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.

Sorry cross-post with Errol who has made the same point but far more eloquently!

Errol I think that may be a little semantic.

why semantic goodbyestranger?

I agree that there's no official quota but internationals bring something else to the pot, so they're actively sought after. I don't see the numbers declining either recently or in the past, therefore I think that UK students are competing for two thirds of places not the whole lot. Which is fine - the university needs money and diversity. It's a good thing, not bad.

I wouldn't be so sure overseas student markets won't decline tbh. EU students will be paying overseas fee rates in a couple of years, and possibly needing tier 4 visas. The U.K. political climate of hostile environment includes overseas students, despite most of the cabinet wanting them removed from immigration targets they're still included. A post-Brexit parliament may not have the stomach to change that. Plus the distinct possibility of China not allowing its residents to study here if we're seen as too close to the US. It's a very shaky market, largely influenced by politics around the world, not quality of our universities. Maybe I've watched too much episodes of Years and Years!

I am sure that there is great value in having talented international students and that Oxford is keen to encourage applications. It doesn't change the fact that the admissions process is based on competitive processes. Ultimately the reason more overseas students are getting more places is because more of them are applying and then beating UK students in that competition.

When this was all in the press a few months ago it was reported as it it were an expose of Oxbridge failure in admissions rather than a sign that the UK needed to do more to make sure that its talented teenagers were getting the education they need to be internationally competitive.

I find that to be rather typical of a lot of the way in which University admissions are discussed in this country - a myopic focus on Oxbridge and calls for action on admissions processes rather than (also) addressing the underlying causes. It's like the reporting of the new initiatives that started this thread. Whilst it's great that Oxford is doing this, it's a pretty sad indictment of our education system that they feel they need to do so and it does nothing for the vast majority of students from those backgrounds who don't get anywhere near Oxbridge.

Mia a number of us on these threads do as well as talk.

And addressing a single subject doesn't preclude addressing others elsewhere, obviously.

Sorry I wasn't meaning individuals on this thread I was meaning the public narrative.

Yup, I agree Mia.

One thing I noted in my perusal of admissions stats is that the 'success rate' of overseas students is generally lower than for home applicants, with considerable variation between countries. What the stats don't show is how much of this is due to not meeting the offer and how much due to accepting an alternative from elsewhere (eg top US unis).

My guess for the large discrepancy would be more attractive offers from elsewhere Errol.

That would be my guess too.

I find that to be rather typical of a lot of the way in which University admissions are discussed in this country - a myopic focus on Oxbridge

Cant win can you. Not long ago I was accused of envy, as I argued that the UK has a number of strong academic departments, not all in Oxbridge.

Overseas demand for very top Universities is growing fast. Stamford, Harvard etc possibly faster than Oxbridge/London. (Titchy, I think the overseas market for other universities outside of niche courses is different.) Students will make multiple applications, to several countries. Observation suggests that Asians, in particular, can often misunderstand selection criteria, thinking top grades, perhaps achieved by very hard work and plenty of tutoring count, when actually grades are simply one way of assessing potential. This is a particular problem when applying to the US where selection criteria are even broader.

I am surprised at the 22%. It is very low in comparison with some of the better London Universities. (The comparable figure for LSE is around 75%) A good international student cohort aids international recognition and has all sorts of benefits.

A doctor friend in Asia is involved in collecting data for some major international medical research because her bio-medical scientist colleague studied at Cambridge, who are leading the project. Without pro-active support on the ground, cultural issues would probably discourage patients from allowing the data to be collected.

Similarly DS is now studying for a PhD in the US. Both his UG and Masters cohorts in London were phenomenally international and a high proportion of his peers are continuing along a road towards research and academia. His international network is already phenomenal: from Iceland to Argentina, through China and Nigeria, which, in his subject, is really valuable. (Actually one oddity is that though he now probably knows people at every top University in the US he barely knows anyone in the UK bar those who remained in London. I assume it is just his subject but the academic links - guest lecturers, visiting PhD students, etc, that he was exposed to, appeared almost exclusively international rather than from within the UK. My best guess is that Oxbridge UG remain in situ or swap city for their PhDs.)

Oxford and Cambridge need to be outward looking. They will continue to want to recruit top international students in increasing numbers. If they are under pressure to take more UK students from deprived backgrounds, something will have to give. My understanding is that they don't really want to expand (a decision LSE made) so it will get harder for applicants from both state and private schools to gain places. Which means more strong applicants at Durham, Warwick etc. It will be fine. We are very lucky to have a number of good universities.

Yes, if you read articles like this the impression given is very much that Oxbridge has failed again. An alternative way of presenting it would be to say the excellence of UK universities means that they are increasingly successful at attracting global talent.

