Top private schools losing their grip on Oxbridge article

[Nevermakeit]

on.ft.com/3hnt4iG
Interesting article from the FT today . I don't understand why there never seems to be any nuance separating the top private schools which are incredibly hard to get into, and therefore select very bright children, and the more mediocre ones where the main discriminator is the ability to pay the fees...
If I were head of one of the top schools (and not just a parent!), this is what I would be arguing, that the children are not simply hothoused (though of course they undoubtedly are), but they were exceptional to begin with!! Yet, they never seem to put this across (either in the media or to the Oxbridge colleges themselves, where they supposedly have such great relationships), and agree to be lumped together with all the other private schools.
I just don't understand it, especially as then they could get their kids in more 'under the radar' , as at the national level, the state school intake would still be looking good....
What do others think?

If you level the ground, who do you think will likely be the brighter, more successful of the two in my example above?

I'm also not clear about introducing the criterion of 'success'. I don't think Oxford and Cambridge are concerned with the subsequent material success of their offerees. They are very likely to be concerned about trying to recruit those who will contribute the most to future research in all the various fields, but they seem to be hugely unconcerned about churning out the maximum number of eg future high earning corporate lawyers/ bankers etc.

@goodbyestranger

Mumoftwoinprimary in what way is the drive for diversity/ genuine potential 'grubby'? I'm very confused by your post. I wonder if you could please explain 'grubby'?

It’s a phrase I use a lot because I like it! I guess what I mean by it is that there is a selfishness about it - they are not trying to improve diversity because they want to improve the life of a child whose opportunities are lower, (although that almost certainly will happen), they are doing it because somewhere out there is the next Stephen Hawking and they don’t want to miss out on him / her because they come from a non-traditional Oxbridge background.

To give an example of a time I used the phrase this weekend - my kids play a sport where there is a constant shortage of girls. I am fairly involved in the club as a parent volunteer type. New family have just started with son and I’m talking to dad about how the club works. Little Sister is there watching and saying “Daddy - can I have a go at Xxxing” so I ask how old she is and then say cheerfully “she can join once she is 7 - there is a shortage of girls in XXXing so we always want to get our grubby mitts on them!”

I think you are implying that I don’t approve of increasing Oxbridge diversity? I do. (Both dh and I are state-Oxbridge and dh, in particular, is as non traditional as it comes - first in his family to do A levels, first from his school to Oxbridge, when told by the school he should think about applying to “Oxbridge” he said “where’s that?”) What I don’t agree with is the current belief that seems to be pervading that state school kids are being let in when they are less able “because of diversity”. I don’t think they are. I think that Oxbridge is getting better at encouraging non traditional applicants to apply and some of them are more able than their private school peers and so are now getting a place over them.

If two applications appear really similar to each other, making it hard to decide which one you should choose, the decision may well be based on the fact that one of the applicants achieved all of that going to a state school while the other went to a highly selective private

I have the strong impression that the way it now works is that Universities decide on the ratios and they then compare private applicants with other private applicants and state applicants with other state applicants.

I have the strong impression that the way it now works is that Universities decide on the ratios and they then compare private applicants with other private applicants and state applicants with other state applicants.

If the entry pool is separated like this, do you think that some of the successful applicants from state schools are not as good as some of unsuccessful applicants from private school? That Oxbridge work out who's best and then turn some of them away to study at other universities?

@Bovrilly

I have the strong impression that the way it now works is that Universities decide on the ratios and they then compare private applicants with other private applicants and state applicants with other state applicants.

If the entry pool is separated like this, do you think that some of the successful applicants from state schools are not as good as some of unsuccessful applicants from private school? That Oxbridge work out who's best and then turn some of them away to study at other universities?

I think it's possible that Oxbridge sometimes gets it wrong.

I think it's possible that Oxbridge sometimes gets it wrong.

Of course. But that's very different from knowingly rejecting good people in favour of less good people.

State school admissions are increasing because more are applying, looking at the admission stats for Oxford, nearly 3000 extra state school applicants applied in 2019 compared to 2014, independent schools it rose by about 200. From those 3000 extra state applicants they got 150 extra students admitted. Independent students admitted dropped but by less than 200.

