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.

I was the person who said we had had no independent school applicants for my subject - but I’m not an admissions tutor. I’m not talking college-wide. This does very much depend on college and subject: but it’s perfectly possible not to attract any or many independent (or even grammar) students.

One issue that is bound up with this whole thread is that independent schools and high-powered grammars often have pretty good knowledge on the ground about different colleges’ admissions policies - and they have university applications teachers who spend a lot of time analysing their applications and what’s happening in each college and what different colleges’ admissions tutors are like. And they swap this info with other colleagues, too.

If they notice that college X has an admissions tutor who is putting resources into expanding state numbers and their pupils are getting turned down from College X and the college’s stats each year show independent or grammar candidates are less successful than before, then they tell their students not to apply there. Similarly, if a particular college gets a reputation for being pro-state and anti-private (or vice versa), then schools and students make their choices accordingly. (Same with numbers - if the numbers tool on the website shows a particular subject at a particular college had high numbers last year, this year applicants will avoid it — and vice versa!)

I think Oxbridge should maintain standards and state schools should change to meet those standards, rather than the other way around.

It might be convenient to have Oxbridge align to state schools…but Oxbridge would lose its place in the rankings and not be what it once was.

Which subject area is this?

@TheaBrandt1 Also most universities don’t interview so this leaves employers trying to sift from a huge number of applicants. Only a few are the AAA student of 50 years ago. Oxbridge has everyone applying of this calibre and some subjects attract vast numbers. Music, classics and MFLs don’t so surely Trinity can accept the best as they see it free from quotas?

Yes, a lot of ‘cultural capital’ can be acquired but only if you know where to look in the first place. You can’t be who you can’t see as the saying goes. You see it every year here on the Oxbridge applicants threads where the successful candidates largely have family connections to Oxbridge or parents are academics.

I’m full of admiration for those young adults who are ‘good enough’ to make it to Oxbridge, Imperial etc from less privileged backgrounds. They get an opportunity not afforded earlier, to learn to debate, question, build confidence. Seems to me that Trinity Hall don’t want to have to put the work in when they can cherry pick the already polished product. What’s the point? Surely they just need a better way of picking out the rough diamonds?

Agree.

I don't think it sounds like a case of Tit Hall not wanting to polish the rough diamonds, it sounds like the genuine rough diamonds are just not applying. Say for MML, they might want to fill 10 places. They might end up getting 10 applicants when 5 are very able, but the other 5 simply aren't up to its demands (and they could just as well be Tim Nice But Dims as kids from "bad" comprehensives). It's simply not fashionable, or encouraged, right now to apply for classics, MML, music - the three areas under discussion.

I think the point really is that it’s too late to get the cultural capital after you’ve arrived at university, so totally agree that students should be supported to develop it but it’s unreasonable to expect universities to do this - it needs to happen much earlier so they can be the right standard when they arrive.

Also really important to appreciate that this policy relates to particular subjects that appear likely to be unpopular with all students and likely not even taught to the majority of state school students.

If they want to keep their classics department open they need to encourage the students studying classics at A level to apply for classics rather than for one of their other A level subjects or eg law. Targeting the students studying classics at A level effectively means those at independent schools as the numbers at state schools must be tiny.

Btw I say this as a state school Oxbridge alumna whose kids are at state schools.

Ok well there are summer courses already like this one for local schools:
https://www.etoncollege.com/esupc/
Do the Cambridge private schools do similar?

And the reading volunteer schemes have been running for years and years. Together with the “be a governor” in a local school. I mean this is stuff that we were spoonfed in the early 2000s in London to help aid state schools improve.
The newest thing now is to make work experience more widely available online, including online courses targeted at teens.

Here is an example of one of the reading schemes which anyone can sign up to: www.bookmarkreading.org/volunteer

Here is an example of a law firm doing some online work experience courses (this one aimed at older teens/uni students). https://jobs.cliffordchance.com/gvi-london
Actually we really do need all large businesses to consider providing online work experience now. I think even the NHS does some in some areas.

The RP accent was tongue in cheek. Some people said Oxbridge can be alienating and they feel out of place. The most talented all rounders in the work place can typically talk to anyone, from all backgrounds.

The prep school brigade are pretty much anti smartphone and so are a lot of public schools now. It is the equivalent of feeding your toddler fizzy sugary drinks now. So on the subject of capital, social or otherwise, the age you are given a smartphone matters.

I don't want to derail or be pedantic but as the parent of a child who made herculean (and somewhat surprising) efforts to get three x A stars last year, I take issue with this assertion. Are you conflating As and A stars? It's so much less common that you might think to get all A stars, especially outside of STEM.

in 2025 about 4000 students got three a stars or higher. Over 300,000 students took A levels. It means that for every hundred students one or two will get all A stars, which is probably less than your 2 or 3 in a year at your school. obviously it's different in some schools but if you look at a random non-selective school's news page in mid August and their boasts, it's usually only one at most and then some with a couple of A stars. And it's almost always a kid doing maths/physics and off to study engineering...

