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.

Not only do more students get A and A* now that previously but students just seem to learn mark schemes nowadays and are taught to the test. I think in the past before the publication of mark schemes (prior to 1991), those that got As had to independently solve problems and think creatively.
IMO, Cambridge should be allowed to choose the students that will thrive there whatever their background, otherwise there will be a dumbing down in certain subjects. I see that only 218 students applied for Modern and Medieval Languages in 2024 and they accepted 152 (53.7% acceptance rate). In comparison 1863 students applied for computer science and they accepted 168 students (7.8% acceptance rate). Based on this, I would assume the computer science undergraduates at Cambridge are much more able.
Not good for the academics of Modern and Medieval Languages, but perhaps Cambridge just needs to offer mores spaces on computer science and less on Modern and Medieval Languages.

Actually, and very interestingly, rather the reverse. Never assume that you know exactly what statistics are telling you! 😀

My colleagues in computer science tell me every year that they find it extremely, extremely difficult to find any candidates who are equipped to do the course (it’s quite a niche and unusual course, not like at most universities — a proper old-fashioned computer science course requiring very high level maths, not coding or school computer science qualifications). It’s not unusual for them to interview lots of applicants and for nearly none of them to have the required level of maths or general ability (they despair every year….) Lots of A-level students take computer science, in both state and private sectors, and lots apply, but few get offers.

Whereas, the candidates who do apply for MML are heavily self-selecting and are normally extremely good. There just aren’t as much of them as the MML people would like. They want more of them applying! One of the major reasons is that you need at least one A-level language, but ideally two at a high level, as you apply to study two languages in the degree rather than one (you do eg. Spanish and German or French and Russian or French and Italian, for example). Students can take some languages ab initio, but often state students are unconfident about the idea of this because they fear it being too much work and that it will disadvantage them. Students in the state sector in particular suffer from not just the poor state of language teaching in state schools, which means that few state students take even one modern foreign language, and two is very rare.

So, actually MML would love more applicants; whereas my CompSci colleagues complain they’d like fewer but better ones.

@fairyring25 Only the brightest take MFLs now. It’s harder than many subjects.

Ha good to hear both my dds are linguists (different languages though).

We got them a languages tutor from age 5 as their state primary didn’t do languages. Wondering now if this is a coincidence..

@TheaBrandt1 How did you know they might enjoy MFLs though? I had absolutely no idea! DH and me speak enough French to ask for a slice of ham but that’s it. No skills in MFLs here. I regret I didn’t know this was something DD would be good at and certainly school did nothing. The subjects at Cambridge being talked about have no teaching at many primaries at all.

DH mother is from a European country so he is fluent in two languages.. Both did French from 5 one did Spanish a level and is now doing Spanish and another subject dual honours degree the other doing German a level. She did the gcse privately as German gcse wasn’t offered at her state school. They seem to take to languages which are sadly being scaled back in state schools. Maybe not in private I wouldn’t know.

Natural linguists, who have an ear for languages, do not find language acquisition hard. What makes languages daunting is that you are typically competing for your A Star with semi-natives over at the British School in Madrid. It is also likely that the bright young elite things Trinity Hall covets are brought up bilingually, trilingually, or have a chalet in Chamonix / villa in Portofino, A modern language is their easy A Level.... Juat to bang that cultural capital drum one more time.... That said, while the Languages playing field is not all that level, you'd rather take on the Madrid bunch any day than the hot housed to an inch of their lives International STEM aspirants that takes a third or even a half of places in the top UK STEM programmes. There are 1.5 billion people in China so quite a lot of potential candidates competing for the STEM places, meaning the British STEM kids that make the grade are very bright indeed.

Not sure all Chinese dc want to be here paying international fees. I only know one DD who went to Trinity for MFL. Yes, private school and dad was a builder. No chalet or villa. Just good at most subjects.

The other thing of course about MML is that, as with most language degrees, it’s a four year course with a year out in another country. This often puts students off, especially state students, because they often dislike the idea of coming back to do their final year when their friends in other subjects have graduated. It used to be that sandwich degrees were sought after, but today’s students, especially in the state sector (and especially post-Brexit), are nervous both about doing this in itself, and about the extra year out of the job market. It’s also, of course, an extra daunting prospect for students who have not travelled much.

