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.

Thus I'm lost with the introduction of cat metaphors etc and state selectives when oneteen was very specifically talking about SPGS.

goodbye I don't find it helpful to extrapolate from small samples.

It leads to false inferences of the type that hamper Oxford in keeping its business model on track.

Agree about small samples maryso which is why I don't extrapolate from them.

It leads to false inferences of the type that hamper Oxford in keeping its business model on track.

Come again?! .

Well the new book, due out in August, by the former High Mistress of St Paul’s (as sneered at by many on another thread) may shed a light on the parents! She seemed to think they were ultra pushy and said so repeatedly. No one knows better than her.

@Mia83 What I am trying to say but probably not very well is that why does it matter where you live - why should the same % of applications be offered in the same region based on UK student population? Surely Oxford should be looking at regions of high attainment based on past A Level results etc and low applicants and targeting those regions to get more applicants. I know all applicants qualify by meeting the grade requirements but I didn't realize that there was some underlying demographic selection too.

Hmm. I know quite a wide range of SPGS parents, some might be labelled as pushy, others not. However I will defer to the grearer knowledge of others. I would, though, say that the High Mistress has a book to sell.

I have no idea why threads like this seem to disolve into what feels like unpleasantness. I have posted sympathetically in the past when peoples DC have been disappointed not to receive an Oxbridge offer. My point has always been that it can be tough for the A kids in selective schools when they face their first rejection. (But not a bad thing for their maturity to experience it early.) I am not sure DS ever particularly wanted to go to Cambridge. A kids from London private kids tend to just apply - unlike their peers in the north. And once he had a place at LSE he cherred up as there were obvious advantages in a course with more scope to specialise in the areas he was interested in. The same was true of his friend who knew what interested him so has seriously thrived on a very specialist course at Imperial.

Guven this thread is in part about how top Grammar school students might now struggle to get Oxbridge offers surely it is a useful experience to share. The Grammar school pupils I have met seem sensible. Some have definitely found their first rejection difficult, but like most kids they mainly seem to be able to move on and do well elsewhere.

Titchy, I'm not sure about my inlaws. On one level Oxbridge is seen as some sort of promised land, on another it is "not for the likes of us". I reckon one of the second cousins (MIL is one of three very competitive siblings) is almost certainly as bright as mine, but ended up at Northumbria because no one told her she could aim higher or should work harder. I did have to tell MiL finally to back off. Oxbridge seems to have a huge mystique, yet I remain convinced that a good degree from LSE or Imperial, or elsewhere will serve you just as well. And Britsh mums I met on the London school run probably reflected the diversity of views on this board. Some, as you did, would suggest that Britain has two very elite universities then you have the best of the rest. Others are more chilled,. As long as the right doors remain open you choose the course, place and teaching style that suits you best. (Probably like advice some northern parents are giving.)

But no. Its all envy...obvs.

Bubbles, perhaps the High Mistress's views are the same as every Head's in every ultra-competitive school, in or out of London? Pushy is a behavioural choice, and one possibly made by those who think their DC are somehow uniquely better than others who may end up where theirs have just missed, possibly because they have less pre-frontal cortex control, whatever moves these people, who knows? Realistically though, which parent wants less, worse, lower, etc for their child? The difference is not in what they want, but how they behave, and the only difference between state and independent is that one costs less than the other. State school Heads may be more discreet about parental behaviour, because parents are not the prime determinant of funding and therefore take up less energy, and the more unreasonable demands can be frankly more easily ignored.

oneteen it is unlikely that Oxford have overlooked your regional point. Every institution that sells excellence cannot afford to turn down potential, even if it means going the extra mile to polish it and let through the innate sparkle. Oxford's latest endeavour addresses a group that if ignored will result in a worse outcome for the university. The answer to who loses out is broadly those who should do so if the field had been more level.

And needsmoresleep makes yet again the key point that there are other shows in town, ones that are at least as effective.

