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.

@Marchesman You didn’t even need particularly high A level results. My friend had B,C,D. Was the right person to be a doctor though!

This is categorically untrue. If someone is capable of studying medicine, they should be more than capable of navigating the application process. There is plenty of help in TSR and on here regarding applying to the best fit schools for them. The interview process does not require hospital work experience/shadowing like it has in the past and the UCAT can be done with a month of Medify and does not require any tutoring. My DC got four offers from top medical schools and there is not a doctor in the family. Please stop peddling nonsense.

Your DC got four offers from top medical schools and now you are an expert.

Sadly I have only been a senior lecturer in a Russell Group medical school, a director of postgraduate medical education, an admissions tutor, a clinical supervisor and educational supervisor.

I am sure you know best.

@Marchesman that's very interesting and explain a lot of insights you've given on this thread.

Do you think the tide will turn at some stage and top unis will stop discrimination based on school type?

Depending on when, those could have been very good results. The standard offer for London medical schools was much the same - CCC - in the 1970s.

But then only 16% of school leavers achieved 1 A level or better. Now, such is grade inflation that in London more than 25% pupils achieve AAB or better, more than enough for medicine.

I think it only looks as though it might be turning. The ideology is entrenched, and given that it has always defied logic, I would not be optimistic that its real world consequences will have much effect on the way most people behave. At best institutions like Cambridge will ease off a bit for the sake of appearances. That after all was their original motivation.

So German has more than twice the entries of Latin. Then there are French and Spanish which are both significantly more popular than German. And others too, of course, most of which will be offered in independent schools because of the employing teachers and having to pay them thing. MFLs are sadly in decline but it's nowhere near as low as the levels of Latin teaching or uptake. If you look at GCSE entries the numbers of MFL entries are hugely greater than Latin etc.

But a lot depends on who is offered what. When I went to school, everyone had to do French. The top set could choose between Latin and German as a second language. The next two sets did German as a second language, and the bottom 3 sets didn't do a second language. It meant that when we took our GCSE options, only a handful of us even had the option of Latin, a few more could choose German and even more French, but not everyone chose a language at all.

If French and Spanish are taught in more schools, they are the most popular simply because for a lot of people, they are the only language options they are ever given.

@Marchesman 1973

My DC did their own applications. However, it was perfectly obvious that if you are switched on, academic and really want to study medicine, you have no need whatsoever of doctor parents. I imagine it could even be quite a hindrance.

I don't mean student demographics should be the same as population demographics, but rather that the ratio of spots in course X to course Y should be the same as the ratio of applicants for course X to course Y.

If Oxbridge were to offer a disproportionate number of spots in a course that is not particularly popular among the general population, which has relatively limited career opportunities, and for which the requisite A levels are disproportionately offered at a few rich schools, one shouldn't be surprised if rich, privileged students dominate that course in admissions.

I am absolutely sure that the statement from Trinity Hall was considered and they fully anticipated the response including the pieces in the Guardian.

I wonder if this is a backlash against an admission policy that to some was perceived as positive discrimination and there were college leaders who decided to rebel and exert independence ? (Note it was a college not the university).

I know this sounds strange but less than 50% of girls from SPGS get to Oxbrdige if you include US universities in the calculation and amongst those non Oxbridge studs rd there must be a significant number of rejects given the academic profile of the school. Is it a case college leaders have noted this and thought Cambridge are missing out on talent (maybe anecdotally and through analysis) and are trying to encourage these girls to try admission for a more diverse range of courses in recognition of their ability?

https://www.nlcs.org.uk/about/results-destinations/

again a school with incredible A level results here (nlcs) but if you look at the figures there must be a quarter to a third going to Oxbridge at most and maybe people are asking the question how many Oxbridge capable girls are being rejected and would they have been rejected with a different course selection?. is Trinity Ball simply pointing out there is talent in the independent sector worthy of Oxbridge places and they can be obtained if the students look more broadly at the subjects applied for? Is this necessarily a bad thing?

But a quarter to a third of all sixth form pupils getting in to Oxbridge is an incredible hit rate, even for a very selective school. I hope the girls' parents didn't assume they would all go!

