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!

@NoNotHimTheOtherOne

If not then where the 14 %

Cambridge can only take students who actually apply there. Proprotionately more students apply from private schools, hence they make up more than 5% (or indeed 14%) of the student body.

Something like 15-16% at indie sixth forms.

In last year's A levels 47.4% of pupils in private schools achieved at least one A or A* grade, only 22% did so in secondary comprehensives, 25.4% in academies and just 14.2% in state further education institutions.

Typical Cambridge offer requires at least 1x A*

So you'd never expect 95% to be state educated given the entry requirements to start with.

Taking it a step further around 4.5% at Grammar School but Grammars account for just past 20% of Cambridge home undergrads.

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

More likely to be right though @TizerorFizz

From the Sutton Trust ranking and HESA domicile data; percentage from London, and then percentage from London plus adjoining regions (ie South East and East of England)

1. QMUL - 71% increasing to 88% with SE and East
2. Westminster - 74% increasing to 91%
3. City - 80% increasing to 93%
4. Greenwich - 70% increasing to 93%
5. South Bank - 76% increasing to 93%
6. Brunel- 73% increasing to 94%
7. St Georges - 58% increasing to 84%
8. East London - 67% increasing to 87%
9. London Met - 66% increasing to 82%
10. Kingston - 66% increasing to 89%

^^

I used to lecture at one of those London universities listed above. There’s a lot of value added so I would expect social mobility % to be high.
The private sector obtaining places at oxbridge etc is skewed (ie, doesn’t match the population) because as the stats point out large numbers of pupils do well at A level but that’s partly due to the majority of indie schools being selective. I think this is sometimes forgotten.
It’s good to see Cambridge having a re-think around their strategy as simply upping the quota of state school kids misses the mark. Like someone said up-thread; they’re still attracting the same kind of student. It’ll be interesting to see how they do approach this.

@NotDonna I think quite a few indie parents are also very bright and have high paying jobs. They have done well and might be indie educated themselves and not first time buyers.

@boys3 An educated guess that London universities would have a majority from London! Quite pleased to see I wax right! These students see the advantages of what London can bring without the expense of leaving home. From that list only QMU is RG. I see Imperial, LSE, UCL and Kings are absent. So thd top performing unis are more cosmopolitan and have fewer students gaining social mobility as a result.

I also wonder why the northern unis don’t inhabit the list as much as London? Is it more difficult to gain social mobility in the north? Possibly I think.

Isn't the Southeast much more densely populated, and something like 1 in 6 of 6th formers attend a private school? As long they don't drop their academic and intellectual standards.

As a child carer who delayed uni myself I disagree. Because child carers often do go to universities that have virtual or distance learning. One of my friends has MS and her son has just finished top of his class for an Ivy League online computer science and is about to start his first (fully remote) job for Meta. His girlfriend, also a carer, just finished her degree with the Open University and set up an online virtual receptionist business. Cambridge and Oxford could launch distance learning and try to improve access but they won’t.

https://www.centreforcities.org/publication/cities-outlook-2024/ provides some insight with regard to that gap @TizerorFizz

Though that report does not mention it it also come back to the stat you identified about % of grads in graduate jobs. Lincolnshire 42% from memory lowest, then Cumbria, and a London Borough at the very top. Ok Lincolnshire is Midlands as opposed to North but the general point above Greater South East (London, South-East and East) economic imbalance with the rest of the UK still stands.

In terms of London unis I did only look at the top 10 in the Sutton Trust social mobility table. Extend to Top 20 and Kings, Imperial and LSE all feature, and Top 25 will then include UCL.

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

No, I mean students studying IB in UK schools (mostly grammar schools, some private).

@boys3 So London unis overall provide high social mobility. As many people think London is already rich, that’s an eye opener for me. I would have thought other universities were ahead in this. It is difficult to know whether general attitude to learning and work makes a difference though, and not just availability of good jobs. Do students from other unis just not bother to go for the jobs? It’s difficult to know.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/10/oxbridge-must-help-pupils-from-state-schools-succeed-college-head-says

This confuses me slightly as the principal gives an example of those taking engineering and finding the maths difficult.can gain extra support. It sounds great in theory but thinking a little deeper how many engineering undergraduates at Oxford would struggle with maths at school or not have good A levels in maths? When sitting entry exams for Oxford will there be extra support for the mathematical sections given to those from state schools from deprived areas?

