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 am very grateful to have kids that have had a fantastic private school education AND absolutely no desire or ability to go to Oxbridge. I do know parents at dds school who are desperately scrambling around trying to get their kids into state grammar for 6th form (out of area, we are not in a grammar area) to give them a better chance of Oxbridge. I just could not be bothered with any of it.

I often think this too. It's as if they weren't quite brave enough to take the state route themselves but are annoyed at those who have done so successfully. Private school is a choice, nobody has to go.

I think what Marchesman is really arguing is that state educated students should with a 2:1 should be regarded as having greater potential than privately educated students with a 2:1, and state educated atudents with a 1st are the cream of the cream. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

I don't understand anyone who chooses private education on the premise of getting them into oxbridge.

Was at a school event last weekend and honestly with how school fees are going and the v likely 20% vat increase, well the whole divide is going to be less of an issue.

Fucking hell. The advantage privately educated kids get is phenomenal compared to state educated kids.

Not only do they get the academic support to excell, there are many other advantages which I won't go into because if you aren't aware then your post is uneducated anyway.

My dd is at Durham in her 1st year. State educated, we are working class. She's worked part-time whilst up there, and all summer before she went up. When she comes home in a few weeks she will be working full-time. She will have to work all the way through her degree. Compared to some of her peers she is already disadvantaged. Add in the fact that she hasn't recieved a private education, doesn't have the confidence or life experience of the majority of her peers and doesn't have the benefit of degree educated parents I will burst with pride if she passes let alone with a 2.1.

Yes, it is a real scary issue that pupils from underfunded state schools (who do not have the same careers advice, people to write their UCAS statements for them, and hours of private tutoring for entrance exams) are given a leg-up into the most elitist institutions in the country.

TheaBrandt · Today 17:26
Hope that cheers you up op!

I'm very cheery, thank you very much. My children went to extremely popular Oxford colleges shortly before the university started to follow Cambridge's example, and I went to Edinburgh when it was a far better place for my subject choice, not having applied to either Oxford or Cambridge. We have all thrived.

I have no skin in this game; simply corrected a fallacy.

All my privately educated kids worked on bars and cafes etc through their degrees. It's really not that much of a big deal.

As privately educated students are supposedly “better people,” perhaps we should start viewing their 2:1s as embarrassing failures, as these superior beings have no excuses for not being utterly brilliant when they get into Oxford or Cambridge.

I studied at Imperial and was shocked at the elitism. I didn't even THINK about applying to Oxbridge. I was genuinely the only state educated non-Oxbridge-reject in my friendship group. I am not saying I worked any harder than my peers but they all received a great deal more careers advice and leg ups into Oxbridge applications. My state comp didn't even entertain it. Getting into any university was a win where I grew up.
I am so grateful for the fact I've been able to mix with so many demographics. However I was the only person I knew who had to take a gap year to work full time just to afford to live through first year. I had two jobs throughout my entire course and was frequently told "I could never do that, this degree/applying for union president/extracurricular etc is hard enough". As if I wouldn't have also wanted to do extracurriculars... I just genuinely could not afford it.

@Thepleasureofyourcompany Your post is a great example of unexamined privilege. There is all the difference in the world between working for beer/travel/clothes money, knowing that your parents who have the resources to pay private school fees are right behind you. You are right, that truly is no big deal. What IS a big deal is working to genuinely support yourself, and knowing that if you don't earn enough you won't be able to pay your rent or eat.

It's not 7% of students who attend independents schools at 16-18. I wish people would stop parroting this. It's more like 20% at 6th form age.

Of U.K. admissions, Oxford and Cambridge already take roughly 20% from the private sector and 80% from state (inc. grammars, academies, sixth form colleges and comprehensives).

Another point - consider postgraduate study. These are non-funded full time degrees. People like me who had to start working as soon as they finished their first degree are incredibly limited to Masters/PhD study. I would love to do a Masters and a PhD but I can't afford to be out of full time work.
I'd be really interested to see the demographics who go on to do second degrees and doctorates. I bet that class divide is shocking.

