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?

"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"

I think this is a bit tenuous, to be honest. Anyway, the schools that 'send' the greatest numbers to Oxbridge every year are state schools. Hills Rd in Cambridge (where a lot of the children of academics etc attend) or Brampton Manor in East London. There is another 6th form in Hampshire I think that also 'sends' loads.

Anecdotally, DD has met nobody from a boarding school, but has three friends from Brampton Manor. Have a look how many attend Oxbridge from this school. The friends are very honest about the process there - eg, being advised on colleges / subjects that need to meet certain admissions quotas; being advised on subject choices and morning 'Oxbridge classes' for years on end.

We are also BAME and I can 100% confirm that there are no extra classes or advice at the independents mine went to (apart from essentially - "if you don't have perfect grades don't bother"). They did not even read the PS. There was one mock interview with a teacher - that's it. No advice on college choice . No insights. Nothing that could not be ascertained from the uni websites.

That's not to say some schools are not more involved - I can't say. But in large academically-selective London Day Schools where they pretty much all achieve 8/9s and A star / A, they might have hundreds applying, so how can teachers possibly be doing this 'spoon feeding' that some people like to imagine on here? The greatest advantage DC had was me frankly, because I researched the process with them. The school had no idea what was happening.

"blatant social engineering" versus "admission according to potential" is a false dichotomy. Several hundred years of British history have shown that we don't get anything approaching admission according to potential without social engineering - "blatant" or otherwise.
The changes introduced in the last few years were overdue. They have still not gone far enough. But if they were to overshoot for a few years such that state school students had a temporary "unfair" advantage while a fairer system is implemented then we should all feel fairly comfortable that this is a price worth paying to achieve a more meritocratic society in the long run.

I agree it is fairly de minimis as an issue, even for lawyers like I am about 15% come from Oxbridge and 15% from Durham, Bristol, Exeter combined so it is not exactly some golden ticket although most of those who go to Oxbridge are certainly clever and do well.

I like the point someone made above about perhaps letting Oxbridge numbers reflect about the percentage in state school in sixth form is a cunning plan to ensure the state can say state schools are just as good so no need to steal more tax payer money via the highest tax burden in 70 years to pour more good money after bad into education.

I don't have any problems with certainly life choices or even chances parents have meaning their child has a benefit - that is life, society, how humans are. Yes we generally try to help each other but there will also be those who do better at whatever better is for that person (even if better is praying for more hours a day).

“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.”

My DS’s superselective grammar has 40 Oxbridge offers this year out of 228 pupils, 27 last year, numerous medicine offers etc.

It is not about “gaming” the system. Top private schools have priced themselves out of doctors and teachers’ children etc so what else would you expect?! Competition at 11 plus immense, comparable to entry to Westminster Under at 11 plus. It follows that the students do very well despite far less spent on them because the parent group is motivated and the students work hard as well as being very intelligent on entry. Doing well academically is not just about spending on sports and caretakers and having really high teacher to pupil ratios.

Brampton Manor has high demands of its pupils and is also selected by parents who don’t mind discipline and pushing their kids. Same applies to Peter Symonds in Winchester and Hills Road in Cambridge - although the culture in the latter two varies massively from the former.

Some of the superselective grammars in an around London are trialling lower scores required for FSM and similar. There is currently not enough data coming out of that quite recent approach.

Schools, private or state, typically want hard working supported pupils. Even the comp system never really worked. Oxbridge is also self interested - its focus is international competition with US unis at research level. They are not solely responsible for righting social justice - that is the Government’s job, if it is so inclined. People need to vote accordingly.

What gives me hope personally is that the BAME rate at Oxbridge has increased a lot and also the high performing kids coming out of London grammars and super comps have very high BAME rates. At least the racism and sexism element seems to be going away.

The following numbers relate to Polar4 quintile 5 applicants. The first figures are for 2017, and bold in parenthesis for 2021.

