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.

If it is sent with easy accessibility to eg a public library app it is surely not elitist whatsoever. I can see how it may have been in the past if you had to actually spend money to get hold of the texts. But if they are available for free online then surely not.

The issue is that it’s ‘social engineering’ - and it just doesn’t Really work. As the unis are discovering / have realised.

The opportunities and development needs to start much much earlier. As mentioned before - from sure start (books books books reading support), to better comprehensive schools (more teachers, specialised schools, Books, Art, Music, PE, Latin etc).

But this foundational approach proves too ‘difficult’ for governments, it’s not an immediate vote winner (unlike tax on education 👀). So here we are.

Following this thread as it has been interesting to read different viewpoints - particularly those from Oxbridge academics.
I have Oxbridge YP (maths and STEM) who attended private school (not the ones mentioned by Trinity Hall)
There was a comment much earlier wondering why the debate always ends up as a private / state education debate. My impression is that this tends to happen because someone makes a disparaging remark to the effect that private school kids are mostly rich but stupid, "posh thickos."
I only read a couple of the early redacted comments by a previous poster and therefore would not be able to comment on the later removed posts which may have become more personal and rude, but I was confused as to why the earlier ones were removed. I think it involved some talk about how higher earners pay more tax - true, and, I think, written in response to a comment that suggested that all those who send their kids to state school support private schools with their taxes? - not really sure how that works since private school parents pay their taxes and have kids that don't take up their state school spaces. I am surprised that this particular comment was removed but the statement referring to "posh thickos," is allowed.
So much on these threads are interesting to read and be aware of, but anecdotal. For what it is worth, here is my anecdotal information based on my YPs experience. Older YP was very careful not to mention that they were from private school in order not to be judged negatively. Visited a younger YP at Oxford early on in the first term at the start of Year 1 and noticed that there was a party going on. I asked why my YP wasn't at the party and was told they were not invited as it was only for state school kids. My YP not bothered at all but I wonder if it is sensible to create this kind of division.
Both myself and partner are academic and have been successful enough to be able to send YP to private schools. YP are aware that they are privileged and I hope are nice enough people to not judge anyone based on income, accent, ethnicity etc etc. I think this comes from how they are bought up at home. In fact I think it is from the home (and not whether you went private or state) which can help produce the kind of candidates that Oxbridge are looking for. I am primarily talking about good comprehensive and selective grammars when I am talking about state schools. The wider participation schemes, I feel, should target the true disadvantaged - those children who have no parental help, and should start at primary school level.
Rather a long post from someone who is usually a lurker.

‘Visited a younger YP at Oxford early on in the first term at the start of Year 1 and noticed that there was a party going on. I … was told they were not invited as it was only for state school kids.’

This is disgusting. How to sow division 101. Glad your YP wasn’t fussed. It’s more the wider implications that their college (?) thought it was an acceptable thing to do.

Actually the stats are even more stark than @Operafanatic suggests if you look at offer as opposed to admittance rate. Cambridge classics three-year course it's 59% offer rate, four year classics 68% offer rate and languages it's 69%. I honestly don't believe that the two thirds of applicants who are admitted are smarter than a good chunk of the 91% rejected for computer science. Is someone actually suggesting that you can dump the vast majority computer science or maths applicants before you get to candidates even as smart as a rejected modern languages applicants.

I agree that you can't just cut all classics courses and expand all economics ones because of demand but as a PP said, you can adjust. For example history & politics is a relatively new course (2015 or something) and is incredibly popular and vastly more subsubscribed than history alone. Ditto economics and history at Oxford. Or modern languages and history is more popular than modern languages alone. I think you could keep the departments in rude health but tweaking the courses.

PS @Araminta1003 not sure HSPS is a new course at Cambridge, it's a tweaked version of an old course SPS, I think.

I think it is good to help those students who feel out of place, to fit in and understand their worth - they are clearly good enough as they got into the college /uni in the first place, but this type of party did not seem to be a sensible way to go.

