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.

@TenSheds https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/apply/before/application-statistics
Go compare the Polar Quintiles across the last 13 years. You will note the high cumulative percentage of Polar Quintiles 4 and 5 in both 2013 and 2024.

It looks like a YP living in a 2 million pound house in London going to an excellent state school with 2 Oxbridge parents, who to anyone is privileged is may have a higher chance of getting in than a kid living in the North East going to a cheap (by London standards) independent living in a 250k house, in a school catchment that has low higher education participation and 2 parents who did not even go to uni. And that is not morally “right”. Assuming both kids same grades, same potential etc.
Or in other words using independent education as a privilege proxy is false or was just an excuse that is politically expedient.

However, in any event the access plan changed https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/university_of_cambridge_app_2025_29.pdf
So I expect more FSM, more NE focus etc etc - I think they will try. The problem is cost of living makes it very hard to overcome these. Unless they can raise more money for these types of students, the odds are stacked against them.

I don't know. Cambridge, to give it its due, is much better than other universities at analysing and publishing its data on admissions and subsequent performance.

The main way Oxford differentiates between "types" of pupil (for want of a better phrase) is not by school type. Rather, an applicant's GCSE performance is assessed against the performance of the school where those GCSEs were sat. So if someone goes to an amazing state school, or a duff independent, this will be taken into account equally. Note as well that it's where the GCSEs were sat, not where the pupil is currently, so it's not likely that moving from independent to state will game the system.

I know it's hard to believe, but som e people genuinely move because they think the state sixth form will be better. For example one of my DC is in an orchestra alongside a kid who has recently left a high performing independent school for sixth form college as they wanted to take Music A level and be in a large class with lots of people to collaborate and workshop with, rather than in a class of one.

Widening participation by socioeconomic status alone would have had no discernible impact on the ratio of state and privately educated students at Cambridge because the numbers are too small, as I indicated. It was selection by school type that has caused problems.

In its commitment "to achieving an intake that is reflective of UK society", the university decreased its intake of students from independent schools, increased its grammar school intake as well as the proportion of high socioeconomic status students from comprehensive schools, and had hardly any effect on its intake of low socioeconomic status students.

I can see why they would be happy with the high status students from comprehensive schools, but I thought these people regarded grammar schools with the same distaste as independent schools for being the preserve of the well off.

Well here we are. Durham hoovering up all the uber bright prospects Oxbridge have rejected.. what are surprise, said no one..

This year, the leaderboard has been something of a shock, with prestigious unis Oxford and Cambridge not even making it in the top three for the first time in 32 years. Instead, it was the University of Durham, the third oldest university in England (dating back to 1832), that won the Times’ coveted University of the Year award for 2026.

Despite coming in third behind the London School of Economics and Political Science and St Andrews in the Times’ overall ranking, Durham was named University of the Year 2026 due to the quality of its teaching and research, and high student satisfaction rates.

Overall, Durham scored 906 out of 1000 points in the Times’ rankings, with its top highest scoring categories being degree completion rate (96.8 percent), good honours (90.5 percent), and graduate prospects (88.8 percent). The uni, which has over 1,000 student-led societies and is home to a UNESCO world heritage site (a castle built under William the Conqueror), outperformed many of its Russell Group rivals.

https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/the-prestigious-northern-uni-that-was-named-britains-university-of-the-year-2026-092425

@peacefulpeach
I agree with the point you are making that Durham is benefiting from taking bright independent school students that Oxbridge is rejecting.
However, was their rise in the Times ranking linked to awarding more firsts or actually recruiting brighter students?
Apparently, the number of firsts awarded by a university affects their ranking.
This article on the FT says Durham was one of two universities that had the largest unexplained increase in top grades since 2010-2011, which could not be explained by student qualifications such as A-levels.
https://www.ft.com/content/69354429-5d7b-4e1e-9df0-82698256669f
However, it may be that the increase in the number of 1st class degrees that Durham is awarding is linked to this increasing number of bright independent students going to Durham instead of Oxbridge.
So will Durham outrank Oxbridge long-term? Who knows.