I think it’s difficult for those of us who were at school more than a couple of decades ago to appreciate how insular British culture has become in the last fifteen years or so. It was normal to do two languages when I was at school, even in a bog standard comp. Europe was the future. The Channel Tunnel had opened! Low cost airlines had arrived! We were all going to be living and working anywhere we liked in the EU in all these exciting cosmopolitan places! Languages were a normal part of school life. You had to take at least one to GCSE, and most people did two.

This is still the norm in the independent sector, but not remotely in the state sector any more, unless you’re at a good grammar or outstanding comprehensive/academy. Bring interested in other European cultures and languages is simply not even thought of as useful or essential any more - you hear the “why learn them when everybody speaks English” argument all the time. It really is just that anti-intellectual.

This is not at all the same in the independent sector, because often private schools are very international, it’s not unusual for there to be lots of bilingual kids, and 2+ languages is normally expected. The kids are often taken on language learning and educational trips abroad quite early, and often have many more opportunities to experience holidays and living abroad, so the idea of travelling or living in another country is not nearly as daunting as for, eg., a kid in a comprehensive who quite enjoys Spanish, but has never had the opportunity to travel or experience life outside a British culture which is very parochial and insular these days.

What percentage of the students who enroll are from independent/grammars/comprehensives ?

If some of the courses are inaccessible and elitist, can Cambridge not reform them?
Why does it have to be 2 modern languages. How about German with German Politics and History or Thought.
How about Classic Civilisation with Latin or Ancient thought with Greek.
Perhaps the issue is in the courses themselves rather than the state school offering? Could that possibly be the case?
French with French Art and Film etc - I understand things have been done a certain way for centuries due to the supervision system, but perhaps moving more liberal arts way would actually be a good thing?

On the whole languages and music front, I believe it is easier to learn and absorb at an early age and could it possibly even include Latin and Greek too? It applies even to near perfect pitch or perfect pitch, it can be enhanced by early exposure. Hence you will find a lot of very musical children in families where music is practised from an early age.

On languages, at one of the schools mentioned it is possible to do 5 languages at GCSE (one compulsory, up to 4 as options). It’s keeps the doors open for an MML or classics degree, in a way which most state schools can’t afford to do. This isn’t counting any languages spoken at home, which can be done as an early GCSE with school input but no timetabled lessons.

@januarybikethief I went to a grammar in the 70s and hardly anyone did 2 MFLs at O level. That would have been unusual. Even then - a handful. However I totally agree about our outlook changing and how timid many dc are. I tend to think that’s the influence of parents too. The dc are not independent and are too insular. My DD was more then happy to do her year abroad and all her engineering and MFL friends were doing 4 years. At good universities quite a few are doing 4 years but only people with confidence go abroad.

Cambridge should stick with 2 MFLs for their MFL course. It’s dumbing down not to. Anyone who doesn’t want this can apply elsewhere and talented linguists can do 2. Always was the case. It’s more work but you would expect that at Cambridge.

@OhDear111 I was also at grammar in the 70s and our school did two MFLs (French and German) as well as Latin at O Level and offered Ancient Greek at A Level. I don't think it was particularly rare.

@januarybikethief My DD did various MFLs from an early age as well as Latin and Greek to GCSE standard at prep school but then she went to a grammar where the classics were not well supported. She started a sandwich degree at a non-Oxbridge university that included a MFL but switched after the first year as she decided she didn't want to do the year abroad so dropped the MFL.

Haven’t read all the replies but @SanctusInDistress - you are so off the mark. Academic private schools are incredibly competitive when it comes to admissions.

My DCs school has an entrance test. Chances of getting in on the back of it are currently about 1 in 18. It’s nothing to do with how rich you are (though you have to afford fees of course, unless you are on a bursary) and while some will be tutored to get it, it’s not a given - mine were not.

This is going to sound like I’m boasting, but I find your ‘private schools are full of thickos’ comment so offensive I don’t really care!

