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!

But moving on, there is certainly a need to reorientate the widening access strategy towards other indicators. DD and friends were eligible for various schemes purely because her school and this area send very few people to Oxbridge. No other criteria: she's third generation uni, both sides, and we're in all other respects a conventional middle class household. As others have said it's entrenched inequality that needs tackling, but meanwhile a comprehensive outreach programme to reach those with the ability who have the biggest barriers, to show them the full range of what they could do and gain, so they apply in the first place. A major PR exercise in fact.

I’ve found dc apply for what they are interested in and good at. No one should apply based on admission stats! Schools are poor in some cases regarding subject advice for competitive courses and they are all competitive at Oxbridge.

Im not sure awards and medals feature in humanities. Who really cares anyway? These maths boffins will probably research and teach. There is a massive world beyond academia that requires people with varied skills. Thank God for non stem grads! @ecoeva I agree that the highest grades are more difficult to achieve in some subjects and MFL for non native speakers is made even more difficult.

The SE really does have deprived areas. We can see this from stats and if those dc can get to Oxbridge in bigger numbers, why not? Do we have divisions in deprivation now? Only the north dc are truly deprived? State education is better in London. Other schools need to catch up. They possibly don’t bother because they don’t believe in Oxbridge and neither do their pupils.

From attainment data I have seen, we know PP DC struggle to do well even with intervention because often the intervention isn’t good enough. Of course the dc of highly educated parents getting fsm snd pp will do well but there are not legions of them. Plus they have the massive advantage of parents knowing the system. They might have fsm but are not really 100% deprived. Fsm is a very crude measure and should be avoided unless used with other data.

Given how low the income threshold seems to be for FSM, I find it hard to picture a scenario where it wouldn't be a valid index of deprivation. Agreed not the only one

@Stripedquilt those targets are very real and they are being carried out by all universities in uk! they have actually put private school pupils at a great disadvantage now and even if they have better qualifications they are less likely to be accepted over a state school pupil!

But it's not about the offer grade. It's about the competition. The whole idea of 'admission targets' is that people are put off applying in the first place. Obviously, you can apply with C, D, D if you want. Nobody's stopping you, it's just a waste of time.
So if you presume that everyone applying already has top grades, then the ones where you are competing with less people, at the same level as you, are easier.

Also, STEM subjects have additional entrance exams, and you can see from below grade distribution they're not all easier to get top grades in
https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2023/08/a-level-and-other-level-3-results-2023-the-main-trends-in-grades-and-entries/

I have assumed that number of A's is a proxy to number of As also. I have been unable to find data for the latter. I'm sure there's also data to back up your statement, about 3 As being needed instead of just A's as published. But you have to bear in mind that humanities applicants might not necessarily take all humanities either.

Sadly university is now a game. It's no longer about people pursuing a passion. it's about the £££.

FWIW, I get that humanities subjects are supposedly more difficult to get a top mark in due to subjectivity, but that's what made it so easy for me! If I couldn't get the first step of a maths question I'd be stuck. Not for an essay subject. I had all the ideas/evidence and could make multiple different arguments. And as long as you exhibited the ability to think in several different directions + evidence it, the marks were yours. I got A*s in all my humanities A-Levels and a first in all my humanities modules at university.

I loved English Literature and read everything I could get my hands on although I was raised by illiterate grandparents. I would have enjoyed Cambridge, I think, I'd have talked the interviewers ears off (I know you can only apply for one so I'd pick that!) . But I wasn't from the UK and scholarship opportunities for such a subject were limited. I managed to go to a different university however, and my experience isn't relevant here.

Anyway, the crux is, those who have ability should be encouraged and supported to attend. But the setting of shallow targets isn't the right way to go about it.

So I didn’t go to private school and I’m a foster kid, so no family connections. I went to London Guildhall for my undergrad. I worked three jobs to pay for my fees and my living on my own. Because of that, my final year, I applied and won a scholarship. I got it not because of my degree or grades but because of my work experience. I had one office job, one barista job and one unpaid internship in my field. I won another scholarship for my postgrad. Then when I finished and worked for a few years, I applied to Cambridge for their masters programme and got in. I had two scholarships to go but didn’t want the student debt and declined and decided to work. I still live in London, as I love it here. I make £100k a year working part time, so I can take care of my son. I send my son to a private Montessori school in London, but not because I really care about grades. It’s mainly because I want him to learn in a positive atmosphere and also bot have any bullying. I was bullied at secondary and wouldn’t want my son to go through what I went through. I had one friend commit suicide because of bullying at the age of 16. I also had friends quit what they felt most passionate about for being made fun of, so for me it was a no brainer (but this is because my Borough has some pretty rough schools.

