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.

TheNavigator the UNIQ students are selected precisely to combat the idea of rich social cliques - so the uni is already doing what you suggest, for as many of those potential applicants as it can.

If there really are cliques within the UNIQ groups then that's a matter of ordinary social interaction which young people will find wherever they go, and not at all to do with richness. The rich student kids have buzzed off to sunnier climes mostly, by the time UNIQ is in swing and been replaced by tourists.

That's pretty much bollocks, you know. Maybe some truth in the past but almost exactly the reverse of what they're trying to achieve now.

Maybe the reverse of what they claim they are trying to achieve - but they are not doing a very good of it if that is the case. And when, as a result of that, children are put off - it is magically the children's fault for being scared of cliques, not the institutions for failing to deliver an effective summer school that made Oxford or Cambridge seem accessible for the intellectually bright but socially disadvantaged children they claim they want to reach. I suspect there may be a fair amount of lip service and PR behind these 'efforts'.

Oxford is cliquey. I went to a fair few house party's whilst my friend was staying there and very few people actually spoke to us or even acknowledged our existence. Didn't mind helping us get through our recreational drugs though, so I guess we did have a use.

And when, as a result of that, children are put off - it is magically the children's fault for being scared of cliques

From sillybilly's clarification, it sounded as though these kids were put off mostly by their preconceptions, rather than the reality. Any constructive suggestions how to help overcome that?

As I said, look at the way the summer school is set up as it obviously isn’t working as it should to overcome perceptions. But it maybe what you call ‘perceptions’ are, in fact, astute observations of reality. Which goes back to my earlier post about chicken/egg. Blaming the working class kids who are put off for the institutions failings certainly isn’t solving any problems.

I'm certainly not blaming the kids! Where do their preconceptions come from? The media maybe? Teachers, parents...

In this case they apparently came from a summer school set up to refute those perceptions- a real own goal for Oxford

In this case they apparently came from a summer school set up to refute those perceptions

I don't think that's what the post about this actually said.

errol it's a hard one to fix. Dd was encouraged not to apply by her friends that went to the summer school. She didnt listen to them but still they painted a very negative environment. I come from an area where there is a thick accent and so comes with it alot of slang and poor speech, grammar etc. Dd mentioned that her friends felt thick with how they spoke and social etiquette. Little things like this seemed to be huge thing for them. I'm not sure if after these summer school experiences. Do the kids fill out a honest feedback form because I think if they did. It would reveal alot and maybe more positive steps could be made from these outreach programmes in the future.

Another thing I noticed since we are now in the age of social media etc. When I look at you tube, influencers, vloggers that go onto these prestigious uni. It seem to be the more represented by the middle class kids . They get the most subscribers and views. They are generally more out going, confident, motivated seem more aspirated. However, there aren't many kids from poor backgrounds really going out to send message that it can be done and there are many positives to having a oxbridge education and dispel the misconceptions. I've seen ethnic minorities you tubers vlog their experiences.

As a state school pupil who ended up at Oxbridge I can tell you some of the things that totally freaked me out when I arrived, and might have put me off if I’d experienced them in advance?

Men in bowler hats saying hello to me every time I walked past - no idea why but I found it really odd for the first week or so.

A dining hall with benches and low lighting.

My matriculation dinner which included a whole trout with almonds - I had absolutely no desire to eat it and no idea how I might go about it if I did.

People around me using slang words I didn’t understand, like plodge.

Everyone looked more groomed and confident than me, and fitter. And sounded so much cleverer.

The drinking societies terrified me. I know the summer school kids won’t come across them but they may have read noticeboards full of mentions of various bizarre sounding societies that just didn’t look like something they would ever do.

Just off the top of my head. I got used to most of these and tolerated others (or in the case of drinking societies actively campaigned against them). But I could easily have turned tail and fled after a taster week.

By the way, I had a really intelligent father. He grew up in poverty and had no qualifications at all until the army put him through vocational training. He never had a very well paid job. The discussion on this thread that seems to assume that intelligent parents are de facto high earners who have succeeded themselves in life is a bit off.

Errol perhaps their preconceptions come from a quick Google search leading them to any MN thread about Oxbridge! They are great fun to read as an onlooker, but manage to reinforce every prejudice the wider public hold.

Errol perhaps their preconceptions come from a quick Google search leading them to any MN thread about Oxbridge! They are great fun to read as an onlooker, but manage to reinforce every prejudice the wider public hold

Absolutely. I was at Oxbridge a million years ago. Working class family. Only child to pass an O level. Siblings all spent their lives in low skilled, low paid jobs.

I do mot recognise the cliches described here. True there were groups of rich students. But there were also groups of sporty people, actors, poets, musicians, northern physicists, philosophers, drinkers, drug users, religious, atheists etc. It was a question of finding your people. We all mixed in the JCR and around our studies. We all had open minds and were keen to learn from each other. There were some awful people in all of the groups but they were vastly outnumbered by the great people!

What would have put me off applying now would be the fees and the living costs ( I got a full grant). I would never have risked incurring that much debt.

I would also have been put off by the notion that it was some kind of Brideshead Revisited inhabited only by unpleasant public school boys and aristocrats. It wasn‘t then and it isn‘t now.

I've either read or heard from DD something to the effect they're trying to avoid scary food nowadays, at least! (I can definitely sympathise on the trout - one of my first serious job interviews had a dinner which included a whole Dover sole, that didn't go well!)

but manage to reinforce every prejudice the wider public hold.

