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.

Late to it, but no, irma. I would award places to those who have the highest potential to do well in that course and that university, taking into account that what this will look like will depend much more than people think on the student's background.

I don't see any evidence that, in order to admit 25% of students from poor backgrounds, Oxbridge would have to deviate from their current practice of admitting qualified students. Do you have any evidence?

I've actually done this job. It is really important to be able to put aside biases that give students from 'naicer' backgrounds an unfair chance, and it is still very, very hard to do. Especially if people don't apply because they think they won't get in, which is still a huge, huge barrier. And it isn't helped by the presumption that people from more deprived backgrounds are naturally all a bit thick, which it seems to me is what the arguments against this move risk implying.

titchy, saying Eh? Look any any school data. 25% of kids do not get A and Astar grades.... is irrelevant, isn't it?

The 25% refers to Oxbridge places. 25% of Oxbridge places is a far smaller number than 25% of candidates taking A Level. Indeed, 100% of Oxbridge places is still a smaller number!

(I am not at all sure A and A* grades are the perfect measures of potential you seem to suggest, either).

There are decent labour markets in many northern cities but starting grad wages are not high. I have family in Sheffield and wages are not great for grad level employment. However, house prices are not high so it’s a decent enough place to be! When you are more established and move for promotion in the NHS or a council job, for example, then it’s way better than London in terms of quality of life and bang for buck.

bubbles it very much depends on the sector.. there are some very well paid graduate jobs everywhere just as there are not so well paid ones.

A big issue is how you actually define a graduate level job as the current system is out of date.

Surely there has to be some acceptance that well educated parents in very good jobs are likely to have brighter children in greater numbers? This is partly why private schools have so many bright pupils. It’s also why grammar schools do too. They have few DC on fsm these days.

Having been a school governor in a deprived area, the very bright child isn’t seen very often. One or two a year out of 60 to the local Grammar for example. Never with a high pass mark. Most parents with a good education and a good job are not living in these areas. You only have to look at school data and socioeconomic backgrounds to see that education to the highest level will be rare. Are there really hundreds of likely Oxford candidates living in former pit villages and in Scunthorpe? (As examples?)

If the very bright are identified, I think, overall, it then comes down to whether or not anyone can persuade them to apply to Oxford from areas where few apply. How will their views be changed? If they still don’t apply, what then?

A graduate level job is one where the employer states they want s graduate for the job. I have heard of dire salaries in Sheffield for graduate starters in graduate jobs. Yes, it depends on the job!

Reallybubbles are you being deliberately goady or are you not that bright?

bubbles that's not officially how you classify a graduate level job.

@BubblesBuddy yeah you're right. My mum speaks three languages fluently, read Victor Hugo in French in the playground, didn't own a television so we listened to radio plays but we lived in a very poor area. Obviously it was the postcode that made all the difference to my academic success. I've met some really thick rich people over the years. Intelligence is mostly genetic so if your parents are clever you will be too. Postcodes and social deprivation have little to do with it.

Surely there has to be some acceptance that well educated parents in very good jobs are likely to have brighter children in greater numbers?

You might think that but actually there is little evidence this is the case. Well educated parents in good jobs however do value education, have high aspirations for their children and sharp enough elbows to ensure they achieve all they can - and that's what means those sorts of children are found in high proportions at our high tariff universities.

A graduate level job is one where the employer states they want s graduate for the job.

No it really isn't! There's quite a sophisticated methodology in determining what constitutes a graduate level job.

Conversely then, what is the evidence that parents with very low qualifications, or none, are parenting hundreds of children bright enough to go to Oxford? We are only talking about Oxford. Not anywhere else. I think there is lots of evidence that the brightest in society have the brightest DC. That’s why preference is given to DC who are first to go to university! Sharp elbowed isn’t the whole picture and it never will be.

As for grad jobs: Target Jobs has a reasonable description of jobs and entry requirements. Not much different to what I said. The employer wants grads for their particular job or training scheme.

