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.

But there are hoards of clever students engaged in their subject. It’s how Oxbridge make their choice which is the point.

When all the privates students with their special something;foreign students with their cash and poorer students with their social mobility cache have taken their places there will be precious few spaces left over for the majority of state bright kids engaged in their subject.

Social mobility my arse. Surely to be really fair the number of private students should be relative to kids in private schools. Just allocate a few spaces for the privately educated;a few for foreign students and support the disadvantaged.

I seriously doubt we'll see much attrition in the large numbers of MC, mostly state school educated students at Oxbridge - that's the reality. A lot from grammars, unsurprisingly, also a lot from 'ordinary' private schools - not the sort that really add much 'special something', other than academic excellence roughly on a par with grammars. I do agree that the number from private schools should (and will) fall, but not because of 'quotas' but just that if and when more of the state school pupils who should be getting places apply, the more marginal candidates from all backgrounds will be displaced... to other very good universities. And given that many of the other good unis have more ability to expand capacity, that's about the extent of 'losing out' (and for many, it won't really be a losing out at all, just a different path). Where's that tiny violin emoticon?

But an Oxbridge degree is what gives real advantages when looking at the top jobs. We’re not discussing other unis.

All state schools and particularly grammsrs are trying to do a lot on very little. You can’t equate kids from from very poor incomes, just above, scraping by, middling and above in schools which are struggling to cope in the current budget climate with kids whose parents are wealthy enough to spend money on their education that equates to another salary. Kids in tiny classes with the educational best of everything thrown at them have a far bigger advantage than any state kid. Surely the numbers of them in the most social advancing unis should be limited to the percentage of them in the population.

Wake me up when there is any real change to who the Oxbridge graduates are and where they have come from. (No disrespect intended to current talented, highly intelligent young people at Oxbridge from any background.)

If Oxford and Cambridge were bigger cities eg with arenas for bands, if they offered offered traditional shared flat self-catering accommodation, didn’t have the ‘which college’ and extra exams hassle, had longer and less intense terms, had seminars rather than tutorials, didn’t have all the formals and most importantly offered the course she wants to do, she may have gone for it as an option .

The whole set up is like an extension of a posh boarding school and it does not appeal.

The primary purpose of universities, especially the 'top' ones, is not social advancement, it's academic excellence.

The social advancement efforts really need to be being done from much earlier on.

The whole set up is like an extension of a posh boarding school

I've little knowledge of those, but I'm pretty sure they're nothing like my DDs experience at Cambridge.

But of course, fortunately we have many other excellent universities with diverse locations and styles. One size never did fit all.

But these other unis don’t get the top jobs.

Money and support is being thrown at early years. It’s not an either or situation.

But these other unis don’t get the top jobs.

Surely plenty of people from other unis get a good proportion of the 'top jobs'?

Mind you, I've a nasty feeling that in some sectors, if private school pupils were systematically displaced to eg Bristol, you'd find more 'top jobs' going to Bristol alumni. I hope that's overly cynical...

Being a scientist, things tend to be more meritocratic, school matters little, uni of first degree not too much, status of PhD supervisor moreso - and the best in each niche aren't all at Oxbridge.

Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge universities also continue to dominate the field, though they educate less than 1% of the population. In law, nearly three quarters (74%) of the top judiciary went to Oxbridge; 54% of the country’s leading journalists went to Oxbridge, and just under half (47%) of the cabinet attended Oxbridge, compared with 32% of the shadow cabinet.

Positions of power.

Maybe we should be putting a ban on those with Oxbridge degrees grtting these jobs or restrict them to 1%. Other unis are after all just as good.

We do tend to have lots of wealthy intelligent people who can afford private schools. Their children are often very bright. If often runs in families. If parents or grandparents have gone, your DC could be very bright and go too. It’s known about and talked about. Your family might have done well enough down the years to afford a very good private school. There are many people who fit this scenario. Why is it that Winchester, Westminster, St. Paul’s, WA and similar schools top the attainment charts? They are full of the brightest DC in large numbers. No one can say these DC would not have been bright at a standard state school. It’s just that they congregate in private schools.

My local private school gets one to Oxford about every 10 years. That’s because the brightest are at WA a bit further away. I think if there were no private schools, and the privately educated went to state schools, the Oxbridge entry would not look much different.

Anyone who has a male grandparent that was allowed to go to Oxford and not be sent out to work was indeed fortunate. My working class grandfather made my mother work from the age of 15. She was made to
leave her grammar school and was not given a chance. It’s the same as parents not giving DC a chance now. It wasn’t for the likes of my family to be educated and now it’s not for the likes of other families to go to Oxford. Not that much has changed really!

