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?

How many times does it need to be said? Only a minority of state schools get contextual offers. In our small city of 6 comprehensives only two get contextual offers. The others get the disadvantages of state education with zero upside. So I wouldn’t lose sleep over it the private school cohort are still massively advantaged.

OP you appear to have lost it. Check it out with the guys at Oxford who regulate exams. Super rude and super aggressive. A very weird thread.

I find the OP persuasive. She supplies data. I admire the other side’s passion, but ideological arguments always feel weaker.

I’ve read the full thread. DC on free school meals or coming from low POLAR postcodes deserve outreach. However, it seems it’s DC from supportive homes at high achieving state schools getting all the goodies.

There are some clever folks at Oxford and Cambridge, so I assume they realise who they are actually admitting. Perhaps Oxbridge are unable to achieve their aspirations for widening participation, but lowering numbers from independent schools sure does get them out of political trouble. The government is under less pressure to reform education if state school kids are getting their “fair share” of Oxbridge places. It’s certainly easier for everyone than raising taxes and taking on the teachers’ unions.

Very eloquently phrased. I have to say hats off to the OP for persisting on a subject with data she clearly feels passionate about.

I supplied data.

But the OP’s argument is ideological. If they do not want more state school applicants to be admitted because they think the natural pool of talent from state schools was reached in around 2015-16, because that is when they say private school students began to out-perform state school students in terms of number of Firsts achieved, then in what way is that arguing for more outreach for the genuinely socially and economically disadvantaged from the worst schools? By their definition, such people have “less potential,” because they are unlikely to achieve as high a proportion of Firsts and possess fewer desirable characteristics, due to their lack of public boarding school education.

OP’s argument seems to be, the less outreach, the better - encourage those who game the system to still get access to the best schools, but do not reach out to the genuinely disadvantaged, because they will affect the statistics the OP is looking at.

If the OP were arguing that state education is underfunded and that this is harmful for everyone, then I would be agreeing with them…

I do agree, however, that Oxbridge increasing state school admission statistics helps the Government to wriggle out of its responsibilities.

If the title of the OP was changed to, “Blatant Social Engineering - Not Admission According to Prior Achievement,” it would be more accurate. It is patently untrue, however, that students admitted to Oxford and Cambridge lack potential.

I find the OP persuasive. She supplies data.

Oh please. It's not particularly persuasive to make points about school fees and SES with a 10 year old study using 15 year old data, which is all she managed to supply on that subject.

Neither is it particularly persuasive to suggest that private education makes you a better person because, you know, military men.

Or to fail to mention, or to address when it's pointed out, the reason Cambridge suggests for lower attainment - that it varies by course and the harder courses have a much higher proportion of state school students.

Or to suggest that private schools are the place to look for "poor bright children" because ~1% don't pay fees, when not all of those will be at selective schools, let alone be bright enough for Oxbridge. Almost all poor, bright children go to state school. Those that don't still have the unfair advantage of private school, which absolutely should be contextualised.

Her OP told us what Cambridge were doing and why they were doing it and it's really not very controversial. If you are looking for members of an under-represented group and they appear in much greater numbers in one school type than another, and you currently have no other way of identifying them, then targeting the school type is perfectly valid. Cambridge are perfectly entitled to admit who they think is best by their own measure, which may not be final degree class.

It used to make me angry when people with privilege argue against WP, it's discrimination, it's social engineering etc etc. Now I just feel really sorry for them, and mostly any DC who are being brought up to think all these opportunities are theirs and have been taken from them unfairly. Privately educated DC are still over-represented there. These people are literally complaining because their unfair advantage is not quite as big as it used to be.

<I find the OP persuasive. She supplies data. I admire the other side’s passion, but ideological arguments always feel weaker.>
The multivariate analyses results in the OP are certainly more rigorous than anything else I have seen. POLAR4 quintile did not make it into the table of top predictors by univariate analyses though, presumably numbers were too small for an effect to be detected.

There is n’t the data available from that to know if SES is more significant than school type ie if high SES in state schools perform as well for first class / degree marks as high SES in private schools.