@januarybikethief
Thanks for your comments. Your computer science colleagues' views are surprising.
Statistically computer science is harder than languages at A-level based on average GCSE results and final outcomes. I also believe you have to do Further Maths to do computer science at Oxford (if your school offers it) and this is statistically the hardest A-level. Your colleagues are saying they don't have enough candidates with good enough mathematical skills but maybe they can just be choosy with the very high number of candidates they get applying. The kids studying Further Mathematics that I know are the brightest students from when they were in primary school. More so than the languages students who tend to just be from bilingual middle class families.

Yeah. If the college really believes highly selective schools select the very best, then why are they not also targeting super-selective state schools?

I’d say the college’s outreach, selection and screening programmes aren’t working very well if they aren’t getting the highest quality students. Or maybe their offer isn’t that appealing. Maybe they should look at those things instead rather than taking the easy option and aggressively marketing at St Paul’s et al.

When my (Yr10) started Yr7, the school had 2 French teachers and 1 French/Spanish.
When one French teacher left, all they could recruit was Spanish teacher. Then the other French teach left... again only could recruit Spanish. So in Yr9, they switched the top sets from French to Spanish, using the logic that these were most likely to chose GCSE MFL.
At the end of Yr9... the French/Spanish teacher left. And guess what they could only recruit...

So now they have two Spanish classes in Yr10, one of which has studied from Yr9, and other from Yr10. They know its an uphill battle but they are all a determined lot.

The Yr11s however... fortunately there is a Sixth College nearby whoich is lending a French teacher 3hrs a week for the Yr11s to finish their French GCSE.

So for MFL... if the schools can't recruit teachers, how can State schools create linguists unless the pupils have outside input?

This is so interesting- it genuinely never occurred to me when I was studying MFL in the 90s that it was any less competitive to get into than other subjects! Perhaps it wasn’t, back then. It was a no-brainer for me, I picked it as I loved the subject and was good at it, not as a way to game getting into Cambridge.

I don’t think of any of my fellow linguists on my course had grown up bilingual, everyone had just learned their A-level language(s) at school. I think I presumed that high grade A levels from people with a native speaker advantage would not count as they would not prove the person’s capability for learning.

I actually took deferred entry and spent a year in a country where one of my languages was spoken, to make sure I was good enough when I arrived. Very glad I did that.

Re the point about not wanting 4 year courses as your friends will have graduated not sure that is still the case now. There are so many doing the sandwich year and having a year overseas is not just for linguists it’s is encouraged now for all courses so there will be friends there in fourth year.

The ‘thicko’s from private school’ cliche is just a way some people think to try and convince themselves of a non existent reality.

The top private schools, as you say, have extremely stringent entry requirements. A kid can’t get into St Paul’s, Brighton college etc, unless they’re already v v bright.

Of course there are many bright children in comprehensive schools and in grammar schools. But we don’t need to pretend that private schools kids are ‘thickos’. It’s kind of embarrassing for people when they say that.

This is going to sound like I’m boasting, but I find your ‘private schools are full of thickos’ comment so offensive I don’t really care.

It’s a popular mn theory and comes up on every thread about private education. On this one we’ve been told that not only are private school students thick, but not a single one from the top schools is able to get a normal job but instead they work in non-jobs from which they can’t be sacked. 😂😂😂😂

Even if you were tutored get into these schools – a) it’s not a certainty you will get in as the tests are pretty tutor proof and be) a lot of the tutoring is done by kids in state primary schools to make sure they understand the exam requirements.

I’d agree that the standard at – say – the top 50 private schools in the country is incredibly high as they really do have their pick of the bunch plus once you get there your child is surrounded by extremely motivated, clever children, who are keen to learn and succeed. That makes a difference. And if people dismiss these kids as posh spoon fed thickos they are not going to understand the problem that Oxbridge is facing with recruitment in certain fields.

I don’t really know why the discussion always ends up around private schools.
Because isn’t the more urgent question about the massive regional differences in educational attainment?
Rather than getting sidetracked by private/grammar, is it not far more urgent to understand why there are so many kids at Oxbridge from London/South East etc? Now of course some kids prefer to stay local to where they grew up. However, if there is you going to be more equality isn’t that a far more important question?