The FT article is political? Just googled the journalist.
Can you actually run a country efficiently when health and education are this politicised across the spectrum? I am not sure if makes anyone happy, everyone being made to be jealous of each other and divided.

Out a few days ago - prioritising UK grads

The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Billintends to implement the commitment set out in the 10 Year Health Plan for Englandto prioritise UK medical graduates for foundation training places, and to prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant NHS experience for specialty training places. In order to address the scale of the problem with the urgency it demands, the Government has decided to introduce emergency legislation so that prioritisation can be implemented during the current application process, securing the commitment for years to come.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/medical-training-prioritisation-bill-information-for-applicants-to-medical-training/

Sadly just for training.

Only one in 10 get onto training, and there is already a bid bottleneck from previous years.

Staff jobs, which most doctors will go into either to gain further experience before applying for a training position, or because they are happy with a good local job, are still open to worldwide applications. This is why 50% of those finishing Foundation were unemployed in August and why many of these are having to scratch a living from insecure locum shifts. With several hundred applications per post the NHS is able to hire experienced doctors from overseas at the same cost as inexperienced doctors in the UK. The same is true for nurses.

Its short-termism but Trusts need to balance budgets in the short term

One concerning aspect is that those with knowledge of the system or who come from more affluent backgrounds are better able to gather the extras they need to get onto training. Yet the NHS like Oxbridge will claim that diversity of background is important and that potential as well as achievement should be recognised.

(More thread divert- sorry. The principles of equality only seem to come into play when it suits.)

Very interesting points being made here about the nuances currently at play in education / training here in the UK. They really won't be solved by building division between private and state schools. I was a beneficiary of the Sutton Trust at one point, and they still do excellent work with their summer schools, but I find their research is very trashy and divisive. It would be great if those who claim to promote equality in education and training could focus on what needs fixed within the state school framework and point out the obvious regional disparities there. Why is the Sutton Trust not highlighting the blocking of the Eton collaboration in Middlesborough? One can only presume that it doesn't suit the politics of their leadership, and they procure funding on the basis they are an independent organisation.

One can only presume that it doesn't suit the politics of their leadership, and they procure funding on the basis they are an independent organisation.

And maybe their fund raising is helped if they take an anti private school stance.

Fascinating thread. Trinity Hall (and all other colleges and indeed universities) ought to be recruiting those students who are likely to be the most successful on the course of study. Music, Classics, Modern Foreign Languages and History of Art, which I understand to be the subjects for which Trinity Hall believes it will find better applicants if it takes a closer look at a group of high-performing élite private schools, are all inadequately taught in the state sector. While the reasons for that are many and varied, it is not because state schools fail to offer those subjects to high enough standards that universities should not be looking for well prepared applicants wherever they can find them. Indeed, by highlighting the importance of those subjects, more general awareness is raised about them.

Yes, the Sutton Trust reaction to the Trinity Hall news should’ve picked up on this - the abolishment of the Latin programme by BP, the post code lottery that is language and music education in schools. Instead, the CEO called for more reverse discrimination against private schools. Surely they are in a position to see what the real issues are - by using private school education as the proxy for privilege they are creating a divisive smoke screen and deliberately misrepresenting what the real issues are. Why can’t these institutions be apolitical?

Why can’t these institutions be apolitical?

I agree, that would be better, but I think the sort of people who apply to run these sort of organisations see an opportunity to impose their political views which tend to be left wing. Once they’ve got a secure foothold then they can hire and promote people with similar views and it’s very hard to dislodge them.
The long march through the institutions and all that.

This has possibly been one of the best mumsnet threads I have ever read. Opinions from many different perspectives concerning the state/private divide without resorting to name calling and some interesting and eye opening diversions from the original topic. Perhaps it is the intellectual quality of posters who happen to be on this thread.

