Oxbridge: Blatant social engineering - not admission according to potential.

[Marchesman]

Despite resistance from some tutors, Cambridge University’s Access and Participation Plan 2020-21 to 2024-25 includes a target to increase the proportion of UK state sector students that is entirely separate and independent of aims for POLAR4 quintiles 1 and 2. Formulating admissions targets for the University of Cambridge’s Access and Participation Plan (2020-21 to 2024-25) | Cambridge Admissions Office

The university's own research in 2011 had "found no statistically significant differences in performance by school type, and there was no evidence of the phenomenon observed at other UK universities of state sector students outperforming their privately educated peers" https://www.cao.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cao.cam.ac.uk/files/ar_gp_school_performance.pdf Subsequent data shows that students from independent schools performed better in examinations than students from state schools by 2015/16, at a level that is highly statistically significant: https://www.informationhub.admin.cam.ac.uk/university-profile/ug-examination-results/archive

Therefore, APP 2020-21 to 2024-25 makes no attempt to justify the state school target on the basis of student performance. In fact the only justification given is: "We recognise that school type is not a characteristic used by the OfS or contained within its Access and Participation dataset; we recognise too that the state versus independent binary masks a range of educational experiences…[however] each of the under-represented groups identified within this Plan appear in far greater numbers in state maintained schools, as do students from low income households who are not identified by any of the measures currently available to us."

The result of this can be seen in https://www.cao.cam.ac.uk/files/attainment_outcomes.pdf

In final degree examinations: "The per cent mark remained lower for the three secondary school types: • Comprehensive (estimate = -0.70, SE = 0.19, t = -3.63, p< 0.001); • State grammar (estimate = -0.98, SE = 0.19, t = -5.22, p< 0.001); • State other (estimate = -0.87, SE = 0.20, t = -4.32, p< 0.001)" To put this into context, these are the figures for students with "cognitive or learning difficulties (estimate = -0.88, SE = 0.33, t = -2.67, p< 0.01)"

Regarding the acquisition of a First: "The probability of the outcome remained lower for the three secondary school types: • Comprehensive (coefficient = -0.20, SE = 0.06, z = -3.13, p< 0.01); • State grammar (coefficient = -0.30, SE = 0.06, z = -4.81, p< 0.001); • State other (coefficient = -0.24, SE = 0.07, z = -3.57, p< 0.001)"

Selection according to potential? Really?

*Well, in 2014 at ISC schools, 5391 children paid no fees. That figure was 7815 in 2022.

So what do you think?*

I think that numbers of DC in private education have risen, that it's a tiny proportion, ~1%, someone is paying the fees for the rest, and I still doubt that 10% come from the poorest two quintiles these days.

the private sector where the proportion of pupils in the bottom two SES quintiles (10%) is equal to the proportion that Cambridge admit overall from the bottom quintiles

I just looked at that Chowdry study again and I would be careful about saying stuff like this unless you know that Cambridge's quintiles are derived using the same methodology, ie polar, acorn and census data. Funnily enough although I used the word "poorest" above, it's not really about income but about the characteristics of where you live.

the setup of good independent schools particularly boarding prep and senior schools is conducive to instilling desirable social qualities such as tolerance, kindness, respect, politeness etc because of the length of time pupils spend together. Competitive daily sports teach resilience, coping with success and failure, bravery, persistence and the virtues of training. Pupils learn to be responsible from an early age and to exercise good judgement. A good mix of positive male role models is on hand, often with military backgrounds, unlike in the state sector where most teachers are female. Even relative maniacs turn into well adjusted human beings. Kipling's "If" sets the tone.

Amazing! Not my experience of boarding at all.

I think op has swallowed the marketing brochure from her kids private school wholesale 😀. I worked with the alumni from various top public schools in my first job and most of the young men were absolute knobs. The chaps at my bog standard comp were far nicer.

Some of those points are very good, however. I certainly never paid school fees to get Oxbridge places for my children and none of us tried. It was lots of other reasons and loads of parents have their own reasons which differ from parent to parent, from boarding schools for fundamentalist Muslims who want girls to be good wives and mothers, forest schools, boarding, day, music schools, special needs and all the rest. It is very hard to generalise. There probably is one common factor however - the parents (i) have the means (just about) to pay and (ii) they want to pay so put education whether that means no mixing with the opposite sex or religion all day every day or whatever else they are buying. So they are likely to come from families where education is a priority.

I certainly wanted single sex schooling and all my children had that even up to age 18. That is getting harder and harder to find in either sector by the way.

I also wanted the things Marchesman mentions including many more male teachers which in the all boys schools where my sons went was achieved although there are still plenty of women there! I wanted schools allowed to employ eccentric teachers even and of course the praise for those who win (no prizes for all as it is a dog eat dog adult world out there) and much else.

