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.

But more than that, it means a total lack of understanding of just how good the top private schools are, thereby giving no opening to try to emulate those schools and their approach (which a few outliers like Brampton Manor have done with amazing results). Much easier just to slag them off

No, you certainly want to face a future where mediocre / low ability doctors treat you, just because they represent average population.

What a silly comment. Medical students need to be strong academically. Whether they were privately educated, grammar school educated or state comprehensive school educated is neither here not there. If they are achieving well at AAA or above with a high UCAT score then does it matter where they went to school?

I think that is a great idea. I don't understand why this is not already a thing. Perhaps because there are too many relevant subjects?

In the US, there is a (very small) home education movement focusing on the "Great Conversation" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conversation). I think that is a fascinating approach to the humanities. Unfortunately, GCSE and A-level specifications do not align with it so it would be nearly impossible to implement at a school following the NC.

State schools can and do put pupils forward for Oxbridge, though at a rate lower than many private schools. We're debating a new policy by Tit Hall to invest their admissions budget going after candidates in a few elite private schools (who are already well served for Oxbridge admissions) rather than spending the budget visiting/advertising to state schools which is more difficult and more time consuming.

Absolutely, I do agree with you that it shouldn't matter which school they went to. So admission requirements should be the same for everyone. Not relaxed for some socio groups to make sure they are represented. Re-read what this post was in response to:

Medical schools were about ten years ahead of Cambridge in trying to achieve an intake that more closely resembled the general population. This also required a deprioritisation of prior academic attainment in their admissions processes. But the new students complained that the traditional science-heavy preclinical years were too difficult.

In my view the task of colleges should be ‘find the best candidates’ (defined loosely as: able to gain most from the course and contribute the most to the discipline).

For a long time colleges over-focused on the traditional sources, neglecting talent in non-traditional places. It was right to correct that.

Trinity Hall seems to have now observed that there’s been an overcorrection, leaving lots of excellent candidates at elite private schools. It seems right and normal that they should move to pick those up.

(I’m not sure if I’m disagreeing with any point you are making, just observing that it’s not the college’s job to do “hard” recruiting versus “easy” recruiting. The point is to find the right applicants from whatever source).

I think someone mentioned Brampton Manor which is a selective academy in East London, sending lots of kids to Oxbridge. The thing is in the Sixth Form they take 400, all need an average points score of at least 6,5 but if they want to study eg Computer Science for A level, they are not allowed to unless they have a 9 in Maths and Physics. Chem and Bio etc at least an 8, FM a 9, the subjects combinations are all quite specific.
Whilst some schools like this may be comprehensive at 11 plus, they are not at 16 plus, far from it (and the existing cohort who do not make the cut, cannot stay on). Often a lot of these kinds of London supposed comprehensives cream off the top performing students locally from all comprehensives and even grammars. Then the press goes on and on about successful non selective state schools? When some of them chuck out their existing cohort? Not saying that grammars do not do exactly the same, it is what it is.

All these classifications of comp vs grammar etc what do they actually mean when loads of Sixth Forms are actually selective? If Oxbridge were to start limiting North London grammar students, for example, plenty would just find another selective Sixth Form that would welcome them with open arms. This is also why some private school kids do go to state sixth form, don’t they? So these stats mean what exactly? Especially for London, aren’t they entirely pointless if there is a public transport system and selective state sixth forms available for those who have top grades and want to go there?
A lot of parents encourage their DC to move at Sixth Form, also as a form of extra prep for uni life and having to settle in somewhere new, mature, make new friends etc, focus on a place that offers exact subject combination in a successful manner?

And Labour are now funding an extra £2000 for Maths and Science heavy A levels at Sixth Form. To encourage even more of that to “boost the economy”.

The irony when it is the arts rather than STEM which is the second biggest contributor the economy (after finance).

Agreed @Londonmummy66 and the further irony being that these politicians making these kinds of decisions are typically not STEM graduates themselves (in fact, minority STEM in the House of Commons, is it not?) So is it more an idealisation of STEM from those who do not actually understand? (Bit tongue in cheek, of course, but still). Perhaps they should get some more STEM into the House of Commons first, rather than impose it on school children.

I read an exposé of Brampton Manor once. Gosh it's selection processes are brutal. Apparently, when the GSCE results come out you go to an enrolment day and they go, 'all those with an average of a 9 across 8 subjects please come up'. Then 8.8, 8.5, 8.2 etc and then when they've filled up all their places, they go 'right the rest of you can go home now'.

They're also really prescriptive about what subjects students can do, funnelling them into classics and theology to up their much vaunted Oxbridge stats.

Medical students should be strong academically but too often they are not.

The UCAT was developed when applicants to medicine typically had the same top grades as an additional way of differentiating between them, but prior academic attainment is a much better predictor of postgraduate performance. Unfortunately it correlates too strongly with socioeconomic status for comfort if you have a preference for diversity. The UCAT has therefore become a stronger predictor of entry to medical school, to the extent that some medical schools have no A-level requirement.