Despite the best efforts of those trying to dispel myths or historical issues.... Selective reading is unavoidable eg The discussion on this thread that seems to assume that intelligent parents are de facto high earners who have succeeded themselves in life is a bit off. ... there may be some such assumptions but I'm pretty sure there have also been other refutations of that.

What would have put me off applying now would be the fees and the living costs ( I got a full grant).

But that would presumably apply to any uni, not specifically Oxbridge - less so for local if you can live at home, moreso for London if not a Londoner. And the Oxbridge colleges - in particular the older, richer ones - have the means to provide extra financial support to those that need it. My perception is that maybe they don't publicise that enough?

there may be some such assumptions but I'm pretty sure there have also been other refutations of that.

Yes, Errol, I should have said posts. Although quite a few posters on both sides of the discussion do make that assumption interestingly.

I don’t think hardships funds are publicised much at all, maybe through fear of criticism of rich colleges charging fees in the first place? But the hardship funds (and often cheaper rents) can be offset by the inability to take paid work during term, particularly if you’re not at one of the colleges that has a lot to spare. I was on a full grant, albeit it one that by time didn’t cover my rent, and that entitled me to a hardship fund payment from my college automatically, which was similar to the sum that someone might get given to them as pocket money by a well off elderly relative. I know that the counter argument is that the holidays are longer so you can work then, and that may be fair enough. I couldn’t go home for vacations so although I worked I also had to pay rent which dented my earnings quite severely,

I think the key word here is "perception"

The parents on here with DC who have been or at Oxford/Cambridge know that there is a mixture of students from all kinds of backgrounds. The problem is that the perception of Oxbridge, especially from families much further down the socio economic spectrum is that "it isn't for the likes of us".

I don't know the answer to this, but there is a danger that these universities could come across as rather patronising with their outreach programmes. DD attended an Oxbridge convention in Liverpool in year 12, and came back full of wanting to apply to Oxford. She said that the Cambridge people were very snooty and trying their best to not encourage applicants. After a good look at what Oxford had to offer she realised that she wasn't Oxford material (I think she is right), but has still managed to bag a place at a good RG university.

I know that there are hardship funds for poorer students, but as a pp has pointed out not everyone knows that.

I also think that some of the older traditions - wearing gowns (what even is sub fusc?), calling terms by "unusual" names - Michaelmas/Hilary/Trinity instead of winter, spring and summer, expensive formal dinners/balls, and various other typically Oxbridge traditions serve to perpetuate this perception. Although I'm not saying that they should ditch these traditions BTW.

I'm really surprised that SillyBilly's dd knows "many" people who have been to UNIQ (if that's what she's saying?) - I know one.

Because god forbid these institutions should actually look at themselves in a mirror and consider what is putting off brilliant working class children.

This whole thread is about what they're trying to do! What would your suggestions be Navigator, if you were sat down with Louise Richardson?

Statistically UNIQ does seem to have a pretty good rate of persuading those who attend to apply to Oxford and then converting those applications to offers here

I am not sure that the hearsay from sillybilly's DD's friends is quite representative.

I have no idea if its UNIQ summer school that dd school had participated in. But they did activities and was shown round had lunch. We talking nearly 5 years ago. But there were 7 she new in her year that went and 4 that were a year above her she knew. One person did get a offer from her year to Oxford but didnt get the grades.
Maybe that's not alot of people but it's a fair few for her school. Obviously DD school isn't a good representation of what other schools outreach programmes experience have been. I'm only saying what othershave said to her since she didnt get to go the programme but wanted to apply anyways. So her natural reaction was to ask others that did and what they felt. But all I'm saying is that there is alot of myths and misconceptions about oxbridge and its deep rooted not easy to re wire some of these perceptions. My dd would have loved to go there. But it just wasnt meant to be.

UNIQ last four to five days so that won't have been UNIQ - so perhaps it was in term time. Their reaction in that case is much more understandable.

To be honest I get the impression that Oxbridge isn’t for the likes of all the state educated middle classes either.

You get those with privately educated kids saying they get something special at private schools state schools just don’t provide. That kids from these schools have qualities that Oxbridge are looking for. We know kids on the other end of the chain are now desirable because it makes Oxbridge look more socially mobile. Money and support are thrown at getting them.

The vast maj range from either end and I get the distinct impression they really aren’t wanted or required. Said kids are expected to motivate themselves, educate themselves about applications, pull out top non contextualised offers from years at seriously underfunded schools where teachers are leaving in droves and fund degeees with parents unable to support much financially.

I really don’t see how these measure will help with social mobility if the biggest class the majority are in are still shut out.

UNIQ do offer single tutorial type days. D's applied for Summer school but did not get a place but has an invitation to a 1 day tutorial which includes being show a couple of colleges and application/interview advice.

To be honest I get the impression that Oxbridge isn’t for the likes of all the state educated middle classes either.

Well, sure, not 'all' of them - just the ones who are clever and engaged with their chosen subject, absolutely its for the 'likes' of them! If you've got the impression that Oxbridge isn't for such people, regardless of class or secondary education type, then you are completely and utterly wrong.

It's really interesting debate on the thread. I think my dd never really had the extra factor or the special something that oxbridge were looking for at the time. She was one of those hard workers, diligent, self starters always got good grades. But I think she lacked creativity and sometimes having that spark of alternative thinking. I think she has in spades and bucket loads of it now after undergrad and masters. But I've always found it interesting what they search for in prospective students. For dd at the time on not getting into Oxford. She really thought long and hard and felt going to a London uni to get a more global earning experience. To be honest this has been a good alternative for her.

Learning not earning