Sounds like the party for state- schooled students may have been linked to the 93% society? YP will always want to join clubs and associate with other YP who they share an interest with -whether sport and leisure-based or ideological - and as long as this doesn't break any laws, it doesn't seem unreasonable

Some of the 93 percent may do, but logically, not remotely most of them - because Warwick and Imperial are very hard to get into too. And their courses are different!

One of the important things here, though, is the suitability of the student for a specific type of course. If lots of students apply who want to do computer science, because they have taken computer science at A-level and think it’s an IT/software course because they haven’t really researched the course and what it contains, and aren’t actually very suited for it, why do you think Cambridge should take them?

One of the big flaws in education in policy has been in fact to treat education like a market, and intelligence like a plastic quality that you just plug in to whatever “supply and demand” you want for the economy (eg. just get the brighter students in the education system to do more STEM A-levels and degrees, expand capacity, and bingo! Jobs are solved!)

Whereas, as we all know, people have specific abilities and talents. Some have a natural aptitude for languages, or maths, or music, and others less so. A few kids are lucky all-rounders who can do well in several subjects. But education policy over the last fifteen years has pretended that aptitude doesn’t matter - that you just get schools to churn out STEM or social science students and universities to churn out STEM
graduates instead of other courses, and that solves all economic problems. The idea is that you tell the classicists and language students to do STEM instead and then let “demand and supply” do the rest.

In reality, many of the kids suddenly applying in droves for computer science won’t actually really have an aptitude for that specific course, even if it’s currently a fashionable jobs field. And some kids who have a natural aptitude for languages or history or whatever are being steered away from it to do courses they’re probably less good at. That isn’t actually that great for either education or the students themselves. Even the all-rounders usually aren’t equally good at everything - students still tend to gravitate towards their natural aptitudes.

This is why it matters that some subjects are disappearing from the state sector. Kids need to be given the opportunity to try lots of things to see what they’re good at. If they never get to try languages, or support in learning them, how will they know if they could be good at them? Ideally, children would be able to try lots of different subjects and activities so that they could discover which ones they had talent in. Conversely, though, in top independent schools there will be kids who have had access to every kind of cultural experience on offer, and it still isn’t making them into a Latinist or a historian, because they don’t have that natural ability and that’s not what they’re really talented at.

The kind of ability we’re looking for at Cambridge is a mix of natural talent / raw potential, and yes, some acquired knowledge, because you can’t do the courses without a certain level of that. You can’t just shove raw intelligence into any subject box you like; but you can nurture and develop talent in particular fields. Schools should ideally be offering students a balanced and wide education, so that they can discover what they are interested in and pursue that, and so that universities can take the students who have a real aptitude and fit for the course, rather than being either vehicles for currently fashionable “skills”, or acting as a fake market for delivering young people to employers. That’s not really what the role of the university is. And it’s been a pernicious part of fees-based education policy to pretend that it is.

Interesting. I didn't know about a 93% club and I definitely didn't mention any issues with regard to law breaking. Whether something is reasonable or not is a matter of opinion. If there was a private school 7% club, I wonder how sympathetic people would be. And before l get backlash from my statement, I am aware that the 7% in most cases are hugely privileged but there may be some YP who also don't fit om. I just wonder if the divisiveness of such clubs are a good thing overall.

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/ug_admissions_statistics_2024_cycle.pdf

@peacefulpeach - are you sure it was really “state” school rather than Polar Quintile 1&2 type state school student?

If you look at page 30, 75% are still from Quintile 4&5 postcodes and Quintile 5 still has the highest offer rates.

Thanks! .... It seems odd that state school candidates on their way to Cambridge were upset about elitism..... And of course you do provide a list of 'useful reading' on subject pages - surely this could be extended to include a cross-curricular approach to make relevant links before starting the degree (and if the list was not just reading that might reduce the elitism accusation)?

