AIBU - gutted for them regarding early entry subject rejections (non-oxbridge)

[westerdays]

I teach a STEM subject at sixth form level. in the South West of the UK.
I'm also involved in the UCAS process for our school's applicants.

Our school extends support to would be medics/dentists/vets etc who don't get a uni place on those type of courses first time round.

Some pupils resit an A Level (or 2), some just need reassurance that many very able applicants do take more than one UCAS application to get a place or advise on their chances given their UCAT score/likelihood of increasing that score, or a realistic opinion on their chances.

I've noticed that the non ethnic lads at our school are having the toughest time securing places to study medicine/dentistry/vet sci, no matter how good their academic track record or how high their UCAT score, the interview performance seems to trounce all of that. I had one lad who, having applied for a third and final time for dentistry last year was rejected again post interview. He's going abroad to study dentistry and his plan is then to return and work his way through all the processes required of "non uk trained" dentists before they can fully practice dentistry in the uk. He's always been an extremely able all-rounder and I have no doubt that he'll pick up enough of the local language quickly enough to assist with his studies.
We're fortunate enough to have enough parents who are doctors/dentists/pharmacists/vets etc volunteering to do multiple practice interviews, but it's generally the girls/ethnically diverse boys who seem to have most chance of getting the offers after interviews these days even though our "mock interview panels" haven't found any major distinguishing factors between many of our school's applicants when it comes to feedback to aid interview performance in the real thing.

I live in the southwest, and I strongly suspect your sample size is heavily skewed and your 'facts' are in fact just your bias. What % of the students applying were white male, and what % of them were rejected?
Did they actually have comparable results in exams and equal extra curricular activities and 'soft skills'?

Exactly.

The kids in my Pakistani husband's family and social circles are, from a young age very confident, engaging and articulate. Those circles are quite privileged ones which does help as they are surrounded by people with good positions, power, influence etc. They can and will talk to anyone about anything from little and it clearly helps them when here as they stand out. I wish me and my kids had some of it as it takes you so much further than grades or being hardworking alone.
From what I've heard you need to be able to show passion for these subjects in interview here which I think some candidates may not have.

@westerdays have you looked into the Exeter Scholars/ Penninsula pathway programme for those who qualify? Is is worth reaching out to the local universities?

Recruitment certainly for medicine has probably changed substantially since the parents of children in your school have been to university. It might be worth making links with local universities/ medsocs. I know my dd's school mock interview was not particularly representative of the interviews she actually had. Googling interview questions for the relevant universities was more successful.

Do they all have enough relevant experience to talk about too? Going into care homes/ hospices/ children playing schemes. These are things that the school might be able to help forge links. Maybe when PMs are up and running swap ideas with @mumsneedwine who runs similar schemes in her school.

Not at all actually. The best lawyers are extremely intelligent, articulate confident and sociable people who can go into any situation and mix with anyone.

That mix of qualities comes from the individual so it’s irrelevant where they went to school, what colour their skin is and in particular who they like to have sex with. The best candidate should always get the job.
Your attitude in the other hand is the exact issue. A natural prejudice against certain kids due to the school they went to.

This is definitely not the case at my school. I really think your post is misguided at best.

There is an additional issue that I can foresee in that, assuming they qualify in Bulgaria or similar destinations, if/when they return to the UK to continue their career here, there will initially be questions raised over why they had to go abroad.....suspicion being that they had to because of lower academic entry requirements. I'm not sure this will help them when looking for first jobs.

I strongly doubt that, given that such a high proportion of UK medics studied abroad.

Anyway, they may decide to emigrate to another country.

Whilst fully aware of this, I posted because I've noticed the same pattern/results year on year. Had it been one particular cohort of applicants, fine but not when it's become an annual occurrence.

What’s your sample size? Method of data collection? Or are you relying on your memory?

This is inaccurate because they're not usually open to all state school pupils, just those crudely calculated/deemed to be at a disadvantage compared to their peers.
The commercial ones are usually beyond the means of a great many of the parents of pupils not deemed to be disadvantaged and may even put them at a disadvantage themselves if those in charge of admissions become aware that they've had that extra boost because their parents paid for it.

