Cambridge to 'drop state school admissions targets'

[Stripedquilt]

A lot about this in the news this morning.

One thing I don't understand - 'The institution is focusing on a new access plan to be put into action from the academic years 2025-26 to 2028-29.'

Will this apply to the applications made later this year for the intake of the academic year 2025-26? Or does it mean they start implementing the new access plan from 2025-26 onwards - so the state school targets would be dropped for those starting uni in autumn 2026, not 2025?

Thanks for any clarity!

I think the state school intake had risen to about 73% lately which must have been a factor in their decision, so even with the targets being dropped I don't think you need to worry. They have stated that they will consider the school the applicant is from still, particularly if they haven't had intake from that school before.

Cambridge has stated in their press that the institution is focusing on a new access plan to be put into action from the academic years 2025-26 to 2028-29. Therefore applications for September 2025 start will be under these new rules.

I thought that they didn’t have a formal state school intake target. This is the first that I have heard of it.

I suppose the new target will be more regional diversity?

There was a lively debate on another thread around this. Can't seem to find it though.

Yes, posters of private school students felt that state school targets were disadvantaging their children. This was rebutted with the assertion that there were no such targets.

Guess those posters weren’t paranoid- the targets were real.

It’s interesting that employers might now remove uni attended when looking at applications but Oxbridge always look at school attended when recruiting!

It’s because, at a population level, the type of child that goes from State School to Cambridge is the same type of child that goes from Private school to Cambridge: Rich, upper middle class, white, East Asian or Indian.

They need a new policy that specifically targets schools in disadvantaged areas. The type of kids who’ll get 3 Bs while working near full time / caring for family / homeless are far more valuable as future employees / academics than someone who gets 3 As without those stressors.

They have realised that students attending sought after state schools or grammars are basically the same demographic as those attending independent day schools, in the majority of cases. So they will need to look at more nuanced criteria.

@ecoeva There is a more nuanced way. Look at catchment area of school and results of the school.

I don’t think BBB should be good enough for anyone but it’s never going to be the case that young carers will travel far for uni. Dc have to actually want Cambridge. This fact is often overlooked. People are also loyal to their areas. They don’t see Cambridge as somewhere they want to be. I think they are wrong but it’s going to be hard for Cambridge to act as a charity and not an academic institution where academic grades matter. BBB would be two grades below what some students have. How does anyone know how bright they are? Also far too many dc don’t take the A levels Cambridge want. They are pretty clear about what their preferred subject combinations .

Yes I think they will look at schools on an individual basis. For instance, there is a state school around here (London) with a very limited catchment and the houses are all £2m plus! Loads of DC at Cambridge from the Bucks Grammars or similar. DC's friend was at one and tells me he did 6 A-levels. This would not be possible in the majority of schools, state or private. They will look at things like FSM, region, whether parents went to uni, etc which are more accurate indicators than school type.

I think this could be a good thing.

We are from a fairly middle class family and at one point did send our kids to private school. When we moved ds to a state school I saw very clearly the disadvantages that some young people have. There is also a huge disparity between the educational/opportunities that young people in certain kinds of state school have over and above the kind of kids ds was friends with at school/college.

These kids have little to no guidance. They often have caring responsibilities. They have to work lots of hours through 6th form, they don't have people they know who they can aspire to, or help them get work experience or the social niceties. And they often have a sub-par education.

@Comefromaway I agree. It’s often the circumstances outside of education that mean the kids don’t do as well.

My DC go to a primary school, which is very mixed. We meet the middle class kids outside school at all
sorts of local clubs/ activities. I never see the poorer kids. Even when it’s a free activity.

It’s a small thing, but I think it leads to a smaller world and smaller aspirations

For those private school parents including with children on bursaries etc who might have felt discrimination against their child, perhaps it will be quite fun to see sharp elbowed stat school parents who chose a school via house price, posh comps in leafy Surrey and state grammars now get taken off their moral high ground where they never should have been anyway.

And those parents will now see how it feel to do a lot to help your child to get into a good school state or private and see that held against the child.

On the other hand I haven't really felt very good academic private school children have failed to get into good universities anyway and the system works fairly well. I can see why this change is happening.

However we should make sure we do continue to gives places on merit otherwise everyone from all sectors and backgrounds will feel let down.

The Oxbridge application process requires too much time and effort. Not only do students need to take additional entrance exams, they also need to pass interviews demonstrating reading beyond the 'A level syllabus'.
If the category of people you mention have time for all that, they certainly have the time and headspace to get A's.

There's a residential 'foundation' year for disadvantaged kids at both unis that gives them an undergrad place at the end if they do well enough. That could work, but the cynic in me notes that it's only the humanities. Not for any of the remotely competitive or lucrative STEM subjects like Computer Science and for the love of GOD, certainly not Medicine!