None of our local state schools offer Latin. The impact of years of austerity is far fewer children who have had private music lessons. The problem with choosing from fee-paying schools is that it perpetuates the inequality instead of doing the right thing - fixing the inequality. Widening the provision and subsidising music and a wider variety of choices from primary school up.

? Not sure you mean me.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable but I don’t think it’s optimal either.

The most exhilarating thing I remember from my first weeks as an Oxford undergrad was how different everyone was and how little that mattered, because intellectual and other passions were what connected us.

I came from a provincial private school, socially equidistant from the Etons and the bog standard comps, and academically inferior to the top state schools who sent dozens of students a year. Thank god we weren’t all grouped out into different clubs and told that we belonged here, no, really.

University should be where you discover and remake yourself, I think, not a multi-speed conveyor belt according to the level of pitifulness you are assumed to arrive with based on your schooling.

Parties for only white people? Only English people? Only private school people? Only women?

I suppose one could argue that a ‘state school only’ party, or a ‘93% party’ doesn’t comply with the Equality Act 2010. 🤷‍♀️

16% of YP in higher (further?) education - are doing A Levels - and are at private schools. This stat doesn’t get spoken about much.

How? Which protected characteristic is involved?

It’s certainly EA-compliant, just a rather negative lens I think that rests on a subtext that “lots of people don’t think you belong here” which I think is simply false. Or was when I was at Oxford.

It would be a bit like me setting up a ‘32% club’ for private students (the % of straight-A students who were private) to remind ourselves that, despite what others might say, we belong here. We could celebrate the achievements of the Westminsters and St Paulses, and build solidarity between them and the minor private schools, who frankly were academically and socially miles apart.

It wouldn’t be wrong, exactly, it would just be a odd and unhelpful mindset to launch people out into Oxford with, and a poor use of amazing time that could be spent connecting with people on other more fundamentally important dimensions.

Don’t read about the Bullingdon Club then if you want to keep your blood pressure low….

Actually you’re correct. There’s nothing in the EA about discrimination based on type of education received.

I have no problem with a party organised by a college for lower quintile students.

Whereas a “93 per cent club”’in my books is as bad as the Bullingdon Club and I would assume would draw in similar character types. Al

I also have zero time for polar 5 whiners who are resentful of anyone who went to private school/has richer parents etc. Not forgetting that once you are at Oxbridge shouldn’t you actually be grateful for the privilege that entails anyway as you have access to far more resources than the majority of students paying the same price for their courses all over the country. There is nothing worse in my books than privileged people whining over someone slightly more privileged than them.

I do have full sympathy though for children from harder backgrounds feeling out of their depth and questioning their ability once thrown into a huge pond. It’s to be expected and support is often required.

🤢🤢🤢🤢

I don't know a massive amount about the 93% club (I have no affiliation with it: I've just read about it 😀) and I agree that what you describe is more optimal - all students mixing, sharing their perspectives freely, forming friendships, engaging in rigorous educational pursuit irrespective of background - but we know state school students do sometimes suffer from imposter syndrome or feel they don't belong in the rarefied Oxbridge/ RG experience.

Maybe attending the 93%club once a month to have a laugh with someone who they feel 'gets them' allows them then to wholeheartedly embrace the 'optimal experience' the rest of the time?

I’d never heard of the ‘93% club’ until this thread enlightened me. How awful it is, and really quite bizarre.

Aside from the fact that 16% are privately educated (16-18), are they saying all state schools are homogenous? A sink comprehensive in the NW is the same as eg. London Oratory? How about people who went to private then ‘state’ for 6th form? Are grammars eg. Tiffins the same as the sink comprehensive in toxteth?

Honestly it blows my mind how awful these things are. They are even allowed by unis. Mind you, apparently, men are now allowed in women only colleges.

I guess facts don’t matter and anything goes.

Perhaps another reason standards are declining.