@BubblesBuddy where you're going wrong in your assumption is that the 'very brightest' are the ones who are earning enough to send their children to private schools. I work in a hospital for men detained under the mental health act, some very very bright men. Doesn't mean their children aren't being raised in poverty due to their father's condition.

When we talk about the definition of graduate level jobs, we're talking about a technical definition, not what appears on Target Jobs. You need a specific definition so that studies measuring the proportion and distribution of grad jobs in the economy have robust and measurable data.

All studies on innate intelligence find at best only a weak correlation to the innate intelligence of the parent - suggesting strongly that Oxbridge potential is fairly evenly distributed across social and income divides. Cultural as well as structural barriers means though that Oxbridge, and to an extent the other high tariffs, don't have an evenly distributed social mix of entrants, hence the target.

There are of course different categories of ‘poor’.

Those whose parents are educated but for various reasons on low income or living in a deprived area from occupation or personal choice.

First or second generation immiigrants whose parents are bright, hardworking but earning below their potential and highly value education for their DCs.

Both these categories are most likely to benefit from the quota as they will be bright and have bright parents who encourage despite perhaps an inadequate school.

Finally the true socially and educationally deprived from whom it hardest to capture those DCs who have potential despite being severely disadvantaged educationally both at home and school.

The expansion of foundation places to meet the need is exactly the right initiative for universities in the context of a continuing unmet need of good schools and teachers plus parents that cannot compensate at home.

BTW universities are termed elite as a result of their postgraduate research and funding. Undergraduates do not contribute to that (although they may be attracted by the reputation). So even if the quality of undergraduate applicants decrease, a university can continue to attract the best researchers.

Everything titchy just said 👍

bubbles there is a difference between a graduate job ( an employer specifically asking for a degree) and a graduate level job ( the technical definition referred to by titchy)

The technical definition is what is used to study graduate employment and the graduate labour market.

Employers can ask for a degree but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a graduate level job - ironically universities can be buggers for this.

All studies on innate intelligence find at best only a weak correlation to the innate intelligence of the parent
Genetic factors account for about half of differences in intelligence, environment most of the rest. That is not a weak correlation between bright parents and bright children.

I heard a really interesting report a few years ago where some scientists claimed that academic success was 1/3 innate, 1/3 environment (schools/parenting/peers) and 1/3 totally unexplainable / possibly your character/drive etc. I think this sounds right.
It’s much easier to get good grades if you’re at a private or grammar school. And possible if you’re at a comp when you have parents who support and encourage you.

It’s the environment aspect of this which the 25% admission target is perhaps trying to overcome.
There are plenty of other fantastic universities in the UK. I applaud Oxford’s intentions to find exceptional people who may not have 4 A*s, even if it makes it harder for my own children to get in.

Aspiration plays a huge part. And may be the greatest benefit, alongside a love of learning, DC received from a private education.

They went to a fairly new, quite "arty" prep school. Plenty of slebs on the school run! Subjects were set quite early so we had some idea where different children sat.

And guess what. Most of the DC whose parents were lawyers or other professionals have gone onto to good Universities and presumably professional careers, many of the children of (successful) arty folk, are doing arty things, often skipping University. Even though the stand-out clever children, in part helped by a bursary scheme, often had creative parents.

Aspiration means that DC got the aim high, work hard, from quite an early age. Not something that came from us, brought up with the constraint that you don't want to get above yourself, but from peers whose parents ran things and who expected to run things themselves. I assume that is one of the advantages that get from peers at Oxbridge.

I am also not sure what "clever" means. Some children are studious, which goes a long way to compensate for a lack of brilliance. Others are practical. My builder is not far off Piglet John in knowing the answer to anything to do with property, but achieved little at school. The trick is to find the right place. Oxbridge is not always the right place, even for very bright children. Young people need options and choices, not to be funnelled into somewhere that may not suit them.

