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!

That's referred to as misinformation. Check Westminster, St. Paul's, and other public schools. I understand that the class size for most common subjects is larger than 20.

@DEI2025 for A levels ??? I'm a teacher and my friends who work at those schools only have 8 in their year 13 classes ? Why bother paying if class sizes are so big.

182 students at St Paul's took maths and there are 9 sets. You can calculate the average size of each set ( class). If you refer to some subjects like music, even in grammar school, the class size is small as only around 250 took music A level last year.

@DEI2025 wow. May as well go to the local comp then. Thought the big appeal of spending all that money was small classes. Although out A level maths have 29 in them.

I actually don't ever assume those who went to Oxbridge become high earners. The three I know who went there certainly aren't earning over £60k but do jobs they see as vocations. I actually think a bright kid with family issues may be more tempted to go somewhere with better work placement options to begin earning and ensure a job. Oxbridge is for kids who want to research new ideas and change the status quo (in my mind anyway) and those who come from money already have the lifestyle to enable this. Possibly not true for subjects such as Law or Accountancy where they may find little change possible but prestige important.

I think the point of Cambridge re-looking at this is that so many Grammars do the same, many with smaller class sizes than some privates, while the kids also get lavish holidays, expensive cars and big houses because their parents have them in "state" education. They come out with worse marks than pupils of private schools and get preferential treatment.

Many individuals may not realise that for the top selective public or grammar schools, support often stems from peer classmates rather than the teachers. As a teacher yourself, I wonder if you've encountered the experience where some highly capable students possess a superior understanding and problem-solving technique compared to the teachers themselves. This is precisely why I sent my children to such schools—not solely for the smaller class sizes.

@DEI2025 yup. Even in my run down comp we have students who are a different kind of clever. We send lots to Oxbridge as it's cheap !

Most students who go to Oxbridge have A level grades that exceed AAA. This leaves plenty of wiggle room for Oxford to drop its normal level for certain applicants and still claim to be maintaining standards.

@EmpressoftheMundane but they don't. All students need AAA or above. They don't lower any offers. They just use contextual to select for interview.

Going down to three As leaves a huge window. Most students don’t have a mere three As. It’s a bit of a game.

Yup. Most of my students also have jobs to earn money to eat. Some have several. So yes, not just a mere 3 A levels at AAA or above.

@EmpressoftheMundane

It may be the three A A levels is typical of the best children at a lower than average comp so maybe it is realistic if contextualisation is applied.

The Cambridge foundation course requires 120 UCAS points (3 Bs) though this obviously adds a year to study and currently takes in low numbers and you have to fulfil deprivation criteria.

I think therefore if Oxbridge are going to take more deprived pupils as opposed to state pupils then they have to make offers to candidates with slightly less than brilliant A levels for significant numbers to enter.

It's the applicants from the private sector and from less deprived schools and backgrounds with 4A star plus that if rejected will obviously feel a little chagrined.

I

How often do I have to repeat this. They don't make contextual offers. Everyone has to get the grades. The only difference is that students who have had a tough start in life get a bit of extra consideration for interview selection. Not ALL state school students.

It's like giving a bit of an advantage because daddy knows the Chairman.

This isn’t about whether it’s fair or justified to have different requirements for different groups. It’s about establishing the fact that it is happening.

Not long ago everyone was insisting that there were no targets for state school admissions. It’s now obvious that there were.

It's not state vs private. It's privilege vs deprivation.

To try and level that v v uneven playing field of opportunity.

In your mind, private = privilege and state = deprivation !?

