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.

oneteen it is not just public exam results, most competitive courses rely heavily on entrance tests. SPGS itself relies on entrance tests for potential and avoids charging application fees for poorer households, has a huge 'catchment' for a day school, which involves some families relocating. The same can be said of some super-selective state schools. They are all super competitive from the start, and the better endowed independents will try to avoid the pitfall of accepting someone less able even if well-coached. That makes the only business sense if you are selling excellence.

It is absolutely great that universities are making themselves more accessible, great for the universities primarily is what any business would see it as. However this does not mean that people have any more chance of admission just because they hail from any particular set of circumstances. They have to be competitive enough, and foundation years are a very good way forward to prepare young people both mentally and academically. The fact is that most people will not make a highly competitive course, whatever your circumstances. Whatever we chatter about here.

mids that hierarchy already exists!

mids2019/titchy - why "following"?

Are you really suggesting that every department at Oxford is better then every department anywhere else, for every student.

We have known a reasonable number of Oxbridge applicants who are reasonably ambivalent in that there are other places, courses, or teaching methods that they might prefer. DS's LSE course was probably ranked top in Europe for his area of interest. DD similarly did not apply to Oxbridge despite having A* predictions, as she wanted a more hands on course.

Errol, upthread, suggests that Oxbridge is a media obsession. A MN one as well as far as I can see. And no, no envy here. Just years of frustration as people determinedly rank schools and universities. The right school and the right course/University is what matters. And for a whole host of reasons there will be top students elsewhere, who will get first class educations.

mids2019 targets tend to reflect demographics. Hierarchies are based on research, professional reputation, employer behaviour, graduate outcomes on one hand, and on the other hand personal prejudices arising from who knows what emotional baggage. I'm dare say that there will be some people who prefer a second class Oxford degree in classics and ancient literature to say a Plymouth BMBS with distinction, so one can guess what their hierarchy will be. Most highly intelligent teenagers can work out what hierarchy suits them best.

Errol, upthread, suggests that Oxbridge is a media obsession. A MN one as well as far as I can see. And no, no envy here. Just years of frustration as people determinedly rank schools and universities. The right school and the right course/University is what matters. And for a whole host of reasons there will be top students elsewhere, who will get first class educations.

For some of us, the obsession is trying to debunk the myths and misapprehensions!

Are you really suggesting that every department at Oxford is better then every department anywhere else, for every student.

No. But it and Cambridge have more top departments than any other U.K. university. There's a reason why Oxford and Cambridge top every national and international league table.

And no of course it won't suit everyone. But there's nothing wrong with the U.K. having two very very academically elite universities. One of the great things about U.K. HE is it's diversity, from the tutorial system at Oxford to the degree apprenticeships at Northumbria. Something for everyone.

@ maryso I'm aware that the competitive courses have entrance tests but what I can not get my head around is that 70% plus of state school DC nationally hit the top A level results required to attend Oxford compared to 30% state school ...Yet the ratio of acceptances is 60% - 40%. I know Indies obviously have much smaller classes (I think my own DD's maximum class size in any one of her A level is just 10 students), so the 70% of DC have probably achieved their results from more "disadvantaged" circumstances - so very capable students. Then nearly 26% of applicants from Central London are admitted but the regions share of the top A level results is only 18%. I would probably add that it's more likely that the DC from London are tutored to get into the top schools too - from as young as 7 years old.

In terms of Pre U the subjects tend to be Languages/English and it would be interesting to see what % of DC from the likes of St Pauls get offered places on MFL type courses at Oxbridge given that these courses tend to be heavily populated with DC from Independent schools.

Language departments are very independent school dominated because state schools have spent the past couple of decades casting MFL to the wind. I'm not sure what would be so interesting to see about the numbers from SPGS getting offers for MFL .

Also, it is absolutely not merely the 'competitive' courses which have had aptitude test requirements for years - they're pretty much across the board at Oxford, with a tiny number of exceptions.

Needmoresleep the so-called obsession with Oxbridge is not based purely on fantasy!

oneteen the biggest single difference at SPGS and schools like it will be the ambition of parents. Given a reasonable base line of ability among applicants, that ambition is what determines numbers way beyond anything else. The parent body at SPGS is very, very ambitious!

The parent body at SPGS is very, very ambitious! - I think it's true of a number of the top Indies ...I still cannot get my head around anyone who would tutor a >7 years old DC to get into a school.

But there's nothing wrong with the U.K. having two very very academically elite universities.

This general perception of just two very very elite Universities was our experience. When we told Europeans and Americans that our DS had a place at LSE they reacted as if he had won a place at a prestigious world ranked University. The same would have applied had he been accepted at Imperial, and probably Edinburgh. Brits instead seemed to think condolences were in order. He had "failed". And not just in the eyes of London parents, but also in the eyes of Northern in-laws who probably have never visited either City. (A second cousin did gain a place at Oxford to read modern languages and was lauded, though it is now appears that Oxford has not caused her employment options to be significantly better.

Yes the US have their Ivies, but few would argue that Harvard or Yale outrank Stanford or MIT, indeed depending on subject quite a few Universities could give the Ivies a run for their money. Georgetown/politics etc.

I was talking to a Ukrainian IT specialist recently who had just been headhunted to a senior job in London to work in an area that a friend's DS is considering. Where should the friend's DS study? Imperial was the answer, without any hesitation. Ditto an American friends DD is considering a specific branch of engineering. The mum's research threw up half a dozen Universities in the States, plus, again, Imperial who are apparently investing £60million in new research facilities to open next year.