Needmoresleep maryso isn't 'sharing top grammar school experience' at all, merely commenting (I think slagging off would be more appropriate terminology) about the type of typical parent at those schools.

maryso I can assure you that all four HT's that I've known (personally and well, for the avoidance of doubt) at our own superselective have not been backward in coming forward about the pushier parents at the school. It makes for entertaining conversation behind closed doors. Even so, as a body, there's no comparison to the SPGS parnt body or to some of the stories that Needmoresleep has recounted to me about certain parents at her DCs' own school. Those are entirely different constituencies. Just light years away. Incidentally, you say 'at least as effective' but in terms of percentages no state school in the country is equally effective in Oxbridge terms to the top independents, which is why I come back to parental ambition - and unlike you, I'm not using ambition as a dirty word to criticize parents with successful DC. Ambition doesn't imply pushiness although of course where people are narrow or unimaginative they do always like to assume that successful DC must have pushy parents. That's easier to digest than the idea that relaxed parenting on the academic front can be far more effective than anything else.

But stranger, it is equally possible to amuse a provincial solicitor with tales of the behaviours of high powered London lawyers, both in the court room, and often outside.

I suspect this is in part a capital city thing. I have rarely heard French people say nice things about Parisians. They even, dare I say, seem to prefer Londoners.

Each to their own though. Bubbles tales of shrieking snobbery in the home counties has me relieved we were never tempted to move out. At least the London effort appears to be about achievement rather than the car you drive, kitchen islands or golf clubs. I dont know if your DC crossed paths with Paulinas or similar at Oxford. Most really are accomplished and interesting, even if not all are likeable. I would see them as a group pulling their weight academically and in broader University life.

Really goodbye you know nothing about me, yet go out of your way to rant about imagined slights! Are you as relaxed as this in real life?

I'm amused myself at the provincial slur Needmoresleep !!!!

Yes of course my DC number Paulinas among their best friends. All of those friends are lovely, have fared differently at Oxford and read widely differing subjects. For some reason when I was a Magic Circle lawyer I was often asked if I'd been to St Paul's, so meeting these clever young people has flattered me again a second time around, in my adage :)

Oh maryso that was hardly a rant, come on now. That's a major over reaction. Perhaps read back over your posts and then read my small comment in context.

I'm uber relaxed in rl, yes. It takes a lot to rattle me. I once lived on a tarantula flight path in the Mojave desert - after that, little rattles you :)

Golf clubs? I haven’t talked about golf clubs! I have a lovely kitchen island - that’s true. I have shared the design of it on MN DIY topics! Never talked to anyone else about it! Ever! Cars? Yes. Love my cars. Our choice! I’ve never posted about what cars I have either. What a bizarre thing to write off everyone in the Home Counties as being snobs! We just make choices that suit us and most of our closest friends have ordinary jobs. We know, and they know, DH has earnt more than them mainly because he has his own business. Believe me, though, we make absolutely certain our choices do not impact our friendships. Our friends like us as people and it really isn’t about what we own or where we live or what we spend our money on. Fortunately decent people are not so shallow.

Friends have also been laid back about schools and universities. Perhaps a bit too much in some cases. However we certainly don’t envy the London pushy parent scene which we all know exists! The former High Mistress of St Paul’s wouldn’t have much to
write about if she’d stayed at her former school! We were way too dull!

Bubbles yes it was a very bizarre post! Apparently I'm an impressionable provincial too. It's quite funny, since the snobbery and insularity is not evident in your posts or mine but rampant in others'!

On the golf front though, I do play - but only in Scotland, not England. My entire family on the Scottish side have been good at the game for generations and my brother was a pro. No shame at all - what a lot of nonsense about golf. My car is twelve years old though with a massive dent in one side (courtesy of a local stone wall on the corner of a river and a DHL lorry coming too fast on the wrong side of the road (too fast to catch also!)).

Nothing so funny as folk.

Also Needmoresleep you misread my post. While the HTs of the top grammars all operate at national level, the anecdotes have been about parents at our school - home grown stories but fairly riveting nonetheless.

