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?

If, as@Marchesman fears, the degrees will end up being dumbed down, then that is concerning. But is there any evidence this is the case in popular subjects? I can see why Classics would do it, just to get bums on seats, but what of the sciences, maths and subjects like history, which remain popular amongst students from all sectors?

I think one thing to consider is the culture and aspiration at poorer performing comprehenisves. To my mind a lot of these schools simply don't have the teaching resources or bandwidth to fully support pupils that wish to gain access to higher tier universities and this lack of support coupled with cultural lack of aspiration is so engrained that getting significant numbers of pupils to Oxford etc. Is a non starter. University access is not a metric schools are necessarily judged on so to a degree higher education destinations need not be in a school's radar from a governance level and in reality there will be other pressures that come first.

I think an average teacher is thinking about getting students over the line in terms of simply getting the children to pass GCSEs and if a child wishes to go the extra mile to maximise their grades the onus may be on them. I think it is very rare narrative in reality of the social housing FSM kid (possibly with SEN) beating the odds to get into Oxbrdige. Social inequality is simply to entrenched.

Could a possible solution be that the state pays for tutors for this in more deprived schools to support them in their HE aspirations while the majority of the teaching staff focus on the core bulk of pupils? Should comprehensives be open to have internalised grammar school streams of resources were available (ambitious)?

Well, there’s the argument over setting v streaming when it comes to the idea of a “grammar stream” - why leave out the talented linguist, just because they struggle with maths? And then there’s the fallacy that a grammar stream would somehow be expensive. Grammar schools are comparatively cheap to run, as it is not the academic subjects that cost the money. That’s why they were easy to set up, but technical schools never really got off the ground. Practical and creative subjects are more expensive. Enrichment activities are more expensive.

The larger the school and more diverse its intake, the wider the range of subjects that could be offered, and the greater the flexibility in terms of enabling students to follow their interests and talents. I don’t see how small schools can cater well for all in terms of diversity of need and interest, due to lack of funding. Schools are paid per pupil they teach. State schools can’t afford to employ teachers in subjects few children are opting for. If they are only sufficiently well funded to cover the basics, that is all that will get covered.

@Walkaround

I agree funding is ultimately the issue and to do justice for all pupils there has to a significant increase in funding. Possibly internal grammar streams may not be entirely the way forward but i are there ways to offer more support to gifted children in generally poorer performing comprehenisives? I agree comprehensive have diverted intakes but is there a point that resources may be quite rightly be diverted in terms of SENS inclusion and unfortunately it is hard to in reality embed cultural/aspirational changes in a school?

I certainly think it would be fairer if all the changes in London were available to those from my native North East England for a start, from grammar schools in some areas to the London selective sixth forms like Brampton Manor (55 to Oxbridge recently, 7 more than Eton). If there is a reason that would not work eg London has children of immigrants who work hard and the NE has a lot of lazier people or people who want different hings from life - sometimes reasons for failure are more obvious than we think, then it should be considered. London also has more access to mentors although online access for those rich enough to be able to have a school with a computer from which they can access the mentoring I suppose might overcome that.

On latin etc - this was not offered by school. A very kind deputy head when she knew I was going to do law offered to help me as latin used to be a requirement for an LLB (she was history teacher). However it was no longer required by law courses by then. I had taught myself a bit from a library book as I was interested. By the time my children went to school all 5 had latin at school but it is very hard and they all gave it up when they were choosing their GCSEs 2 or 3 years before GCSE. This is in the fee paying sector.

Three of children's degree subject was ancient history by the way (not Oxbridge).

This is a very interesting thread, so keep it up although I am not sure we need to tell people what their emotions are or criticise my beloved Tory party..... but we Tories can take the heat and Labour has not won an election since 2005 which says a lot about the state of Labour.....