Nope, @worldstillturns, according to the Economist " In 2022 the proportion of places offered to state-school students was 68% at Oxford; 72.5% at Cambridge." https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/03/11/state-school-admissions-are-rising-at-oxford-and-cambridge#

It seems to me that what threads like this boil down to is that the OP sees the children of people they view as peers socially and financially going to state school and getting better university offers and is annoyed at having invested in private education. Yes it is true that many people who previously would have sent their children to private school are choosing not to. They are middle class and educated themselves, and can afford houses near the best non-selective state schools. They can also afford tutors and to fill any gaps in cultural capital. OP is right that not all state schools are equal so why not do the same and educate your kids in the state system?

She will be working full time for 3 months this summer, needs to to pay her rent for july/August/September. It's not a little bar job for pin money.

Tbf if I'd paid for private education for so long, I'd be sucking it up for another 3 years and using school fee savings to support my child through uni to get the 1st I'd want after all that investment in education. Not really an option here tho.

I agree. I always thought I'd do private schooling for my kids if I could ever afford it but now I've completely changed my mind after finishing university. I hate the elitist bubble and the lack of SEN provision in private schools. However I would consider state grammar ONLY IF my children could confidently pass the 11+, purely because they are better funded and more academia-focused if university is the right path.

It’s more like 6% of students privately educated overall these days, and 17% at sixth form. Also, do these statistics include or exclude non-UK citizens attending private schools in the UK? It annoys me when people trot these statistics out, usually using inaccurate figures, anyway, and don’t attempt to explain how the figures are come to. It’s redolent of the claim that 92% of marriages end in divorce in Portugal 🤣. Also, 80% state educated at Oxbridge is a massive inflation of the actual figures, which are more like 68% at Oxford and 72% at Cambridge.

I think @worldstillturns is a bit of a parrot herself!

They mean exactly that - ‘better people’.

Strangely just their bank account balance magically makes them into inherently superior human beings compared to state-educated proles.

I have seen slightly different stats @unfor. However, it's comparing apples with pears because far more independent schools are academically selective inc super-selective) than those in the state. You would expect academically selective schools - state or independent - to punch above their weight, simply because they have already cherry-picked the many of most able children in that area at 11 plus.

Yes there are a some schools where it's 'pay up and come in' but there are also independent schools and grammars that are harder to get into at 11 plus (relatively-speaking) than Oxbridge!

It varies between colleges anyway. There are many Cambridge colleges where the state intake is around 80%, inc the one my DC is at.

@Marchesman 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.

Wow! Not often now you read that kind of ill thought-out, generalised statement!

Better in what respect? Richer - yes, but with a wealthy family background you would expect the privilege that buys to extend into a second generation. But then I know many people in the trades who left school with no education attainments to their name who have their own businesses, are multi-millionaires and very shrewd operators.

More confident? Yes, independent schools are able to put the resources into widening children's' experiences in certain areas. But not usually a broad experience of mixing with all types of people or awareness of others less fortunate.

Better educated - in what way though? Academic education tends to be very narrow in the grand scheme of life and doesn't automatically equate to social awareness, empathy, emotional intelligence, personal resources - all of which are important to a happy, satisfied life. Social skills are as least important as education in preparing young people to succeed in life.

SnowyPetals
I've always been against private education, but over time my views have changed.

I find it ridiculous that in my region it is cheaper to live in an affordable area and pay private school fees than it is to buy a house in catchment for the in-demand state schools.

So the families living in a cheaper house, but paying private rather than go to a middle of the road to poor school that doesn't stretch able children and has limited support for SEN get judged as being rich private school families, but the people who can afford £350-500k for a house in the right catchment for a state school are viewed as salt of the earth working types who need additional support to get to top universities.

Why is this suddenly a problem? Oxbridge has always written off masses of people with potential and engaged in blatant social engineering.

Yes, but if you pay for social engineering, you expect to benefit from it. 🤣