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?

@Walkaround

Excellent, thank you for clearing that up. So basic comprehension it is.

I can go through each of those points if necessary but as an example of the futility of doing so I will pick the most germane to this discussion: "Where are the pushy middle class meant to go to school?"

Unless they elect to pay for private schools, precisely the same schools as anyone who cannot push.

@JustanothermagicMonday1 I think we should make educating our own children our top priority, but you brought up education as an export.

@goodbyestranger yes, a fantasy. I’m sure your own DC harboured none of these fantasies, but it is clear after countless threads that many DC arrive at Oxbridge with preconceived ideas about the percentage of privately educated students there and what those DC will be like. Psychological projection occurs despite clear evidence to the contrary. So yes, fantasy.

“Unless they elect to pay for private schools, precisely the same schools as anyone who cannot push.”

I don’t agree. Abolish all private schools, bring back state grammar schools (with a reliable system not hinging on some sort of one off 11 plus test - also allow fluidity between the various state schools on offer if children’s achievements change over time).

“I think we should make educating our own children our top priority, but you brought up education as an export. “

I don’t have time to do that. Although I have a very quiet couple of days, I am normally clocking billable hours which is better for HMRC.

@Marchesman 🤣Accusing someone of lacking basic comprehension does not make it true. Still, when a poster lowers themselves to insulting others, you know who is actually in the right 😉.

@JustanothermagicMonday1
I don’t agree. Abolish all private schools, bring back state grammar schools (with a reliable system not hinging on some sort of one off 11 plus test - also allow fluidity between the various state schools on offer if children’s achievements change over time).

That suggests that you do agree with pushy middle class parents, and parents who can't push, having equal opportunities for their children. As I have argued before, private schools are a largely a red herring. The problems lie within the state sector and the abolition of a private sector is unrealistic, particularly with the Americanisation to which you refer.

The evidence on grammar schools in their historic form is pretty clear despite the efforts of left wing academics to persuade otherwise. If the country had proper grammar schools and not the present aldulterated facsimile, private schools would be even less of a problem.

I really fail to get my head around the current approach. The drop in academic performance of highly able FSM pupils between leaving primary school and sitting GCSEs is well documented. It is also established that contextualisation at the point of HE entry is too little too late. It is equally clear that comprehensive schooling in England, Wales, and Scotland has failed terribly. It is also clear that it is wrong to target high performing comprehensive schools and grammar schools at the point of HE entry because they contain few low SES pupils. This is most obvious in the case of grammar schools where the percentage is only about 3 points higher than in independent schools, and grammar school students do least well when contextualised.

Would it really be asking too much to a) prepare pupils in primary schools in grammar school areas for existing 11 plus exams b) contextualise at the point of grammar school entry c) oblige comprehensive schools to take representative shares of FSM eligible children from their catchment areas?

It is even more perplexing that the left wing, who characteristically loath grammar schools, are silent on the matter of their pupils being given a leg up into elite universities.

Ps I am a paragon of virtue in your eyes, @Marchesman 😂. Got into Oxford back in the days state schools outperformed the private sector, too, so I think my comprehension is just fine, thanks.

@Walkaround

Just as I said, no engagement with content. Futile.

@Marchesman - I think you will find I engaged at length with your content. You are the one avoiding it. Futile.

I agree with the educated middle classes at lower end and middle middle end being the pillars of a functioning democratic society.

I am also pretty much politically homeless these days anyway. Especially now that no party wants to own the lie that is Brexit.

As regards the abolition of grammars, the far left ideology from which this emanated did say at the time that unless private schools would be abolished at the same time, the true comprehensive wasn’t going to work perfectly.

As it is, we do not have a comprehensive system in the state sector. We have a system that is allowed to select at 16 plus post GCSE. Various countries have debated 11 plus, 13 plus and 16 plus selection. 11 plus being supposedly unfair to boys in particular.

@JustanothermagicMonday1
We have a system that is allowed to select at 16 plus post GCSE.

In practice, we have a system that one way or another is allowed to select at 11.

@Walkaround

OK, maybe you didn't like the one about where the pushy middle class should go to school. You choose one.

