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?

What school do/ did the younger two attend?

Sector and type (selective/ non selective), not name - is what I meant.

@trickortrickier

In that case why is the underperformance of state educated students in university examinations comparable to that of students with cognitive or learning disabilities?

@goodbyestranger

Pre-prep, prep, non-selective boarding Public. We declined a selective offer (from Eton).

And did your eldest stay at his northern comp until Y13?

And which year groups are the two younger siblings in?

This is such bollocks - Cambridge know that state v private is not particularly meaningful, but they are targeting state as a way of reaching under-represented groups that they can't otherwise find. What is the problem with Cambridge figuring out how to reach exceptional young people who they might otherwise miss?

You also forgot, when reporting the attainment statistics so gleefully, to include the caveat: "There is likely to be an interaction with the course of study factor, as science courses with lower probability of obtaining good honours have a higher proportion of students from state schools"

~75% of DC getting ÅÅA or better at A level come from the state sector. There are three times as many DC getting these Oxbridge standard grades in state schools and the universities are trying to find them. They don't want fairly bright private school students any more when they can have very bright state school students, why would they?

Are you also arguing that ethnic minorities have less potential, @Marchesman, given the report you have linked, which indicates they currently underperform regardless of prior educational experiences? Or are you cherry picking what you take from the report, what you interpret it to mean, how significant you take it to be, and what you deem to be relevant, contrary to the conclusions of the report itself? Are you concerned about people born in June?

This argument only works if you take degree classification at the end of (in many cases) a three year degree as the one true definitive measure of "intellectual potential". This can be seen by the following example. Student A has throughout his life enjoyed the highest quality education money can buy. Student A gets a place at Cambridge and graduates with a first, meeting the the threshold by a narrow margin. Student B attends a really poorly performing comprehensive where discipline issues and teacher retention are so poor that Student B gets a fraction of the teaching Student A has received (and that teaching is more tailored to the middle of the mixed ability class). However, Student B is a determined soul, and by accessing materials online and working through them independently, he gets a set of exam results that are way ahead of anyone else in his year at school. At the point of admissions decisions, the Cambridge admissions team can see that Student B lags behind Student A in terms of raw exam marks, but taking into account the context in which the marks were obtained, they think he demonstrates great intellectual potential and offer him a place. Student B eventually graduates with a 2:1, very narrowly missing the threshold for a first. In the two and a bit years since they started at Cambridge, Student B has very nearly closed the gap in exam attainment between himself and Student A, but not quite.

OP, on your logic, you have "indisputable evidence" that Student A had greater intellectual potential than Student B. This has been categorically proven by the fact that Student A scored higher marks than Student B in his finals. The only possible measure of intellectual potential is the exam marks that the two students scored when they took their final exams. The fact that Student B started from a much lower base than Student A and very nearly caught him up is no indicator of intellectual potential. If on current trajectories, Student B looked likely to be outperforming Student A in another 6 months, that would be irrelevant to intellectual potential too. The "indisputable" one true measure of intellectual potential is a person's attainment at the point when they take their finals. No sane person could possibly see rate or level of progress from the start to the end of an undergraduate degree as being indicative of intellectual potential. Every academic knows that intellectual development ceases the moment you get your undergraduate degree classification. If you got a 2:1 because two and a bit years wasn't (quite) enough to close the gap with someone who enjoyed a head start of 7 years+ of superior education, don't imagine for a moment that you ever had equivalent intellectual potential!

What would be your explanation as to the factors makin gchildren who have attended independent school have higher potential than those at state school?

@fUNNYfACE36 i'm not in academia but would guess that some kids at independent schools have a higher probability to do well at uni because of things like: family, financial, and educational support along the way. one thing mentioned was the test taking skills.
but this is only the potential to complete the program of their choice certainly not a marker of being of higher IQ.
mentioned on another oxbridge thread, oxbridge classified applicants who attended independent schools and state grammar schools in the same category.
i think it's odd to classify school grades and intelligence anyway, surely when you specialize at school some of this is simply aptitude and desire.
and yes some universities have made a great name for themselves but as others often mention the specialty you choose might mean a different uni not the top overall choice.
likewise the educational goals of some monied families may not be top school or top grades and might be overall well being especially if generational income is pretty much guarantied.

in which case a nice interesting subject like art history, geopolitics or architecture with a simply passing grade might be fine.

This is a really good illustration of the points @Boosterquery is making.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4K5fbQ1-zps

Hear, hear.