"I think the sort of people who apply to run these sort of organisations see an opportunity to impose their political views which tend to be left wing."

When the Sutton Trust started up I used to read its research with great interest and thought it refreshingly apolitical. However, its research was also extremely valuable for "sharp-elbowed middle class" parents, who were able to infer all sorts of valuable snippets that they could leverage in their education strategies. So perhaps it was inevitable that the Sutton Trust became more political as time went by: it had to be proactively working against the more privileged children in order to defend the interests of less privileged children.

My dd is state educated and has just received an Oxford offer for Law with Law in Europe. She has mainly 9s at GCSE and 4 A* predicted at A level. She also won a Cambridge essay competition that was open to private and international students from schools like Westminster and St Paul’s and was not contextually assessed.

There are some truly exceptional state school students, and I honestly believe she would have got in regardless of which school she attended. That said, it isn’t as simple as “state vs private”. We are quintile 5, and while I’m not wealthy, I am firmly middle class and I have been able to pay for a tutor so she could take a language A level her school did not offer.

So yes, ability matters hugely, but access, information and small amounts of financial support matter too. It’s more nuanced than the binary way this debate is often framed.

Absolutely agree Fatsnowflake I grew up on free school meals and didn't have museum visits or even read newspapers on a weekend, let alone during the week. But, my parent's valued education and they were actually very bright themselves, even though they left school at 15 to go off and earn money for their respective families. It was the culture of education and possibility, the questioning and respect for the gift of being able to go to school which motivated me. Now, with University tuition fees where they are, I can imagine my parents thinking it would be a bad idea for me to go into debt and I feel sad for those teenagers in a similar situation. We need to make sure state schools are well resourced and that children have a place to study - school libraries or public libraries open late to facilitate etc.

@stringseleven If they were bright, they would understand paying the loan each month is dependent upon your salary. It’s not a bank loan. It doesn’t have to be repaid in full. Millions of dc have the loans snd honestly, only people who don’t read up on them are afraid of them. Plus, there’s no other option for poor dc other than a degree apprenticeship. Many in rural areas cannot get to one of those. They are also very competitive. So loans it is or don’t go to university but most people back themselves to earn better with the degree and take the payments with a pinch of salt. No alternative! I also believe poor intelligent people get this.

But unless you earn mega bucks you'll not even cover the interest, so loan just keep growing. So borrow £80,000 and repay £250,000. Seems a bit unfair when rich kids pay nothing.
Its an extra 9% tax for 30 years for most.

The country is in huge debt. It is better for all of us if those who can pay for their DCs uni fees and maintenance loans through their own pockets. Then the State does not have to borrow more. The more the Government borrows, the more taxes go up.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jan/08/university-of-cambridge-trinity-hall-recruitment-private-schools

So it’s ok to discriminate one way. But not the other way.

Rich kids pay nothing?

They pay the fees, and it would be absurd to suggest that they should be required to pay interest on non-existent loans.

Furthermore, 95% of students take out loans, you therefore appear to be defining the top 5% as rich. If we apply this standard at the other end of the income scale then it is actually poor "kids" who pay nothing - as is generally the case their fees are subsidised by the rich "kids", and by the 90% who are neither rich nor poor.

There is a massive misconception around WP. It's not for every state school student. It's for those that have had disadvantages during their childhood, whether that is poverty, being a carer, in care or many other things.

Oxbridge tried to reach out to more state school students (because they knew they were missing some great candidates) as many believed Oxbridge wasn't for them as it was just for those who call themselves 'elite'. Whilst doing this they realised that getting an A in a run down school in a class of 26 is as impressive as getting an A star at Eton, and they made provision for this.

More state school students applied and so more got in - not as lesser candidates but as equals. Some private school parents didn't like this !! Standards have not dropped as all students have to achieve good grades and/or get good internal exam results and do well at interviews. But it's obvious that if a larger % of people apply a larger % will get in.

And student loans are a con, when base rates have been so low and they charge 7% (more if you earn more - what other loan does this).