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!

@TizerorFizz

good point.

I guess there will be a sub set of privately educated bright children whose parents do have a at least a partial eye on elite university entry.

if there wasn't at least some desire from those that have their children privately educated to aim for Oxbridge then there wouldn't be as much interest in state/private ratios.

I think for a very selective private school I do think Oxbridge statistics matter and in reality those statistics are part of the way a school is sold to prospective parents.

On the earlier point about the North, I moved to London for work before the 1990s - in the 1990s London's population dropped by the way so it is an up and down picture. I presume just as some of my ancestors moved to the area of the Durham coal fields in the 1800s because there was money and things were booming so some of our family have left there on exactly the same basis. Also by the time you look at sixth form in the SE as someone else said above a lot go to private school anyway - I think it may be 20% and it is not too far off the numbers who get into Oxbridge so I am quite happy about the system.

I can see why Oxbridge might want to move away from a private/state division to private and state privileged children to free school meals type children in terms of contextualisation.

@mids2019 I was also confused by that article. Entry to Oxbridge for STEM is usually by assessment tests and interview and in the case of Maths, STEP exam after A levels, so A levels are just a small factor. Indeed for maths you could get weaker/fail A level results and high STEP and Cambridge is more likely to admit you. Therefore applicants should be able to perform well once in Oxbridge - unless that article implies academic standards are lowered?

There is a lots of help for state students to pass the Oxbridge specific tests...usually only open to State and not private students.

In some situations this is madness. A child getting into a state grammar in Bucks is likely to have had help with tutoring and excellent teaching plus their school has vast experience of Oxbridge due to the 30plus places a year. Conversely you could have a non selective private school applicant in the North, on a scholarship - where they are the only applicant and the student has zero access to any Oxbridge resources.

Surely Oxbridge can determine academic ability/potential through their application processes? If not perhaps that needs to change

@Pleasealexa

I agree private/state ratio s are a crude method of determining disadvantage or inclusivity. Perhaps this is why they are being dropped. The figures don't seem to articulate what the universities purportedly want i..e. more children from disadvantaged regions or backgrounds.

The head of the college seems to be very glib when mentioning support for state pupils I agree (possibly it sounds good for the press). Should you really be admitting engineering students that struggle with maths? Should you possibly get in if you find it difficult to structure an essay? I don't know but I think superficially it could be taken as positive discrimination in that Oxford are so wishing to attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds that they are willing to lay on extra support for them even if they struggling in areas where you think it would be key to success. Possibly being elitist then such a pitch might work for De Montfort or Northampton but this is Oxford?

I suppose Oxbridge will always say that the academic standards aren't compromised but then in terms of inclusivity suggest a raft of support meaures? I think sometimes this is a difficult circle to square.

I think they need to find a way of providing a foundation year for STEMM subjects (natural sciences and maths tripos) as well as humanities.
There is a big step up from A level to first year Oxbridge and the work is incredibly fast paced and intensive. Kids who aren't already working above A level standard just won't keep up and drop out. Independent schools are able to push kids on further than state schools. Even if the state school pupils get excellent A level results it may stil not be enough. Many years ago (my parents generation) grammar schools would keep Oxbridge applicants on for another term to do more prep but that died out a long time ago.

@ChiaraRimini

Isn't that an indictment on A levels though and the A level curriculum isn't fit for purpose for at least some courses?

If it is the case that A levels aren't a good preparation for some Oxbridge courses shouldn't it be up to schools to put in the extra work to prepare them?

I suppose that there isn't a clear state/private divide in this as I presume grammar schools may in a reasonable chance for adequate preparation

The idea with foundation is I guess that you can enter Cambridge with 120 UCAS points and it is hoped the extra year compensates for what hasn't been learnt at A level to an adequate standard due to a variety of circumstances. It seems like foundation as an idea at Oxbridge is finding the diamonds in the rough of average BBB students throughout deprived areas in the country.

I think the challenge here is to ensure BBB doesn't entirely reflect academic ability but there is something else unique about the candidate that comes out in an assesment process.

@mids2019 Im really not sure BBB candidates for stem at Oxbridge are likely to be great candidates. A few but it really would be a few.

@Pleasealexa Which Bucks grammars get 30 plus dc to Oxbridge on a regular basis? It’s well known grammars have benefitted from state vs private but 30 plus is very high.

The other side of this is that there’s plenty of bright DC in other universities. No one is a back number because they didn’t get into Oxbridge. It’s over rated in many ways at the increasingly wide margins. I do think they manage to select the super bright. They also selected DD and she isn’t super bright. Nor are some others we know who were selected.