665 (784) students were accepted from grammar schools and comprehensive and schools and 660 (551) from independent schools. Total acceptances for the top quintile rose from 1466 to 1506.

This looks to me exactly what would be expected from positively discriminating in favour of 'DCs high performing comp'. I am sure that most of you will be delighted, but does anyone want to try to put a socially responsible spin on it?

Definitely not true @Xenia .

The amount to repay is with interest on top. During somebody's lifetime it is perfectly possible that they have not officially repaid their loan, however, with interest it will be well more than that, probably multiples. Imagine you could scrimp and save £400 a month now that you've got the pay rise the interest loan company take the difference.

I remember DH repaying "only" a maintenance loan after grants were abolished with a very low interest rate (now it's tied to inflation!!) and the loan kept multiplying. The only thing that saved him was me borrowing from my parents to pay the loan off so he didn't have to pay the interest. Many mumsnetters advise to try and live with parents or anything they can to repay the loan within a few years. Repaying the loan early is cheaper than "not repaying in full". If you have earning potential it is far cheaper to repay it quickly so you won't waste much on interest. The other possibility is keeping your earnings under the threshold and the loan never gets repaid. In 2018 the debt from unpaid loans was £120b, equal to the NHS budget then. I told the Tory candidate on my doorstep asking how they plan to fund this hole and she denied such a thing happening and I shouldn't believe the BBC

Why is it bad pouring more money into education? It desperately needs more funding - more teachers, more support staff, more special needs programmes, higher quality equipment and buildings etc. the government promised but didn’t deliver catch up programmes from Covid times, laptops.

More state school students now apply, so more get in. Its no more complicated than that - basic statistics. Oxbridge outreach make it seem possible so more now give it a go.
V simple. No discrimination, no magic fiddling of figures.

Bright kids come from all types of home. Lots of Unis now helping the less advantaged achieve their potential, like rich kids have always been able to.

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?

Of course the quality of education makes a difference across the whole ability spectrum. If someone is wanting to compete for a place requiring an A star in further maths etc, then class sizes and the availability of good teachers will make a difference. I don't know what it's like in other subject but in STEM you are expected to be up to speed with skills and knowledge when you start. (The fact some bright students have been badly let down is why foundation years are needed... Cambridge and other good unis should be offering those with full bursaries imo for some students... that's a rather different discussion)

@mumsneedwine
More state school students now apply, so more get in. Its no more complicated than that - basic statistics.

As the basic statistics in my original post show, it is more complicated than that. Cambridge set two targets one to broaden access and another to have fewer students from private schools, and the numbers show that the latter policy has merely resulted in their replacement by privileged kids from the state sector.

My god, OP, get a life 🤡

@EctopicSpleen
"blatant social engineering" versus "admission according to potential" is a false dichotomy.

Only if you believe that what has been described indicates that students are being admitted according to potential. As the data shows this is not the case, a group with higher potential is being (unnecessarily) excluded. This is hardly the way to achieve a meritocratic society.

@Sandylanes69
My god, OP, get a life 🤡

And the same to you.

@Marchesman you are wrong. 15 years ago our school could never think of sending a student to Oxbridge. We now send an average of 15. V high FSM and EAL.
Because Oxbridge colleges come to our students and making it seem possible, as well as providing some of the support available at private schools.
Many have now graduated (with firsts) and gone on to have stella careers, or become surf school owners in Australia. Whatever was their dream. And they come back to talk to the kids, making it even more accessible. So even more apply.
I do think some private school parents are shocked that money can no longer buy their way in. Oh and we've also got one into Harvard recently so will be trying that again too. All free !!

I'm not the one lolling all over this silly thread for four days! 😄

Seems an odd thing to be getting your knickers in such a twist over - especially considering you say both you and your kids are through the university stage. One set of pupils were extremely privileged for years now they are less (but still are) privileged. Of all the causes in the world?!

Sounds like @Marchesman should actually just try to get a refund for their DCs' school fees!