So the answer to the question above about why do parents pay if not because there will be better exam results which wasn't quite how it was phrased is there are lots of reasons they pay fees in all kinds of different schools. I certainly also chose within the fee paying sector (or rather the school chose as most applicants don't get in even if they are rich as Kings) those day schools where there was a lot of competition for places and pupils do well academically on the whole. There are certainly a lot of private schools catering for children who are not what used to be IQ about 120 state grammar school level of IQ and parents value those schools too for bringing out the best of whatever talents their child might have.

Back to Oxbridge we just need to ensure the brightest get in from all backgrounds on a reasonably fair basis. If that ceases to be the case there are other good universities and employers are savvy and will pick the new graduates who will do best for their business. All will be well.

They’re a girl in the year above Dd (single sex high performing state comp) who has been identified as extraordinary. Her mothers a cleaner she lives in the least nice part of town and is being mentored by an Oxford college where she already has a place. That needs to happen to make sure proper talent isn’t wasted.

There is a

I made the mistake of generalising bsed off my experience vs the anecdotal experience of others in the cohort. Although this is a mumsnet thread not an essay, and you haven't actually proved me wrong either.
Still, to help, I looked for stats for you. I was unable to find stats on entry for classical subjects by school type (if you find them to prove me wrong, do let me know!). I did however find the grades achieved in classical subjects by school type. Independent schools top the charts in getting 7+ grades for their students in classical subjects at gcse, which suggests better teaching and possible advantages such as smaller class sizes. I teach MFL (not in schools) and it is much easier for my pupils to obtain a high grade if they've either been learning for longer and/or have objectively better teaching. In my experience, attainment in languages at GCSE level is mainly due to quality of teaching, and not to any innate linguistic ability. I'm extrapolating from that experience to say that this probably also applies to ancient languages.

Demonstrable unfairness is spending four times more on the education of one child than another and then claiming the child who has benefited from all the extra funding has more potential than the other, and the other child should know their place and stay in it

Absolutely this, and this is what I applaud - loudly.

I took your first question to be provocative

Well I took your own comment about 'better people' also to be provocative, since that fits with your narrative. That independently schooled kids are 'better people' than their less privileged peers. I didn't understand you to mean that independent school in your eyes has to be bought to make your DC better people than they would otherwise be, since you can't or won't instil those same moral qualities at home (plenty manage in my experience; it's doable).

The last two questions are pretty much answered by omission. It sounds as though your eldest dipped his toe in a northern comp for a short while but didn't stay the course, and your bitterness is the product of your other two being around the age of uni entry and have either recently failed to get an offer from Oxbridge or you think that they are likely to fail.

Very few students actually get in to Oxbridge (my dad as ex head of 6th form used to bemoan the amazing candidates that didn’t) that’s just life but isn’t it much easier for some to cry “anti private school bias” than accept their child hasn’t made the cut! The flouncing off to “US colleges” and expecting everyone to be concerned about this is even funnier!

Yes. And neither necessarily cover the full fees.

@Winter42 they don't need to cover fees, SFE do that. They do need to cover living costs and they do do that. Very generously in some cases.

“The flouncing off to “US colleges” and expecting everyone to be concerned about this is even funnier!”

I think some of the rich elite choose the US system because it is far broader, educationally speaking and offers a whole new experience. If I had a highly gifted child with broad interests and lots and lots of money, I think I would also consider it. Especially after somewhere like Eton & Westminster which is already a better experience than e.g. Oxford anyway. It would be more of the same UK old building styles, twee rowing vibe. Also the whole Oxbridge “passion for your subject” is very contrived. If you have the next global business leader on your hand who will inherit your business - better to send off to the US anyway for a further experience and meet different types of people than focus narrowly on one subject.

The annoyance seems to be coming from aspirational middle class parents with reasonably bright DC who may be aggravated that they spent all that money on private schools for nothing. I doubt the old school aristo set care one way or another as Oxbridge was never really their thing anyway. And if you are harbouring a future politician, then Oxbridge will in due course be as tainted as Eton anyway.
I would also say that I doubt that an Etonian who would have done really well at the local failing comp too (regardless of schooling) is not getting into Oxford these days anyway. The sure get-in candidates are those who would have gotten in from any school because they have that inherent drive, passion for their subject. There is no need to be a genius, there never was.

Well, Oxford and Cambridge are academic institutions, they are not supposed to be finishing schools.

“Well, Oxford and Cambridge are academic institutions, they are not supposed to be finishing schools.”

In the mid to late 90s they were unofficial feeders for big banks, law firms and accountancy firms. With uni blind recruitment that is all changing anyway.

So any worried aspirational middle class parents can relax and send their DC to more fun unis these days. Focus your aspirations on internships, work experience etc. not Oxbridge.