Biases and marking were probably not the best words; ‘unreliable’ and ‘method’ would be more apt. There’s quite a bit of research (that I now can’t find) that shows how unreliable A level results are and don’t necessary show the persons abilities. There’s been lots of threads about this; especially during covid years. A B grade student could get an A on a good day and C on a not so great day; for various reasons. Marking is not infallible either. The poster I was replying to was suggesting there’s a lot of difference between an Astar result and an A. I dispute this. It could be 1%; a fraction of a mark. If that student missed the grade by 1% but comes from a very difficult background… I don’t know how to put this, but oxbridge looking at how they can encourage students from difficult backgrounds is no bad thing.

https://cpag.org.uk/news/official-child-poverty-statistics-350000-more-children-poverty-and-numbers-will-rise#:~:text=350%2C000%20more%20children%20were%20pulled%20into%20relative%20poverty%20(after%20housing,youngest%20child%20aged%20under%20five

Often on these threads people argue that there should be the same percentage of state school children at Oxbridge as in the general population.

If we extend that idea to deprivation then 29 % of Oxbridge entrants should be from deprived backgrounds according to the stars below

It would take a hell of a change of the Oxbridge demographic to achieve anywhere like this ratio simply because it is so much more unlikely those from deprived backgrounds will achieve the necessary grades

If say 5% of those that achieve As at A levels are from deprived backgrounds we either have to accept low acceptance rates for Oxbridge (and the he universities are criticised for apparent 'bias') or to achieve proportionality you lower grade criteria.

Neither result seems playable and I think you could argue it is not up to elite universities to compensate for failures of education and society at large.

It may be easier to not publish admission statistics by background and just have a policy of welcoming and encouraging all who have the ability to come forward

Some very sweeping generalisations there. Super selective grammars come out with results in line with very top private schools with a fraction of the funding. Many less selective private schools have quite underwhelming A-level results, far below many grammars.

Do you really believe that lavish holidays, expensive cars and big houses are exclusive to state school families?

@ForlornLindtBear Theres a cross over where I live. Many parents would go private if dc didn’t get into the Bucks grammars. Parents do go private when dc don’t get into the grammars. Many grammar parents can obviously spend money on cars and holidays and houses because they are not paying fees.

@mumsneedwine You don’t understand why people choose private schools. Many don’t remotely think about Oxbridge.At a few they might! We didn’t. I think I knew two people who had been in my adult life at that point. Both were teachers and one was the most boring person I had ever met. I was actuality taught maths by two Oxford maths grads now I come to think of it. I failed maths O level twice. Oxbridge wasn’t on our radar. Like many other people it wasn’t about exam results to gain advantage. DD1 got 140/141 in the Bucks test. I expect she would have been fine at a grammar. Her personality was developing in a different way though. She wanted to board. She wanted lots of drama, music, friendships at school, the chance to try new things, and a sense of belonging at school, weekend trips with friends and fun. It suited her and we don’t regret it. Getting more than the grammar kids in terms of results didn’t come into it. Many of the grammar dc did very well and that’s fine. We aren’t much different to many of them. DD was happy and she found the right place for her because she got a lot out of school in addition to academics.

@TizerorFizz and many private school parents spend money on school fees as well as on expensive cars, holidays and houses. I was asking the PP because I'm not sure why this would be relevant to the topic of this thread.

Kent Grammars (not super selective) where I live are on a par with lower scoring private schools. Last year the boys Grammar school had 5 FSM in a year of 140 at GCSE. There are more bursaries and scholarships in most years of private schools than this - so arguing that kids at Grammar are somehow the same disadvantaged group as comps doesn't make sense.

In some cases a year cohort at Grammar may have higher earning parents than those at the local private. Here they certainly have more pools and Porches than the private school parents I've met!

Oh and I think they only had 1 SEN child too. It's more selective academically, more of a bubble socially and less diverse than private - not sure how that makes for a better pool for Oxbridge.

@TheGhostOfKatesProlapse how are Kent grammars 'on a par with lower scoring private schools' yet also 'more selective academically'? This seems contradictory.

I don't know Kent grammars but I do have direct experience of Cheltenham, Essex and London super selectives. In these schools, the cohort tends to be extremely able DC and places there are much sought after. Often private schools are a fallback if DC don't get in. These DC don't need any special concessions to have a fighting chance for Oxbridge and other high ranking universities. They would, quite rightly, not qualify for any contextual considerations at school attended level. I am genuinely confused by the preferential treatment you are referencing.