I have no skin in this game. Didn't try Oxbridge (no one from my private school had ever been and I asked the head but she said I was too young - I was a year young at school) and my children (day schools, fee paying) did not try.

I am not too bothered about the social engineering unfairness because Oxbridge itself is not really a pure entry - eg if there were one entrance exam and no interview or it was on the basis of who had the most points in the exams in their A levels including marks out of 100 not just A or A star and they were rejecting people because of reasons like colour of skin or who their parents were or income level I would feel the system was unlawful and unfair. In other words if it were pure admission by yo have the highest mark in the test and those lower don't get in and then if they messed with that - problem.

However instead it is a fairly subjective process based on interest in your subject (and I agree with the parent of the state school Oxbridge organist above music does get you in - we are not the USA and my family is full of musicians and organists (my children's father is an organist) and as far as I know there is NO preference given just because you will be a good choral scolar or organist)). It is also based on getting the grades but, given how many people get high grades these days even after August 2023 supposedly getting us back to the real 2019 A level grading, that is not too material as loads with the grades are rejected but it does use the interview which subjective. So it is fairly subjective all the way and currently the % from the 20% who go to private schools for sixth form and the % from state schools is not particularly out of balance., Someone up thread said it was way off, but I don't agree particlarly once you factor in chidlren on full scholarships from poverty in private schools and the fact as most private schools have academic selection of some kind you would expect a higher % from there anyway.

Also I believe in the free market so if the product of Oxbridge ends up being worse because they are letting people in who are not up to the work then employers will go elsewhere to find what they need. We are certainly not at that point.

The UK does not really have the race issues of the US so do not think we have reached a position where a British Indian or Chinese child from poverty in the UK would lose a place over a black child despite in some cases working much harder and doing better at school. That seems to be more of a USA issue.

Everyone that gets in is top of the tree though. Dd1 lower 6th and decided she doesn’t want to apply it’s not right for everyone..

A family member is a tutor at an Oxford college anecdotally if a student struggles and takes up all her pastoral time they are usually in one of 2 camps either a state school pupil from a deprived background the leap is just too great or a public school pupil who has been coddled and can’t cope without the support network and whose school has overstated their ability. So either end can be problematic.

All this state v private comparison is a massive oversimplification. I can't understand why these threads go on and on, when a quick look at the admissions stats clearly show that 'success rates' are pretty much equal regardless of sector. Everyone knows schools in both sectors vary massively - Cambridge are not contextualising a student from St Paul's where 85% of grades are A star, the same as a child from sleepy parochial private school nobody has heard of and where 30% achieve A star. Grammars also vary - and that's a postcode lottery anyway. Comprehensives also vary massively. Plus there are very selective schools in the state sector. But Oxbridge know all this (obviously).

Anyone with 8s/9s and mostly A stars will be absolutely fine at Oxbridge. It's no different to other unis where the majority have top grades. Far more get these grades than there are places for. It is what it is. Of course it's going to be more difficult to get top grades in a school where A stars are not the norm (this goes for state and private) because the teaching pace is less likely to be geared to those students. Of course, teaching disruption and behaviour affect learning - that's why Cambridge have a form that specifically asks for details about teacher disruption, class sizes etc. Once again, they look at an applicant in their specific school context - have they exceeded the norm in THEIR school or not? That's all they're interested in. They can hardly blame a student for their parents' choice if school, or the postcode lottery that is the U.K. education system.

There is FAR more variation in success rates between different degree courses than school sector - eg. something like 48% success rates for Classics or Music against more like 7% for other courses like CS.

Private schools operating as charities is a nonsense. We looked into scholarships (reluctantly as I am not really in favour of private school) as our son is a very keen cricketer and those opportunities are just not there in state schools. All the academic and sporting scholarships we came across were partial only and there was still no way we could afford the fees. They would just offer a slight financial benefit to very well off families with gifted children.

I am genuinely worried about how we will afford to send our children to any university at all in the current climate. We are, I suppose, lower middle class, so not a struggling family by any means but it just looks beyond our financial capabilities at the moment.

I teach physics and have taught some extremely academically gifted students over the years who have failed to get into Oxbridge. They get the grades, despite coming from families with no history of higher education and living in what is described as a deprived area, but we can't coach them as effectively for the interviews, so they usually fail here. It's just a different world.

Presumably you understand the difference between scholarships and bursaries?

worldstill, I agree and there is no major problem either way at present for either sector.
Winter there has never been an easier time for the children of the very badly off to get into university with full loans of up to about £11k at some places and those children often having more money even than those from fee paying schools whose parents are unable or unwilling to make the minimum approx £4300 up to the maximum.