I'm also fascinated to know where in the SW there is such a large population of "ethnics" that they are displacing the white males who obviously should be taking precedence.🙄

The desperation to continue favouring the mediocre white Nigels is palpable.

Most students who are admitted do have fantastic grades but we are admitting a proportion who do not. Around 1 in 6 students with an Oxford offer get below 3As at A-level.* Around 10% of students who actually arrive have below 3As. Of course some of those candidates will have personal circumstances that explain why they have been admitted despite not meeting the offer, but the numbers are far higher than that. This means that there is certainly a proportion of students with 'modest' A-level grades and this is now an expected part of the process.

*See page 4 https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/AnnualAdmissionsStatisticalReport2024.pdf
Cambridge equivalent is https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/ug_admissions_statistics_2023_cycle.pdf and suggests Oxford is being more lenient.

Absolutely, this would be a prime case for a whistleblower.

But a whistleblower would need facts - university, course, details, etc.

It's so much easier to 'name change' on mumsnet and then claim to do 'Oxbridge' admissions'.

Well people on the internet are not always who they say they are so you don't need to believe us. I have done more than 20 years of admissions rounds, not all at the same institution. I have sat on numerous committees that deal with these issues and have a very clear picture of the situation and how it has changed.

Of course it is only unlawful discrimination if it relates to the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. That said, if a policy of not shortlisting/admitting candidates in certain groups is being operated then that should be made clear to applicants so that they do not waste time in applying. The tricky thing about whistleblowing, or investigative journalism, in this area is that these decisions are often being made at a college/subject level and are evident in discussions rather than written policies.

Breakdown of students achieving Astar, Astar, A or better at A-level by school type in 2021:

State-educated - 76.2%
Independent (Private) - 23.8%

.
Students admitted to Oxford in 2021

State-educated - 68.2%
Independent (Private) - 31.2%

Students admitted to Cambridge in 2021

State-educated - 71.6%
Independent (Private) - 28.4%

Can you give a link to this? And are you going to answer any of my questions?

With regard to undergraduate medicine at Cambridge in 2021:

Applications (Home students)
State-educated - 74.7%
Independent (Private) - 25.3%

Offers (Home students)
State-educated - 67.9%
Independent (Private) - 32.1%

Applications:
Male - 42.2%
Female - 57.8%

Offers
Male - 44.4%
Female - 55.6%

I am surprised that I need to answer these questions @cityofgirls?

After all, you claim in a previous post to 'do Oxbridge admissions'.

Yet, you are completely unaware that both Oxford and Cambridge publish detailed admission statistics??

How decidedly odd!

So boys actually get slightly preferential treatment according to the data

Aren't many of these stats from the TAGs of the Covid cohort so may be somewhat unrepresentative (in terms of 'true' grades) as there were also statistics from that time which showed the percentages of A stars awarded at independent schools rocketed year on year compared to those in state. (I have a table somewhere that was published by a national newspaper showing NLCS went from 48% A stars to 83% when equivalent state grades locally only increased 3 or 4% - I will see if I can find it.)

Whatever the truth of the numbers, I am sure that all any of us want is for the best candidates to be given an opportunity to be considered - whether that is being granted a shot at an interview for Oxbridge or a chance at an internship/job in the wider world.

IF it is true that the PSs or CVs of independent school candidates/white/straight/green/blue/pink/unicorn/whatever aren't even being put in the mix, because their identity is considered less worthy than talent, then that is equally unjust as discrimination against any of the protected characteristics of the EA.

Thanks to cityofgirls, anotheroxbridgetutor and others for highlighting this. As someone who has a child in year 12, attending a state school we have been experiencing this DEI target madness first hand. Even in the BAME backgrounds there is a further discrimination in that preference is given to British Pakistani and Bangladeshi kids over British Indian kids. Reality, is that it's not just the white child being disadvantaged but all bright kids who don't meet the ' widening participation criteria'.