A lot of the rhetoric from Oxbridge can be well meaning with a fantastic vision but when scrutinised does leave questions. I think some of these pieces reported by the press feel like a PR excercise , great worthy statements but needing deeper analysis.

As well probably a it of state pupils at the college concerned are from grammars or outstanding comps with a wealthy catchment who inherently have the same background as private school kids and therefore won't necessarily need extra support.

Maybe it is right to focus on deprivation of multiple types as a metric of diversity and it will be interesting to what Cambridge come up with.

If they selected from the full range of ability then yes. But they don't. So you need to see the school backgrounds of the kids who are a) likely to get 3 x A+s, b) in the subjects needed, and c) who feel they would do well at Oxbridge. Suddenly it's a lot less than 95%

Also what is the 'maths coaching' needed. Is this simplicity suggesting that the private sector can deliver maths lessons better than public? If a student performs badly (relatively) at an Oxford engineering entrance exam because of some shortfall in maths does the admissions tutor limit their focus on the result because of school type?

Also it's a little insulting to implicitly suggest that state schools need the extra coaching in maths or essay writing because surely to get into Oxford you need to be reasonably good in these areas depending on course?

@titchy

I think there's the rub when it comes to proportionality when looking at state/private entrance. It is is more likely you will be in a position to get the entrance requirements of you went to a private school - it shouldn't be like that but is is......

More private schools are academically selective, even the less selective ask for higher grades than most state schools so I don’t think it’s totally surprising they are more represented. Oxford and Cambridge are also expensive places to live. Most of the targets etc are plying lip service, presumably Cambridge feel they need a review as they’re not achieving their goal. Whether that be to be inclusive or to get the best students I’m not sure. If they really want to be inclusive they need to look in much more detail than a postcode or school attended. They need to look at individual students circumstances in terms of caring, disabilities, time in the care system, families claiming benefits long term etc

It shouldn't be a race to the bottom in the private state ratio league. That's not a great way to frame a university entrance policy. There must be better ways to quantify inclusivity perhaps by looking at FSM, parental education, location etc.

The vast majority of the children who go from state schools to Cambridge are no different to the kind of children who go from private schools. They have at least one intelligent, motivated and involved parent who has given them an excellent upbringing. They live in a home where they are loved and supported, regardless of the cost of that home. Plus there are now a handful of state schools sending 70+ kids to Oxbridge every year. To say that those kids are disadvantaged (eg Hills Road sixth form college) is utterly ludicrous. And pushes out actually disadvantaged children.

They really ought to be targeting children who are actually disadvantaged. Private/state is hideously crude for the reasons above. There ought to be a better checklist for being disadvantaged. And it wouldn’t be difficult to construct.

@iwafs

I agree but if you look at real disadvantage indicators you will find really quite a small proportion in the Oxbridge uptake so will there be a mandate to increase entrance from socially deprived background and how will this be done?

I am absolutely for talented people from all backgrounds gaining entrance to Oxbridge but how much is to be gained by providing background data when it only result in a criticism of the universities of not being suitably socially diverse and there being no obvious solution apart from the contentious issue of positive discrimination?

if a 6th form in Blackpool has the brightest getting 3Bs at A level and you have the whole 6th form of a SE selective private school getting pretty much all A stars then is there any good argument for taking the Blackpool child in preference to the SE child? We therefore have a low proportion of students for that part of the NW but this is due to structural educational and social inequality issues rather than the university admissions policy.

Interesting.....

Eh? Neither of those are remotely on par with Oxford and Cambridge! Whose main advantages are college life and small group tutoring sessions - in short, lots of academic attention and campus life. Even for other top universities networking and socialising with similarly inclined peers is a big part of the value add. Yes, there are forums, etc but it's just not the same as in-person interaction.

