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?

@Kokopenny - well yes, you can definitely game the system. Send your privileged DC to the local state school, live in a diverse area, and pay tutors or teach them yourselves. Far cheaper than forking out for private school. And usually if there is some streaming in the comp - which in my area of London there is - you can game the system all the way. If that is what you want.

And if you want Cambridge from a private school then you just need to play the organ well or sing really well. Well known fact.

So much effort over the past decade or so has gone into contextualising admissions data and trying to reach those students in the 2 bed flat housing 5 people etc. Looking at the schooling sector alone seems to hide the huge disparities in the education and circumstances of state school pupils. It's likely to work to the benefit of those students with comfortable homes, professional parents, grammar school opportunities etc.

@Mia85 - exactly! There is so much more work to be done to create true parity of opportunity. Because state school students will never get that academic training, they are always playing catch up unless they had a very supportive upbringing which helped them thrive academically. And many, as a PP pointed out, will be working over all the long holidays while their peers go on holiday or get on top of their workload for the year ahead. I suspect a fairer system would be to target very bright disadvantaged pupils and give them a free foundation year in which they are taught critical thinking, public speaking, learning strategies, revision techniques, self confidence and social ease. Stuff which private education offers automatically.

That seems like a good idea but I imagine a lot of 18 year olds would feel like they were ‘behind’ by being set back a year effectively.

@NeverendingCircus Yes it will be interesting to see what comes out of this https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/increasing-access/foundation-year which pretty much does what you suggest but on a fairly small scale.

Where I work (large post 16 inner city) students used to get contextual offers but no longer do as we don’t meet the criteria. It has become more nuanced.

We still have a lot of disadvantaged students, not in the league of selective schools or leafy suburbs in any way.

I've no objection to a bit of subtle social engineering - and this is subtle, though it probably doesn't feel so if it's affecting you directly.

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean saying you can come and watch your superiors at the banquet. It means making sure everyone has the same chance of a seat at the table, and that might involve giving the 'inferiors' appropriate clothes, transport, etc.

I prefer the metaphor but, fwiw, I passed the Oxbridge exam in my long-ago youth. Following a very confounding interview, I wasn't made an offer. The interviewers were clearly testing my 'background' which, as I was not surrounded by academic discussion at home and had a bluntly working-class conversational style, I failed. I gather things haven't changed that much so some positive discrimination is in order.

Is this why more and more public school students are applying to American universities?

Mia85 'But the odd thing about Cambridge's approach is that it seems to advantage those students with comfy homes, good technology, no need to do paid work, support sessions to write PS, do exams etc who went to state schools.'

Exactly. Montacute for the Sutton Trust found a 23.7-fold difference in Oxbridge admission rate between the top (by examination results) and bottom quintiles of comprehensive schools, and these schools are more socially selective than grammar schools. But Cambridge prefers to take students from these schools rather than single mindedly pursuing their separate SES target, possibly because their results take a smaller (although still significant) hit.

But it is not a good look. Cambridge is more socially selective than independent schools and does not exclusively admit applicants on academic achievement or potential. Some people evidently think an admissions bias (which the university itself makes no substantive effort to justify) is desirable, and even that the place should function in a remedial capacity. If that is the case, its publicity material could do with a rethink.

Usernamen · Today 16:19
Is this why more and more public school students are applying to American universities?

Anecdotally that is certainly the case. Why apply to a university that a) will discriminate against you and b) is not interested in taking the best applicants?

The best applicants by what criterion?

GarlicGrace · Today 16:30
The best applicants by what criterion?

Performance in final degree examinations.

Just stumbled on this thread from the ‘active’ button… As a working class person whose bright, stable kids were lucky to get through their comprehensive school with just their mental health intact - the obliviousness of some people to the advantages of privilege - and their craven need to keep hold of it - is both shocking and depressing.

But finals are not the be all and end all. Naturally not all students will get firsts (it would make the qualification meaningless) so the university should be more interested in finding candidates that are going to benefit overall from the educational experience and contribute to life in the university in general.

And a more diverse student population benefits all. And as some others said, arguably non private school educated students will benefit more from the improvement in their job prospects than the privately educated ones who would have all the access anyway.

I think Oxbridge should take the same proportion of private school students as there are in the country overall. So around 7%.

That would be interesting

That sounds about right bluejelly.

My local state school, green leafy middle class somehow gets contextual offers, evidently that's all why they go to Bristol. As an academy they also 'move' disruptive pupils to another school in the academy so their 'flagship' looks good and attracts the 'right' children.

The shame about this is that I don't think this engineering is reaching the students that are truly disadvantaged and very academic. It also wouldn't surprise me is Oxbridge know this and don't care.

Frankly the recent protests of Dr Stock make
Oxford look like it isn't a top establishment full of bright, critical thinkers at all but instead full of purple haired idiots.

Screamingabdabz · Today 16:36
Just stumbled on this thread from the ‘active’ button… As a working class person whose bright, stable kids were lucky to get through their comprehensive school with just their mental health intact - the obliviousness of some people to the advantages of privilege - and their craven need to keep hold of it - is both shocking and depressing.

Agreed. The assumption that all comprehensive schools are the same is at best disingenuous. The spurious state-independent dichotomy does no favours whatsoever for pupils languishing in underperforming comprehensive schools. To a large extent it explains why pupils from northern schools are underrepresented at Oxford/Cambridge.

I have absolutely no issue with any policy which will result in an increase in pupils from state school or any other under represented demographic

The current high % of Oxbridge undergraduates from private schools is frankly ridiculous

Shh, xenia hates anyone who isn't a billionaire.

So many threads recently by posters complaining that their kids private education isn't buying them the outcomes they thought it would. Just save your money and put them into state education rather than complaining about policies designed to make the system fairer.

CatherinedeBourgh · Today 16:43
And a more diverse student population benefits all.

That might be true if it were say a golf club. But when a research intensive university deliberately chooses students who are less likely to progress to a first class degree, the writing is on the wall for its global standing.

Furthermore, applicants who get in from the top state schools do not contribute to diversity.

Unis are just trying to somewhat redress the balance of the blatant social engineering performed by parents who have the ability (money, 'faith', getting them to do Bond books, whatever) to obtain better primary and secondary education for their kids.

Exactly this. Struggling for attention in big classes with poor facilities and overworked teachers, and still doing well, is a massive testament to character and ability.

I'd love that.