It comes back to the same hard truth. With grade inflation so many young people will get the three A's that offers are based on there is absolutely no way that they can all get an Oxbridge place. Course tutors have to look at individual candidates and decide what extra things about them make them more or less desirable, and who they want to have around for three or four years.

Personally I think there is a case for just making offers based on 3 A stars. It would cut down on a lot of false hope and time wasted on interviews etc. I would also only look at traditional academic A levels. Oxbridge is hard work and candidates who have already learned that will struggle less when they arrive.

I think the point is that the NLCS/St Paul’s girls are as good as the Westminster kids academically so why are they not getting the same hit rate? May just be a confidence thing for girls.
It is more of a girls’ school question really (not necessarily a question of state vs independent). You often also see a lot of the most confident girls then join more boy heavy schools for Sixth Form, if they are focussed on elite uni.

@Araminta1003 that's very interesting. But you do have to assume that if they wanted to go they would apply and presumably get in. There are more female than male students there now, so not misogyny. Perhaps it's a case of leading a horse to water and my drinking.

Not drinking!

In my own direct experience- of two friends daughters. 1 at SPGS 4Astars, 1 at G&L 3Astars. Both rejected on application. No interview. From Oxford and from Cambridge. Both 2yrs ago.

@peacefulpeach see my post above. They just weren't what the college wanted for the course they applied for. Life's hard!

I'd guess the policy was leaked, so they made a statement. As a college they have not been in the best place regarding previous master and current one is not an academic. With the notable exception of Bridget Kendall, most non academic masters struggle.

Sure. We know that students with lower grades have been accepted, based on their school. And as we’ve seen - output has degraded to some extent. Perhaps if they accept the students with the highest grades (whatever their background), the elite status of these unis will return.

I think it's about time to introduce A-double star grade or GCSE grade 10. To be able to see the top 1-3% able students and then for Oxbridge to offer to them.

I suspect it's going to be cohort of usual suspects though

@mids2019 to use your case example, a quick Google suggests that for Spanish A level, less than half of the pupils at NLCS got an A star. Now I know that an A star is not required for Oxford MFL, but if we are saying that these schools both accept and produce only the best of the best I am confused as to why they’re not hitting the A stars. My DC managed an A star from a very averagely performing non selective comp, followed by a non selective sixth form college (and we are a POLAR 3 household, and not native speakers, so a very average educational experience all round).

This supports my point that it’s about the required A-level subjects not being attractive, rather than highly performing independent schools being full of well qualified candidates who chose not to apply or get rejected. There’s no reason to think that there isn’t also a large cohort of pupils in the state sector who would ace an MFL A level, but are instead taking Maths, Physics and Economics. EVERYONE needs to know that MFL can be a smooth pathway to Oxbridge, not just a certain cohort.

And my DC's sixth form college also has plenty of straight A star applicants rejected pre and post interview - it's not just the independent schools.

If someone did a full study on the entire population, and it transpired that on a population level, women and girls have stronger verbal reasoning skills by x points, and men and boys have stronger non verbal reasoning skills by y points. If it then also could be shown that non verbal reasoning skills are essential at the top level of STEM. Then is a decision by the Government to deliberately fund STEM and underfunded humanities/languages actually fundamentally sexist? Leading to arguably a deliberate curtailment on the full potential of women and girls earning potential (arguably).

So Cambridge encouraging the arts/languages/humanities by whatever means at their disposal (because let’s face it, they cannot fund those in state schools directly) is not a disservice? The drum has to be to encourage elite private schools to encourage their own pupils but to also offer outreach to state schools to enable others in state schools to learn as well?

Of course, that's what a lot of this thread has been about. But anyone applying from an independent at the moment needs to realise that the person the university wants may not be them, even with their top gades. At the moment other things are seen as just as important. I expect that this will change if their world rankings continue to fall.

@Araminta1003 you sweet old fashioned thing! How likely is it that parents who have paid 40% tax, and then paid school fees, and then possibly a levy to pay for scholarships, and then 20% VAT and who know their children will be discriminated against at university entry will be willing for their resources to be used 'to offer outreach to state schools.' That sort of goodwill vanished with the education tax.

I also seriously doubt that there is enough capacity in the private sector to sort out the state system. The best 20% of state schools do as well on average as private ones. They also have more pupils than are in the private sector. They should sort out the failing ones.