If I couldn't get the first step of a maths question I'd be stuck. Not for an essay subject. I had all the ideas/evidence and could make multiple different arguments.

@potaytopotahto33 Same! This really highlights the strengths of both ways of thinking. We need both chalk and cheese. Yes, targets are a crude measure but sadly the world likes stats simplified without the accompanying qualitative assessment. Nobody makes room for nuance and the long term.

Also, STEM subjects have additional entrance exams

So do many other subjects. Personally I went to Oxford for a STEM subject so no axe to grind, but it isn't true that Humanities don't require extra exams.

In the vast majority of cases, a student who enjoys maths and sciences, isn't likely to decide to apply for Classics or MFL. For a start, they're unlikely to have the right A-levels to even apply. Also, Music might appear to have a good admission rate but realistically, I'm not sure you can 'tactically' switch to music at 15 / 16/ 17. The music students I've met at Cambridge are quite exceptional and they live and breathe music. It's way beyond anything at A-level. They are beyond diploma level in many instruments; they have their own developed styles and and have been composing and performing for years, as far as I can see.

I could see how someone might tactically apply for History because it's less competitive than HSPS. But, by A-levels, most students are already on a STEM or humanities track due to their subject options.

Again, Music is one of the subjects that I specifically mentioned 'not anybody' can apply for.
I think I've covered all of your points in my previous posts. But as there's no 'see all' button for mine, unlike the OP's, it would be silly to expect you to read them all anyway.

@Revengeofthepangolins Fsm like many benefits can be manipulated. It’s based on one household income. However that doesn’t mean it’s the only money available to the dc from a much better off parent or grandparents living elsewhere.

However I have yet to see huge numbers of Oxbridge type dc from most fsm families though. At our grammars, fsm DC can get in with a lower pass mark. There’s still not many in the grammars with fsm. So therefore few likely to get into Oxbridge. If parents are in low paying jobs with lowly qualifications themselves, are many such people going to have dc who will aim for Oxbridge and apply successfully? As these dc get targeted pp money because we know they are needing to bridge a learning gap, are they suddenly Oxbridge contenders? It’s a crude measure of need in many ways.

Where I was a governor (primary) the forces PP children had fairly high ranking officer parents and some of these dc were doing very well but had highly educated well paid parent(s). It will be interesting to see if this measure of deprivation is used.

@potaytopotahto33 You have continued to think humanities are easier than stem. I think the great push for stem means more dc are finding this is a good route for them and many immigrant parents favour these subjects too. Background and aptitude matter though. So many dc have aptitudes which mirror their parents. Many Oxbridge students will have all high grades at GCSE but have to choose A levels which appeal most. These Chou ex then steer to a degree and for most, the pathway is then clear.

I don’t necessarily think passion is what it’s all about. At interview it’s more about engaging with the tutors and thinking on your feet. Just going on about your “passion” for something isn’t what they want. Agree with others, many subjects have pre tests. Back in the day, DD had a reading and comprehension test on the interview day that was then part of the interview. Preparing for that with passion alone is difficult.

Thank heavens for that-it's about time someone thought about the needs of private school pupils!

Incidentally, tactical subject choice is something science candidates can do too - eg go for natural sciences rather than maths or computer science or medicine. Or at Oxford, materials science is considerably less competitive than physics or engineering.

I would say that the very fact that competitiveness of subjects varies so much indicates that most applicants do not do this, but in the main apply for what they actually want to study!

FSM is based on household income which must be less than £14,000 a year. I've never met anyone who has some secret stash of rich grandparents!
And Oxbridge do not lower the offer for contextual, but do use their flags when looking at interviews. I mean why wouldn't you ? Is an A* the same if attained in a lovely leafy environment with lots of lovely food and warmth or on the 13th floor of a tower block, sharing a bedroom with siblings, the lifts don't work and you can't afford heating and food so make a choice.

Thankfully this headline is a bit misleading. Cambs will still look at contextual stuff and offer accordingly. State school students are not all the same.

