To think universities should state separate entry criteria for Indies?

[Wacamole]

DD who is on track for 3A*s at A’level, thought she’d give Oxbridge a go after being encouraged by her teachers. All very excited, doing super curriculars etc. Only just been told she doesn’t meet minimum entry criteria that would be expected from an Indy, which is straight 9s. She doesn’t have straight 9s, she has straight 8s (couple of nines), not only that, the course she wanted to apply for at Cambridge doesn’t require Maths at all, but school has advised they won’t even look at her if she doesn’t do Maths AND Further Maths. She is doing neither. Apparently an EPQ is also mandatory even though none of this is mentioned on Cambridge website.

All this second guessing, reading between the lines has been really confusing.
I have no issue with universities asking for higher entry criteria for students from indies for obvious reasons but wish they would be more transparent and state this on their ‘Entry requirements’ same way they state contextual offers?

@mumsneedwine: for the kids like my DD, who were top of the toppest with a special reason to be top, it meant a lot. Cambridge likes you to be top or near the top of your cohort and hers was pretty big. Even 2nd to top was worth mentioning. (Boy, did we take the piss put of her when she wasn't top: "the second best priest"). Don't denigrate your colleagues' ability to decide who is top. Just give these kids their hard-earned credit for heavens sake.

And you should stop telling people how much they're meant to be earning on the basis of you being a teacher who knows a binman and a plumber. It's so patronising and limiting.

[quote mids2019]@Empressofthemundane

I like the comparison to hunger games....(hopefully this does not become literal but it would test the ingenuity of candidates).

One of my old teachers (very much in the past) have us a paper making the same points that you did. Education is being used not only as a way to enlighten the individual but to act as a filter to professions and societal status in general.

In theory students should be selecting courses based on a love for the subject and an intense desire to learn it in depth to enhance their human experience.......

However there are reasons someone may choose to study English at Oxford rather than the University of Hertfordshire (grades allowing ) and possibly some of that reason may be on future employability (we are only undergraduates for 3 years on average). It does then seem that you get that intense competition for university places not necessarily for the most noble of reasons.[/quote]
I think there is also a third category somewhere in between - of kids who won't necessarily pick Oxbridge etc because they love the look of that particular course, but equally won't pick it because they are being strategic about future career opportunities, social status or earning potential. Some kids will simply pick it because they are in the habit of aiming high and perceive Oxbridge (or LSE or Imperial or whatever) as "the best" and therefore as something to aspire to for its own sake.

If I'm honest, I think that's what motivated me to apply. It certainly wasn't the content of the course, as I actually rather liked the York course better. It certainly wasn't because I was thinking ahead to future career opportunities, as that simply didn't occur to me. It was mainly because Oxbridge was presented as the pinnacle of academic success, and therefore as something to aim for. I suspect that this is the case for lots of students.

What I'd like to move towards is a less elitist society which isn't so dominated by Oxbridge graduates, and where "the best" is defined more in terms of what you can get out of your university experience than the narrowness of the gate that you have to pass through in order to get in.

To be fair, if I had my time again, I would still choose Cambridge because it was a fabulous experience that more than exceeded my expectations. However, I cannot claim that it was chosen for the actual benefits that it offered, it was more a question of the brand winning out over other brands. And there were some who chose that same brand who probably would have been much happier elsewhere.

Yes but in terms of the number of UK students London South Bank must be very much larger.

If you were to ask the same question in Bournemouth, Huddersfield or Halifax you would find that most of the less well off went to the local University. Cheaper, more accessible, flexible, known etc. And in regional economic terms a good local tertiary sector is a known driver for growth.

Why are we not talking about London for local kids and northern Universities for local kids. Our local state school has more or less given up on Oxbridge. There was lots of outreach one year, and lots of applications were supported, resulting in five offers, and all time high. Unfortunately four did not make their offers (they had a bad year in one subject) and no leeway was given. It is now deemed more sensible to recognise that many children, whose parents are not graduates, prefer to stay close to home, in a known environment and that the more effective focus is to get capable students to apply to KCL, UCL, QMUL, Brunel etc rather than simply South Bank or the University of East London.

