Nadim wading into Oxbrdige entrance debate

[mids2019]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793175/Thinktank-Oxbridge-discriminating-against-grammar-schools-unfairly-impact-black-pupils.html

DM article here so maybe a bit of bias and the article is a little confused.

I get the impression that our new education Secretary (who is a big fan of grammar schools) has started to notice the diversity policies explicitly stated by Oxbridge in its attempts to take in students from comprehensives/deprived backgrounds.

I noted his dislike of discrimination of any form and I am taking this as a warning to top universities not to engage in activity which may be perceived as positive discrimination.

I understand that if grammar schools seem to be a link to allowing ethnic minorities to gain Oxbrdige places this is a good thing however it would seem not many from grammar schools are truly deprived socially so the situation is complex.

Do you think the government should be involving itself with this vexed issue of leaving to HE leaders.

(I think Nadim's inbox maybe overflowing with a mail's from concerned grammar/independent school parents whose children may not have got their university of choice)

dontlet, seize every opportunity. Of course don't cancel it. I don't blame anyone gaming or just using the system in any way. If the system is unfair then it is for the system and laws to change not for parents to stop using what means they can to help their child which is partly what love is. It is why it can be a bit unfair if a parent busts a gut to pay for a school place such as in my sons' school where most people are not white and plenty will have 4 relatives working full time to fund the one place at a school which rarely gets anyone into Oxbridge ever but will never be contextualised because it is fee paying.

I am from NE England where a brighter child might sometimes choose Durham like my father and uncle over Oxbridge because of distance just as 3 of my children chose Bristol over Durham purely because of distance from our home in outer London.

Interesting one of the sixth forms lauded for its entry on the list provided is Hills Road which is in Cambridge. Student , therefore, are not intimidated. It's also a bit disingenuous as lots of those students are children of Cambridge dons.
And the children of people working in the science parks and many other brain-powered companies in the area. It'd be remarkable if a big sixth form in Cambridge itself didn't have a high oxbridge success rate!

Canadian nationality is relevant only in so far that Toope did not grow up in Great Britain or go to a school here, whatever the nature of that school. No matter how intelligent etc it takes a very long time to really understand a country properly and this isn’t exactly the easiest time in recent British history. So whilst he did attend Cambridge himself he grew up in a totally different culture against a completely different political backdrop etc. He spent most of his working life across the pond etc.

I don't think that's relevant . Lots of overseas students for a start. Cambridge has a culture he is immersed in. What about Mark Carney?

Re Hills Road, historically it has always had a high Oxbridge entrance rate. Nobody would ever suggest to contextualise against a high combined IQ of the parents of a child. However, contextualisation against income aka independent schools seems to be considered OK. So high IQ leading to poorly paid but socially useful profession (don, nurse etc) OK - high IQ leading to banker etc (not OK).
The problem in London though is as Xenia points out - you have a ton of second generation Indians/Chinese etc busting a huge gut to send their kids to private schools. So contextualisation against certain kids from independent schools ends up being indirectly racist, same applies to certain grammar schools.

@dontletmedowngently - that is interesting and remarkable. What do you think are the main factors that helped your children choose university vs why you/their father did not go to university?

The types of 'contextualisation' used by Oxford and Cambridge are, afaik, pretty subtle - things like making it a bit easier for disadvantaged kids to get an interview but not by making that interview easier or dropping the offers. Broadening the pool of applicants with the right sort of potential may mean some who'd have got offers in the past won't now, but it's really not 'discriminating against them'.

@ErrolTheDragon - the offers don’t need dropping at the moment because there has been so much grade inflation. A 3 A star student is not necessarily Oxbridge material, far from it. If we can get back to a system where a A star is exceptional that would be another matter. And ideally make it as little spoon fed as possible so independent students cannot be at a big advantage.

But a kid who does well in the relevant entrance test and interview is likely to be 'oxbridge material' (ugh... hate that phrase) ... so these two unis are probably coping with the A level debacle better than most I'd have thought.

Re spoon feeding - my dd was in the first year of Cambridge introducing admissions tests. So there was precisely one example exam paper available. I seem to remember some (though not all) of the big independents (eg eton) had a crash in success rate that year. Maybe random chance and coincidence but maybe not.

I do take @Abuildingwith4wallsandtmrinsid 's point that in an ideal world, this shouldn't be left to universities alone to remedy, but since we aren't in an ideal world, I think any measures which they take can only be a good thing – necessary even if not sufficient iyswim.

