Is Trinity Hall Cambridge right about elite schools?

[mids2019]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jan/07/cambridge-college-elite-private-schools-student-recruitment

Interesting position but maybe there are those at Cambridge that think encouraging students from the state sector has gone too far? Wonder if other colleges will follow suit.

It’s not elite universities’ issue though. Selective state schools would be the obvious answer, of course grammar schools were all but wiped out because of the same ‘social justice’ arguments being now used to dumb down universities.

The college system is odd though. I can conceive of some colleges in some years by pure chance not getting the strongest applicants.
Why do they just not modernise and allow Oxbridge Colleges to go into clearing? To pick up potentially some Oxbridge rejects right there late in the day who did actually end up with three A stars? (Regardless of which state or private school they go to).
Because their reality is they are losing top candidates to other Russell Group unis every year. If they go into clearing then they can get some back potentially. Let’s say a kid applied for Econ but did not get it but also did History. Maybe they can get them in on History etc.

I think there may be a certain amount of confusion here.

in many subjects - maths being an obvious example, or natural sciences - Cambridge and Oxford are both drowning in applications from very bright students from both state and Indy.

this report is specifically about subjects - classics and music and to some extent modern languages - which don’t get anywhere near the same numbers of applicants.

these subjects are things which have been cut and cut in state schools.

if your child wants to be a ballerina you have to get lessons outside state school, and there’s a specialist vocational school.

if your child wants to be a musician increasingly these days you need to get them lessons outside of school and they probably want to go to a conservatoire to study performance (if classical) or to study contemporary music somewhere like Brighton. Or they just start a band and get on with it.

music and classics and to some extent MFL are these days subjects that very few state schools offer much of.

it’s not a massive surprise that Cambridge if it wants to keep the classics and music courses going is looking at the schools that actually teach them.

this isn’t about maths or science or English at Cambridge. It’s about two quite niche courses where honestly everyone recognises the government has stopped funding and stopped encouraging these subjects to be taught in stsre schools.

Colleges have an internal to the university clearing system. Or at least they used to.

you used to be able to make an “open” application.

colleges can also pool applicants who they feel are good but they don’t have a space for.

@BlearyEyes2 No, selective schools would not be the obvious answer. That takes us back to the issue of parental engagement, ability to afford tutoring and the hot-housing that goes on. Here's an idea. How about we make it a priority to ensure that all students have access to an excellent education and, while parental engagement will obviously enhance that, it won't be the one and only determining factor that decides a child's achievement. Anything else just isn't good enough.

But, to be honest, anyone who uses the phrase 'dumb down' as if it actually means something but puts social justice in inverted commas is highly unlikely to agree. Neither, I imagine, will all the private school parents sadly shaking their heads and saying what a shame it is that state schools can't compete while bemoaning the fact that they are no longer subsidised by state school parents and now have to pay the VAT.

@DogEard 'with not even a hill for an excuse'

That made me laugh!

Yes exactly what I was talking about, the excuse for not being competitive then switch's from my school wasn’t very good to my parents weren’t very good. It’s never ending nonsense whilst everything gets dumbed down.

Thats the first time I’ve seen a claim that state school parents are subsidise private schools, I’d love to hear the thinking behind this one. 😄

“Thats the first time I’ve seen a claim that state school parents are subsidise private schools, I’d love to hear the thinking behind this one.”

Ask the Labour Government? This was all over when they brought the VAT on private school fees in. That those paying already and not costing the state a penny for their children’s education are somehow not paying out enough. It is socialist thinking to the core. You cannot reason with that.

The politicians are not going to improve state education. The priority is firmly NEET and SEND and they are swimming in all of that enough as it is.

It is on education and musical charities etc and all stakeholders to pull together and sort this out. It is possible with the right will and the right working together especially with the internet.

Here is an example, one can support this stuff https://classicsforall.org.uk

The LEAs are inundated and won’t be doing much for music either. Benefactors of the royal opera and charities etc are the way to go. And Britain’s Got Talent raising awareness of choirs. If people want to celebrate and make stuff accessible for all, they can.

Social inequality and its impact on people's life chances is nonsense? Ok then. And what is the answer? We just accept that some are born lucky and into the 'right' family and get on with it?

this report is specifically about subjects - classics and music and to some extent modern languages - which don’t get anywhere near the same numbers of applicants.these subjects are things which have been cut and cut in state schools.

That is completely logical and if the academic quoted in the Guardian had said something about it being unfortunate that for these particular subjects state schools just weren't delivering the foundational content required for students to go on to study them at a higher level that would be reasonable and hard to argue with, making this thread pretty redundant beyond opening up a debate about whether Latin and music should be funded as a priority in state schools, but he didn't. I also wonder why other academics in the college are so opposed to it if it is simply a matter of students not knowing Latin, for example.

Because their reality is they are losing top candidates to other Russell Group unis every year. If they go into clearing then they can get some back potentially. Let’s say a kid applied for Econ but did not get it but also did History. Maybe they can get them in on History etc.