There's also rather little scope for them to increase numbers dramatically. They are both small cities with huge housing problems that make it very difficult for residents (including University staff) to find affordable homes. That would be horribly exacerbated by putting large numbers of new students in the private rental market. They can hardly pull down the existing college building and build large housing blocks to accommodate within the colleges instead. Of course more students also means more staff. Plus if you are going to increase numbers it might be better to do that at a graduate level. There might be a bit of an increase but there are clearly very significant practical constraints in bringing large numbers of additional students to either city. Given that then there is almost certainly going to be more competition for places.

Cant win can you. Not long ago I was accused of envy, as I argued that the UK has a number of strong academic departments, not all in Oxbridge.

Many of us who regularly participate in HE threads, with or without DCs at Oxbridge, entirely agree with you. It's the media who seem to suffer from this myopia - cheap, somewhat fake 'news', too much of the time.

I agree with Mia that Oxford and Cambridge, and others, shouldn't be pushed to expand beyond what they can sensibly accommodate, Apart from housing, the sizes of lecture theatres and labs can't easily be changed, I believe one of the significant positive differentiators between U.K. unis in general versus eg Germany (which you might expect to have more highly ranked engineering departments) is that some of those have enormous course sizes?

Oxford and Cambridge have additional pressures caused by their success - the burgeoning science parks. While for some companies (especially those which are to some extent uni spinoffs) these locations may make sense, for others I'm not sure whether such clustering is always a good idea in the big scheme of things - eg Zeneca moving its research from its long-established base in the northwest to Cambridge.

Anyway, that's a long way off the topic!

Not really!

A while ago I attended an alumni talk on the future of the LSE.

A summary was that they needed to retain their international reputation so it was quality not quantity, no expansion, a determined international outlook, but a genuine interest in reducing barriers to UK students especially from deprived backgrounds and from the north. Plus some separation of more vocational accountancy and finance, from the academic study of economics. Plus measures to improve student satisfaction such as a new student centre.

The impressive thing has been how much has come to pass.

Presumably Oxford has similar informed strategies, with an overriding priority to retain/enhance academic excellence. And presumably for many of the same reasons they wont want to expand much, will want to increase the number of top quality international students whilst ensuring that they give opportunities to UK students who will benefit most.

So...who loses out. Probably no one. Oxbridge and students benefit from increased academic excellence and international links. It is harder to get a place but those that dont go to good departments elsewhere who benefit from the greater UG talent pool available to them. And the UK benefits because our university sector is stronger.

I think its positive news from Oxford but what they don't mention is :

Certain schools (like St Pauls Girls) where about 30% of girls gained places at Oxford last year much higher than previous years and the numbers increased from 20 to 32 year on year!

30% is a decrease not an increase for SPGS.

Hmmm, numbers went up from 20 to 32 just for Oxford from 2017 to 2018 and that is a decrease?

41 went to Oxbridge in 2017 and 48 in 2018 - the big difference was Oxford went soaring up and Cambridge numbers actually fell slightly year on year for the last few years.

Ah sorry oneteen I read Oxbridge rather than Oxford.

Certain schools (like St Pauls Girls) where about 30% of girls gained places at Oxford last year much higher than previous years and the numbers increased from 20 to 32 year on year!

But what can one do? If faced with candidates who are ahead enough that cannot be explained away by luck of circumstance, do you discriminate against them? Now that would be social tampering in a crude and pointless way.

Not all SPGS girls are in that category, but studying at SPGS is not an academic crime, any more than a free ticket anywhere.

@maryso - but are they so far ahead or is just a case that they are better prepared for the application process (maybe the Pre U exam is better preparation than A levels)? There are other schools with similar A level exam results yet no way near the success rate.

My DD attends an Indie and I'm certainly not for social tampering in any way - on one of my previous posts I commented that the Indie schools tend to select so will naturally have better results and a higher proportion of high achievers but I do think there is an unfair advantage and it is probably the Pre U is better prep.

I don't see that the Pre U is any better prep than the new linear A levels which have been going for several years now; also, SPGS follows more A levels specs than it does Pre U so I doubt that that alone could be the critical feature.

Doesn't this all mean if these targets are met that there is going to be a second tier of British universities that will have a number of non successful oxbridge applicants with exceptional grades which will be of great benefit to these institutions.

I would think these universities would be positioning themselves for this with increased tariffs (to entice the most able students).

So will the university hierarchy if you want to use that term be oxbridge followed by say 4-5 others followed by the rest?

So will the university hierarchy if you want to use that term be oxbridge followed by say 4-5 others followed by the rest?

It is already!