, it’s difficult to change numbers without a change in attitudes at schools and in families. Many poorer DC simply don’t see Oxford as being acceptable to them. My extended family for example! They simply won’t go south or out of their northern comfort zone. They would not mix with anyone not like them so Oxford is out. Even though family members could have considered it as on fsm, live in deprived area etc. School is good though but none go to Oxbridge. Looking at destinations, they stay ooop North. Every single leaver.

Students are likely to choose universities where there are students like them.. this is particularly prevalent in amongst non traditional students and first generation students. They stay 'ooop North' as you so charmingly put it because they think they'll fit in. Deciding to go to university is a big deal in itself but Oxbridge is a step too far.....plus its cheaper up north.

No, going to Kings isn't a massive leap if you live in London but if you are poor and black and homeless, going to med school is a massive achievement. I was just making the point that outreach is good and if it just changes the attitudes of even a few, that's a victory

Medicine at KCL has approx 10 applicants per place, so is more competitive in terms of numbers than applying for some subjects at Oxford.

On the other hand, KCL has a high proportion of students from ethnic minorities, and might be seen as more accessible by BAME pupils than Oxford, which has a notably small proportion of applicants who are black (as reported recently in the news).

Just because they're aiming to accept more from low-participation neighbourhoods doesn't mean A) they'll achieve it, or B) that they need recruit less from the top three postcode quintiles.

Like all universities once we leave the EU a lot of Oxford's EU students will go elsewhere - to the Ivies for example. They have to be replaced...

The idea of leaving home to go to University is an odd one for many. The challenge for many London schools is to persuade bright pupils to aim high, as in UCL rather than London Met. Trying to to persuade them to live away from home, with the additional expense and the social adaptation may not be worth it. Is an Oxbridge education that much better as to be worth the extra cost and the risk that a student might not thrive? The same, I assume, may apply to bright student living close to good Universities in the north.

Why the obsession with Oxbridge. Surely the aim is to get students from challenging backgrounds to good Universities where they will do well.

Going to Kings isn’t a massive leap though if you are born in London.

It’s not just about geography though is it? There are plenty of London-born young people who would consider King’s, or any university really, out of their grasp. Not because they are not capable but without resources, encouragement, support to look at options, etc, a university place - even one just up the road - can still feel like a world away.

Why the obsession with Oxbridge. Surely the aim is to get students from challenging backgrounds to good Universities where they will do well.

Oh the target (it isn't something Oxford have decided for themselves - they've just publicised it today) applies to all high-tariff universities.

That makes more sense. Newspaper headlines seem concentrated on Oxbridge. For many students KCL, Newcastle, or Manchester might be more sensible options.

Students are likely to choose universities where there are students like them.. this is particularly prevalent in amongst non traditional students and first generation students. They stay 'ooop North' as you so charmingly put it because they think they'll fit in

Interestingly, on the university threads I have read I get the impression that a great many students in the southern half of the UK tend to stay “darn sarf”. I imagine that it is because quite a few just don’t want to be several hours away from home, and nothing to do with not wanting to move across the north/south “divide”

Who loses out? Well nobody. Bright students from more diverse backgrounds will be encouraged to apply to Oxford, because they will think they actually have a chance of being considered. Their offers will be for exactly the same grades as those from more privileged backgrounds and the traditional Oxford feeder schools. Oxford wins because they have a wider pool of candidates to select from. The less traditional Oxford candidates win as they may raise their aspirations. The more traditional Oxford candidates also win, as they may have to work a little harder to receive an offer and their final grades, which will then be well deserved. If some of them do miss out on what was previously a dead cert place, they will still be able to venture further afield to Exeter, Bristol and Durham with their other chums, so they haven't actually lost anything as they never had it in the first place.

Loads of southern DC go to Durham, Edinburgh and Newcastle, not to mention St Andrews and Lancaster, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester! There are far fewer from the north at Exeter and UCL, LSE, Imperial and Kings, for example.

By the way : ooop north is in common usage as is darn sarf! It means no harm! Just shorthand.