Agreed oneteen but London is a curious educational bubble - very glad we lived outside the bubble: same result but with considerably less stress.

Then nearly 26% of applicants from Central London are admitted but the regions share of the top A level results is only 18%.

If you don't mind me saying I think your post is mixing the success rate of the individuals who apply (the % of applicants admitted) with the proportion of students admitted as a whole. The reason that applicants from London and the South East are overrepresented in the student admitted is because they are overrepresented in the applications. The regional success rate is reasonably even. Look at page 7 of the latest stats here and you can see that 25.7% of applicants are from greater London as are 25.9% of those admitted, so the two are pretty much in line with each other.
There's a similar pattern for school type too here

oneteen speaking as a parent whose DC have never been tutored or otherwise coached academically, I can easily get my head around why people would do all sorts of things to satisfy their personal needs, especially emotional ones. I would say that behaviour of that sort is often more about the parent's needs than the child's. (Obviously if there is a specific learning need not catered for by school, that is an entirely different matter.)

While I'm not able to pronounce on the relative levels of ambition of the respective parent bodies of various schools, I can say that very ambitious parents abound in all competitive schools, state and independent. Also that even if some of the most intensely ambitious I have come across are in the state sector, it would be unfounded to base a league table of parental competitiveness on anecdote.

It should be obvious that exam results do not give the full picture on how suitable applicants are. They are essential, of course, but not sufficient. Entrance tests make a big difference, even more so post degree. So not having entered and emerged from O or C will not hold anyone back. Interviews can shed some light as to whether applicants can benefit from teaching practices. Some brilliant people who have done well by any standards will not bend to the O or C style of learning, and have done better elsewhere. Better than they would have, and better than others, at O or C. It is perhaps better in most senses to look ahead to what you want from your life, than obsess over an immediate stepping stone.

maryso if you have enough anecdotes then you're more than able to toss out generalisations with some confidence, I can assure you - if you've only a smattering then perhaps not so much. The SPGS parent body is ambitious - fact.

Also, the idea that young people are able at 17 yrs to reflect adequately on what exactly their life plan is ambitious to say the least. For those who don't have their life or even general goals mapped out then my advice would be that you can't go far wrong by whiling away three to six years at Oxford or Cambridge, by the end of which time you might be in a better position - and reasonably placed - to go forward to shape that life. That's been my advice to my own DC in any event. I think only one of seven so far had the remotest clue what he wanted to do long term prior ro uni - a low percentage.

I agree with Maryso. Aspiration is a large factor in achievement. I suspect aspiration and first/second generation immigration are linked statistically. You move country; you want your children to suceed.

A large number of London children have foreign born mothers. The aspiration many will have inherited, is probably a factor in the turning around of Central London state schools. The same applies in the private sector. Some is definitely OTT, but I can see my own children learning from their peers about aiming high and working hard.

@Mia83 It's true that the proportion of UK student and admissions percentage is the same - although my point is that the overall regional achievement grade in Central London is much lower. So surely these stats are just confirming that Oxford is admitting a percentage of applications from each region rather than looking at the academic results from each region.

goodbye perhaps you know more SPGS parents than I do? I certainly know some who one would prefer to spend very little time with, however they are not unique to SPGS or state selectives, which can appear even more cut-throat. I also know some who I spend a lot of time with, and they too are not unique to SPGS. This sort of thing is like saying one likes cats. I like some and dislike some, but of cats in general I do not hold any feeling that can be extrapolated to an individual cat in any sensible way.

Aspiration is something most people have experienced on contemplating something potentially positive that they do not have. Those who judge it in a pejoratively are commenting more about themselves than others. Some people have a sense of self at a young age, some take longer. At 17, if you are uncertain, perhaps take a bit longer?

I'm not sure I follow oneteen. Students with the minimum grades are much more likely to apply if they are from e.g. Greater London and the South East than if they are e.g. Yorkshire or the North East but one they apply then they have pretty much even success rates. So the overrepresentation comes from the choices over whether to apply in the first place.

I am not sure what you are suggesting by saying Oxford is admitting a percentage of applications from each region rather than looking at the academic results from each region. Could you clarify?

I know that that was I said Needmoresleep; I'm not sure that maryso did.

instead seemed to think condolences were in order. He had "failed". And not just in the eyes of London parents, but also in the eyes of Northern in-laws who probably have never visited either City.

To be blunt - you need better friends and family. The vast majority of people, from whatever walk of life, would not regard Bristol, St. Andrews, LSE etc as failures.

Possibly I do maryso - how can either of us know. All I can say with certainty is that to an old timer superselective parent like myself, the SPGS parents - delightful though so many are - could eat us lot for breakfast.

I'm not clear what's wrong with aspiration.

Agree with titchy there - you've got some odd friends and relatives. Although to be fair, you did say that your DS was incredibly disappointed at the time, so perhaps they were trying to express sympathy for something he'd wanted but didn't get. You could read it benignly rather than sneeringly I guess.

Well goodbye you appear to know a certain sort of SPGS parent. Just as London can be a small place in terms of extended circles, the state sector at the ultra competitive end is also a relatively small extended pond of kith and kin. While an exceptional ultra tiger mother will get some mention, I would not assume that the entire parent body are like her.

Finding the convoluted posts a bit tricky to follow maryso! I prefer straight talking myself :)