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.

Oxbridge isn't levelling the playing field in terms of grades - it's really just trying to get a wider range into the tryouts.

I'm all for the levelling that Oxford are adopting to represent brilliant minds from all the different social classes of people that make up our society.

One of the main problems that will be very hard to address is course options at Oxbridge where state school children are at a disadvantage because of the Independent schools having more depth in A level pathways e.g. at my DD's school which is a VERY mid-range Indie they teach both Classics and Latin to A level as well as more than one MFL and they also offer the breadth of wider study with the IB Program. So the course choices are slightly limited for state school children and therefore the competition much higher in these subjects. This stretches all the way back to GCSE's where maybe some DC don't get the option to do triple science, or computer science or further maths which certainly means they will be at a disadvantage.

The problem needs to be addressed much earlier than A levels.

What use is Classics, Latin or an extra lang( if you’re not doing a Lang degree)? I have Classics at O and A level from a state school, utterly useless. You need an aptitude for maths to do further maths and science to do triple (which you would need at degree level anyway) but many do them in state schools.

Aren’t there restrictions with access to student loans for some arts degrees now?

On the flip side of that, state school applicants to Classics courses have a much greater chance of getting in! In London, state schools are teaching Latin again, even if just to tiny groups in sixth form.

I do get the concern on here that participation from state schools is so often characterised as kids who are at the very hardest end of the spectrum, in failing schools and deprived areas. Many state school kids attend OK schools and live in OK areas and what about them? I think the thing to do is apply and see. The highly individual nature of Oxbridge interviews means they get their chance to be seen and heard and impress if they get through the door, and they won’t if they don’t try. It’s not great to feel cut out of the narrative but the colleges themselves want those applicants if they’re good enough.

IB is done at our state school but my dc won’t be doing it. Don’t want to continue with a language past GCSE and prefer to do more focused STEM subjects, not even sure you can do CS in the IB. Not really an issue is it for STEM degrees? Is it an issue for any degree, surely competence at Alevel is just as valid?

Unless unis say we want IB and Classics I think it’s a bit disingenuous to put the blame there or on state schools.

I do get your point about those not in either end of the spectrum though. Hope we see more of them getting places too.It’s hardly social mobility if you get two very extreme ends of the spectrum represented but the massive swathes in the middle are still under represented.

Perhaps if you read this article you will understand what I posted.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/oxbridge-places-state-school-pupils-reduced-change-university-courses-oversubscribed-oxford-a7892101.html

It doesn't matter what your degree is in to get some of the best graduate jobs ..

At our Scottish state school (in a reasonable area) ,there's only a choice of around 11 Advanced Highers ( A level equivalent). Not all of them run each year depending on numbers. There are only 160 pupils in his year and not all of them take A levels.

There is no philosophy, classics, Latin, Law, engineering, German, business studies, etc. There is no computer science course as there is no teacher. Some subjects also have to be partially self taught as the subjects cannot be fully timetabled.

My son has had to self teach a third of a course of an A level from scratch (he's never taken the subject before) in less than a year due to maternity leave and lack of replacement cover.

If he succeeds, (he got the top grade in his mock) surely it shows great self-discipline and dedication? Shouldn't these kids who cone up against educational disadvantage or adversity and still succeed, perhaps with less than all A stars, be the ones we should encourage to apply?

BTW, he could well approach his offer college and explain the circumstances of a lack of teacher for his subject in case of a dropped grade, but he won't. He feels he doesn't deserve his place if he cannot attain the required grades. He has a standard offer with no contextualisation.

Our DD got an interview for Oxford. She goes to a comprehensive school in a very middle class area. Interviews went really well and she's usually a very good judge of things like that. She want offered a place. In her words..."I wasn't posh enough or poor enough" The rejection ended her live for the subject and she's now going to study something completely different. Ultimately though I think she'll be happy. Similarly the daughter of a teacher at the Primary school my younger children go to also got an interview (very similar demographic to us) but didn't get an offer either....

oneteen you're absolutely right. For the majority of graduate jobs it's doesn't matter what subject you've studied.

However, when young people are making choices around HE this isn't always taken into account.... mainly because people don't know that!

Working class students and first generation students are more likely to choose vocational courses because they perceive them as being less risky. This is because for these students just going to university is considered a huge risk.