AFAIK many families in London are on low incomes. Yes I have met, and paid, the Pimlico Plumber on £100,000 a year, but most will be on far less that the average in affluent Home Counties villages. London weighting may exist, but believe me it does not start to cover the difference in wages.

There is a MN thing about Oxbridge, and about going to University away from home. Even when I went to LSE there were a lot of local students, especially from cultures which expected DC to live at home till they got married.

@CinnamonJellyBeans in a small school it may well be easy to say who is top. But if 900 students study one subject how do you decide ? My colleagues can and do whatever they want, so do I. Based on Oxbridge admissions tutors not some random parent on the internet.
I won't even go into calling people names because they are not top once.
I'll stick to teaching and successfully helping students get the places that others covert so much. Far too much self serving rudeness on here today. Personally my own kids are on their way to their careers so makes no odds to me. And I earn enough as a teacher to be happy - I went to a totally shit Essex comp myself and still in touch with lots of contemporaries so I understand more than most about social mobility. My dad couldn't go to grammar school in 1949 as he couldn't afford the blazer. His teacher bought him one she could go.
Good luck OP. Remember MN is not always representative of the truth.

Big cohort: Use a spreadsheet of all test results, essay scores, mock scores. It's like voodoo and so fast!

You can do that "when I were a lad..." as much as you like. growing up as a poor individual does not give you enough credibility to assign students as factory fodder, no matter how reasonable you think the lifestyle (more time with kids in your unheated hovel) or rate of pay is for them

@AlexaShutUp

I completely get aspiring to be the best can be and setting your goals (whatever they may be) high.

I would like to think my children strive to achieve (with happiness of course a consideration) and have appropriate goals.

I think the problem with Oxbridge (and maybe others) is that a child can strive , put in the effort, get perfect grades and still not get in. With so many excellent applicants this may be increasingly the case.

I am a great believer (perhaps naively) that hard work should pay off and so with the Oxbridge gate narrowing (or more people trying to push through it) we should be looking to other universities to give comparable experiences to give just reward.

On the prospects for Oxbridge grads that's a really interesting one. One could argue that with increasing numbers of students from poorer backgrounds gaining places it would make sense to maintain the hegemony of elite roles by Oxbridge grads as you are achieving social mobility in university entrance.

I think of interest is the connection between public schools, Oxbridge and elite roles. If we are having fewer private school children at Oxbridge are we still going to find those elite positions filled by the privately educated. Is it private education or Oxbridge that gives the advantage?

Someone outbreak mentioned employers are casting their net wider in terms of graduate recruitment and there have been statements from the likes of the BBC that they wish to diversify their staff intake.

I suppose the argument is going to be why should Oxbridge grads not deserve those positions given presumably more rigorous courses? Will not Oxbridge grads be miffed if they are positions going to grads from other universities when they have been through a very selective entrance process and completed a more demanding degree?

That’s what I’m thinking too @mids2019.

Poorer children finally storm the citadel, get their places at Oxbridge, and the very arguments they used to fight their way in (fairness, diversity, anti-elitism) are used against them to argue against Oxbridge itself by employers.

It would be really ironic and sad. Except I am a cynic. I think most of this is a fight between well educated middle class spools who send their DC private vs well educated middle class people who send their DC to state schools. I think truly disadvantaged children are pawns and totems. Though I imagine there are some very sincere educators caught up in all this.

@mids2019 I have had the same train of thought.

Personally I think it's the character of a student that will make them successful. Their hunger for success, resilience, their approach, confidence and self belief. A lot of private school kids have above in bundles but I do think you can change your character even later on ..... I certainly have over the years. So it will be interesting to see

The problem is that although Oxbridge are doing better at diversifying their intake, this better is still not good enough.

Students from the most well-off areas are still around 15 times more likely to get a place at Oxford or Cambridge than those from the poorest areas.

Even if Oxford and Cambridge meet their targets for improvement, a student from one of the richest areas of the country will still be 7 to 8 times more likely to gain a place at Oxford or Cambridge than a student from one of the poorest.

