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.

I don't know why this is making you depressed extrapineapple. Most people here (bubbles and OP excepted...) are huge believers in widening access to Oxbridge and the other high tariffs for all students that have the potential. We've shown an awareness of the main issues around this and why certain groups are poorly represented and Id hope this would reassure that universities do take this very seriously. Also a recognition that universities can't do it all - schools, decent housing, decent benefits etc all have a role to play.

We've come a huge way in the last 20 years, there's more to do, but there is definitely a will to do it.

My dd is doing dentistry. She had no extra coaching at any stage. Reading on sudent forums a lot had paid for help with the ukcat fir example. Those from.orivate schools found it easier to get the work experience Vet med is very hard for work experience as well if you're in a council estate in a big city iShe did have a mother who was interested in what she was doing. A lot of the bottom 25% wont have this. They are not less bright just not given the same advantages as a child at a grammar or private school would get. But some people canr seem to get their heads round that.

A lot of dental students also have a parent in the profession (I've found!) The dentist I used to work for used to let his daughter 'help out' so she could put it on her personal statement. She didn't clean her dental instruments though. That was our job.

I read some research recently that confirmed that students with professional parents do benefit hugely from their parents themselves and their wider network..... But what was interesting though was that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds didn't feel comfortable taking up those opportunities if they were available to them as they almost felt like it was cheating or getting an unfair advantage. Middle class students were more likely to see it as the norm.

DC offered a place at Oxford to do a masters. Cost £21,000 in fees. The exact amount that I earn as a single parent. Unable to borrow as I don't earn enough. My son has incredible potential (not my assessment btw) and has worked incredibly hard to now be faced with turning down his place. Do not tell me there is a level playing field and it is mot based on finance.

That's a bit daft. I really don't know any parents with a spare £21K in their back pocket to finance their dcs' masters. Every young person I know is taking out loans.

I think it's much easier to take advantage of networking opportunities if you aren't asking for well paid work. If your parents are able to help with the cost of living, somebody can give you a leg up/foot in the door without inconveniencing themselves too much.

I think it's much easier to take advantage of networking opportunities if you aren't asking for well paid work. If your parents are able to help with the cost of living, somebody can give you a leg up/foot in the door without inconveniencing themselves too much.

Yes - there's been quite a lot of criticism of unpaid internships, many of which are in London.

Does anyone think that there should be more scholarships/bursaries available for both studentships and also maybe to support internships?

It seems that "poor" only extends as far as poor in London,

Irma, why do you say that?

I give London examples because that is what I know. However we are lucky in that we have lots of good Universities, and though I dont know the detail, I am certain that places like Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle are undertaking similar outreach.

Harder if you live somewhere very rural, but many people live in urban conurbations.

Also not just confined to first generation immigrants. The son of an assistant in the local fishmongers benefitted from UCL outreach and ended up taking a Masters. Fewer students from deprived backgrounds outside London will be temped to head for the capital. Partly because of expense and wanting to stay closer to home, but also I feel because of prejudices, in line with some of those regularly expressed in this board. It might be slightly easier to persuade some to have a crack at Oxford, but the same problems will exist.

Students in most countries stay local. It is quite a luxury not to do so. Not least it helps to save money for the next step, whether a Masters, or moving somewhere to find work.

I do know the details and can guarantee that those universities and others all do outreach and are committed to widening access.
If universities want to charge £9k then they have to be committed and have to produce an access agreement.

DC offered a place at Oxford to do a masters. Cost £21,000 in fees. The exact amount that I earn as a single parent. Unable to borrow as I don't earn enough. My son has incredible potential (not my assessment btw) and has worked incredibly hard to now be faced with turning down his place. Do not tell me there is a level playing field and it is mot based on finance.

That's a bit daft. I really don't know any parents with a spare £21K in their back pocket to finance their dcs' masters. Every young person I know is taking out loans.
I don't know about daft Irma! That is the cost of the fees at Oxford which is 3 times the cost of a masters anywhere else. A student loan for postgrad studies is just over £10,00 which would cover a years living expenses but not the fees. Why Oxford charges this rate I can't answer. All I know is, that we are priced out.

Now that Oxford has rolled out the foundation year programme for disadvantaged students, the next steps to progress are for other academic universities to emulate and the government rather than loans to fund that year.

Also the foundation year in other universities should provide a small group tutorial system akin to Oxbridge.

I think some PPs are being unfair in their interpretation of Bubbles points. There has to be some acknowledgement of less PC caveats to positive discrimination.