Anyone who has had – like I have – DCs going through different school systems at the same time can see quite clearly the advantages and disadvantages of each, and would, I believe, support measures which put the results of bright children at less good schools into the context in which they were gained.

One of things that maybe the VC has to consider (and I understand his viewpoint) is that the independent school sector is viewed by some as an integral part of our British identity. Schools like Eton have a history and a prestige of their own (for some) and the establishment can claim policies which potentially could be perceived as discriminating against such schools are 'anti British', 'educational communism' etc. It is relatively easy to bring such policies as WP into the culture war debate.

There is still an element of British society that believe there is a certain education route for the upper classes. Prince George will not be attending a local comprehensive but may very well go to Eton and if university beckons the country may expect an established university to open its doors (very possibly Oxbridge).

I think those that cling into these ideas are represented in the right wing press and will continue to claim universities are anti private school (without giving much in the way of evidence).

DH and I are the poster boy and girl for what happens when the grammar system doesn’t work - we both passed the 11+ and probably should have ended up at uni but for various reasons didn’t. Both DC are much brighter than us but I’m happy that neither of them had to go through that system as we moved to a comprehensive area before they were born. I regret not going now so have always encouraged my children in their education.

I was being sarcastic about cancelling the Oxford trip. From reading comments on this thread it’s clear to me that an awful lot of people have no idea what the reality of the education system in this country is like for the majority. Paying for private education, tutoring or moving isn’t an option for so many people and these children deserve far better. If that means children like mine receive contextual offers or get to take part in schemes to widen participation then that can only be a good thing.

Prince George will not be attending a local comprehensive but may very well go to Eton and if university beckons the country may expect an established university to open its doors (very possibly Oxbridge).

I assume you're having a laugh?

@dontletmedowngently

obviously a significant proportion of the population is in your shoes.

My children are going to be educated at a comprehensive (no grammar) locally but there are nagging questions about how it will go. Both my partner and I went to RG universities (Nottingham) and i t would be good to think our children could enjoy the same educational experience as us.

However I don't know to what extent the local school will help their HE ambitions (if they have one). I know that without attending a grammar they are going to be possibly in an environment where high achievement may not be given an emphasis that it should.

there are already children in our children's peer group that have said they see no reason for attending university so this is maybe a viewpoint we will have to continually counter.

@goodbyestranger

May be a little bit where do you think Will and Kate's kids will go?

Will and Kate met at an older university; maybe Liverpool for example didn't appeal

Most of the country - and the whole of Scotland (and Wales?) doesn't have grammars.

www.cam.ac.uk/news/vice-chancellor-gives-evidence-to-the-times-education-commission?utm_campaign=alumni&utm_medium=email&utm_source=886008_M14849%20May%202022%20Alumni%20e-newsletter&dm_i=6DCH,IZNC,1XT4OL,2BMSV,1

“His [Toope] submission to the inquiry, particularly around widening participation, generated discussion in the media and saw some commentators suggest the University of Cambridge is discriminating against pupils from independent and grammar schools. This suggestion misrepresented the Vice-Chancellor’s comments. Professor Toope's response was published by the Telegraph:

“The University of Cambridge does not and would not discriminate against pupils from any type of school and does not use any quotas when making admissions decisions.”

This is what I received this morning as an alumni.

It is quite hard to balance a comment that you want to increase the numbers from state schools against there is no quota unless they are saying there are vast numbers of teenagers who are suitable for Oxbridge so instead of picking them out of the A stars that we will choose based on their school and if they had free school meals and that kind of thing.

The comment about not discriminating against a child with parents with a high IQ is an interesting some universities DO look at if your parents both went to university (ie in many cases that does overall mean they have a high IQ) and use that against you on entrance.

On the Nottinghm parents above - that is one reason I paid school fees - to buy a peer group where just about 100% of the class will be going to university ideally very good ones as by teenage years many children tend to follow the herd and do what their friends do.

Overall on this thread now and back in 2002 when my first child was applying also from a fee paying school (Haberdashers) I think you tend to get a place if you have worked very hard and go to a private school at a good university and you are quite bright so I am not too worried about it. If Oxbridge and other places started accepting people below par empoloyers would stop hiring from there and lecturers would get fed up. I do not think we are at that point but it certainly needs to be watched as children don't choose their school nor their parents so it can be unfair if things are held against them over which they have no control. Some groups also work harder - in the US I believe Indians and Chinese have marks against them on college entry as their group does so well (because they work very hard) and other groups get in more easily as there are fewer of some ethnicities who apply and get in and have the grades. That is a bit unfair just because you are the wrong kind of BAME.