@Empressofthemundane

In the whole your probably correct.....(cynicism at times can be useful)

It is the case that Cambridge is falling down the league tables in terms of the proportion of privately educated students (Oxford too now I believe) and I wonder what the more general consequence of this will be.

Both Oxford and Cambridge have lofty goals in terms of recruiting from 'disadvantaged communities' but I suppose we have to look at the definition of disadvantage (my understanding of disadvantage may be different).

The idea of disadvantaged pupils being used as pawns is a little scary but there may be some truth ambridge Cambridge for instance have introduced a foundation course for those severely disadvantaged (from the care system, separated from families, prolonged health issues) which is laudable but I think you have to be considerate of mixing people with very diverse backgrounds in one concentrated setting. I think it is the right thing to do but care is needed especially considering pastoral care, mental health etc.

I think the social mixing at universities is great the majority of the time but there are cases where people do get rubbed up the wrong way.

@chops

Privately schooled children have many admirable characteristics and qualities that will be apparent to employers.

@Phphion

There is a correlation between academic success and socio-economic background that can't easily be discounted. I am sure there are many opinions on the reason for this but I think fundamentally this is the reason for the inequality.

The issue becomes then how do we deal with this issue.

Do you offer lower tariffs from those from poorer areas.to increase uptake of possibly have regional quotas for entrance?

Should the Oxbridge student body be truly reflective of society? (From a geographic, economic point of view etc.)

These are important questions with no easy answers in my opinion. There may be some that would say that the parents from wealthier areas have worked hard to give their children the resources to achieve and are invested in their child's success. Should this necessarily be penalised. (I don't happen to agree with this necessarily but the arguments are interesting ones).

I think the problem with Oxbridge (and maybe others) is that a child can strive , put in the effort, get perfect grades and still not get in. With so many excellent applicants this may be increasingly the case.

Again, I think it has always been the case that some kids have worked really hard but not got in. To some extent, that's just life. Maybe it's easier for state educated kids to accept that because it's more obvious to them from an early age that life is inherently unfair? I really don't know.

As long as kids are supported appropriately, they will get over the disappointment and get on with life, hopefully with a bit more resilience than they had before. Most of them will have a fantastic experience at whichever university they end up at.

As for the issue about elite university graduates dominating the top jobs, I think that would be fine if we lived in a genuine meritocracy, but we are a long way from that. Yes, Oxbridge and other top universities have increased their proportion of state school pupils, but I still think the majority of state educated pupils will come from relatively privileged middle class backgrounds. With a decent state school and savvy parents with a bit of cash to spare, it's easy enough to recreate The advantages traditionally conferred by private education. The truly disadvantaged still have enormous hurdles that they have to overcome, and I suspect that we are in danger of replacing one type of privilege with another.

I do think the trends are moving in the right direction, and that can only be good. I also don't know what the solution is.

@mumsneedwine You speak a lot of sense and seem like a teacher who genuinely cares about all her students, not just the academic high-flyers.

I was the first in my family to go to university. I have never been a higher tax payer and I earn more than DH. We both do jobs we love and would be considered a vocation. However, I would consider us wealthy without having high flying, high pressure jobs. We paid off our mortgage quickly and moved up the property ladder, invested wisely so we have a lot of assets. We could drive flashy cars and go on numerous luxury holidays. We chose not to.

My DC go to top universities but if they decide to be an investment banker, teacher, nurse, plumber etc as long as they are happy both in their personal and professional life, I will support them in whatever career they choose.

One of my DC's school used to bang on about being a leader of tomorrow and success was measured on job status, but for me being successful in your personal life is just as important. Having good relationships and time for friends and family is crucial. You only have to read Adam Kay's 'This is going to Hurt' to see this.

There are lots of interesting and very good points above. My son ([private school, degree and was a postman for 3 years and now a food delivery van driver for longer and he hopes for life) could do better in my view but he is content, self sufficient, happy. he has not featured in his school's old boys magazine yet, a very glossy thing which features leading actors, judges, QCs and the like. I think a picture of him in his company delivery driver uniform would be quite a nice change and would not put all parents off.