Wouldn't that make a mockery of the entire Oxbridge ethos, which is that passion and aptitude for one's chosen subject the main factor that makes successful candidates stand out from the others? You might just end up with very bright people who have excellent memories and ability to understand complex material but don't actually care much about the subject they end up studying. I don't think that would do much for standard, but I don't know. On a more practical note, such candidates would have met their offer for their chosen university in that case so wouldn't be in clearing, unless it was people who hadn't expected such high grades so tried to upgrade in clearing, but that would be a pretty niche group I imagine.

As a side question, especially for those in the know...

Do you think GCSE Music, and to some extent A level Music, is actually needed by accomplished musicians to be successful in academic music? With instruments having to be taught by specialists, and Theory. Plus composition.

Even then, Labour only claimed tax payers rather than state school parents. I mean, both are ludicrous but I’d just never seen that claim before.

It’s nonsense to shut down selective state schools because some kids don’t have good parents, it’s nonsense to dumb down university entry requirements to meet quotas, it’s nonsense to tax children’s education because they go to good schools and it’s nonsense to have a one size fits all state education system including SEN.
Now if you have any social inequality education ideas that don’t involve pulling children down and dumbing down the country then I’m happy to hear them, otherwise it’s just another phrase for envy based spite.

The majority of state school parents will be tax payers, but perhaps I should have specified it that way round, but, yes, if you are buying a non-essential item and not paying vat on it then you are essentially doing that on the back of less well off people. Even state school parents who don't work will be paying vat on a number of goods and services - the clothes they wear for example. It was not a fair situation.

No.

it is very possible and in fact very easy to be a successful and accomplished musician without gcse or a level music.

academic music is somewhat different from straight up performance but even so.

many people who pursue music at a higher level have grown up in a musical tradition, whether that be as a boarding cathedral chorister, singing in a church choir, playing in a youth brass band and developing through that process.

the music grades and music theory grades cover quite a lot of the content of gcse and a level music.

Easily verifiable facts:

The majority of tax payers aren’t state school parents .
State education cost to tax payer: £118 billion
Independent school cost to tax payer:£0
Tax payer cost to educate children currently in independent schools: £4 billion.

@BlearyEyes2 It is not nonsense for the state to ensure that as many of its children as possible are well-educated and well-prepared to lead successful and productive lives. That benefits us all, especially the generation who will be looked after, physically and financially, by today's children. If you think that's nonsense, fine, but I think you have a very simplistic and shortsighted attitude. It's also not 'dumbing down,' to acknowledge that students achieve their grades in very different circumstances from each other. Of course it is fair that no leeway is given to students who sat their A levels in highly prestigious schools - they are in privileged position. As far as I can see, it is a very small number who get in despite missing their offer.

I agree with you about SEN.

I have no idea what hysterical nonsense like 'pulling children down' and 'dumbing the country down,' even means, but I make no apology for wanting to pull as many children as possible up, and I am also pretty confident that those children who do attend private schools or highly selective state schools in the SE are not in much danger of being 'pulled down,' to anywhere that would constitute making a level playing field with their state school peers.

I have to agree but particularly with the comments about "dumbing down", I think contextual offers have been explained adequately on this thread. Also my DDs cousin has a scholarship into a very prestigious public school where I'm sure that contextual allowances have been made for him as he comes from a rough background. Do people really think this is bringing the school down (dumbing down as BlearyEye's calls it) or is it an opportunity to bring a child up who would never of had this opportunity before?

@pinotnow This college at Cambridge doesn’t agree with you. It simply wants the best students regardless of where they are educated and background for a few subjects. They clearly aren’t happy with the calibre they are seeing and want a broader selection and possibly find very good candidates think they won’t get in so don’t apply. These subjects are low priority in many state schools so it’s not surprising Cambridge notice the difference.

The notion there are thousands of dc who want to go to Cambridge but have been held back by schools and circumstances is probably wrong. I said earlier that families who value education are more likely to have dc keen to go and the brains too. People who have no qualifications themselves and a life on benefits and poverty are less likely to have bright dc and the necessary intellect. It’s just how it is. Others who go to decent schools can apply but peer pressure and family attitude will make a huge difference to ambition in terms of Oxbridge.

I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s nonsense to educate children? I’m saying it’s nonsense to oppose selective state schools, tax children’s education, close schools, limit education options, dumbing down university entry requirements and entry quotas. You’d call this list leveling the playing field, I call it pulling children down.

@BlearyEyes2 Selective schools and fee-paying schools are all part of the problem and contribute to the 'pulling down,' since we like that metaphor, of comprehensive schools. They aren't comprehensive in certain areas as the most academic (at that point in their short lives) students have been creamed off.

@OhDear111 My mouth fell open in dismay reading your second paragraph. Words fail me. And in my experience, as a teacher in a deprived area and with a ds who went to school in an average (P8 score of 0) comp with sixth form in a more mixed area, there are plenty of students who may very well be capable of going to Oxbridge or other RG or competitive universities but won't even consider any of them as 'it's not for us/we won't get in...' etc. The lazy correlation you draw between poverty and academic ability is shameful, not to mention there are a huge number of students who fall between the extremes of having pushy/wealthy/education-obsessed parents, and parents who are 'on benefits and in poverty,' as you put it. There are thousands of these students coming through every year but you seem to be writing off anyone who isn't from a certain type of background as 'that's just how it is.'