As an academic, I am so pleased that we are recognising the ways that educational advantage maps onto socio-economic advantage, and that we are making small steps to try to adjust that. Of course, universities can't right the wrongs of 18 years of socio-economic advantage, particularly fuelled by a government that cut SureStart, regularly cuts funding to primary & secondary state schools, and has removed various funding mechanisms to universities which were aimed at widening participation.

But one thing that this thread is showing is that if you use the language of advantage, and make visible the advantages to children in paid-for schools, it stops the discourse being about "the poor people" and instead shines a light on advantage, and how that accumulates.

OP, thank you for providing references to various papers - they were interesting to read. I've looked in detail at the paper re factors affecting number of firsts and good quality honours degrees. https://www.cao.cam.ac.uk/files/attainment_outcomes.pdf

Interestingly according to the above paper the school an undergrad goes to isn't one of the most significant factors and isn't mentioned in the executive summary or the conclusions. The course thy take and the result in the first year exams are the most significant factors. The report also interestingly says that one reason state school undergrads get lower marks in Tripos is that a higher percentage take NatSci which has a lower proportion of 1st. So perhaps correlation as much as causation??

Personally I'm of the view a 1st is a narrow indicator of success. Many 2.1 graduates from many universities go onto flourish and contribute significantly to society. I chose to spend lots of time at Oxford organising and leading an Expedition and that is what helped me get key jobs in my early career. Only a few people go onto stellar academic careers where a good first is necessary.

It seems that Cambridge is taking a range of factors into account is assessing applications and state / private school is only one of them. I'm sure

I do think some private school parents are shocked that money can no longer buy their way in.

Indeed, @mumsneedwine I see it particularly here on MN. It's eye-opening.

What are your thoughts about the advantage that persists within the State sector?

Parents of DC in private schools can move them to the state sector for Sixth Form, quite easily! Some are just too scared to do it because of all the stuff they have read in the press about STATE schools.

There was a very funny story on the ETON website a few years ago about a bursary boy they had taken. Well he had previously been to the same grammar my DS attended. Hardly disadvantaged academically! The state school kids the top private schools are hovering up for show are not properly disadvantaged because they tend to have parents who are very educationally motivated. To get a bursary place and apply you need to have some drive and knowledge in the first place. It is not like some primary school teacher is going to do it for you.

In fact, the story on the Eton website was quite funny because it talked about how the boy was now doing more rowing instead of Maths and then took a gap year. I wonder if the father then regretted the free place… looking at the Oxbridge stats at the grammar now, far better and it is much more of an exam factory/workhouse then most of these top private schools where balance is key and extra curricular is pushed at every opportunity.

Contrary to the belief of many private school parents, there are some very clever, very hard working kids in the state sector in all types of schools. And some state schools actually push very hard academically.

Also your anger about those at decent state schools “playing the system” is wrong. Have you very recent experience of state schools? There has been a massive degeneration since covid. Staff retention is terrifying. As mentioned above 3 excellent teachers from each of my older dds a level have left.

Many kids are really struggling especially mid teens my 14 year old has been allocated to help in maths a poor girl whose is suffering domestic violence in the home another of her friends is on social services radar due to an abusive dad The leaves are falling at the leafy comps. Private school would go some way to insulate against this.

Reading with intrigue

Some of us pay for private schools for a broader range of opportunities. We don’t all expect Oxbridge! It’s more way of life and choice. I freed up a place in a sought after grammar when we didn’t accept the place. I think far too many people over analyse why people make choices. We do what suits DC. If more from the grammar get Oxbridge, so what? I’ve also witnessed the tiger parents desperate to get Dc there. I was glad we left all that behind. Leafy lane tiger parents are exhausting!

What would your advice be to lower socio- economic folk where such things like ‘State Grammar Schools’ - super selective or not- don’t exist in their region?
Also, those where there are no ‘Outstanding Comps’ ?