Anyway from the linked study, the brightest state school pupils do not catch-up with their private school peers in three years by the metric of first class attainment at least at Cambridge.
I maintain though that the educational advantage of Oxbridge is best distributed weighted to state schools to enable some compensation for previous inequality despite the flaws in ‘fairness’ pointed out in this thread and others.

10 year old study using 15 year old data
The linked study in OP is from 2012 to 2019 exams.

the reason Cambridge suggests for lower attainment - that it varies by course and the harder courses have a much higher proportion of state school students.
That is a misinterpretation of the conclusion of this study. Course type was adjusted for in the multivariable analyses, school type remains an independent predictor. The conclusion on courses relates to ‘normalisation’ of marks for degree class ie variation by marks between courses does not result in significant differences for degree class.

@TheaBrandt has made a valid point. My children attend a good non selective state and have support at home, not part of the targeted polar groups etc. Obviously they have always had to deal with larger classes, less individual attention, some disruptive pupils etc but overall I had confidence in the school’s ability to deliver.

In recent years however this has not been the case, particularly since covid. Even ‘desirable’ state schools are now struggling so badly with teacher retention and recruitment that the impact is undeniable and there is no way that these students are getting the best of both worlds in terms of entry to top unis. My eldest in Yr 12 has plans to apply to oxbridge and yet she’s had interim teachers for one of her subjects for most of year 12. Lower down the school my youngest hasn’t had a decent science teacher for well over a year. Oxbridge is still going to expect the same grades as those at private school where teachers don’t have to deal with ofsted and where pay / conditions are arguably better - our local private school has ads out saying they pay 10% over the equivalent state school wage.

My daughter has been lucky enough to benefit from some outreach programmes run by oxbridge, but frankly anyone with a child at private school complaining about the lack of a level playing field has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

The OP has not noted that the slight downturn in state school students gaining Firsts coincides with long years of Tory austerity, growing inequality, and a growing proportion of privately educated cabinet members. I wonder why the socio-economic backdrop is not mentioned?

Sometimes students don’t get a First simply because they spend the Third Year applying for graduate jobs quite intensively at the same time as studying for Finals! Obviously, the better off students may as a group have more of a safety net of eg a parent who lives in London/financial fall back/could move back home etc. and are told to just focus on getting the best degree, whereas state school pupils in the lower brackets would be very much focussed on finding a job! Because they will need to pay extortionate rents in eg London straight after.

Getting a graduate job offer may entail multiple interviews, applications, reasoning tests etc which would detract from Studies.

If I were a poorer state school student I would be very much focussed on getting a good grad job with a perfectly adequate 2:1 as oppose to getting a First and no job.

10 year old study using 15 year old data
The linked study in OP is from 2012 to 2019 exams.

I asked about her claim that 10% of private school students come from the lowest two SES quintiles and she supplied a 2013 study which used data from 2007 and earlier.

Why does it matter if some schools are better than others?

It matters - to individuals and society as a whole - if the existence of various forms of privileged schools results in others not being good enough for their pupils to fulfil their potential. Does anyone doubt that people with power - including labour politicians - would make different decisions if their kids were limited to educational opportunities on a par with the majority of their constituents?

However, that doesn't mean that it's wrong for bright kids to be able to go to grammar schools, or for more affluent parents to choose to spend their money on education rather than material goods. Parents investing what money - and time - they can in their children's education is not a bad thing!

Some schools are currently not 'good enough' to serve their pupils needs - and therefore it is entirely proper for universities to make some attempts to redress the balance.

“Some schools are currently not 'good enough' to serve their pupils needs - and therefore it is entirely proper for universities to make some attempts to redress the balance.”

The thing though is that schools not being “good enough” is more of an issue for more average learners who then don’t meet basic literacy, numeracy and critical thinking skills ready for normal life. Schools not being adequate for the very bright is a totally different matter. Their brain is already extraordinary so I don’t think schooling can spoil that?