Well one advantage of a country life is having somewhere to park cars! Golf clubs nearby too if we want one! I am well known for my lack of ball hitting ability in any sport so golf isn’t for me. Is it only people in the Home Counties who have kitchen islands then? Who knew?

No one would think I had been to St Paul’s. Well not the school anyway!

Answering the OP, I agree. Quotas won't make it easy to Oxbridge to compete globally. Social justice is a laudable goal, but is it the core purpose of universities; and is it the right place to tackle the issue?

While oxbridge is tinkering with just the right quota proportions and handling critiques from the Sutton Trust on how they have again fallen short, there competitors are free to simply choose the very best prepared students who are immediately ready for higher education.

Quotas won't make it easy to Oxbridge to compete globally. Social justice is a laudable goal, but is it the core purpose of universities; and is it the right place to tackle the issue?

Haven't studies shown that students from state schools/poorer areas who get into university tend to do better there than students from private schools with comparable marks? No doubt because you have to be rather more clever and rather more motivated to get a set of A* in a failing overcrowded comp than in a private school with all the facilities. So trying to attract students from poorer areas might be a rather shrewd move for a university that cares about academic excellence.

Haven't studies shown that students from state schools/poorer areas who get into university tend to do better there than students from private schools with comparable marks?

I think I am right in saying that that works at the lower A-level results (so those getting a BBB from a comp get similar results to those with ABB from independent) but the effect doesn't apply for those with the highest grades. Here is the analysis from Cambridge

I don't know where this myth comes from that "poor" students do better than "rich" ones, as if there were no shades of grey!

I can remember banging on about this upthread, and I have no axe to grind, my dcs having attended an undistinguished comprehensive school. How can anyone possibly maintain that all students getting Bs from a comp are superior to all students getting A*s from an academic private school? It just doesn't make any sense. Someone may have a better chance of doing well at a certain school, but they are not innately less clever.

At ds's college on his course there is a boy who is cliched posh, but ds says he has a fearsome intellect and is absolutely mad keen on his subject. Not all public schoolboys are dimwitted Bertie Woosters.

It may be hard to do 'comparable marks' analysis in the same way as elsewhere at Cambridge because the entry requirement is typically two a stars and an A. But if the applicant has done more than 3 A levels (as many applicants, especially from independents) may have done, then their offer is likely to be based on 4 subjects. This may tend to level the playing field somewhat relative to quality of previous education.

this is more general research and not just Cambridge. As far as I can remember this has been replicated elsewhere too i.e. there's no difference at the very highest levels of A-level achievement but lower down those from state schools tend to outperform independent school candidates with the same A-level results. That study also looks as if there is a similar effect for those who have studied A-levels at top performing schools.

I've always understood it as essentially showing that a good independent school can help a mediocre student get better grades than they would have elsewhere but that advantage isn't sustained at degree level. Whereas those who perform at the top level tend to be bright and hardworking wherever they studied and these qualities continue to support strong performance at Uni. That is just my own conjecture though.

There are so many variables though. Subject studied at university is key. Students doing vocational courses from any school might do well and some with not so good A levels might find their niche. Others might end up on the wrong course for them and struggle, especially if the parents have been pushy. Some DC who have been the bums on seats and allowed to be on courses that years who would have rejected them, might struggle too. The whole picture is very complicated. No study can ever get to the bottom of it because they cannot study every variable and background of the student or the decision making process. The outcome could have been very different had the lesser performing students taken an alternative degree. We just won’t know that.

Well yes that's true but in the context of Oxford and Cambridge where you're looking at the top performers I don't think there's strong research to suggest that independent school candidates will do worse than equivalently qualified state school candidates.

I agree Ali86. I was really referring to less stellar qualified grads. I do believe research has been done that shows lower class DC at Oxford do not get the best jobs upon graduation. Whether that’s confidence or not wanting the jobs, who knows? But I believe I’ve read job outcomes are less good.