@TheNightingalesStarling in my opinion GCSE and A level music are pretty irrelevant to people who want to study Music at Oxbridge. They are nowhere near the standard that is necessary to do well in a Music degree at those institutions. The reality is (and has always been) that it has never been enough for anyone studying Music just to do it through school, whether that’s a state or the very best independent school in the country.

The people studying Music at Oxbridge have been learning an instrument since they were very young, devoting thousands of hours of practice; they have excellent aural skills (requiring innate ability + experience, often gained through eg membership of a choir for years and/or preparation for the highest instrumental exam grades); an understanding of harmony which is above grade 5 theory level and light years ahead of any A level syllabus. There is also a music history element which uses the same skills as any humanities subject. Obviously music applicants will have the A level but if they are the calibre needed for Oxbridge it’s very easy for them.

The problem is that preparation for this starts in primary school, not secondary (with perhaps a few exceptions, eg singers). And it needs money- for private lessons outside of school, money for instruments, and importantly also knowledge about what is really required (ie the importance of regular practice and how to help your child with that, or again the money to pay for it).

Private schools offer instrumental lessons as a matter of course, they have ensembles, it’s normal for the children to be exposed to it and so the ones with an aptitude are identified early. By contrast, my son’s state primary had 1 term of recorder in year 2, taught by the class teacher who couldn’t read music, and none of his peers are learning an instrument. It is as fanciful to think that that could be enough to prepare someone for an Oxbridge music degree as to suggest that it would be enough for an applicant for English only ever to have read set texts for their exams.

I can understand why Tit hall want to encourage applicants for undersubscribed subjects and why they are targeting a group who are collectively much more likely to have the skills needed. It is extremely disappointing but a reflection of a reality that tertiary education can do absolutely nothing to change.

As a general point though and obviously just anecdotal, I went to a state school (grammar) and then read English at Cambridge 20 years ago. Of the 8 of us in my college there were people from Westminster, St Paul’s Girls, St Paul’s, City of London Girls, Hills Road, 2 x random other state schools I can’t remember, and me. 4 of us got firsts: me, Hills Road, other state school, St Paul’s girls (i.e 3/4 of the firsts were state schools); 2.1s were all the other private schools; 2.2 the other state school. So I don’t recognise what @cantabsupervisor was saying about the quality of state school students vs independent, though appreciate this may have changed over the intervening years.

Trinity Hall may well be talking to Westminster and Eton about how to bring up classics/music/languages in the local state schools they support as well, like Harris Westminster. The trouble with this stupid VAT is that it compromises the state school partnerships for all but the most privileged private schools with deep pockets like Eton.
The Northern socialists are just not going to get it. As you all rely on our tax pounds perhaps start getting to the bottom of actually understanding how things work over time and be patient.
Covid and cost of living has destroyed social mobility (or the scraps of it) combined with Brexit. Yet at the same time there is AI and huge technological changes which could be harnessed to improve education for all. But all the socialists love to do is moan and blame the Tories rather than improve things. Thighs won’t improve at state central
level, there is no money. Individuals who care have to work together and do their bit. And if we have to bring in online reading volunteers for parents on benefits who refuse to read with their kids so be it. Kids from crappy backgrounds need mentors, overrun state school teachers is clearly not enough.

That is completely logical and if the academic quoted in the Guardian had said something about it being unfortunate that for these particular subjects state schools just weren't delivering the foundational content required for students to go on to study them at a higher level that would be reasonable and hard to argue with, making this thread pretty redundant beyond opening up a debate about whether Latin and music should be funded as a priority in state schools, but he didn't. I also wonder why other academics in the college are so opposed to it if it is simply a matter of students not knowing Latin, for example.

@pinotnow If you read the Times’s account of what the academic actually said (less biased than the Guardian article), then it’s clear that the policy is about six particular subjects which have been cut in the state sector: Classics, modern languages, music, theology, Asian and Middle Eastern studies, and history of art:

https://archive.ph/DFROh

(Times article link)
The Guardian has nearly misrepresented this as an issue of state vs private pupils generally, whereas it’s a much less controversial idea if you think that it’s not that unreasonable to say, in those subjects we’re asking independent schools to send us bright candidates to do languages or history of art rather than telling their kids to apply for law at Durham or STEM subjects. As has been discussed on this thread, state secondary education has cut and cut opportunities for kids to study languages, Classics, music and subjects like history of art.

Music at Cambridge or Oxford is more academic than performance-based - it’s studied as a discipline rather than the way it would be at a conservatoire. Performance is only a limited part of the syllabus - musicology, history of music and so on is much more prominent. So just being a talented performer isn’t evidence of suitability for the music courses - you need a wide knowledge of music theory, history of music, composition, and so on.

That is not what the poster wrote.