Oxford and Cambridge making a social difference only really works if employers then continue to take graduates en masse from those universities. However, because part of the private sector has now done a U-turn and gone school and uni blind, what is the point for disadvantaged kids to go there, have to deal with an increased workload, a twee atmosphere, catch up issues etc when there is no direct financial benefit after the event? It may work for Oxbridge as by being fairer they may tap into a few more highly gifted academics but for those individuals themselves? Does it change their life for the better in the long run?

So are there links with the private sector jobs market helping those particular students?

" they do not want more state school applicants to be admitted because they think the natural pool of talent from state schools was reached in around 2015-16, because that is when they say private school students began to out-perform state school students in terms of number of Firsts achieved"

an alternative interpretation is that 2015-2016 is when 5 years of austerity in state schools and the knock-on effects of the discontinuation of the G&T programme in state schools around 5 years earlier finally depressed the attainment of state-educated pupils to a point where the private schools pupils began to out-perform; given that austerity continued, and covid disproportionately affected provision in already-stretched state schools, this could be expected to continue.
I'm not saying that is the only interpretation - rather that you can't draw conclusions from blunt statistics when the underlying context is complex and multifactorial.

Some comments on the stats in the report linked in the original report:

one variable not accounted for is number of pupils from a candidates school at the university. Eton, Westminster etc. send scores every year. A pupil from one of those schools arrives with a support network of contacts already in place. The top 10 private schools send disproportionate numbers and are likely skewing the results. An intra-sector analysis would be needed to tease this out.

A second variable not accounted for is the score in the subject-specific test, for course which have this. A-level grades plateau at A-star but many of the candidates are performing well above A-level. This results in decorrelation due to restricted range. Subject-specific tests have a higher ceiling which would allow this to be investigated.

Unless an analysis including such variables is done, one can't say whether more private school kids get firsts because they're "brighter" or because they're coming in 6 months ahead at the start of the course having been taught to a higher level, and that this advantage persists enough to still be measurable in finals.
I personally don't find it surprising that 7 years of a far higher level of prior facilitation/advantage still confers a small but measurable advantage at the end of a 2 year 9 month degree course - it would be rather amazing if it didn't.

And for what it's worth I do have skin in the game. One of my degrees is from an oxbridge institution. I found it to be a bastion of snobbery, and some of the most racist comments that have been directed at me in 21 years of living in England were by my oxbridge college tutor.

@SoTedious
Oh please. It's not particularly persuasive to make points about school fees and SES with a 10 year old study using 15 year old data, which is all she managed to supply on that subject.

In the last eight years the proportion of pupils paying no fees in ISC schools has increased by 36%. You have provided nothing but empty speculation to refute that study.

@SoTedious
Or to fail to mention, or to address when it's pointed out, the reason Cambridge suggests for lower attainment - that it varies by course and the harder courses have a much higher proportion of state school students.

It has been pointed out to you that you do not understand the first thing about the statistics to which you refer.

@SoTedious
If you are looking for members of an under-represented group and they appear in much greater numbers in one school type than another, and you currently have no other way of identifying them, then targeting the school type is perfectly valid.

Targeting that school type for outreach is perfectly valid. Setting an admission target for that school type as a whole is cretinous when you are aware of its heterogeneity - unless, as EmpressoftheMundane has cogently pointed out, you have a political motive.

@SoTedious
Now I just feel really sorry for them, and mostly any DC who are being brought up to think all these opportunities are theirs and have been taken from them unfairly.

Don't bother. 96% of privately educated children don't go to Oxford or Cambridge and 95% don't care. It is an obsession more or less unique to the sort of people who game the state sector - the parents of more than 120,000 high SES pupils at the point of HE entry who largely hog the places in socially selective state schools, schools that would be the natural habitat of low SES pupils in an equitable system. Private schools are just a distraction that allows them to get away with it.

“Private schools are just a distraction that allows them to get away with it.” Or private schools have priced themselves out of a certain marketplace.

“It is an obsession more or less unique to the sort of people who game the state sector - the parents of more than 120,000 high SES pupils at the point of HE entry who largely hog the places in socially selective state schools, schools that would be the natural habitat of low SES pupils in an equitable system.” Strange how it’s those claiming not to be obsessed who are digging out statistics and making a fuss about it. It’s a very odd way of not being obsessed. 🤔