Programmes at Oxford and Cambridge are heavily geared towards meeting the 'widening participation criteria'. The more boxes you tick the better chance you have to get on the programme. A child going on these outreach programmes, then has an advantage. Having attended a number of STEM talks from from different oxbridge colleges most of the Student speakers were on some diversity/outreach programme before they got a place. ???coincidence - Heaven knows!!.

Even getting onto a simple thing like a work experience programme preference is been given to kids from certain backgrounds. Yes, if you are white and not from a certain background you will be certainly disadvantaged . If your parents happened to go to university too - you will be penalised, the list is endless. Corporate companies want to look good and meet all their targets. Nearly every work experience programme has a talk by the Diversity officer. Can't the job just go to the best qualified candidate? Looking at apprenticeship programmes by different corporate companies makes one think - did they get the job to tick the diversity box or were they really the best candidate, as some can't even articulate themselves? It actually puts the child off from applying as a white child has a less chance or no chance of getting in unless of course you come from a deprived background.

As for summer schools, in most 'in person' Summer school the only child who will usually get in will be those who meet the widening participation criteria. I'm talking about the summer schools with good research programmes by top universities etc. It's a kind of a cycle - as those kids who attend the summer school - will then have the highest chance of getting into the top universities like oxbridge, imperial etc as they will usually do some sort of research that will be mentioned in their personal statement, win win for university as they have met their diversity target plus ticked the state school target and plus it makes good headline news. No wonder schools like Brampton Manor have such a high oxbridge intake!

It's bad enough that top universities take in more international students than UK students. So from the remaining few places for UK students if so much of a priority if going to be given to 'Diversity, widening participation criteria' then how many places are going to be left for bright kids who don't meet the WPC criteria.

The emphasis should be on taking the best student from whatever background, whatever school state or private.

Yes, boys still have a slightly better chance of receiving an offer than girls.

The chances are better still if this boy is white and privately-educated.

.
However, it was so much better to be a privately-educated boy back in 2015:

Applicants from private schools were much more likely to receive an offer than applicants from state students:

Offer rate for medicine in Cambridge in 2015:
State (maintained) : 117 offers to 689 applicants = 16.9%
Independent (private) : 93 offers to 214 applicants = 43.45%

More females applied to medicine in Cambridge but more males were extended offers.
Offer rate for medicine in Cambridge in 2015:
Female : 144 offers to 689 applicants = 20.89%
Male : 167 offers to 611 applicants = 27.3%

When privately-educated boys were used to so much preference, being treated only marginally better must feel like a kick in the teeth.

Well apparently so if you look at one subject's entry statistics from a few years ago.

If you look at the cohort as a whole then at Oxford women have a higher success rate (using the latest available figures on page 21 https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/AnnualAdmissionsStatisticalReport2024.pdf)) which give women a success rate of c21% and men c19%.

At Cambridge (p5 https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/ugadmissionsstatistics2023cycle.pdf) Women have a success rate of 22% and men 20%.

But all of this is at a very general level. The picture takes more time to understand because different groups apply in different proportions for different subjects. If you look through you will see that candidates from many of the target backgrounds apply disproportionately for the most oversubscribed courses, such as Medicine and Law, and that then skews the overall figures on success rates. Another factor that is more difficult to see in the public figures is that the range of quality of the applications is different in different groups. Schools with a reasonable experience of these applications (whether private or state) tend to send only those students with fairly competitive applications. Of course those applicants may then go on to do badly in interview or aptitude tests, but the starting points are generally high. In the more disadvantaged groups we tend to get a far wider range of candidates. I imagine this is partly because they have much less advice from school, and partly because they go on widening participation schemes that advise them to put an application in. This makes sense on many levels as they are trying to avoid students who would be competitive from ruling themselves out, but it does mean we get applications from students with e.g. GCSEs all at 5 or below and no particular extenuating circumstances. For all of these reasons looking at the headline success rates is often misleading.

I think your numbers match above - more girls apply so more get in. But % wise, boys get more places out of those that apply

which means boys get slightly preferential treatment