Aurea you may be over-estimating the provision of other state schools. My DC have gone to what I consider a good school (state superselective) but it has fewer students than your DS's and like his school, doesn't offer most of the subjects you mention at A level (or others eg Ancient History). One subject has had an absentee teacher for most of this year, for both Y12 and 13. It's very common in the state sector rather than being the exception - not unusual in any area of the UK.

lumpy how on earth does she know that she "wasn't posh enough or poor enough"? Given that the majority of people who apply don't get in isn't it just more likely that there were just people who showed greater aptitude in the interview/any tests and from their existing qualifications and UCAS form? I've also heard it said that those who come out of the interview thinking it was awful tend to be the ones who've done best because they've got to the stage where the tutors have really been pushing them to their limits.

I can see that it is far more comforting to think that you didn't get a place because you weren't the right demographic but it just feeds into the myth that puts off future applicants.

lumpy76, the fact is that there are many, many applicants per place, and indeed at ds's interview they told them straight up there were 40 of them and 8 places (and they might not even offer 8 places) so having an interview - even an interview that goes well - is not a sign that you're a shoe-in.

It's true too, as Mia83 says, that if the interviewers are nice then it can be a bit of a bad sign and means that they aren't pushing you.

Frankly citing examples of people who didn't get a place is daft. And the more people who are encouraged to apply, the more rejections there will be!

Having seen the process at first hand and a cousin who was successful in gaining a place (from a school where they get at least 10 in a yr...) I would not recommend people apply.

There is no philosophy, classics, Latin, Law, engineering, German, business studies, etc. There is no computer science course as there is no teacher

Many of those weren't available at A level my DDs GS (she had a CS teacher but he left, they did have German.). I don't think any of those are essential for any Oxbridge course, albeit for classics it would have to be the 4 year course. Some would be no advantage or even a disadvantage versus 'vanilla' subjects.

Having seen the process at first hand and a cousin who was successful in gaining a place (from a school where they get at least 10 in a yr...) I would not recommend people apply.

Having seen the process at first hand I would absolutely recommend applying, so long as the applicant does it with a 'nothing ventured, nothing gained' mindset, and accepts that the statistics mean they likeliest won't get a place even if they're good.

And maybe if they find any of the steps of the process truly offputting, they should be offput.
Write a PS (which they have to do anyway) - write about your interest in your subject. If you can't do that (SEN considerations aside) why are you even applying for uni courses in it anywhere?

Do an aptitude test, based on standard A level content plus maybe a bit of out-of-the-box thinking ability. Really not a big ask fo able students. If you can't deal with that test, exams will be a worse problem.

Interview - talk with a couple of knowledgeable strangers about your subject. Now, that part may be somewhat scary, but if it's terrifying then a system with a strong element of supervisions/tutorials may not be best for your character.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48541423

So I went to see Admissions with Alex Kingston and Sarah Hadland last night. Set in the US and more to do with BAME positive action but did put me in mind of this thread! Worth seeing if you get the chance.

The stats from Oxford also show 24% overseas students with hundreds from China and Singapore. With 3300 places on offer, students from these countries number over 520. The overseas students are now 22% of intake. The total student body is 43% from overseas. These figures have just been discussed on the BBC news website. State students are over 60%. 159 students come from the NE. Therefore MC ordinary UK educated DC, regardless of what school they attend, are actually competing for just over 50% of places. So for all of them it’s getting significantly harder if the target is reached and overseas students continue to grow.

Just to be clear - typo - it is 22% overseas undergrads. Not 24%.

Bubbles, I don’t understand your post. You make no mention of European students, whose numbers are likely to have increased over the past decade. (If nothing else standards of English have improved dramatically amongst young people from Central and Eastern Europe, and they now form a noticeable and bright cohort on many competitive courses.)

www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-06-05-latest-oxford-university-admissions-reveal-progress-access

Lots of mention of sea-change by the VC in the media and on the Oxford website. If you add together the numbers for overseas students plus the 250 access and foundation places than that still leaves over two thirds of places up for grabs. The interesting thing is how this sea-change will filter through at interview invite/ interview level for those remaining two thousand odd places.

Needmoresleep the 22% overseas figure includes EU.

MC British kids are competing for all of the places.

There may be targets and measures being introduced for levelling the playing field (or at least, broadening the tryout field) for disadvantaged kids, but there are no actual quotas. There's certainly no quota for overseas students. Their increasing numbers reflect the huge pool of talent from China and Europeans with good English and so forth. Education Singapore should be examined care to see if any of their disproportionate success can be emulated.

The numbers of Chinese students will quite possibly decline as their own universities grow in stature - lower ranked British unis shouldn't be taking them for granted, for sure.

In reality UK students are competing for 100% of places but doing so in an internationally competitive field.

If non-UK applicants are increasingly successful then I wish we (as a nation) would spend a bit more time asking how we ensure that all of our children are getting a world class education.