One of the big problems for Oxbridge colleges is that they can’t expand like other universities. With the huge increase in young people going to university there is going to be an increase in applicants. I hope the outreach programmes run by the colleges are successful in encouraging applicants from non-traditional schools/areas of low application. My DCs went to v academic schools, 2/3 did v well but aren’t academic in an Oxbridge way - they work hard because they want to get good grades, not because they particularly enjoyed their subjects. They didn’t apply as it seemed too intense, despite having the ‘right’ grades.

My dad and his friend both very senior retired teachers do training for oxbridge candidates from the local state school - social skills interviewing etc. I like to think they are affecting these stats 😁

@MsTSwift

My dad and his friend both very senior retired teachers do training for oxbridge candidates from the local state school - social skills interviewing etc. I like to think they are affecting these stats 😁

Yes mirroring this kind of social education which is provided as a matter of course by good privates is very important.

I slightly got off point in comparing NLCS (private) and Henrietta B (state grammar) but good point re 2020 results for both being skewed due to pandemic.

I can do a google search limiting dates to 2019 and seem to get this for NLCS

NLCS is celebrating its best ever A* performance at GCSE level. This is the first year when the majority of grades awarded at NLCS were using the new 9-1 scale.

NLCS students achieved an outstanding 66% grade 9 and 89% grade 9 or 8 and we are incredibly proud of them!

Only 800 girls in the whole of England managed to get straight grade 9s, and 4% of them are our students.

"29 North Londoners achieved Grade 9 in 10 or more subjects, and 76 girls were awarded A* or equivalent in 10 or more subjects.

Students achieved amazing results in English and Maths. 97% achieved grade 9 and 99% grade 8 or 9 in English literature, and 100% secured grade 8 or 9 in English Language.

A high proportion of students choose Maths at NLCS, and a fantastic 93% students achieved grade 8 or 9 and 68% grade 9."

And A levels doing the same 2019 search only
"Almost uniquely for a London school, we offer a diverse curriculum which means that girls can study the International Baccalaureate or take a combination of 3 or 4 A Level or Pre-U subjects.
This summer we were delighted to celebrate another superb set of International Baccalaureate Diploma results in July with and average points score of 41 (placing us once again as one of the top schools in the world offering this challenging curriculum). Three of our students gained the maximum score of 45 points this year, something usually only achieved by around 200 students out of 160,000 candidates across the globe.

Our combined A level, Pre-U and IB results are also excellent – this year 36% of students received the equivalent of A, with 76% at AA and 92% at A*B level.

NLCS students are now preparing to take up offers at the most prestigious universities world-wide with offers from the UK, EU and the USA.

Overall, twenty six students will take up their Oxbridge and Ivy League places, marking us out as one of the most successful schools in the country this year."

B - state GCSE 2019

GCSE results 2019: Henrietta Barnett headteacher pays tribute to ‘fabulous’ year group as 95pc get a grade 7 or higher
person

Harry Taylor
Published: 3:53 PM August 22, 2019 Updated: 2:01 PM October 14, 2020

"Henrietta Barnett year 11 pupils have got an “excellent” set of results despite the new format of GCSE’s, the school’s head Del Cooke has said.
Nearly 80 per cent of GCSE exams were given grades 8 and 9, and 95pc were at grade 7 or above.

In total 16 pupils got ten grade 9s or more."
A levels 2019
"The head of Henrietta Barnett school in Hampstead Garden Suburb has paid tribute to its cohort of students, on a day where 70 per cent of A-level grades achieved by pupils were A* or A grades.

26 pupils got into Oxbridge universities, while nearly three times that number got A* or A grades in at least three subjects.

The all-girls school, which was founded in 1911, had 92pc of grades which were A* to B."

It is too complicated to compare. Basically if you have academic selection and girls only whether paying or not paying you tend to get high grades.

Oxbridge will always miss some good people (loads probably) but just needs to be careful not to let in people who aren't up to it as it might lower the standard for others if there is catching up to be done in year 1. If that is not happening then that's fine. If it is happening and catching up does not occur over 3 years employers will start t move away to places where the people they want are. I do not think there is much risk of that.

