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?

On my Masters the majority were state school and mostly went to university in the Midlands. I was the only Oxbridge graduate.

A few people won fully funded places. Some had partial funding. Some were mature students with savings. The rest took out loans.

Most pHDs I know of were funded. The ones I know of are state educated too, and really love their subject.

I went to state grammar and didn't get any special tuition or help! No one wrote my UCAS form for me! In fact, I was discouraged from applying because the teachers didn't think I'd get in. Sure it wasn't a sink school but I think some people on the thread have unrealistic views on how much help people at privileged schools get. There's so much variety in state and private schools.

I knew one person with a contextural offer and it didn't do them any favours - they really really struggled academically and ended up dropping out. Even if you are academic it's not necessarily the right place for you, it's very high pressured.

Don't know about that. My dcs have definitely benefitted from attending a private school though.

Surely it's impossible to know that if someone from a state school gets a B that actually they are an A star student in disguise. Maybe they are a B student.

Which is why Oxbridge expect the state educated student to get an A* at A-level.

OP, this is all fine anyway. The report you linked states -

"Nonetheless, we also recognise that the state versus independent binary masks a range of educational experiences..."

Oxbridge don't just assess in terms of "state school" or "private school." That would be nonsense. Every school has a UCAS profile which unis have access to - stating info such as % of A star-A at A-level, average class sizes, etc etc. Admissions people compare a students performance with other students in THEIR school. They want to see that students have made the most if the opportunities available to them in the context of THEIR education. So for a school like Westminster, they would need very top possible grades plus a raft of super-curricular evidence. For an underachieving school, a student would be a comparable outlier relative to their school cohort to have achieved A star A, A. The uni knows this - they apply it to grammars, outstanding comps, crap independents, failing comps and top independents alike. It's all relative. They also look at POLAR and ACORN quintiles, mitigating circumstances, the lot.

Also, it states in that report they are aiming for 69% state intake in 2024 (?). Is that right? They already seem to take higher than this in the majority of colleges now, so not sure what is actually going to change?

Loving the ignorant prejudice against organ scholars. 🙄
My son (fully state school educated) has an Oxford organ scholarship. It made absolutely no difference to the A level requirements he needed for his course.

Are you worried that all the money you've spent on buying your DC an education won't guarantee their "right" to a place at Cambridge @Marchesman ?

The Sutton Trust, and quite a few other pieces of large scale research (eg the PISA report) shows that educational advantage maps onto socio-economic advantage.

Absolutely this. @mumsneedwine, I think we must be in a similar role.

Do you know what scares me? The amount of brilliant minds were overlooked, and may still be overlooked because until relatively recently they would not have been encouraged to try.

Having said that, I also agree with the numerous previous posters who question the apparently unquestionable calibre of Oxbridge degrees and graduates.

Well quite @Walkaround and @mathanxiety

Indeed, what a perfectly succinct way of putting it. OP is moaning about being on the wrong end of it by not adapting fast enough it seems.

Do you know what scares me? The amount of brilliant minds were overlooked, and may still be overlooked because until relatively recently they would not have been encouraged to try

What about the brilliant minds who happen to be at private schools?

They appear still to be exceptionally well represented.

I used to work in a social sciences faculty in a mid-league Uni. Our admissions tutor had a fantastic knack for spotting those smart, savvy, state school kids who under-performed at A level due to social disadvantage. Made lots of offers to to that cohort in clearing. Then 3 years later we would watch loads of them graduate with firsts and 2:1s and head off into the grad job market. It was SO satisfying!

It is a myth to think that, because independent schools out-perform many state schools, the independently educated kids are smarter and more 'Oxbridge worthy' than the others. It's easier to perform well when your school has low staff turnover and you don't have 4 different biology teachers during the last year of A-levels. It's easier to perform well when you're not having to work 18 hours a week in Macdonalds on top of your studies. It's easier to perform well when you have secure housing, enough to eat, a laptop, when your parents can afford extra tutoring etc. Privilege, or lack thereof, has an impact on grades. If you don't see that, then you're a muppet.

People could just look at the Cambridge admissions stats. The success rates (as in numbers of applicants to successful applicants per sector) are within a decimal point difference. Nobody is being unfairly advantaged or penalised - everyone assessed in relation to individual circumstances. Cambridge can obviously only deal with those who apply, so their main focus needs to be encouraging more to apply from the state sector in the first place.

worldstillturns · Today 19:30
Oxbridge don't just assess in terms of "state school" or "private school." That would be nonsense.

Indeed it would be nonsense. Nonetheless, they do 'assess in terms of "state school" or "private school" ' as a distinct metric, separate from SES. The fact that for years Cambridge students from independent schools have been outperforming students from state schools is indisputable evidence of bias against the former in the admission process, contrary to an admissions policy which states:

"The principal aim of the Admissions Policy of the Colleges of the University of Cambridge is to offer admission to students of the highest intellectual potential, irrespective of social, racial, religious and financial considerations" a further aim being "fairness – to ensure that each applicant is individually assessed, without partiality or bias."

Surely high a levels from a state school are of more value than those from a private school ? Seems obvious to me kids have got those grades against the odds. Frankly when friends kids get high grades from private schools I just think “whatever” I’m impressed by those that get high grades from state. That’s genuine achievement.

Surely high a levels from a state school are of more value than those from a private school ?

No @TheaBrandt , as many state schools are way, way better - academically and non-academically - than many private schools.

Bollocks.

TheaBrandt · Today 22:01

You would have a point if all state schools were the same and all private schools likewise. However, there is more variability within the state sector than between state and private sectors.

Do you have kids at state school?

There are fucking massive issues in the state sector. Teachers leaving in droves. Massive classes. Troubled classmates. That’s at a “nice” comp. My friends with children at private have none of those issues. Don’t you dare say they are equivalent. They are not.

State school kids deserve all the breaks they can get. Your kids have been privileged and cosseted for years. Move over.

Contextual data is not based on whether the school is state or private, selective or non selective. Each application is contextualised against the performance of the school/setting the student is in. Very bright kids who stand out in any setting are likely to be interviewed.

Private school kids displaced by ruffians.

Oh well, poor old them.

@TheaBrandt

One (the oldest) out of three was at a northern comprehensive school that usually sends no pupils to Oxford or Cambridge.