As discussed on the other thread and also pointed out by @TizerorFizz many people don't want to apply to Oxbridge. You have to consider as well, students from a low socio-economic background are likely to go for commonly known high earning professions. You can go 'anywhere' with an Oxbridge degree, but what does that even mean to someone with no role models, or understanding of the diversity of jobs out there?

Cursory read shows that the humanities subjects generally perform poorly with the exception of law.

https://www.suttontrust.com/universities-and-social-mobility-data-explorer-rankings/
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/which-university-degrees-are-best-intergenerational-mobility

Also @Ozanj I'm not saying that people should be put off, or that disadvantaged kids don't have potential!
The point of Oxbridge is to get 'academic' people who have thought deeply about their subject. But this favours those who have had the time and space for intellectual exploration in the first place. It would be much, much easier if it was 'just' about the grades, like other universities.

If teenager A from an Indian family in the UK i s prepared to put in a lot of effort and teenager B from the mining villages near Sunderland where my parents' families were from does not, then in my view teenager A should win the prize. In a sense a life without working for exams and spending your weekends having a good time anyway may be the "prize" - there are plenty of ways to live a life and people might well not want to have anything to do with Oxbridge or universities or pursuing filthy lucre.

Hahaha 'filthy lucre' I like that!
Also the ethnicity rates are more or less in proportion to the make-up of the UK
https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2022_cycle.pdf

You could argue that actually white people are underrepresented and Black people are overrepresented in comparison to their UK population (82% vs 4%) but as those stats are for adults, not people in the university age group I wouldn't know what the true proportional representation is.

Most jobs that many aspire to don’t require an Oxbridge education. Those that don’t get in or don’t apply are not suddenly dim. What I’ve noticed in the earnings stakes is who wants it more? Stem makes decent money more readily available but everyone can teach with a humanities degree. They won’t be a doctor but they could join any big company as a trainee and do very well. Students from any background just have to see the degree as the doorway you step through on your way to a job. The rest is down to the student. That includes passing selection tests and interviews. Most of all the young person has to want the job and tick enough boxes to get a foot in the door.

Going to a uni where many are forging their cvs and planning career strategies is useful. I do wonder if some students see this as wrong though. That it’s something only the well connected do. Yet I know various students from ordinary backgrounds who have done this, but it takes courage to step into this world. Again, the student has to want it.

I notice from the Sutton Trust data that many of the higher ranked unis providing greater social mobility are in London. This is interesting me. Reading many threads, you would think no one existed in London and the SE who needed to be socially mobile! Clearly the London Unis are good at this. However northern areas under represented at Oxbridge don’t seem to get social mobility at their “home” unis much either. I’m wondering why? Obviously some exceptions but why would this be?

London unis don't just take London residents though.

Also, the mobility data relies heavily on the proportion of graduates earning top salaries - at the age of 30 - rather than those who merely did better than their parents. So jobs that pay big salaries to relatively inexperienced people. These tend to be concentrated in London. At least, from my skim read - see notes at the bottom of the graph.

Just becoming a teacher, as the child of cleaners isn't good enough. They're looking at the investment bankers, software engineers, quants, what have you.

I'm a software engineer in the North West and while I earnt well at the age of 30 it's nothing like London where grads can start out at 80K. That's tech lead salary over here. Remote working has improved this slightly, but it's a different world!

Of course, the upside is that my 'earnt well' was enough to buy a 4 bed house with a min wage partner, within 20 mins of Manchester city centre if I was so inclined. You'd need 2 six figure salaries in London for that, and even then, it would probably be a much longer commute depending on what you defined as the 'centre'.

I am lazy and left London ASAP, but many others chose to stay and reap the rewards.

@potaytopotahto33 I would be interested to know the stats on London based students at those London unis. Living in London puts many others off and I would suggest many of the unis listed do have many London and greater London students attending: I might be very wrong though.

I also think young people in London do see what a good job can buy you. Maybe that fuels aims and ambition? In London you need a very good salary to buy a property. You might well be better off in a northern area with a lower salary! Look how much further your money goes! £200,000 (2x 6 figure salary) does not get you much of a 4 bed house in London unless you have a hefty deposit and a very big mortgage!

My daughter left London because she couldn’t afford to live there.

Surely if 5% of UK children go to private school, then 95% of Cambridge students should come from state schools?

Well, first off, it isn't 5%

Ok it's around 5.9 % if you're going to be picky

I think it's about 7% of children at private schools. But when you look at students in sixth-form studying for A-Levels or IB, as opposed to BTECs and other vocational qualifications, it's about 14% at private school.

My figures could be out of date, though.

Do you mean Uk children studying IB overseas at international schools ?