I can see why Classics would do it, just to get bums on seats

At the risk of irritating OP with her master race/ military ideals/ 'proper classicists' beliefs again and boring others with the narrow Classics stuff, Oxford has not made this (apparently very unpopular) proposal to get bums on seats. The proposal was intended to help bridge the attainment gap in the formal examinations: the ab initio students are marked alongside the students who have been taught Classics since the age of seven in many (most?) cases and are therefore at an obvious disadvantage. The numbers applying aren't an issue: a tutor posted the results of the Classics aptitude test for ab initio students not so long ago which showed around eight applicants per place (as opposed to the 'real' Course I which has far fewer: two to three per place?). This isn't to dumb down and probably won't happen as the ab initio students are being vocal in pointing out the flaws, which are on a number of levels.

OP has tried to present the proposal as being a dumbing down due to ab initio students being inherently less able than their independently educated peers on the same course but that's not it at all.

This has nothing to do with party politics, though, @Xenia. I don’t vote Labour.

It has a lot to do with prejudice, though, and the notion that the North East might be full of genetically, incurably lazy, stupid people.

I think if we are focusing on lower/ middle comps and aspirational university choice then the following are issues that deter children achieving these aims:

Lack of aspiration amongst peers; we are all social animals and we all have an instinct to some extent to 'stick with the herd'.

Lack of commitment understandably from schools towards high achievers in some cases due to lack of resources. When aspiration is mentioned in comprehensives from poorer neighbourhoods it is getting kids from D to C at GCSE (old money) not getting steaks of As to facilitate elite university entrance.

Reluctance to identify 'academic ' pupils early in their career or giving them routes to achieve their potential. The idea of inclusivity at some schools means that there are pressures to ensure all children are given exactly the same education. I know at my children's school academic success isn't overly highlighted for fear of offense e.g. no school prizes etc.

A general sense of 'doing well' and being proud of it. Children may not be praised enough and lose motivation.

School philosophy of newer university entrance being good enough so why push kids further?

Equating practical GCsEs with academic ones such that an academic child might take good technology to GCSE for example not recognising it might not have sat the academic merit of history.

Kids not wanting to be the 'other'. Bright kids stand out at poor comps and who wants to be singled out amongst their peers. 'Geekiness' may be a target for bullying.

Limited careers aspirations. Work experience and careers experience is offered non preferentially at some schools and the experience available is often in non professional careers. You may get your all A student offered work experience at a hair dresser simply because the school does not have the connections for sufficient professional experience.

There are so many issues that need addressing at a school level that need to be considered in parallel to uni WP.

Food

This is spot on!

@mids2019 well said. Totally agree. Then add in home factors/ finances/ parental pressure to work at 16.
ive seen children who have been thrown out of their home at 16 as they are no longer deemed the responsibility of their parents.

I think finance is a major factor as said above. Tuitions fees need to be paid as well as living costs and this can be daunting to you average just about managing family. The local FE college or new university might be an attractive option financially as well as the desire to be with a lot of their peers. I think we forget how much of a family jolt relocating to a new city is.

Yep @mids2019 that describes DS1's academy school to a T. It wasn't a bad place and the teachers weren't bad teachers, but lots of little cultural assumptions - I think I observed every single one of the things you describe - add up to big obstacles for children who might have the capacity to shoot for highly competitive uni places. DS1 was fine because all the messages and kinds of support he got at home were very different. But I've seen what happened to his peers, and it's not fair.

@PacificState

Absolugely. If you don't have parents support academically that is yet another obstacle in the way.

I had a 'debate' about a grade my daughter achieved at school where she thought it perhaps better than it was a she was comparing to the lowest marks in their class. The reality is, yes, she is doing relatively well to her peers but she is not comparing herself with grammar school children or those in the private sector.

My partner and I are both graduates of RG universities so at least there is an awareness of what is out there prospectively from an HE point of view.

It is never easy to know if it does children better to be best of a middle ranking place or best of the best. I was best in my school and a unviersity and always had a lot of self confidence perhaps as a result, but had I gone to my brother's more competitive school or to Oxbridge like most of my siblings may be I would not have thought so. Mind you it is a risky strategy to pick a school or university on the basis you may be one of the best at it, in terms of improving your life chances.