I went to Oxford. If they could take these places from the super rich students who would never have made it there if it weren’t for their incredible privilege then it would hugely improve the institution. We had someone move over to our (very oversubscribed) subject from one of the most niche you could enter on (a subject his father had paid for him to be tutored in for five years privately), he could barely write an essay. It was a farce. Oh, he donated a library too, I think that helped.

tapas it's all about 'student-institutional' fit. For non traditional students this is a much bigger deal and has a bigger influence on their decision making. It's not necessarily a north/south divide but more about fitting in. These students are drawn to universities where current students appear to be like them... This can include looks and accent.

However, finance also plays a part and we are seeing more students stay local or relatively closer to home regardless of their background.

Ooop North is hardly shorthand bubbles.....it did come across a little condescending in your post

It's OK Bubbles. I'm from darn sarf originally. I think another reason is the perception that southern universities are more expensive. I went to school in South London, and a lot of my friends went north to universities.

Maybe it is because more than half of the Russell Group Universities are in the northern half of the UK?

Or maybe northern universities are perceived as more friendly

FFS. The poor people lose out, as usual, because there's a lot more than 25% of them. But really they should be rationing the private school places to be in proportion.

The poor people lose out, as usual, because there's a lot more than 25% of them

There aren't more than 25% of them who are of Oxbridge standard academically you muppet!

• Loads of southern DC go to Durham, Edinburgh and Newcastle, not to mention St Andrews and Lancaster, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester! There are far fewer from the north at Exeter and UCL, LSE, Imperial and Kings, for example.

London is expensive and offputting to many from outside of it. And really, why the heck would a northerner bother trekking to Exeter when they've got Durham, York, Manchester, Sheffield etc more conveniently? Not to mention the Scottish unis .... many of DDs cohort didn't consider anywhere 'sarf' other than Oxbridge, med schools, and a few who wanted to go to London.

If you consider the QS rankings for the U.K. it's not at all surprising!

There aren't more than 25% of them who are of Oxbridge standard academically you muppet!

How on earth would you defend that?!

The BBC quote is of course ridiculous.

As it's been explained to me, this is to try to reduce caution on the part of admissions tutors when faced with e.g. very confident and articulate public school pupil vs nervous, less charming pupil from grotty comp, who have similar qualifications so far and similar predicted grades. Too often (according to Louise Richardson perhaps) the public school kid gets the offer, and the other one surpasses the Oxford standard offer when they actually get their A level results, and takes their talent elsewhere.

So this access scheme is aimed at those deemed disadvantaged who also achieve at least the standard Oxford offer - there's no dumbing down. As I understand it, it's more about reassuring the tutors that potential students will be supported and ready for the intensity of an Oxford education when they arrive in October.

Which sort of makes sense. Whether these kids, who will have got very good A level results already, want to spend time being Henry-Higgined, and whether Oxford can do it without it being patronising, might be different stories

The poor people lose out, as usual, because there's a lot more than 25% of them. But really they should be rationing the private school places to be in proportion.

Depends on the definition of deprived, I guess - if they look at the bottom quintile of POLAR or ACORN, then by definition that's less than 25% of the population

Reducing the indie sector to a 7% quote would be radical! Just imagine the uproar

How on earth would you defend that?!

Eh? Look any any school data. 25% of kids do not get A and Astar grades....

RedSheep73 and SarahAndQuack - so would you award places directly proportionately to the population as a whole? You might as well introduce a lottery, then, so that all applicants just get randomly assigned to any university. In fact anyway some people (even on MN!) firmly maintain that they're all the same standard .

Back to my OP, I think it will be the not very underprivileged but not very well off applicants who will lose out. No flags to speak of and none of the polish or in-depth learning either. My dcs go/have been to a run-of-the-mill comp. No outreach there. No motivational speakers. Barely anyone on benefits. But no one well off either. All dull middle-ranking people. And a demographic that just ain't sexy.

No one has to lose out at all. Oxford will undoubtably lose EU students - if their places are taken up with the increase in students from low participating neighbourhoods there won't be any loss of student from the higher participating areas.