In a close parallel to the Cambridge experience, the pursuit of diversity in medicine has been associated with a 30% decline in entrants from independent schools but only a trivial rise in the proportion of students from the lowest socioeconomic group by parental occupation. In 2021 only 5% of medical students came from this background. The principle beneficiaries have been middle-class state-educated children of indifferent ability.

But ‘state’ schools don’t do Latin, usually. Labour made sure of that.

Did they?

Yes. They cancelled the Conservative initiative for Latin in state schools.

https://spectator.com/article/labours-decision-to-axe-latin-lessons-is-an-act-of-cultural-vandalism/

Latin was only taught in a tiny minority of non-selective state schools even before the funding was axed. Think it was something like 3%.

Unfortunately, there are higher priorities and despite personally thinking that Latin is something worth learning I do think that they had to take some hard decisions and base them on what was likely to benefit the largest number of people.

The same can be said for MFL, this raises a couple of questions.

According to the DoE more than 40 A-level subjects are available in English schools. How many of those are likely to be of greater benefit?

and

Why are Latin and MFL perceived to benefit children in independent schools but not in maintained schools?

@GeneralPeter
I agree that Cambridge may be missing out on some excellent candidates from elite private schools due to an over-correction.
However, I am not sure that Trinity Hall should be trying to persuade students at these schools to study classics or MML. Students should study what they are naturally interested in not what will get them into Cambridge.
Student from the elite private schools will already be applying to Oxbridge-I know I went to one. 50% of my year went to Oxbridge roughly back in the 90s-I don't think they need to try to recruit from these schools unless they are trying to manipulate what subjects students apply for.

It's nothing to do with benefit to children. It's about the cost/return of employing a teacher to teach a very small class versus the cost/return of employing a teacher to teach a full class. All classes need a teacher and it obviously makes more sense to employ someone who can take a full class of students rather than a tiny one when budgets are already stretched.

MFLs are available at some level in all state schools rather than 3% of them, and all seem to offer at least one or two including to A Level so it's rather a different picture compared to Latin or Ancient Greek.

Seriously? The top schools are an indicator of parental wealth. Not the child's potential.

This thread is foul.

Unbelievable snobbery and self importance. Disgusting and ignorant.

I guess there is a point beyond which I'd say it was unfair arm-twisting. But simply doing outreach to advertise classics and other courses doesn't seem excessive. They are communicating true and relevant information to the candidates about how wanted they are in a particular college/discipline. These students are smart and plugged into Oxbridge, they are (presumably) not going to be tricked into something that doesn't work for them.

For Trinity Hall though it makes total sense to make this outreach. I know it's been reported that it's only about a few subjects, but, frankly, it would be a great marketing move for one college to announce it wanted the elite private school students. Not because those students lack options, but because: a) it's always nicer to apply somewhere you've been actively told you are wanted, and b) there's always the worry (from applicants or parents) that colleges will be unduly harsh because they are worried about their state school/disadvantage stats. If one college broke ranks and decided that what it cared about was its Norrington stats not its state school % stats, I think it would clean up. (If they all did, which they wouldn't, the benefit would dissipate of course).

So in science it's very obvious that universities are the major place research is undertaken in everything from Chemistry to Archeology. I suppose I can just about understand some people don't know that many jobs are research jobs and people in charge of the research are teaching profs and lecturers in the uni. In a lower level of research, who do we think writes textbooks if not the academics

There have been many posts on this thread so it’s easy to miss some.
Here are a couple of mine, which I don’t think describe somewhere which takes “an extremely lazy approach to admissions to avoid taking the time, resources and skill to do it well.”
You may disagree, naturally.

DearestItIsSnowing · 10/01/2026 20:24
Here is part of an email the Master of Trinity Hall sent yesterday to its former students who are on their mailing list:
“To be clear, there has been no change to our admissions policy or our commitment to widening participation, and we continue to work very hard to support and attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
We propose to add some additional schools to the email lists we use to share information about our existing online initiatives, for a small number of humanities subjects in particular, where applicant numbers are falling across higher education.The aim is to try to increase the number of applications we receive for those subjects from students with appropriate qualifications, from all backgrounds.
This activity does not affect our overall Admissions Policy and the outreach work we currently undertake.
The College is very proud of the progress it has made in widening participation. Admissions from state schools in the past three years averaged 73% and we have seen a rise in the admission of students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds to 20.4% in recent years. This is more than many Oxbridge colleges and Russell Group universities.”

DearestItIsSnowing · 10/01/2026 20:32
The email goes on to say:
Our efforts, which have made a demonstrable impact on our admissions statistics, include:
the ‘You’ll Fit In’ programme, which engages with thousands of students from underrepresented ethnic backgrounds from maintained sector schools.
the ‘Cambridge from the Inside’ podcast, which aims to break down barriers for applicants. We have reached 170,000 views on these videos.
The College also participates in the STEM SMART programme, which supports educationally disadvantaged students in the sciences,
as well as the University’s HE+ programme and extensive work with maintained sector schools in our link areas in the Southwest of England.
We plan to continue and expand these activities in the years to come.