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?

I think that a lot of you are missing an important point.

Lots of Eton kids (and kids from other high achieving selective schools) apply to Oxford and Cambridge because at least one of their parents went there.

It was no coincidence that DS applied to the same Oxford college that DH went to. He even applied for the same subject. We have a painting of New College in our sitting room!

If kids are disappointed to not get in, it's often because they feel they've let their parents down.

(DS is blissfully happy at Durham - where I went. Again, no real coincidence there either).

@Walkaround

The statistics that are available in Attainment Outcomes are extremely detailed, possibly unique in the public domain from a selective university, and show exactly what is happening, and probably why. I have shown you that the capture rate of low SES pupils from comprehensive schools is risibly low, based on figures from an FOI request. The fact that you have not only signally failed to engage with the data, but worse, pretended that it doesn't exist, and instead blindly put your faith in the institution that is responsible for this nonsense, ironically proves my point.

As long as people believe, like you, that private schools are responsible for the problems in state education, and not state education itself, nothing will change for the sector; and no, it is nothing to do with funding which is significantly higher than the OECD average, and nothing to do with class size (at least at secondary level) or any other old canard that fits your ideological perspective.

@Marchesman - you think your perspective is not ideological? I have no personal problems with class sizes or anything else, as my children are the children @JustanothermagicMonday1 describes - the lonely ones applying to Oxford or Cambridge (and getting in, as they would have done 30 years ago). Others have genuine problems with this, however, caused by the lack of special needs support and funding, or by chaotic home lives and your lazy dismissal of the accusation that state schools are not funded sufficiently (to be able to carry out the roles expected in a society that is breaking down).

I do have a problem with you one minute saying the data is very detailed and the next saying it is not detailed enough to differentiate between all the different types of degree below a 1st, and the next arguing that a 2:1 is mediocre, and the next saying you did not use those words.

As for your inadequately evidenced argument, what you say might happen, or might even be happening, but you do not currently have the evidence to prove that, you just think you do, because that suits your ideological standpoint that state education is brilliantly funded and people from public schools do no harm.

By the way, I have not said that private schools are what is wrong with private education, you have just made assumption after assumption about my viewpoint. Class infighting and some ideological war against the middle classes by populists who want a bogeyman other than the elites to blame for everyone’s problems are far more to blame than the middle class university professors, doctors, civil servants and teachers who are currently so angry.

what is wrong with state* education

@Walkaround

You are aware that a synopsis of the data is in plain sight at the top of this page? There are links to the full data and to degree class by school type going back many years, and this isn't my data, it is Cambridge university's.

Because your comments certainly do not give that impression.

iIt is indeed true that most private schools are day schools. "About 13% of pupils in private schools UK-wide are at boarding schools. Boarding is most common in the South West of England (around 1 in 4 private school pupils), and least common in Greater London (just 3%)." https://www.pepf.co.uk/fact-finder/facts-and-figures/

I think the difference is rather more that at many private schools there is a large cohort applying so it feels normal and you might as well have a shot, and at most state schools applying to Oxbridge is not the norm and it feels like unnecessary additional pressure to put yourself under (in terms of the extra application steps and shorter timescale) unless you are very sure

No I disagree. It goes - or went, but still probably goes - way beyond that unfortunately. There are signs of things changing.

Stranger, you don't mean "less good", you mean "less selective"

No, I mean obviously these schools are less selective (as in, not really selective at all) but for a very smart kid, with real academic potential, I meant less good (which is why I said it).

(I do know that most independents will claim to select by some sort of test but that's cosmetic at many schools; simply a tool to flatter parents into parting with their money).

Bravo.

There are undoubtedly multiple reasons but I do think this is one of them.

There is a different between discouraging and not actively encouraging. I doubt (though this will be hard to prove) that state schools actively tell students not to apply, it's more a case that they are passive.

The following is anecdotal but I think likely to be common. My DC's experience in the state sector was that they were asked in tutor groups if anyone was thinking of applying to Oxbridge and virtually nobody said "yes". And that was it. There was no active encouraging of other students who might be capable. (DC's school routinely averages 1 child a year to Oxbridge so not in the "no one ever goes to Oxbridge from here" category).

Contrast to my niece's private school experience where there was a specific Oxbridge information for students and another with parents, and any student who was looking even vaguely of the right calibre was basically told to come.

Bravo

Seconded.

@goodbyestranger

Your assertion regarding "less good" schools is akin to your beliefs regarding Mods B, in being unsupportable by intuition, observation, or evidence.

I will restrict what I write to Eton but I expect it to be largely true of London day schools, based on what is known from the literature concerning attainment. Prep school headmasters are of neccessity adept at advising parents on suitable secondary schools for their children, it is not in their interests to suggest a school that they then fail to get into, and one of the most frequently used metrics at this stage is how many children achieve their first choice senior school. Only prep school children in the top performing one or two deciles are so directed, and then Eton selects the top decile from these.

What the educational literature consistently shows is that better academic outcomes for pupils in selective schools predominantly do not reflect a higher quality of education, they are simply the consequence of selection, e.g. "the type of school that a child attends explains less than one percent of the individual differences in educational achievement" (Smith-Woolley et al 2018: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30631464/ and if this is true for independent schools, grammar schools and comprehensive schools, it is most unlikely to be untrue of any one school type.