@JustanothermagicMonday1 - “As it is, we do not have a comprehensive system in the state sector. We have a system that is allowed to select at 16 plus post GCSE. Various countries have debated 11 plus, 13 plus and 16 plus selection. 11 plus being supposedly unfair to boys in particular.” But not all parts of the country do particularly have selection. The comprehensives in our area are 11-18 entry and the people who leave to go elsewhere tend to do so because they are going private, pursuing a subject only offered elsewhere, or wanting a change of scene. I think the problems arise when there are stark inequalities in a society which pre-exist the educational experience, and too much reliance is put on academic education to rectify the injustices, rather than tackling the real root causes. As a result, UK society as a whole has become very confused about what the purpose of our schools really is, with the state sector being the main victim of this. Schools can’t fix the rot and everyone is talking at cross purposes, anyway (very crossly and rudely, quite often!). Ironically, I think Marchesman and I agree on quite a few things, but Marchesman is far too determined to be offensive to notice.

“Ironically, I think Marchesman and I agree on quite a few things”

Well I think that must be true because I find myself agreeing with both of you. Although I cannot quite keep up “academically” speaking.

There is a distinct reshuffle of school places in my area of London post GCSE between comprehensives, private schools, superselective state grammars etc and I think it is also due to the transport links and the fact that a number of the comprehensives are still single sex leading to girls, in particular, seeking a co-ed Sixth Form environment. From what I understand some of the higher performing single sex comprehensive schools are ex grammars. It is almost as if there is a perpetuating microcosmic local myth that those are the better schools and the houses/catchment still reflects that.

@Walkaround

I'm sorry, I did not set out intending to be offensive, but it has seemed to me that you have been deliberately misinterpreting what I have said. I am prepared to accept that it may sometimes be a matter of quibbling over semantics. If there is one point in particular that you think might serve to illustrate this, I am all ears.

Effectively, @Marchesman, I think we disagree on what the word “potential” means and have a completely different idea of what can make someone a “better person.” I really would not have chosen the words “potential” or “better,” to be honest, especially if not making it clear that you think there is more than one way to become a “better person” than you were, and you are not meaning to imply that people who went to public school are better than those who did not (or maybe you do mean that?!). I disagree strongly that a public school education makes someone kind, as I feel that to a certain extent, someone simply is or is not, it is not a taught quality, although it can be encouraged by example. Imvho, I thought you lost the plot when describing what you think public schools instill, or are capable of instilling, in their students. Still, you clearly feel strongly about it, and it is hard to moderate language when you are talking about strong feelings and beliefs rather than observable truths.

I even also feel uncomfortable about the state school percentage target and think we agree it won’t be the cure people want or expect it to be. We agree it is leaving it rather late! Our main points of disagreement are with the notion that people using public schools barely make a difference to anything and that the elites and upper middle classes who use public schools are somehow superior in their attitudes, and less toxic, than those who use state schools. I think we disagree on what can and can’t be made better and how it can or should be tackled. Or maybe we are still just talking at cross purposes.

@Walkaround

I use potential in the same way as Cambridge in its APP - potential to succeed - where success is defined in terms of degree outcomes as quantified by the metrics in the attainment and outcomes data. The only caveat being that I have ignored the good honours category as too broad to be useful, except as a measure of the potential to not do very well.

A better person means a better person than would otherwise have been the case. For all the chatter about state schools being diverse they are not, the sector may be but individual schools are not. When parents are paying up to £500k per head most of them will send their children to schools where their individual needs will met and they will be happy. So choice plays a large part, but it is also very difficult to develop fully in school with a narrow academic focus as an academic also-ran when there is nothing else on offer, just as it is as a clever pupil in a school that cares about achieving only basic examination targets.

I have no doubt that differing availabilities of alternatives to academic work explains much of the difference in rates of behavioural problems between private and state schools. Hence my reference to sport and extracurricular activities that was disparaged. Boarding independent schools are competitive and of necessity are obliged to reflect human experience more broadly.

I am not saying independent schools have no effect on low SES pupils in state schools but I am saying that it is tiny compared with the hoarding of privilege within the state sector by people who can afford to do so, for obvious numerical and ecological reasons.