So what did happen to the 100 cousins who were less fortunate? An ancestry research project awaits.

There are a lot of average children with rich parents at private schools and many many more poor, scraping by, middling families with very bright members who have never stepped foot in Oxbridge.

Being able to afford private does not make you bright.

Errol I went to a public school with boarding. The dining experience, ‘in’ names described by a pp, the college system were very much the experience I had.

This is important as state school prospective pupils feel less like they would ‘belong’ in this less familiar setting.

So...how do children manage to feel they 'belong' in a school?

I really don't believe it's hard for an intelligent young adult - in particular those with open, inquiring minds- to very rapidly do likewise. Although in 21st C reality, the 'dining experience' at some of the colleges doesn't sound particularly challenging. Strange terminology, if not obvious from context, can be googled, and adopted or not (I assume the example upthread 'plodge' is merely what DD calls a 'porters lodge'...same as in my old redbrick uni)

Going to a private school doesn't necessarily mean you're bright just in the same way a state education doesn't denote lower intelligence.

Going to a private school doesn't necessarily mean you're bright just in the same way a state education doesn't denote lower intelligence.

In some areas, going to a private school means you weren't bright enough to get into the grammar.

So what did happen to the 100 cousins who were less fortunate? An ancestry research project awaits.

Too common a surname to make that feasible, even if it was the sort of thing I wanted to spend time on (other than momentary musing)

True Errol where I live there's the private school you go to if you're rich and clever ( although it goes have an excellent bursary scheme) and there's the private school you go to if you're rich and can't get into the other one...

‘in’ names described by a pp

What???

I always love these threads. People pontificating about stuff they don't seem to really know about, and never come up with anything actually concrete that they think Oxbridge should do on top of what they already are doing to improve the situation.

I didn’t say all private schools had bright children. I clearly said they didn’t. I said there some schools that have lots! This is plainly evident by school destination lists.

Errol: you come from a family of Oxbridge attendees. You are wildly privileged because of this. You know the ropes. Your family are clearly very bright. Effort has been put in down the years and knowledge gained about admission so perhaps your family should give way to others? Your family has been pulled up from working class. Someone in your past backed your dad. No one backed my mum. It’s almost a rite of passage that your DD would go to Oxbridge. Perhaps people like you should make way for the current working class? No doubt that’s a horrific thought.

No one in my family has been to Oxford. In fact we don’t know anyone in our family before my siblings who went to university at all and, of course, I didn’t go.

However by hard work and a business minded DH, we afforded private school. Why are my DC more advantaged than yours? We have no Oxbridge history in our family. Why shouldn’t I want better for my DC?

I’ve just made a suggestion Atia! Just watch the flaming start!!!

• Perhaps people like you should make way for the current working class? No doubt that’s a horrific thought.

'People like me' is scientists who care about education - which is indeed a privilege. I'm not in the least horrified by the idea that more working class people should get places at Oxbridge, and that might well have squeezed out my DD ... I did fine at a redbrick, she'd have done fine elsewhere.

School destination lists aren't taking into account the cultural and structural barriers some young people face. Yes private schools have impressive destination data but we must remember that these students are often hugely privileged which is a huge advantage.

I know you have Bubbles! I may not agree with everything you say, but you have at least been thinking about this stuff for a long time.

atia I was correlating the experience I had at public school with the experience an oxbridge poster had when he/she went. So we both knew about that of which we spoke. The strange words/customs have been mentioned many times on mumsnet. I also know several ex-oxbridge men and women (I taught one ) who would say the same about the traditions. Some liked them, some were neutral, some didn’t. I also do know, from years of being in schools and as a mum, that many teenagers flock together in like minded groups and, despite bravado, like to feel that they will fit in as it’s a bit scary leaving home.

We visited them and spoke to students and had talks from students and staff and a relative went there so not completely naive.

If you look at my post it indicates what could be done - I could give you radical solutions they could try - make a new college with none of the formals or traditions, one that had flats with 6/8 students sharing decent sized kitchens and bathrooms like many universities. Making terms the ‘normal’ length so students had a less intense experience and had more time to enrich their experience there with chilling out/ clubbing/ hobbies/ societies/ consolidating knowledge/ enjoying life in general. The last point was what 2 ex-Oxbridge teachers warned us about when it was asked how it differed and one student who left as it all got too much.

Oxbridge have to appeal to the best ‘poor’ bright candidates so that they have a chance of getting them to interview stage in the first place. Oxbridge can’t offer some students the experience they want at a whole. Other universities will be more appealing.