@ClaireBlunderwood - I think you are right and there are more Oxbridge places overall than students getting 3 A stars? Plenty are ending up in other unis, some rejected by Oxbrydge, others didn’t apply. I would quite like to know the exact stats on how many got rejected. Would be interesting to know.

Oh so many more places at Oxbridge than full raft of A stars - loads of them are at other universities or aren't interested. Which is all good. I'm sure admissions tutors would argue that A star A levels aren't the perfect predictor of Oxbridge suitablity anyway.

If you look at the stats for humanities at Oxbridge, the vast majority don't have all A stars - I think an admissions tutor told us that it was an average of 1.5. Different thing in the sciences - a higher proportion of A stars are given out in stem subjects plus if you're good at, say, maths or FM, you can usually be more confident of getting top marks. Quite a few kids at DD's school got their Oxbridge offers based on predicted grades and are now there having not actually got an A star in the subject they're reading.

It’s interesting. Anecdotal, but I know a boy who got rejected for History from Cambridge last year and got all A stars and had won history prizes. Was at a local independent school. All academic subjects too. Ended up at another uni who must be very happy to have him. It just made me wonder how many there are like that. If it’s a rarity or not. Of course, it’s probably good for other unis to be getting some of the best students too and maybe in the long run this is actually better. Especially if some of the unis aren’t in the South East. Because maybe there is then hope those kids will settle elsewhere and work elsewhere in the long run.

Well I would like to thank the Oxford admissions tutors who took a risk on my DD from a dodgy postcode, who didn't have straight grade 9s or A*s, but got a BA which was just as good as anyone else's. I watched her graduate with her masters degree today from another university. Trinity's loss!

I been feeling quite low as I've read this thread.

My kid's at Cambridge studying a humanitites subject. They've been educated through the state system and they achieved full A*s in their A Levels (a mix of science and humanities, all in subjects we used to call facilitating). They're in a college at Cam that has one of the lowest acceptance rates and they got their offer after interview ie they were not pooled.

It saddens me to read that my child can not compete with their privately educated counterparts from the outset, not because of intelligence but because they won't have absorbed anywhere near the amount of cultural capital necessary, or be trained to write essays that are considered stimilating. This is not something I'd thought about until reading this thread. I stupidly assumed because they are academically bright, hard working, able to rise to any challenge, they would be a perfect fit but seemingly no. And why? Because we could not afford to spend £100,000+ on a private school education.

We are living in a crazily unequal society and I can't help but think private schools help to perpetuate that.

I just want other parents to know, who may be reading this thread and feeling like me, that my kid is so happy at Cambridge, actually thriving. They love the fact they're being academically challenged, they love the high level of sport on offer and the social side of things. They are enchanted with the place and I cannot imagine them anywhere else. I am so thankful they have this opportunity. Admittedly, they have not found many people 'like them' - most are from wealthy backgrounds, from the south and they have had some shitty comments from kids looking down their noses - but they have made some great friends who I hope will be friends for life.

@HowDidWeGetHome

i wanted to respond to your post.

i went to Cambridge from a state school. Many people go to Cambridge from a state school.

there are lots of subjects at Cambridge where the playing field between state and independent is relatively level. Sciences is one of these, as is engineering and to some extent maths.

the thing that kicked this thread off is six specific courses, three of which are in areas where it is widely acknowledged that funding and uptake for these subjects has dropped.

i would personally argue that Latin and Ancient Greek are not subjects that I consider particularly important in state schools (the Greek particularly - fucking brutal language to learn).

the defunding of music in state schools I don’t like either but it’s hard to argue with an increased focus on students passing maths and English.

you really shouldn’t be feeling low. Your child got into Cambridge from a state school, and is enjoying the experience.

i also got into Cambridge from a state school, and really enjoyed it.

Absolutely. But as we know - as Labour are adept at showing us, it’s much easier to bring people down than it is to raise them up.

@HowDidWeGetHome How on earth did dc get in then? Was it social engineering? Do you know - dc learn how to do things. They aspire to great jobs and why can they not do as well as anyone else? After all, they probably beat hundreds to get the place! I’d be chuffed and think they were just as good. Cambridge thought so, so why don’t you? Why do you think private schools get dc writing better essays? Wierd!

Fourteen or fifteen years ago when my children were choosing a university and college, there was no formal careers advice at their (major) public school but even then, staff (from house matrons upwards) knew from experience to guide pupils away from applying to Cambridge. Conversely, the comprehensive school near their home, which was ranked in the top 50 for Oxbridge entry, almost invariably directed their pupils to Cambridge, and not Oxford.