I agree @Xenia - I don’t want to get to a US Ivy League admissions with positive discrimination and significant rumours about rich people making large donations and buying their way in. It leaves the middle classes in the lurch who traditionally have produced the high tax paying professional class. It doesn’t make sense. So I do wonder if some of the journalism on this topic (despite appearing right leaning) is insinuating that.

www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/01/why-the-asian-american-students-lost-their-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/?sh=5f84421d63c1
And thank you for raising the point about Asian Americans. I had read about it superficially before, but it prompted me to read the whole judgment.

Our grammars are full of hardworking and highly intelligent pupils with Chinese, Japanese, South Korean and Indian parents. I believe so are many of the top London independents.

that is one reason I paid school fees - to buy a peer group where just about 100% of the class will be going to university ideally very good ones

And here, perhaps unwittingly, @Xenia provides the perfect illustration of why contextual offers are a good thing. No child should be disadvantaged because their parents lack the wherewithal to buy their way into privileged surroundings, and children who are not part of a peer group where 'just about 100% of the class will be going to university' have almost certainly had to work harder and be more self-motivated than those who are in order to get there. Which is probably why the data indicates that such children do just as well, if not better, at university if they do get there.

What do we make up for however? I was back working full time having taken 2 weeks of annual leave to have a baby in - should that be made up for at university stage that my children were deprived of those years of one to one mother love? Do we contextualise that? What about the fact some mothers don't work and cannot help with university costs whereas I have always worked furll time witghout a break since 1983 and my children don't even have student loans (that of course benefits the tax payer most given most children never repay student loans so in a sense is a gift from me to the poor)?

Or grammars - should we discriminate against those there because the parents got the tutoring to get them in or earn so much they bought a house near a posh comp in the SE?

Or those who are housewives - that that child had a mother at home who could look into the best schools or just have time to read to the child and talk to them. Should you get a black mark against you because your family were rich enough to have a housewife at home?

All very interesting issues but on a personal leve lmost parents rightly do their best for their own children whether that be trying to feed them well or loving them or picking a good fee or other kind of school or home education. Buying a peer group or getting your child into the top set at the comprehensive which is the same thing really - is that unfair any more than the other things?

There isn’t much difference in the educational attainment outcome of my friends’ children due to innate IQ of the children being in a similar range and good enough schooling coupled with supportive parents/home environment and nutrition. They have gone to different types of school, not all high performing.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741638/

When it comes to high IQ kids, those factors (including school) are actually less of a determiner than when you compare it to lower IQ kids. So quality of basic education is more important for average and lower IQ.

But what we don’t want is high IQ kids in poor performing schools struggling and becoming demotivated, being written off etc/poor behaviour/frustration/anger etc.

There appears to be big appetite amongst top independent schools to support gifted children in the state sector. They seem to have realised that spending 45k annually on a bursary for 1 kid could go further if spent on 200 kids in the state sector and supporting them remotely.
I say government should facilitate this more and run some more CAT tests. No kid should have to show huge amounts of work and self motivation over and above others. Equally, no truly gifted Westminster boy or girl should be discriminated against. If you ask any teacher they can often name the exceptional children they have taught during their career. Unfortunately lots of them don’t end up where they should have done.

I think elite university education is about identifying the most able, regardless of factors. It is about how we get there best which is being debated. Nobody is saying on this thread that middling children at private schools should get the places.

@Xenia’s kids could have ended up in exactly the same position even if she did not make the sacrifices to send them to private school. Maybe she just didn’t want to take the risk. If you live near London with gangs around you are not necessarily trying to buy privilege, more trying to just keep your kids safe by choosing selective schools.

The irony of this whole debate is that IF our top unis had more investment to open more places we would not all be at each others throats chasing fewer and fewer places. For PPE one of Oxford's most popular degrees, they literally choose 8-10 kids a year per college (depending on college), with 25-30% reserved for internationals who pay cold hard cash of 30K+ a year to attend.

I get we need international diversity, but most of the time if you can afford the 30K price tag as an international student, you are most likely stunningly wealthy. I see there's a Bloomberg article today covering how rich international parents are buying their darlings flats for when they study in London. Win-win flat goes up, and their child gets a great education - talk about elite and privileged!

The real issue that is not really even being discussed is that there are more students than ever applying to uni, and very qualified ones at that, and yet by UCAS's reckoning there's going to be a million DCs chasing 500K spaces by 2025 (that's not even breaking it down between RG + Oxbridge applications etc).

Also, please can we stop tarring every private school student with the same brush - many of them are smart and hardworking and being punished by their lazier peers, and not all of them are privileged and white at all.