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?

Acquisition of a first is an odd metric, given there's no standard for what that means.
Cambridge engineering caps its proportion of Firsts at 30% - other departments and other engineering courses don't, grade inflation is rife. Afaik it doesn't impact its global standing.

lavenderlou · Today 16:56
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.

That may be so, but I don't see anyone here complaining. I think most who educate their children privately expect that they will face some discrimination but they do it because the outcome that they want is that it will make them better people.

And squeezing more rich folk from state schools into Oxford/Cambridge hardly makes 'the system fairer'.

You seem overly worked up about this - are you/your kids ok?
You lump Oxford and Cambridge together in your title. Oxford has no target in its APP to increase the proportion of places going to state educated pupils. It also distinguishes between schools using attainment and Free School Meals data for pre and post-16yrs schools, so transferring sectors at that stage or being in a top-achieving state school is visible to interviewing tutors.
By the way, global standing of Universities depends upon the quality of their academics’ research not the proportion of undergraduates who secure firsts. Imperial give out more firsts than either Oxford or Cambridge but isn’t seen as higher than them in the global rankings.
Maybe find some more important issues to get angry about? And have a lovely weekend.

I think most who educate their children privately expect that they will face some discrimination but they do it because the outcome that they want is that it will make them better people

Could you elaborate on this idea of private school education shaping 'better people'?

In our small city most comps don’t get contextual offers just the one in the most deprived area. The private school cohort are still massively advantaged compared to even the leafiest of comps in terms of class size / teacher retention / behaviour of other pupils. So arguably the leafy comp cohort get the worst of all worlds. Hope that cheers you up op!

I help squeeze lots of v poor kids into Oxbridge every year. The ones that want to go. All have fantastic grades, all have pretty tough lives. And loads have gone on to get firsts.
A few year ago none of them would have even tried because it was seen as pointless. But Oxbridge outreach projects have made it seem ok, so more state school kids have had a go and more have got in. This obviously has meant less private school ones have. The Unis are still taking the 'best' candidates, just they now come from a bigger, more varied,pool.
I think it's hard for some parents who have never stepped foot in a normal comp to realise that they contain v bright kids too.

Seems daft that you can literally go to a €100k+ PA school and yet in the U.K. not only are local places shrinking in numbers, dc are penalised if one goes to private school. Despite generally it being the choice of the parent to send them to one. Hardly ensures they are no longer elite institutions.

What needs to happen is we as a society stop pretending the quality and calibre of grads from these institutions are ALWAYS deemed superior to other institutions. They really aren't. Just like private schools, sometimes the outcomes are fantastic due to the institution, but sometimes they're mediocre at best.

Thank you @Mia85 . I thought I'd heard something like this mentioned. I'll take a look at that.

@rollerskateuphill they are not penalised for going to private school. They are less prioritised. A v large difference.

What needs to happen is we as a society stop pretending the quality and calibre of grads from these institutions are ALWAYS deemed superior to other institutions.

Does anyone seriously do any such thing nowadays?

OP, surely there's an easy solution to the "problem" here - just send your kids to state school? Or don't want you to because you think they wouldn't achieve such good grades?

The option is open to everybody to send their child to an underperforming state school. I am sure MN posters can say with great confidence that their child would still get 3* x A/A star at A-Level despite classes of 30, continual disruption, teachers frequently out due to illness and stress, and little to no setting.

As a poster says above, it is a huge achievement for a child to preserve their mental health and well being in these circumstances, let alone maintain the motivation to excel academically.

@ErrolTheDragon yes the firms I have worked at do this. Despite having some awful candidates come through as a result

I think it's hard for some parents who have never stepped foot in a normal comp to realise that they contain v bright kids too.

And just how hard it can be for even a motivated student to learn when most of the others do not want to. Imagine trying to study for a higher level MFL paper when 20/30 of the other pupils are actively disruptive, sitting a foundation paper which they might not even turn up for, with no setting or steaming. Of course even harder for those with learning disabilities who want to learn but the support is focused on crowd management. So time to get the tiny violins out for the disadvantaged private school children.