On other points we probably do agree.

@Marchesman - I use potential in its dictionary sense, as it is commonly understood, as I think do most people. I think you have caused unnecessary aggravation of the thread by choosing another definition which neither fully accords with the one Cambridge uses (because that is not useful to you), nor a dictionary definition. Thank you for clarifying what you meant, however. Thank you also for clarifying what you mean by “better person.” I still don’t really agree with you on what makes someone become a “better person,” but I now understand better what you intended to say originally.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by hoarding of privilege, tbh. Do you mean the fact that some state schools receive huge amounts of extra funding in private donations, and are able to provide connections and support through alumni and parents that other state schools simply cannot - and these are usually the schools with lots of parents with deep pockets who know that state education is not adequately funded to meet anyone’s needs properly? Or do you mean something else? Do you think state education is adequately funded?

I see the "hoarding of privilege" as a moral good, how capitalism works, why parent A breastfeeds their baby rather than expressing all the milk and giving it to bay of parent B, why Parent A buys nice healthy foods for its child rather than for everyone else. Doing the best for your child whilst also paying the highest tax burden the UK has had for 70 years makes the 500,000 fee paying parents heroes of the nation, not morally degenerate retrogrades hoarding things.

I found the disapproval bizarre. We were putting a lot into ensuring that our DC were well raised and well educated. Both are likely to work in the public sector which has to be a "good" for society. Yet we were "bad people", whereas the person who had a lot more money than us, does not work because she is almost always on holiday, who rented in another catchment to ensure a good education for her child, and laid on tutors when needed, felt able to claim the moral high ground. Obviously private schools are a "bad thing".

I don't buy it. I also believe that seeing two parents work hard in order to earn enough to pay the fees, has been good for our DC. And that their focus and work ethic comes as much from their upbringing as their education. Once their grandmother became ill there was no time for us to be child centred. They had to pull their weight, and hopefully will continue to do so.

So many attributes help in a career. Oxbridge might give a leg up, but only so far. DCs schools helped them be ready for University and willing to take on leadership and other roles. Who cares if they have Oxbridge on their CVs. They will do fine without.

What about children who see their parents working hard (as hard as those in high paid roles) but are on minimum wage and struggle to provide the basics let along any additional support with education?

I don't really get your argument, unless you are advocating a communist style equality. Even then some parents would take kids to the park, read with them and otherwise augment their childhoods.

I was simply saying that I found it tedious that choosing to work 2 jobs, paying plenty of tax in the process, and prioritising spending so we could avoid a very challenged area of the state education (would that there were leafy comps or good grammars available to us - we would have used them) and allow our kids to enjoy education and learning, meant being slammed by people who could have easily afforded private, yet were smugly claiming the moral high ground, whilst working the system (we know plenty to gained religions or rented in other catchments) and enjoying the benefits of having lots of money. Tax revenue from me will have done more to help the less well off than their worthy beliefs as will the contribution to society/the economy that my DC will
make.

@Xenia
Doing the best for your child whilst also paying the highest tax burden the UK has had for 70 years makes the 500,000 fee paying parents heroes of the nation, not morally degenerate retrogrades hoarding things.

Just so. I borrowed the term from the Left who characterise fee-paying parents in the way you describe, and I have attempted to demonstrate why that is obscenely hypocritical.

@Needmoresleep
I found it tedious that choosing to work 2 jobs, paying plenty of tax in the process, and prioritising spending so we could avoid a very challenged area of the state education (would that there were leafy comps or good grammars available to us - we would have used them) and allow our kids to enjoy education and learning, meant being slammed by people who could have easily afforded private, yet were smugly claiming the moral high ground, whilst working the system (we know plenty to gained religions or rented in other catchments) and enjoying the benefits of having lots of money.

How do you feel when publicly funded institutions prioritise the offspring of these people, despite knowing they are not quite up to scratch (and keeping quiet about that) as they sit back to applause for "improving" society?

@Parker231

It is the job of parents to do their best for their children.

The failure lies with public institutions (in this case Cambridge and by implication and probably to a lesser degree Oxford) whose job it is to keep a lid on that and achieve the best outcomes for society as a whole.