As other pps have explained, what Oxbridge seem to be looking for is students who can evidence being 'outliers' in their educational settings.

No, Oxbridge don't make contextual offers. However, minimum grade requirements are still kept fairly 'low' - in the sense that they could easily set the minimum grade requirements at three A stars for all subjects and still have way more suitable candidates than they could offer places to. So why is is still 'only' AAA at Oxford for say, History, or A star,A,A for CS at Cambridge (when unis like Manchester are asking three A star minimum for CS to filter applications)? It's because the slightly lower grade threshold allows them to consider applicants from very disadvantaged schools, where getting AAA (the threshold for some Oxford humanities subjects) would be a massive achievement and mark the student as an 'outlier' in their educational context.

Realistically, no student is going to get into Oxbridge from a top, academically-selective independent school these days unless they have at least three A stars and then some. They need to be outliers in their cohorts. Fair enough. But the unis have leeway to make offers to those 'outliers' from more disadvantaged schools / backgrounds who can still apply with 'only' AAA or A star AA (ie. the minimum requirements).

So it's not 'downward contextualisation' in the sense that they will make lower offers to disadvantaged students in the way other unis do. They all have to get the minimum grades. But realistically, if you apply from a very selective school with 'only' the minimum grade requirements of AAA or A star A, A, you won't have a cat in hell's chance. It's 'upward contextualisation' in that they require more from applicants from certain schools. I think it's 70% of students actually at Oxbridge have achieved at least three A stars at A-level. So why would they consider an applicant from a top school with any less than this?

@worldstillturns - because the offer is made before the results are achieved.

So (sorry for the essay!), I think that this kind of 'upward contextualisation' has been the main shift. It used to be the case that students could get in from top independents with less than perfect grades. This is not really the case anymore. The ones getting in from St Paul's, Eton, etc need perfect grades, plus extra achievements, for equal consideration.

But fair enough actually, because if you do get in to Oxbridge from a 'privileged' school, surely you would want to feel as deserving of your place as someone from a less privileged school.

Btw, Cambridge CS is generally Astar, Astar, A and a high mark in the TMUA and possibly the Computer Science Admissions Test, too, plus an interview. That’s a lot more screening than asking for an extra A*.

“The ones getting in from St Paul's, Eton, etc need perfect grades, plus extra achievements, for equal consideration.”

Which would be perfectly fair enough because if you have had teachers who actually teach all parts of the syllabus and how to answer the questions to get an A star all the way through and you have had the chance to be entered for Science and Maths and Linguist Olympiads from an early age (as well as the chance to take up the organ or play a sport to a high level daily) then you are filling your time as productively as a child who has to self teach from Oak Academy or BBC Bitesize in their spare time whilst caring for their disabled parent.

So finding the outliers is about finding the passion and drive and the different type of thinking.

If you are privileged but have a child who just simply sits back and does the bare minimum in an elite private school then surely you would agree that another child who will make more of Oxford deserves the place?

I'm talking about predicted grades, Walkaround.

Two of mine attended very academically-selective independent day schools. Both schools held talks and made the situation very clear. They basically said - make no mistake, our type of school will be highly contextualised for Oxbridge admissions. If your son / daughter has anything less than a full raft of 9s at GCSE and all A star predictions, plus strong evidence of performance above the school curriculum (external essay competitions, etc), we recommend not applying as they are very unlikely to be offered a place following interview (unless it's for a more niche subject like Anglo Saxon and Norse). Definitely not for STEM or Economics, etc. They said to not be fooled or swayed by the fact Oxbridge state A star AA as minimum grade requirements on their websites. Those grade profiles no longer apply to those in 'super-selective' schools in the independent sector (or the very top grammars).

I'm not saying it 'not fair', JustanothermagicMonday1. It is fair. I went to a comp myself, as did DH. I'm very aware of the difference.

@worldstillturns - I gathered as much, but felt I had to point out that this doesn’t mean they have to achieve them! Most successful state school applicants have these grades predicted, too.

Tbh, it’s because most of the state school applicants will be expecting all A* too, anyway, that Manchester Uni computer science is easier to get into, as it only asks for that, not all the other hoops that a less self-confident candidate might be turned off by.

My understanding is the contextualisation is primarily used to select for interview. More so for Oxford than Cambridge. Oxford whittle it down to an average of 3 per place. Very little whittling needed for some niche courses due to lack of numbers but subjects like Computer Science have 20 applications for every place. That's a lot of whittling to select the 3 to interview for each place.

All I meant to say is, if you apply for History at Oxford from Westminster school with AAA or A star AA, it's a waste of everyone's time really. But someone from a very disadvantaged school may get in with AAA because they are outliers in their cohort. I think this is fair and right personally.