@TizerorFizz

The BBB came from the 120 UCAS points needed for the foundation course at Cambridge. Theory being I guess that although your A levels aren't too notch a years foundation will bring you up to speed. I don't know if the idea works but do you have to extend this idea if you want meaningful numbers from disadvantaged groups at Oxbridge.

ThursdayTomorrow · 13/03/2024 22:10
Surely if 5% of UK children go to private school, then 95% of Cambridge students should come from state schools?

There are no checks on the education of the overseas students. Given that their fees are much higher then presumably their parents aren’t disadvantaged.
Do you think that’s fair?

@mids2019 Yes I see that but C are then basically saying dc will vastly improve in a university setting. It’s difficult to know how you would judge who could benefit.What barriers to learning are being removed and how do you judge what impact they had to reduce A levels to BBB. What about GCSEs? They are usually looked at plus surely entry tests? I would imagine a lot of info would be needed.

The other route is to accept a lower uni and do a masters at an elite one.

The only person I know who did a foundation year was for Vet Science at Nottingham. Dc had top grades but not in the right subjects. Forget which one was missing but they didn’t have BBB.

The 'foundation year' being referred to is specifically for disadvantaged DC.
https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/foundation-year

Yes I know that. You have to somehow judge how much disadvantage has stopped someone learning and whether BBB is what they would have got at a top school if they had gone to one. It’s how you make that judgement that’s interesting. Some dc really are not going to improve that much or suit the faster pace at Cambridge. I think the very bright would have got the grades anyway or maybe just dropped off in one subject. All subjects with dropped grades seems too generous to me.

30 years ago, the proportion of students carrying on to A-levels was much smaller. The proportion getting top grades, smaller still.
Nowadays so many are getting strings of A's. Loads of help, past papers etc all freely available online.

Even if, say only 50% of those are Oxbridge material that's still a huge number. Some other way to cut down has to be found hence interviews, which test 'true passion' in the form of deeper subject exploration and wider reading for the humanities. Other entrance exams for the sciences.

It's a zero-sum game so pushing some people up is going to lead to others losing out - in a competitive subject anyway

I’ve often wondered if I was deprived. Sub standard housing with no heating in bedrooms - was that deprived? Neither parents went to university. Our house was privately rented with no bathroom and outside loo. Siblings went to uni but I wanted to work and earn money. I did best financially because I was driven to earn well. One of my siblings got AAA in 1982. Our dad had died 3 years earlier. So if you want it enough, you can do well.

Well, this relates to what you said about the 'very bright'. Not to repeat myself but, as you rightly pointed out, one does not have to be 'very bright' to get into Oxbridge.
For the humanities, many people posses the depth of thought, processing speed and linguistic skills to succeed at Oxbridge. Couple that with 'unpopular' subjects and it becomes easy to get in. I'm not sure what your 'not bright' daughter did but I'm guessing it wasn't STEM, or a competitive non-STEM subject like Law? Maybe MFL, which is limited by the number of people able to take MFL A-Levels anyway?

These are the subjects the Foundation Year is targeting. It makes the admission stats better as well to boost the competition for courses that have an acceptance rate of over 20%. If you're good at, say History there's no reason why you can't pivot into Asian studies or History of Art, they're variations on the same theme.

This won't work for the truly difficult and competitive courses like Mathematics. Or those with pre-reqs like Music.

You are right in that those who have the drive, will want it, and not need this to get in. But that doesn't look good for the 'diversity' stats, does it?

MFL A levels are still available but schools and parents have decided MFLs are too difficult. The fact dc don’t want to bother with them and prefer psychology and other growth subjects is another matter. Look at the Cambridge guide to A levels. MFLs are first academic division. Many favoured subjects are not. Often subjects taken by disadvantaged DC because they are not advised what to do and what not to do.

All dc can have a go at non stem however stem is competitive because people believe it leads to a better job and people are lemmings. Schools don’t care a fig about MFLs mostly so why then complain others get in? Therefore schools don’t advise adequately and don’t look at what dc could do. As for any subject being easy entry? ! Really? Since when? If MFL was easy more DC would do it, surely?

Not sure if this is what you were intending @potaytopotahto33 but I am fed up with the assumption that humanities subjects are easy, and the concurrent devaluation of the achievement of a place and degree in these from Oxbridge. They may be less competitive to get a place but are nonetheless challenging to get in and thrive: a majority are still rejected. Many people possess the logical reasoning and analytical skills to do well in STEM subjects, but don't find them interesting. It doesn't make them less intelligent. Some people find STEM easy but find languages and essays 'truly difficult'. The arts and cultural sectors are in crisis and fundamental to society. The us and them wars over whose subject is better, pure academic snobbery, is in nobody's interests.

No, I don't think the humanities are easy. After all, my own degree was somewhat of a joint honours in both humanities and STEM.