This is observable when you take the trouble to invest in private education continuously from start to finish fifteen years later. Children who choose schools other than Eton, before or after sitting the test, despite their headmasters advice (and headmasters seem to like children going to Eton or Winchester as much as they like their children going to Oxbridge) usually obtain academic scholarships at the schools that you classify as "less good" such as Rugby. However, if you look at the progression to Oxbridge of academic scholars (who roughly represent the top decile) in these schools their success rate is much better than Eton's.

@Marchesman - obviously I am aware and have looked. I am not convinced you have actually read my comments, on the other hand, as you seem unable to respond to them, but keep resorting to claiming that the statistics tell us everything we need to know, in between telling us that obviously they don’t.

@Walkaround

Don't worry, you're next.

Your assertion regarding "less good" schools is akin to your beliefs regarding Mods B, in being unsupportable by intuition, observation, or evidence

Marchesman I'm not clear why you're getting yourself in such a twist about Mods. It's incredibly niche and presumably incredibly dull for other posters. DD4 did Mods very very recently and was graded in a single list against all other candidates taking Mods, regardless of course. If you're trying to say that your kid did better than my kid then a) I couldn't care any less, I assure you and b) I won't upset you by revealing just how strong her First was on MN, not least because she'd be utterly horrified. I imagine if your kid is 'Mods A Man' whatever tf that it, she or he would be mortified too. Although perhaps not, if they didn't consider themselves capable of being challenged at any other institution in the entire UK. That was very funny btw 😂

As far as schools go, which are less good or more good is obviously subjective to an extent. Had I been looking for an independent for my own DC I would have looked at the ones listed first, not the others listed second. Because I consider them better. Not asking you to think the same of course.

Please do not feel you have to spend a beautiful afternoon writing another long and tortuous reply, since I only skim read your posts in any event. I'm off to do some ineffectual gardening on my hill overlooking the sea while the dogs snooze in the sunshine :)

@Marchesman - OK let’s suppose we have a set of 4 male identical quadruplets, something that happens 1: greater than 10,000,000, no gestational complications, 35week plus 3 days delivery. Supportive well educated parents, 1 to PhD level. 1 Indian parent, 1 white British parent. They live in North London, not the wealthiest part, but they are reasonably well off.

1 quad goes to Eton, 1 quad goes to Rugby with a scholarship, 1 quad goes to a superselective grammar school in London, 1 quad goes to an average comp in North London.

All 4 quads apply to Cambridge in 2023 and all 4 have the required predicted grades. All 4 apply for a Science course aka NatSci. They apply to 4 different colleges.

What do you think will happen? What does @Walkaround think will happen? What does anyone else think will happen and why? Can we actually predict what may happen and why?

No need for Eton, then, and @Marchesman claiming the chattering middle classes are hogging the best state schools is just making it up?

And @Marchesman - given genetics, you don’t actually find it remotely risible that low SES equates to low Oxbridge acceptance rates?

What is the “positive school effect” that also makes no difference, due to genetics?

@JustanothermagicMonday1

A good question, and happily I just have time to answer it before I hop off with my puppy to our very large garden and its distant views of the mountains.

There is no answer. At an individual level the process is too capricious because it hangs on an interview. Better to apply to Oxford where they are used to putting more effort into the process, but even then the outcome would remain unpredictable.

However, if running true to form, and putting aside the not insignificant effect of college choice, the chances should be highest from the comp, lowest from Eton with the other two fairly evenly balanced between, although the grammar should edge it.

JustanothermagicMonday1 - I like your hypothetical scenario. When you say "they all have the required predicted grades" - if you mean A star, A, A (which is the minimum required grades for Nat Sci)? If so, probably none of them will get in as the vast majority will have at least three A stars for that course.

Assuming they all have 4 A stars inc Further Maths, obviously the one from the comp is most likely to get in as their grades would be contextualised more favourably. But equally, none of them could get in. It would depend on the admissions test as well, plus the interviews. Also, the college applied to at Cambridge makes a difference (despite what they say) and there no predicting. Often, it's just luck, in my view. Any of them would thrive there, probably nothing between any of them. But, odds are, they wouldn't all get in. The process is very random at best.

First time for everything.... Not sure if this will work

Oops apologies - bit big!

Maybe @Marchesman is really arguing that public schools are nurturing a master race of genetically superior people who are increasing their superiority through superior diet and life experiences, whereas the poor are having their genetic pedigree eroded by poor diet, stress, pollution, disease, etc, all of which affect which genes switch on and off, because we are increasingly finding that our genetics is not actually fully fixed in stone from conception.

50% of the world’s wealth is held by the top 1% of people, but @Marchesman does not think that gross inequality is as much of a problem as parents who use “good” state schools which are largely only “good” because of their cohort, rather than their teaching. Is the next logical argument that a significant chunk of the global population would be better off dead, because they are too damaged to be of much use any more, and are just taking up too many resources due to their sheer numbers, thus threatening everyone else’s quality of life without being much use to anyone? Personally, I’m quite scared of the 1%, and they do not send their children to state schools.