What is the point of being a big fish in a small pond? You surely then get an inflated sense of self? My DC having gone to Oxbridge have a very pleasing lack of arrogance, and yet enough confidence to carry them through. I think the experience gave them a good sense of where they were in the scheme of things. I'm a great fan of little or medium sized fish in big pond.

I did not raise the issue of ab initio classics. My post referred to the removal of material to facilitate "accessibility". However, as this is relevant to the substance of the thread I will bear with it. The following comment from an Oxford classics graduate refers to IA (Greek and Latin) and course IB for Latinists (who continue Latin but having no Greek are taught it intensively) but it equally applies to course IIB (who do no Latin for Mods and are exclusively taught Greek):

"For Mods specifically, the exams you take are broadly similar but are unquestionably more onerous for IA candidates. You do nominally sit the same Homer paper, for example, except that the set text for IA candidates is 18 books of the Iliad vs 4 books for IB - you need to be able to translate anything from these books and are examined on doing so. The difference in difficulty can't really be overstated - Xxxxx (who did IB) could remember the translation for four books of the Iliad. She walked out of some of these exams before anybody else in the entire university because she was able to memorise the translation for her set texts. You can do that for one sixth of the Iliad but it's a lot more difficult for three quarters. I can't remember exactly, but I think Xxx had to read two or three books in Greek at Bristol for his prelims. You might take the exam at the same time and you might answer the same questions but taking the IB Homer paper is like doing the exam at a different university.

The same is true for your set texts across the board - if you take Plato at Mods, IA reads the Meno in Greek, IB reads 15% of the Meno in Greek etc.

It's also worth pointing out that IB candidates take intensive Greek lessons for the first year that they are at Oxford. If they don't catch up with IA candidates, it really is their own fault. As far as the university is concerned IB candidates are equal to IA after Mods. They get Greek lessons all year and have easier Mods papers. It is obviously easier as far as I am concerned."

Typically, children who take Latin at prep school (and few do) start at 8 yrs, and the even smaller number who start Greek do so at 10 yrs. If they are taught well they then learn little or nothing between 13 yrs and 16 yrs because the GCSE syllabus is very limited, apart perhaps from extending their vocabularies. Given that they study 9 or 10 other subjects at the same time, their total exposure to Latin or Greek from 9 to 18 yrs adds up to scarcely more than 1 year's worth of exclusive study and can easily be matched in a year or two at university. However, with a proper grounding that year or two might more profitably be spent on more advanced aspects of the subject.

This graduate who did Course 1A is comparing his own experience with that of other independently schooled undergrads who also have a background in Classics, although only in one of the two languages rather than both: Course 1B is for independent applicants rather than state. That's rather different from an undergrad who goes up to Oxford with absolutely no prior taught knowledge of any aspect of the Classics at all and has been educated on £4k pa rather than £40k. The whiny graduate in question sounds like one of the more contemptible products of the independent school system, insisting he is much better than others but without any shred of understanding about the starting point for those who have had hundreds of thousands of pounds less spent on them. The guy needs to get a grip.

I think it would be reasonable to assume that he has a better understanding of Oxford classics than a whiny parent with a chip on her shoulder and a contemptible predisposition to play the man and not the ball.

I may be a lot of things but I'm certainly not a parent with a chip

Also why has this whiny graduate bothered to whine about the Bristol course too? Is literally everything wrong in his pampered life?

That's got to be one of the widest of the mark examples of playing the (wo)man not the ball!

OK. This is turning into a zoo again. The dog sleeps all night and he is old enough not to need constant observation in the garden. So I'm off.

Thank you for the cogent observations. I may write a newsaper article based on the FOI data (1:3 vs1:4 admn rates / low vs high SES expansion from comps / grammar school contraction?) that I had forgotten about.

Why on earth would a wealthy public school that is teaching Latin and Greek just stick with the GCSE syllabus between ages 13-16? I thought public schools didn’t teach to the test?! I don’t therefore for a second believe they have the kids twiddling their thumbs for 3 years in their Latin and Greek lessons.