"Therefore the conclusion should be this engineering is inherently unfair and should be stopped."
But private schools are a form of "engineering" too. Are you advocating that we ban private schooling too @Xenia ? I suspect not because you have bought your children untold advantages by educating them privately. The generation to generation to generation of private education, with all of the advantages that buys at the expense of bright children whose parents can't afford it or morally object to it sickens me. I'm delighted that contextual offers are being made and that Oxbridge are beginning to reach out to students from other backgrounds.

Absolutely this. And also in a school that has had a RI from Ofsted repeatedly. That the average grade in the class (of 30) is a C-D, so anyone working above that level has to effectively teach themselves. That university support consists of the Tutor asking the student what they are supposed to put in the UCAS reference. No catch up lessons after school or weekends, no 1-2-1 support or mentoring, no UCAS fairs, several teachers over the course of the two years.
They did do a trip to Cambridge in Year 12 - the tutor told the bus driver he'd taken them to the wrong place as they were here to see the University, not a College...

If someone has been to a top private school or highly selective grammar school they already had an elite educational experience. So it makes sense that others get the chance to have an “elite” educational experience at Oxbridge, even if they are not quite up to the mark academically (which to be honest, I question anyway). There are far less places than students who would be good enough to get lots out of the experience.
Absolutely - although grammar schools also have issues with large classes so putting them in the same category of academic advantage as an elite private school is a step too far IMO.

I have made this point previously but the global standing of Oxford or Cambridge comes from their research. Undergraduates contribute minimally to that.

Well my, somewhat limited, experience of oxbridge admissions is that it is not actually about the exam grades, or cleverest students anyway. It is about their obsessive passion for their subjects, and their ability to reason and argue with their tutors.

DS went to a decent comp. His best college friend went to a failing, rural, comp and had a scattering of 5s and 6s at gcse, but stormed the entrance exam and wowed them at interview.

Yes, plenty of private school students but, again, they are passionate about their subjects.

I think the main advantage that private schools have is to allow their pupils to find their passionate and broaden their mind, without having to navigate poor behaviour in lessons etc. If oxbridge access courses open pupils eyes to the possibility that they can apply, this is often all it takes.

Children in state schools have far more distractions to contend with

I don't need to list these as they are obvious to all

I think there is a massive difference between a general private school and a big public school - stating the obvious I know. I have children in both and honestly the oxbridge preparation in the latter is off the scale compared to the former which is actually very unambitious for its pupils. Also agree with the new focus on the Ivy League in the big public schools especially as a lot of the pupils will be playing a sport at a senior level which is very much supported by the school.

Personally, I would love to see more contextual offers but for those who are really deserving. And, I am not sure how easy that is to achieve now that middle class parents are all over this. I have had several conversations with parents who have said they are considering moving their child to sixth form to make oxbridge more likely - pretty sure they look at where gcse's are sat anyway.

To be honest if oxbridge was the main aim for my children, I would just get them to study ancient Greek or organ music

I'm not sure if you have thought this through properly. Your first data set from Oxford shows there is no significant difference in degree classification according to secondary school type. The Cambridge stats show there are more kids from independent schools that go on to get a first, by about 4-5% depending on the year, but that 2:1 are about equally distributed. It also shows they take twice as many kids from the independent sector compared to state comprehensives.

All the data shows is that years of privileged schooling with smaller class sizes, good facilities and lots of money gives you a bit of an edge still after 3 years in university in terms of getting a 1st. It's not the gotcha you think it is! If the data showed majority state comprehensive kids getting a III and majority independents getting a 1st then you'd have grounds for discussion.

I think most who educate their children privately expect that they will face some discrimination but they do it because the outcome that they want is that it will make them better people.

So having parents who can fork out vast sums for a private education makes you a better person? 😕

Ha ha

Except if you weren't born in the UK, in which case its simple to buy your way in.

Poor little posh kids 😢.

”I think most who educate their children privately expect that they will face some discrimination but they do it because the outcome that they want is that it will make them better people.” 🤣 So you are all for social engineering, then, provided you pay for it. The notion that you are a “better person” because you have benefited from gross inequalities is exactly what society is trying to rectify. You are not a better person, you’re an over-privileged, spoilt brat if you really do view yourself that way.