Mokre generally hwo to be fair is very hard. In China in the cultural revolution they took the children of the elilte class, childreno f doctors etc and made them work in the fields or clearing sewage by hand evne if they were the brightest of the bright. you don't chose your parents so that's a bit unfair. In North Korea doctors get a dollar a month or something ridiculous (plus housing and some very meagre basic food) so everyone with sense tries to get a Government job where they can make a lot on bribes and the hidden economy as that is the only way to live well.
I don't agree with ucas that relationships with others are the be all and end all, though, as I have always loved my own company and have never had a day of my life when I have had as little contact with others as a like! Internal contentment and perfect health even as a hermit might for some of us be the pinnacle.

Alexa, yes my 5 did a kind of cost benefit analysis of the Oxbridge process particularly the girls in very academic day schools - North London Collegiate etc where they were in the middle of the class (and presumably would have been top in other less selective schools - indeed one daughter was in the 5th of 5 sets for maths and still got an A at GCSE in days before A star never mind 1 - 9s). So they balanced the effort involved that would have taken them away from hobbies or doing nothing in front of the TV against the smallish chance even for the best of the best to get in and decided not to get involved and were content with places like Bristol.

@AlexaShutUp

Good point about resilience and definitely is a life skill.

I think there is that tension between an individual acknowledgment that life isn't inherently fair and the societal pressure to make things fairer in terms of higher education access opportunities.

I think it is a good point for outreach to be truly working middle class children from private schools shouldn't simply be replaced by middle class children from state schools. The ambition of universities seems to be however to increase the proportion from disadvantaged backgrounds (I don't know quite the precise definition of disadvantaged) and will this be achievable in the long term?

With the point about hard work paying off I think obviously not all those that achieve highly academically will end up at Oxford and Cambridge but the problem become whether those rejected do? It would seem fair to offer an academic pathway commensurate with their academic ability (and presumably they may have done reasonably well at oxbridge) so are there sufficiently well known Oxbridge alternatives?

I guess I feel that there should be motivation for children to achieve or else you will get the feeling of 'what was the point of all those a stars when I didn't really need them for the course I am studying'?

Even when you control for academic success, students from the poorest areas are much less likely to get a place at Oxford or Cambridge than those from richer areas.

Data from 2018 shows that just 15% of students living in the poorest 2/5th of the country who achieved at least A A A applied to Oxford. For comparison, 37% of students with those grades from independent schools similarly applied to Oxford, as did 25% of students with those grades from state schools collectively.

The data also showed that students from these poorest areas and those with other disadvantage flags were not more likely to receive an offer once they had applied with suitable grades (in recognition of the greater difficulties they may have faced in achieving these grades). In fact, they were slightly less likely.

Contrary to the belief that more advantaged students are missing out on places due to the vast numbers of less qualified poorer students taking their places, the number of students from the poorest areas of the country admitted to Oxford increases by around 25 students each year, or one student per college.

So while Oxbridge are right to point out that they are not responsible for poor prior attainment and don't want to drop their entry requirements, there is still considerably more they could do to attract and admit academically qualified poorer students.

@Xenia

You mention the cultural revolution and I suppose that was borne out of inequality initially.

However it's ironic China is now verging on being the world's leading economy and despite being technically communist has a burgeoning middle class. The culture of education in China is a little bit scary in the ambitions given to their children by parents (maybe the phrase 'tiger parenting ' originated from this).

@Phphion

Interesting figures. I am really.quite surprised at the low application rates generally given the top A level grades (can't really.do much better). I wonder why applications aren't made and where these very good candidates end up going?

If you increase those percentages significantly in any of the sectors then you would have a huge number of applicants and the selection would be challenging logistically.

I suppose the question is why aren't children applying (is outreach not successful enough or are there other factors in play).

I guess I feel that there should be motivation for children to achieve or else you will get the feeling of 'what was the point of all those a stars when I didn't really need them for the course I am studying'?

I understand what you're saying @mids2019, and to some extent, I agree. However, I think this is partly for parents to manage, primarily through the values that they pass on through their children.

I have always taught my dd to do her best, because there is a real sense of achievement and satisfaction in doing as well as you possibly can in any endeavour. It is what my parents taught me, and I have tried to pass it on.