The point of distance learning is the complete opposite - getting as many people degrees with as low cost, and hence as little teaching input, as possible.
The Open University - well it's clearly not a 'prestigious' university.
Ivy League - I doubt that there's an undergraduate CompSci degree even offered by distance learning. And if it is, not on par or as competitive as the on-campus equivalent. There are lots of Master's degrees. The only one that's not a moneymaking sham is the Georgia Tech MS, famously made affordable. But even that requires an undergraduate degree as a minimum, even it's not in Computer Science. And it has a limited choice of modules, compared to the on-campus equivalent.

There are plenty of options for 'a degree'. Just not at these two universities. Zero problems with that.

It's not just about 'getting in' though. It's also about course choices.
Despite all the hype, Cambridge is easy to get into if you pick the right course.
Only 3 have single digit admission rates. All Sciences.
https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2022_cycle.pdf
By contrast, the top 10 most competitive courses for LSE all have single digit admission rates.
https://www.admissionreport.com/london-school-of-economics

Of course, this might be skewed by the percentage of total courses on offer. E.g. if Cambridge offered 30 courses, but only 3 are that competitive that's 10%. If LSE offered 100 courses and 10 are single digit well, that's the same proportion.

However, which courses are students from a low-income background interested in?
https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/What-Degrees-Are-Best-for-Social-Mobility.pdf
Usually it's courses that lead to high earnings - law, economics, computer science. And they're competitive!

So if more 'deprived' students are applying for these, they're probably going to fail against more well-prepared and qualified applicants. Compared to those other humanities subjects. Some do need the relevant background (like Music). Others, anybody interested in and with good History grades would be able to do, but if they didn't have the headspace to read more widely they'd fail at interview. This is what the foundation year is designed to correct, but it'll always be for a small cohort of students.

@potaytopotahto33

it's an interesting point about students from deprived areas choosing the most competitive courses with presumably the greater chances of good renumeration. I don't know quite what the universities could do to challenge this; if they increase the number of STEM places reduce the number of humanities places would Oxbridge be open to this?

as for the foundation year you require 120 UCAS points (3Bs) and while it seems fantastic in principle I think it puts a lot of pressure on admissions staff to identify those disadvantaged children who achieve around 3Bs and could with a year's intensive support thrive with the rigour of an Oxbridge degree course. I presume an applicant would have to shine at interview for the course but given the foundation course is aimed at disadvantaged students could it be their interview performance may have holes in it and it becomes a particular skill to identify the 3B candidate with potential or simply a candidate whose academic ability is really at a 3B standard?

I guess in reality as you say the numbers are always going to be low and I don't think this turns the dial much. I would think the private sectors and others may be a little reluctant to see their students with a raft of a stars being rejected with the knowledge that the universities are accepting 3B candidates albeit through a foundation course as to some of May smack of social engineering.

But this is already happening at most other good universities. Eg Birmingham medicine AstarAA and contextual ABB

@Revengeofthepangolins

I suppose if medicine is heavily oversubscribed the argument still holds that you may be rejecting your all a star candidates for those with lower grades but contextualised ones.

to my mind contextualisation to some extent covers up shortcoming s in our educational system and is kind of an admission that teaching/environment is so bad in some schools that even bright children won't get near a slate of A stars and As at A level. It also takes into account perhaps a home environment not conducive to study.

you could argue to an extent contextualisation gives a slight advantage to bright pupils I poor schools as they benefit from being in a poor cohort at school or at least one that traditionally isn't high acheiving.

playing devil's advocate aren't you setting a slightly higher bar for middle class children and aren't middle class.parents possibly going to query this especially when their children are rejecfed?.I don't think this is a direct view but I can see how it might arise.

I suppose this feeds on to the original question of why bother with private education If the possibly better exam results as a result aren't going to fully recognised or going to a poorer state school may offer an advance or at least less disadvanatge.

@mids2019 You make the assumption that people choose private purely for exam results and an eye on Oxbridge. They don’t. It’s a tiny minority that eye up Oxbridge and mainly because they have been there themselves. This holds true on the state sector too. I’ve not found anyone desperate for Oxbridge at the schools we have used and more went from the grammars. What private parents wanted was far more nuanced and value for money is measured differently. For some dc, their families wouldn’t know what a state school was. For others, private is a haven from state. The numbers targeting Oxbridge isn’t as huge in private schools as is made out!