So is there no hope for a child from a non-selectve state school who plays one instrument at the required, but not higher level, who composes for fun, but hasn't got a style and who really wants to do an academic music course because they are fascinated by the technicalities of music and are likely to get the one A star but not more?

Mother2375, interesting and it sounds like you are giving your son a good start at the Montessori school. I didn't try Oxbridge either (no one had ever been there from my school in the NE of England- and that was a private school) but it hasn't mattered to my legal career that I didn't go. In a sense going somewhere where I was better than others probably helped me. Got best A levels in the school (not a very academic school and most girls didn't go to university). Best in my first year in Law and won academic prize then and later.

However on the topic of who to help (if we help anyone) with Oxbridge and contextual consideration, I do think FSM is a fairly good indicator. There will be plenty of divorcing fathers who choose to plunge a wife into poverty despite the man having a lot of money so some do game the system and I suppose some schools want FSM people as that means more school funding but on the whole you have to be pretty badly off. I think an accountancy firm's test for contextual consideration of what did the main wage earner do in your home when you are 14 is quite a good one. In my case my father was an NHS consultant/doctor and I am certainly middle class and on no basis deprived.

WarraK - I can only go in friends of DC who I've met over the years who study music (DC does not). I don't know what kind of schools they came from but they aren't people with 'only' an A star at A level music and a grade 8 in an instrument, no. Most of the choral scholars, for instance, or students who frequently perform in recitals etc don't even study music. One of mine had grade 8 in an instrument and 8 at singing and was a choral scholar, but was nowhere near the talent / scope of friends who take music as a degree. It seems there are loads of exceptional pianists / other musicians / singers etc there, but then you find out they study Maths or whatever.

Having said that, they obviously contextualise everything and many musicians are largely self- taught / motivated anyway.

@potaytopotahto33 - I understand what you're saying and you raise interesting points. I wasn't trying to contradict you, just chatting and thinking out loud really as I'll have another one going through the process soon.

Music is woefully underfunded so the majority of young people studying it at high level are from affluent families.
(I have a child at conservatoire, a husband who teaches at a conservatoire & am actively involved in fundraising to provide instrumental tuition & opportunities for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds)

That’s a shame. Are there still plenty of musicians from non affluent families playing brass instruments from the north of England?

Best of luck to them - hope they get in!

@TizerorFizz What on earth do you mean by 'going on about their passion' ? Unless you repeat the sentence 'I am passionate about X' over and over again I don't see how someone could do that 😆 Even ChatGPT would fall over with that one.

What Oxbridge wants is people who have explored their subject more deeply because they're passionate. Not because someone else has told them to do that, as part of 'prep'. The kid applying for English Literature who's read the heavy stuff widely of their own accord, for example. In 2024 it's so much more accessible, anybody with an internet connection can find a wealth of stuff online. Even entire textbooks can be downloaded for free.

No more kids in deprived families/rural areas can't access books because they can't get to a library. Of course I'm aware some families don't have internet, but if schools do, and allow access / programs to provide people with low broadband then they can read all this stuff when they want.

As my DD did an interview at Oxford it wasn’t what they wanted. The interview was structured. You didn’t get to bring up your in depth exploration of the subject. Plus she didn’t have it because she was not a native speaker or someone who had time in the target language countries. She had seen a few films and read a bit but not that much in 2 MFLs. She had done 2 school trips to each country. I think what she could do was use her knowledge of literature and history when talking about the translation they set. Plus she was good enough at the grammar tests and presumably her essay sent in was ok too. She didn’t have an obvious passion or loads of extras on her ps. However she was offered a place because her tests and interview met their requirements.

I don’t see how anyone can waffle on about what they are passionate about at the interview. It appeared to be structured to their needs. Thinking on your feet was necessary. She’s now a barrister so clearly a skill that she had at 17. Still not passionate about MFL but passionate about her job.

Links to a couple of podcasts by Ben Horowitz & Marc Andreessen (Silicon valley hedge funders.)

It’s from a US point of view, but there are many commonalities. And with the US further down the path on many issues, some cautionary tales too.

These guys are proper “tech bros”, and they are sometimes surprisingly naive, but at the same time time s fresh perspective from intelligent people beholden to no one is fascinating.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711?i=1000641613067

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711?i=1000644600293

Both were long, but interesting. They powered me through some drudgerous diy.

Worth a listen if you are concerned with tuition costs, fair access, or the changing place of universities in 21st century society.