So in our house, the purpose of those A*s or grade 9s is not to get into a specific university or land a specific job or whatever. The purpose was simply to do the best that you could do because taking pride in your work is inherently more satisfying than doing a half-arsed, mediocre job. If it turns out that your very best effort was only a grade 6, then no worries, as long as you have genuinely given it your best effort.

In my view, if you look at hard work as a means to an end, you will inevitably be disappointed sometimes. Kids who work hard and get perfect grades won't all get into Oxbridge. Adults who work hard won't always be rewarded with the promotion that they deserved. People who make every effort to look after their health still get sick. Life is like that, and it isn't fair to give kids the idea that they can control the world or guarantee their success through their own effort - they can't. I have taught my dd that hard work, effort and persistence are always a necessary conditions of success,, but they are not sufficient - there will always be an element of luck involved as well. If things don't work out as you hope, at least you'll know that you gave it your best shot.

I think the other issue that can be problematic if you focus on the "means to an end" approach is that, even if you are lucky enough to succeed, people can sometimes get very disillusioned when that the much desired end for which they worked so hard turns out to be not quite all that it was cracked up to be. I knew quite a few students at Cambridge who were faced with a bit of an "is this it?" moment during their first year. They had spent so much of their lives prior to university aspiring to that goal, only to find that they weren't actually enjoying it when they got there. By contrast, I hadn't given much thought to Cambridge before it came to filling in my ucas form (or whatever it was in those days!) and had so few expectations that I couldn't really be disappointed.

So I don't ever tell my dd that she should work hard in order to achieve xyz. She should just work hard in order to have the satisfaction that she has done herself justice and performed to the best of her potential. The efforts that you put in are what matter to us, and not the outcomes that come out.

@AlexaShutUp

Very well said.

I am really.quite surprised at the low application rates generally given the top A level grades (can't really.do much better). I wonder why applications aren't made and where these very good candidates end up going?

I'm not at all surprised, but I think the reasons are complex. I think a lot of kids still assume that Oxbridge will be full of posh people and that they just won't fit in. I think some assume (probably incorrectly) that living costs will be expensive. I think there is still a very strong perception that you have to be some kind of freaky genius to get in (the rainman stereotype that someone mentioned further up the thread). And I think some kids just aren't really attracted to what they think Oxbridge has to offer. I'm sure that there are many more reasons that I haven't mentioned, but it's quite difficult to crack through those very strongly held perceptions.

And other universities offer attractive tweaks to courses - years in industry or abroad, in all kinds of subjects other than MFL. Students find things other than dreaming spires attractive. And view those things as at least as valuable as the Oxbridge names.

@AlexaShutUp

I am really.quite surprised at the low application rates generally given the top A level grades (can't really.do much better). I wonder why applications aren't made and where these very good candidates end up going?

I'm not at all surprised, but I think the reasons are complex. I think a lot of kids still assume that Oxbridge will be full of posh people and that they just won't fit in. I think some assume (probably incorrectly) that living costs will be expensive. I think there is still a very strong perception that you have to be some kind of freaky genius to get in (the rainman stereotype that someone mentioned further up the thread). And I think some kids just aren't really attracted to what they think Oxbridge has to offer. I'm sure that there are many more reasons that I haven't mentioned, but it's quite difficult to crack through those very strongly held perceptions.

There's also the (not unreasonable) perception that Oxford and Cambridge as towns, as well as universities, are white and middle class.

Black students, and those from poorer backgrounds tend to prefer larger cities, particularly London, where they feel they'll fit in.

Alexa, and a lot of kids want to stay near to where they live.

Apart from top tier US Universities, this is the norm for most countries and cultures.

It seems very common in London for kids to only apply to London Universities. And why not. London is familiar, and there are some very strong courses on offer. I assume that happens elsewhere in the country as well.

The focus seems to be on Uni9versities doing outreach. What we have also seen in London are dedicated sixth forms (Brampton Manor, Kings Maths School, Harris Westminster and more) who aim to pull together some of the very brightest, raise the aspirations of the cohort and ensure that when they arrive at University they are ready for a demanding course. University destinations for these sixth forms are very strong indeed, and at least some contextualise their offers for places, to ensure a diverse intake.