But we're talking about the chances of admission here, in relation to pupil diversity. Assumptions of lower intelligence, devaluation etc etc are all things you have brought into the discussion. It is irrelevant. As you very well know, at its highest levels, science is art. And vice versa. Remember that philosophy is the root of all logic and scientific reasoning.

But back to facts. More competitive courses are harder to get into. Fact. So, if one merely wanted to 'go to Oxbridge', the easiest way in would be to choose a less competitive course. You can be angry, accuse me of academic snobbery or whatever, but that's a fact. And, for these universities, they are also the ones with a lower proportion of international students applying, so less scope to lose their - what is it now - triple the fee of a home student.

Schools also know this, which is why Oxbridge candidates are pre-selected and prepped not just on entrance requirements, but subject choice.

Also, the ability range of humanities and STEM is also different, in my humble opinion. For a STEM subject, the divide between the excellent and truly gifted is much, much more pronounced. I am excellent, enough to have completed graduate level maths courses. But I will never be a Ramanujan or Fields medallist.

There is no such difference in the humanities. You either have the flow, or you don't. And if you do, you're all similarly gifted, and extremely capable of applying your ability to diverse and esoteric areas of research, whether it be Asian Studies or Anthropology. Bear in mind that these are academic institutions, not college of performing arts, creative studies or whatever so we are concentrating solely on academic, rather than 'creative' ability, although they're linked.

For STEM, if Oxbridge wants to take the true geniuses, they have a much smaller pool to choose from. I doubt that a load will be even concentrated in one place anyway. But for the humanities, its much larger. The difference here becomes the wider reading and knowledge beyond the syllabus - those in the know start prepping students in their area of interest early on.

Also @TenSheds why is this relevant? Not because we are pitting one against the other. But because of the assumption that more 'diverse' pupils in Oxbridge is a worthy aim.
If more students from lower SE backgrounds go for the competitive subjects, for which many able people get rejected anyway. Compared to more well-off pupils choosing the other subjects.

Then the question really becomes about pushing people away from some subjects, towards others. Just for the 'Oxbridge' degree.

The piece I read said they had identified that state school targets are now far exceeded from when they were established and the widening participation goals needed to be changed because some groups from within state schools are over represented, especially London and SE. Targeting under represented groups makes more sense now than just state schools

potaytopotahto33 - it's simply not true that STEM is always more competitive than many humanties subjects though.

Cambridge admissions stats show that offer rates for Nat Sci are approx 1 in 5. This is the same as say, Geography. Maths is also about 1 in 5/6.

HSPS is more like 1 in 10. This is more competitive than Medicine in terms of number of applications to offers.

The most competitive subjects are CS and PBS (Psychology).

History and English are about 1 in 4, so not that different to Nat Sci.

Yes, MML, Anglo Saxon and Norse and also Classics have higher offer rates (around 40%). As does Music, but then the ones who apply for music in the first place are quite unusual.

But I didn't say that. I said 'most' . If you look at my earlier posts I mention Law and Economics.
And all this is in relation to subjects that students from a lower socio-economic background are inclined to apply for, for their perceived (whether true or otherwise) higher earning potential/accessibility, and relevant A-levels. Vs those in the know applying for something 'easier' to get into for the Oxbridge name.
It's not a bunfight about arts vs stem.

I would worry that it will make state students be labelled as stupid by private school peers whereas they may have actually got the full grades.

Lots of uk private schools offer IB as well as a-levels.

It is 'easier,' in terms of the admissions stats alone, to get in to Oxbridge for say, History than CS. However, STEM and Economics (subjects perceived as leading to high-paying careers) require Maths and FM at A-level. It is statistically 'easier' to gain an A star in Maths than in other subjects - ie. 17% of Maths A-level grades are A star and almost 30% of FM. Compare that to something like History and many other humanities A-level subjects where only 5% of grades awarded are A star.

This is why many STEM offers require 2 A stars, but humanities only one A star. It is built-in recognition that A-level A stars are much more frequent / achievable in Maths.

So 'those in the know' who advise applying for say History over STEM, due to preferable admission stats, are more likely to find the students fall short of the grades. Because although it states the minimum grades for applying for Humanities subjects are A star, A, A, realistically, the vast majority who actually get in will have three A stars in humanities subjects which (statistically) are harder to achieve the top grade in due to more subjective marking.

Thank you @ecoeva , you have expressed that much more clearly than I could have done.
@potaytopotahto33 you just touched a nerve. I do agree that genius is easier to measure in STEM and that the filter must necessarily be higher because of the greater volume of applications. It was 'truly difficult' that bugged me. The idea that people try to game the system makes me angry on behalf of the majority who are in fact pursuing a passion.