I don't agree that children in all fee paying schools have an Oxbridge advantage though. Many private schools are not doing much to help them. My sons' school had 100% failure rate the year their friend was trying - my sons didn't try. Even in the most academic fee paying and state grammars only a third get in and plenty who have the A level grades don't in both sectors. It is a bit of a lottery in both sectors really.

If you cannot make the minimm 4300 or whatever it is up to what the rent/food costs are likely to be then a local university might be an option or like many private school and state school educated students the teenager could work in university holidays and in term time.

we can't coach them as effectively for the interviews, so they usually fail here. It's just a different world

That won't be the reason why they don't get an offer.

You can't 'coach' for a physics interview because it will just be straight into a set of questions designed to make them think on their feet. They don't care about small chat or social confidence. Anyone who pays for companies to coach for interviews is wasting their money and Oxbridge specifically advise against this. It's mainly internationals who use this kind of service. And an independent school doing a single practice interview is hardly 'coaching.' Some kids will have parents who did physics degrees or teach physics and be able to talk physics all the time at home. Most will not. It is what it is.

Where I live in London the top independent schools are stuffed full of very bright, very hardworking Asian kids whose parents make sacrifices to send them and often only have 1 max 2 children. If Cambridge don’t end up taking the top level of those kids, it is Cambridge and HMRC that may lose out.

Pretty much all of my Oxbridge educated friends are sending their own DC to the leafy comp or a grammar these days and saving the fees - they don’t want to do independent anymore, see it as a waste of money and actually do not like the corporate culture in lots of independent schools these days anyway - and many simply cannot afford it or do not want to make the sacrifices it entails.
Tutoring and supracurriculars on the side is what people tend to be doing, especially if one parent works part time. The only friends still sending their kids to private schools are the City lawyers and bankers - and whilst they are lovely hardworking people neither they or their DC are the very very brightest cookies. As compared to friends who e.g. went into publishing, medicine, engineering academia, teaching etc - the kids of those persons simply cannot “afford” private schools anymore. No wonder Oxbridge now takes more state school pupils. People do not like to admit it- but often academic potential is to do with a mix of inherited IQ and parental support. Oxbridge is still a very white, very middle class place. More so than many top London private schools.

So if you are the Boden music playing camping cycling white British type who reads to your kids and discusses politics at the supper table, you really need not worry about Oxbridge or forking out for a private school. Oxbridge is still on your side and stuffed full of DC from that type of background.

I think whatever systems Oxbridge have in place, there is inherent bias towards this type of family. I agree that it is still a white, middle class institution (international students notwithstanding). Contextual and other markers go some way to addressing this but you only have to look at the Oxbridge threads on here. Many families who are Oxbridge grads themselves with two children (and even more in some cases) who are current Oxbridge students/recent grads. What does that tell us? Also I agree with a couple of pp, the interview is what lets a lot of disadvantaged/less advantaged students down. How can there not be bias - it's subjective.

The very poor are very well looked after at the moment, especially at Oxbridge. It's why we encourage many to apply - lots of bursaries, subsidised accommodation, shorter terms and lots of extra support. It's the middle income who are worst hit, on minimum loans but parents not got enough to make up the gap. So those kids work (regardless of what Unis might want).

Oxbridge outreach offer loads of support with interviews and applications. Contact colleges now if in year 12 ( might already be full but worth a try).

But, and it's a very big but, other Unis many be better for the degree the student wants to do. Oxbridge is sometimes a bit of a snob thing I believe. Parents can tell everyone little Jimmy is there, and they get pleasure from that. Nowt wrong with that. But not something many people worry about in your normal comp.

@fUNNYfACE36
What would be your explanation as to the factors makin gchildren who have attended independent school have higher potential than those at state school?

In general, because intelligence and attainment correlate strongly with SES and the distribution curve for socioeconomic status shifts to the right in the independent school cohort. Although this is not as extreme as some people commenting here believe - in independent schools 35% are from the top quintile (i.e. overrepresented but less than twofold). Two-thirds of the attainment advantage of independent school pupils is attributable to pupil characteristics not schooling. Put simply, on average they are brighter from the start, unpalatable as that may be to anyone with a bigoted turn of mind.

@worldstillturns

Everyone knows schools in both sectors vary massively - Cambridge are not contextualising a student from St Paul's where 85% of grades are A star, the same as a child from sleepy parochial private school nobody has heard of and where 30% achieve A star.

That is explicitly and what they are doing.