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.

One reason perhaps why the new selective London sixth forms, usually giving preference to the less well off, are exciting. They do get the sort of stellar results more normally associated with independent/grammar schools.

My personal belief is that educational inequality is best tackled at that point rather than adding an extra foundation year to University.

Admitting students is also only the first step. They also need to be supported. From observation this is not always the case. Perhaps a second measure on how many of these students graduate.

When they say 25%, its 25% of what? The whole student body? If so Universities with high numbers of overseas students will struggle. And again fit is important. Multi ethnic Universities like Imperial may feel more accessible to some. Whilst high cost Universities (like Imperial) may feel less accessible to others. A blanket target for all RG Universities does not take into account the individual recruitment barriers for each University, or the steps that need to be taken to overcome them. Broad brush numbers do not sound very student centred.

It says in that article that there could be up to 50 places for a foundation year, and up to 200 for an access scheme (which is a summer school, I've heard).

And it's not a blanket target, it's an Oxford target - Louise Richardson has been very clear to the divisions that she wants the diversity of undergraduate intake to improve.

If 25% of places go to lower income candidates, 15% go to private school applicants and 60% go to everyone else, private schools would still be over represented.

My personal belief is that educational inequality is best tackled at that point rather than adding an extra foundation year to University.

Absolutely. It just can't be fair or reasonable to expect universities to do all the heavy lifting. It has to start much earlier in schools, raising aspirations for all.

It's 25% of U.K. domiciled students btw.

Atia, Titchy suggested up thread that the expectation is on all RG universities. Hence my further questions. The devil is in the detail. They all have different recruitment issues, yet need to maintain their academic excellence and world rankings. L

Most quotas are simply levelling the playing field. Do you realise how much harder to get A* grades at a comp in a poor area? Did you have peers who regularly care in whilst high on drugs? Did your tech lesson get interrupted by your teacher having to coax a girl suffering by ecstasy induced psychosis off the roof? Did you have to re-do all your English coursework as the roof leaked one day and ruined the originals as the building hadn't been renovated since the 70's? Were you advised by your teachers that maybe you should consider hairdressing, despite never expressing an interest in that line of work? (no offence hairdressers, most of you all earn more than me.)
I didn't go to Oxford but my best friend from school did and she faced all of these challenges. At the interview stage she had private school kids trying to intimidate her, insinuate that she wouldn't stand a chance. She came out with a high 2:1 in Classics and now she as a NatWest cashier. University isn't the only barrier to social mobility. Ambition is also a huge factor in your eventual success. She settled for a job in a bank because in our area, that's a really good job. She probably has the best paying job of anyone I know so in our friendship circle, she's done really well. I imagine her Oxford mates see it differently.

High tariff universities are required to address access barriers. They are free to do this however they want, using whatever mechanisms are appropriate to their institution. As long as they set challenging, measurable targets the Office for Students should be happy.

All universities are also required to address gaps in other measures as well btw - black/white attainment for example (measured by how many black students get 1sts and 2:1s compared to white).

University isn't the only barrier to social mobility. Ambition is also a huge factor in your eventual success.

^^ This a billion times. Plus teachers saying A levels in Media Studies, Sociology and Law will be fine for Oxbridge PPE.

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

That would also be hard to defend, given that although 7% is the figure the media likes to quote, I'm pretty sure it's the wrong one. Afaik the uni admissions data records the type of sixth form, for which it's more like 14%. And if you bear in mind that many independent sixth forms are selective to greater or lesser extents, you'd surely expect a somewhat greater proportion of their students to gain the required grades.

Xpost
If 25% of places go to lower income candidates, 15% go to private school applicants and 60% go to everyone else, private schools would still be over represented.

Xpost - no, that would be about in proportion to percentage in sixth forms, and wouldn't account for selectivity.

My understandin is that it is 18% in indie 6th Form and as stated generally selective, thus those joining from state school at that stage will be in the top 25% of gcses grade kids so the figure is distorted.

The reality is any form of outreach that helps those disadvantaged pupils is a step in the right direction. These group of pupils already form, I understand (but cannot recall where I heard this) 10-15% of students at Oxbridge so the increase over the next few years is minimal, and similar to the year on year increase of state to indie ratios.