"Positive discrimination initiatives are often vehemently opposed. Whenever I am invited to speak in panel discussions about race and representation, issues of meritocracy and quotas tend to be high on the audiences’ agenda. The main questions asked are: do quotas mean that women and people of colour are receiving special treatment denied to others, and shouldn’t we just judge candidates on merit alone? The prevailing view is that majority-white leaders in any industry have got there through sheer hard work alone.
At the core of such opposition is the belief that positive discrimination just isn’t fair – that whiteness isn’t, in and of itself, a leg-up in the world. But, if it isn’t, how do you explain the glut of middle-aged white men clogging the upper echelons of most professions? We do not live in a meritocracy, and to pretend that simple hard work is enough to elevate everyone to success is an exercise in wilful ignorance.
Opposing positive discrimination based on the fear of not getting the right people for the right jobs inadvertently reveals what you think talent looks like, the kind of person you think it resides within. If the current system worked correctly and hiring practices were genuinely successful, our workplaces would appear very different from how they do now."
Reni Eddo-Lodge on exactly why positive discrimination is necessary. The only alternative is a belief that those who succeed are absolutely the best candidates and the most qualified people to do the job. Considering that most FTSE 100 directors are middle aged, white men I cannot believe that this is the case.

My main caveat is that of economics. Minimal changes in social mobility achieved from university initiatives are likely to very costly and those resources may be better diverted to early education intervention.

shouldn’t we just judge candidates on merit alone?

I think that's the aim of the oxford etc initiatives, isn't it? Not to 'dumb down' but, if they have equally well-qualified candidates, then give preference to the candidate who's had the odds stacked against them.

Because it is more of an achievement getting great results when everything is stacked against you. Some of our comps in Bristol are like warzones, there's so many distractions, it's incredible anyone gets an A*!

My main caveat is that of economics. Minimal changes in social mobility achieved from university initiatives are likely to very costly and those resources may be better diverted to early education intervention.

Ideally the university initiatives would be the icing on a solid cake of measures.

But, it's a lot easier for the media etc to snap at the heels of Oxbridge than to get into addressing the root causes of educational inequalities.

My main caveat is that of economics. Minimal changes in social mobility achieved from university initiatives are likely to very costly and those resources may be better diverted to early education intervention

This.

If we are serious about social mobility we need to start intervening at birth - or before.
There are very few deprived children taking A levels. Thousands of talented children are lost to the school system before GCSE.

Exactly. A lot of the very hard work going on in grammars to reach down into the primary sector is completely unknown - grammars get slammed on MN by the same old posters time and again who seem to be stuck in the 80s and want to prove their liberal credentials by being anti grammar. At least genuinely meaningful stuff is going on in these various pockets to help these able DC but its reach is limited geographically The passage of bright DC should be seamless, from being identified and supported at primary, to a selective state education, and on to Oxbridge or other top unis elsewhere.

shouldn’t we just judge candidates on merit alone?

I think that is a big reason why Oxford and other universities do outreach - to get better candidates.

And while I agree that there's some very unfair Bubbles bashing going on on this thread I would also say, that in contrast to her own experience, we've found recently that some of the very top scorers in recent admissions cycles at our superselective have been DC from exactly the socio-economic backgrounds that Oxford is targeting.

Goodbyestranger whilever tutoring is needed to get into grammar you haven't got a level playing field. And also what about those kids who develop later? Probably more likely to be from deprived areas as they wobt gave that middle class push to read early etc. Gramnar schools really arent the answer much as people like to suggest they are in order to keep them for their own advantage.

I totally agree RdHelenB. For a start many LAS don't have grammar school or superselectives, so the option just isn't available. Then you have the issue of children being tutored to the nth degree to pass the 11+. Poorer families just wouldn't be able to afford it.

RedHelenB tutoring is not required. Those who say it is are playing a duplicitous game. I have absolutely no stakes whatsoever - my eight DC are all through the system.

Tapas well very obviously that's why I said geographical reach is limited! And again, the stuff about tutoring is nonsense and merely put about to worry the competition. Nevertheless, that's exactly the reason for putting in support at primary level. Not because tuition is needed, but to re-assure parents who feel the better off can buy tutoring and therefore a grammar school place. The HTs at the more successful grammar schools are on a very dedicated joint mission to stamp out all the myths peddled by places like MN and to seek out able students at primary level and put measures in place to combat the nonsense peddled by better off parents of less able DC. It's exactly the same situation as that faced by Oxford, just earlier in the educational cycle.

Average wage in Devon & Cornwall £18k. Average house price in Colyton £387k. Grammars like Colyton & Torbay can do as much outreach as they like, but the families these schemes are meant to help are unlikely to be able to afford to live in the vicinity and can't afford the transport costs to get their DC there either and may be reluctant to add a long commute into a long school day. However that's been debated on many a MN thread.

I don't think it is as simple as that. In Kent, for example, some of the comprehensive schools (I hesitate to say secondary modern as they are a throwback to the 1960s and 1970s), are considered so dire that parents fall over themselves to ensure that their children get into grammar school.

Also, it is easy to say that tutoring isn't required when you have exceptionally bright children.