Mumoftwoinprimary no I'm absolutely implying that you disapprove of increasing diversity, I simply thought you were casting the aspersion that tutors are all only interested in admissions so far as that enhances their own reputation, which seems a little unfair.

I agree that they are trying to really dig down and find talent. I'm not so sure that there is no wider social objective for a lot of then though.

Oops: absolutely not implying :)

Oxbridge will always miss some good people (loads probably) but just needs to be careful not to let in people who aren't up to it as it might lower the standard for others if there is catching up to be done in year 1.

Again I don't really get it. Your post illustrates how well a state school can do with great A level results, but then you seem to be saying that state school pupils might not be up to it and that Oxbridge might have to lower their standards for them?

I have the strong impression that the way it now works is that Universities decide on the ratios and they then compare private applicants with other private applicants and state applicants with other state applicants.

You might have that impression, but it is not how it works at Oxford as far as I have seen.

Literally noone knows. I'd imagine there must be some unconscious bias on the part of the interviewers but it can't be easy

This is of course part of the branding. But I believe the motivation is to really do get the brightest in.

I can tell you with some confidence that for the majority of Oxford tutors the motivation is both. If anything I think it skews more towards social mobility motivation that you dismiss as "branding". Apart from anything else, you never really know for certain who the brightest actually are. There is limited information.

Oxbridge will always miss some good people (loads probably) but just needs to be careful not to let in people who aren't up to it as it might lower the standard for others if there is catching up to be done in year 1. If that is not happening then that's fine. If it is happening and catching up does not occur over 3 years employers will start t move away to places where the people they want are. I do not think there is much risk of that.

Every university will have some students who for a myriad of reasons perhaps don't make the grade in the first year just as many universities will miss good people. But I don't think there is much 'catch up' at Oxbridge except perhaps some additional Maths for Natural Scientists who have not been able to take FM at A level. Even the ab initio languages students have to hit the ground running.
The selection process at Oxford is pretty rigorous and for a lot of subjects there are detailed stats of entrance test scores so any implication that Oxford takes any slightly 'lower' achievers who need catch up inaccurate.
There was a really interesting article a few years back about how decisions are made - I will try and find it again and post. Essentially some state school pupils from a school with low average GCSE will have a slight advantageous weighting when decisions are made about who to interview - but it is only 1factor. But crucially, they will still have to perform well enough in the entrance test and interview to secure an offer and then that offer will be the same as every other candidate (for Oxford).
DS experience was that there was no 'catch up' - it was full on into the course from week 1. A fellow course mate did drop out after 2 terms - but that was because he decided he did not love the subject enough to put in 10 hrs a day.

www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/alan-rusbridger-lifting-lid-oxford-admissions

A bit dated now but gives an insight

Interesting. Seems completely random 🤣

A friend’s son is reading history. He had to read a book before he started in the October and his tutor suggested he read one in one of the languages he’d done at sixth form. I reckon that’s pretty full on from the start.

There may well be no catch up nor any dumbing down. The proof of the pudding will be in whether employers start looking away more from Oxbridge or I suppose they might want diversity from Oxbridge and tolerate any drop i n standards. Or there may be a rise in standards if Oxbridge are picking from a bigger pool of 1000 bright people v 100 bright people as more and more apply.

Mere anecdote - my daughter's friend had a little sister who said she found her first year marred by so many from state schools who did not have as much knowledge as she did, had not read all the books etc compared with what she had done in sixth form BUT that was one bit of information from one person so not data in any sense.

If lots of NLCS (private) and Henrietta B (state - grammar) get in still that shows it is still working as the top quarter of girls from those two schools are extremely bright.

A friend’s son is reading history. He had to read a book before he started in the October and his tutor suggested he read one in one of the languages he’d done at sixth form

I seem to remember that back in the day of first term History Prelims you had to read books in two foreign languages which was massively challenging for all - particularly those who had only done one MFL at school. The French one (Toqueville) had some really good Engish translations but there was no translation of the German one (Burkhardt) in print which caused a lot of headaches.

Or there may be a rise in standards

This seems more likely now that there are more candidates to choose from.

my daughter's friend had a little sister who said she found her first year marred by so many from state schools who did not have as much knowledge as she did

In what way was it marred? Other people not knowing as much as her made her unhappy?