I don't believe if anyone looks at how Oxbridge selects their students nowadays they still believe you can buy your place!

Grammar schools select too. It’s not just independent schools and very well off parents sometimes prefer grammar schools. Some parents pay because they don’t have a handy grammar school.

Ambition is important. I cannot see ambition in being a Nat West cashier. This is also a big issue with people who do not have role models or an understanding of where their degree might take them. Having the confidence to apply for grad schemes and use abilities is also important. These students need more than places, they need coaching in careers too.

Career coaching or guidance is available. However, it's very patchy in schools and colleges - it is getting better though with the introduction of the Gatsby Benchmarks.

It's also offered in universities and is a service that has seen a huge amount of investment in many institutions. A big issue is that many young people don't know how the careers services can help and lots of the work is embedded in the curriculum so students don't even know they're getting it!

I heard the Oxford head of admissions talk about this on the radio thus morning. She said this was a Foundation year so to answer the OP no-one loses out as it is a new thing separate to “normal” undergraduate recruitment. There was a tacit acceptance in what she said that not all recruits to the foundation programme will progress to undergraduate degrees but that the6 would be supported in applying elsewhere

The Sutton Trust has found that young people living in the North East are far less likely to move away to university than young people in any other area. They also found that social class and where you live are the biggest barriers to moving away to university. 55% of students go to university less than 55 miles form home. So Oxford is really going to have to change what young people think about where they go to university before they will get anywhere very much with their aspirations, especially with northern based potential students. The research also rather backs up the fact that few people from the NE go to Oxford. It may not be that they do not know about the advantages, they simply prefer to stay near home in their own culture. If they intend to work in their home area, they do not see Oxford as an advantage at all.

www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/21/oxford-university-aims-attract-deprived-students-foundation-year

bubbles that's exactly what my PhD found but I didn't specifically look at the NE....my focus was on first generation students but that is often tied in with socioeconomic factors.

These students don't often have the social or cultural capital to fit in at places like Oxford and they know this. They choose universities where there are people like them.... student - institutional fit.

Plus these students are more likely to choose vocational courses as they see university as a financial risk. Studying something vocational is how they minimise that risk. Newer universities tend to offer more vocational courses which again impacts on choices.

Data shows that most graduates either work in the place they grew up or in their university town ( for many students that's the same thing!)

“40% of Oxford places already go to private school students - who loses out?”

FTFY

Plus these students are more likely to choose vocational courses as they see university as a financial risk. Studying something vocational is how they minimise that risk

Given the current job situation you can see why.

55% of students go to university less than 55 miles form home

Interesting. Three of DD's cousins in Northumberland went to Northumbria. They all come from backgrounds with low aspirations and were the first generation in those families to go to university. Oxbridge would not have been on their radar.

tapas the graduate labour market is actually bouyant.....it's sector dependant obviously but the data paints a positive picture.

Is it buoyant everywhere though? There will still be pockets where unemployment is high. We don't live in a great area for high employment, BUT, we have brought DD up to go where the jobs are. The cousins went to university, but don't want to move away from their families, and they live in an area with even more unemployment.

This goes back to poverty of aspiration. Neither OH nor I live where we grew up, so the idea of moving for a job is normal to us, and is more important than staying at home with your family and having a shit job.

Sector and geography play a part. There some assumptions made about the graduate labour market which are often incorrect.
People often assume that you need to move to London to get a good job - not true.
There was some research done recently that looked at where graduates worked. The two biggest groups were those that worked in their home town or those that worked in their university town. The smallest group was those that went to work in a place they'd never lived or studied.

Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham have booming graduate labour markets. Manchester in particular is great for marketing and advertising type careers and Leeds has a bouyant finance market.

People often assume that you need to move to London to get a good job - not true.

Absolutely agree with this. We both moved to Leeds for work, then to Sheffield.

no, that would be about in proportion to percentage in sixth forms, and wouldn't account for selectivity

Private schools only select from the people who can afford to send their children to private schools, so they don’t necessarily select the best.

I understand what you are saying about more than 7% of students who take a-levels coming from private schools, but 40% Oxbridge from private schools is ridiculous.