I still think good sixth forms that deliberately welcome bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds are a better option. Not all will go to Oxbridge, event though the stats for the London examples are impressive. Better surely than an additional foundation year away from home for a relatively small number of children, which may or may not guarantee a place at Oxford.

There is enough deprivation in Oxford that a Oxford Sixth Form along the lines of the Kings Maths School www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/newsrecords/exceptional-results-for-kings-maths-school or the UCL supported Newham Collegiate www.thencs.co.uk/2018-a-level-results/ perhaps with support from local private schools like Harris Westminster, would work and improve life chances for a greater number. Other Universities could follow suit.

I think for many it just seems preclusively expensive - not just going there and living away from home, but the cost of going to an open day, the cost of having a lifestyle that would allow you to feel part of things.

How do you work out how to get a coach/train ticket if your parents don’t know if they can pay their bills next month? How do you live with people who don’t worry about every penny?

So many practical barriers are smoothed out if you have money.

Exactly.....if your parents have money and are well connected it makes a difference.

I've interviewed students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who achieve or have the potential to achieve A*s at A level who still don't apply.....money and fear of not fitting in are the two most common reasons.

There are cultural and structural barriers in place which give those students from a higher socioeconomic background huge advantages:

Money - coming from a wealthy background means you don't need a part time job so can focus on your studies. Having a bigger house means a designated study space .....much easier to concentrate if you aren't sharing a room or living somewhere with no quiet study space. That's all before we think about bring able to afford private education or a house in an excellent schools catchment area.

Connections - using parents connections to get work experience in a variety of professions....building social and cultural capital which is a distinct advantage in certain circles.

Cultural - working class communities are likely to be debt averse and not comfortable borrowing money for something that has no guaranteed outcome. I've interviewed students who did manage to get all A*s who went to work at Tesco because 'we don't do debt'

But yeah... Poor people are just not a bright as rich people 🙄

I didn’t say poor people were not intelligent. The thread was about Oxford. Not practical skills. Which are of course valuable.

All the types of people described above who might be fairly poor through choice, but have very bright children, are the types who might be encouraged to apply. If you are risk averse, you won’t. Some people also like to fit into where they live and adopt the traits of the locals and stay local.

I thought everyone knew that parental educational ability played a role in the ability of their children.? It is less likely that people living in deprived areas will have that level of education and I’ve seen research about my own county on this. There is a strong correlation between getting a grammar school place and occupations and educational achievement of parents.

The definition on Target jobs was not just based on what employers said they wanted in ads. It was a guide to graduate recruitment. For ordinary people like me. It differentiated between different grad entry jobs. It’s easy to understand and not pretentious. I guess universities like any grad entry job for their stats - even ones where employers just say they want grads. Years ago M&S would recruit grads with no further external training offered. Just in house. Was that a grad level job? By some definitions it wasn’t. Others would say it was but 10 years down the line you would not have any further qualifications on top of your degree. You wouldn’t be shop floor though so is that good enough? I guess coffee Barristers are not exclusively recruited from the grad population! I think most people can see the difference and would consider one grad entry but not the other. Of course some employers might be stupid enough to only recruit grads for making the coffee!

Well if you cannot change the mindset of young people, Constanza, why do you think other people can? Clearly these people don’t even understand the grad tax system! It’s very sad!

Everything you write bubbles shows how little you understand the subject.

I was talking about Oxford..... according to your logic poor people have practical skills but not the academic intelligence for Oxford?? That is absolutely incorrect!

You appear to be confusing intelligence with educational achievement....they aren't the same thing. You are completely ignoring cultural and structural influences on attainment. There is a strong correlation between parental occupation and educational level and entry to university as well as grammar school but that's not about innate intelligence it's cultural and structural.

I'm very familiar with target jobs but again you're massively missing the point. Graduate jobs and graduate recruitment are different to how a graduate level job is measured.