This was around the time that Parks produced Academic Performance of Undergraduate Students at Cambridge by School/College Background. This short paper demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the academic performance of students at Cambridge from different types of school. But Cambridge was already setting out to increase the proportion of state educated students. Parks' successor, whose name I don't recall, had a slide presentation intended for admissions tutors setting an AS-level UMS mark cut-off two or three points higher for private school applicants.

In due course, Cambridge published an Access and Participation Plan which contained two quite distinct aims: One to increase the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and another to increase the proportion of state-educated students. The only justification for the second was that "... each of the under-represented groups identified within this Plan appear in far greater numbers in state maintained schools, as do students from low income households who are not identified by any of the measures currently available to us." In other words, if we vastly increase the proportion of state educated students we might pick up a few applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds that we might otherwise miss. To put this into context, when the plan was conceived 40% of POLAR4 Q1 admissions were from comprehensive schools, but 15% were from independent schools.

Raising the bar specifically for applicants from independent schools had a predictable effect. As the proportion of state educated students increased, their performance relative to privately educated students decreased. In 2017 the university stopped publishing examination data for students according to the type of school that they attended, but the schooling gap continued to increase.

After this behaviour, it should be astonishing if the university were to receive any applications from independent schools. I think it does because Oxford belatedly, and to a lesser degree, has gone down the same route. But they both lose out to US universities, and to a number of UK universities that are snapping at their heels, deservedly.

US Ivy leagues are dropping in standard of output too. Although I don’t think they’ve been lowering acceptance thresholds.

For example their National Center for Education Statistics says that, in 2015, 14% of college freshmen took a remedial math course, while 8.8% took one in reading or writing. By 2019, those numbers grew to a staggering 65.4% and 42.1%, respectively.

https://spartanshield.org/44891/news/what-the-ivy-league-isnt-saying-with-their-new-application-policy/

Cambridge does not have the highest percentage of private school pupils, it is Durham. Imperial also has a high percentage now.
https://thetab.com/2025/01/17/the-russell-group-unis-where-the-most-private-school-students-are-lurking-in-2025

@HowDidWeGetHome - not sure why you would be sad if your DC got 3 A stars and loves it there. It is a privilege to go there (which many would want to) and they have a lot of resources. Once you go there, you are also part of the privileged elite, better to own that. You can be part of an elite but there is always going to be someone richer than you. So what! If your DC are thriving, it is clearly the right fit for them.

@Marchesman So are you saying that Cambridge needs the best candidates from all schools and that they turn away too many outstanding ones from private schools and this has led to poorer results?

Even if it is true, it has maybe levelled the playing field more between the top unis in UK so it is no longer just Oxbridge with their antiquated admissions system, which puts plenty of talented students off. So is that not a good thing that some high achieving students get to choose other unis which are just as good now? So rather than just 2 elite ones, it is more Ivy League style with several, providing different cities with a different feel and different approaches that may suit some individuals better. I am not sure it is bad thing overall.

If @TheaBrandt1 is 50yo then there weren't A stars at that point. I think A star at A-level came in about 2010, so people who got A star would be around 34yo, assuming doing it with no break from schooling.
They wouldn't have had the potential of A star at GCSEs either, although they were introduced in 1994, so only just.

It was much rarer to get As in years gone by.
In 1994 (about Tea's year) 14% who got As whereas in 2025 it was about 23% got A or A star. But also more people take A-levels now so it will be a far greater number too.

In 1994 there were about 732k entries, so the number who got an A would be around 102k.
In 2025 had over 882k A-level entries and the number who got an A or A star would be about 203k - so nearly double the number who got A or A star compared to 1994.

If you go further back, 1975 only had about 500k entries, and an A grade was about 8% of the entries so only about 40k A levels were marked as an A grade.
From that alone, you can see how getting 3 As would have been unusual.

Even if all the people who got an A grade got 3 A grades, that would only have been 13k people.

Whereas if we assume in 2025 the same it would be nearly 70k.

I think there's also a bit of a factor of telling people. When I was at school we did know each others' results - it went up on the board on results' day and stayed until the next results' day.
But really people didn't really talk about it, except to grandparents. I can't really remember what friends got because although I glanced at the board it wasn't talked about between us.
Whereas now it's not put on the board and people talk much more about it, possibly a little because of that, but also because grades have become more important, and also social media has made it more acceptable to trumpet it from the rooftops.

@OhDear111 I understand that Cambridge has dropped its state school admissions target, so it is possible that the current administration does feel the need for the best candidates from all schools; but until very recently that has evidently not been the case.

They have chosen to admit on non-academic criteria (explicitly) for political reasons, knowing that they were turning away the best applicants.

Headline degree classifications have changed very little, but it is counterintuitive that the standard has remained the same.

@Araminta1003 I agree.