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.

I think the huge interest rate is to cover unpaid loans. Too many students are getting degrees that they can never pay off.

Pay nothing in loans. Not sure on the rest of your logic ? Yes, the 5% of richest students have rich parents who can pay for them to attend Uni, meaning no loans, so they have more in their take home pay for 30 years.

I think all education should be free for everyone regardless of their parents wealth and every graduate should pay 1% extra for life for the privilege. Not some paying £50,000 up front and some £250,000 as loans.

Bit then I don't think any school or person is 'elite' (maybe Usain Bolt).

My DD will never pay off her loan of £80,000. However she will repay over £250,000. Make sense ?

I think the problem is that many students will pay off much less than your daughter.

Agree. But many many won't. V few will ever earn enough to pay off much capital and so the interest will continue to grow. The only way to not pay off is to earn v little or leave the country (legally you still have to pay the loan but hard to enforce).

As a school in a deprived area we actually push Oxbridge as it's cheaper than most Unis ! Heavily subsidised accommodation and shorter terms. Many students have to work alongside studies to eat.

As always it is impossible to know if these people are stupid or if they just think that everyone else is.

Alastair Campbell would have us believe that filling Cambridge with POLAR Q5 students from elite comprehensives and grammar schools represents "painfully secured advances in social mobility".

The Sutton Trust's chief executive's contribution is that "State-educated pupils should absolutely not be overlooked for recruitment to any university courses. We’ve previously found that those from private schools are already overrepresented on a wide range of courses, despite representing only 7% of the population. This already limits opportunities for those with similar abilities from state schools." He must know that it doesn't matter how many pupils there are in prep schools, the 7% figure is therefore not applicable in this context. Anyone with integrity would refer to the 17% of A-level students who are from private schools or better still the 30% of those who achieve the required entrance grades who are from these schools. As for limiting students with similar abilities from state schools, there is fat chance of that happening when for more than a decade the system has conspicuously operated in the opposite direction.

Francis Green can always be relied on for the icing on the cake: “If a college perceives they are receiving too few qualified applicants in particular subjects, they might ... even adjust their educational offering." (My bold)

Are they bleating about, god forbid, actually letting in more privately educated students? Not exactly. They are objecting to a feeble attempt to persuade pupils in academically selective independent schools that there is perhaps a possibility that one college may not actively discriminate against them - for just a small number of subjects that state schools have largely decided not to teach.

These people are unbelievable.

"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."

They didn't realise any such thing, because it conspicuously isn't true. Not only has a candidate who obtains an A star theoretically not been given an opportunity to demonstrate the ceiling of their ability, Cambridge demonstrated that a student with an A from anywhere will perform significantly less well at Cambridge (and presumably Oxford) than a student with an A star also from anywhere.

At Cambridge "WP" is for every state school pupil. Their "access and participation plan" states this: "Ambitious and challenging targets on admissions which will further diversify the University’s intake by school type, POLAR4 and IMD quintile."

Cambridge explain that they "reach out" to more state school students for ideological reasons. What they do not say is that this is with the encouragement of educationalists, who hope that it will lead to the closure of some independent schools.

More state school students get in because a lower standard is required of them, so as of 2023 privately educated students are 50% more likely to be awarded firsts.

Utter rubbish. Cambs admissions would be v surprised to read this.

People discussing WP who unit know privilege are strange. But then they probably think they are the elite.

Many private schools are now looking towards top European and US universities as a more likely locations for their uber bright 6th formers. Makes sense - what an adventure for the YP. Oxbridge continue to slip in the ratings. Inevitable consequence.

You are absolutely right, it was utter rubbish. Mea culpa.

Students from independent schools are 43.7% more likely than students from comprehensive schools to be awarded firsts; foreign students are 63% more likely to be awarded firsts than students from comprehensive schools. I was conflating the data and leaving out grammar schools (students from independent schools are only 21.7% more likely than their pupils to achieve firsts).

And you could not be more wrong about "Cambs" admissions being surprised about this.

If there are fewer firsts there may be other factors at play, other than intelligence/prior education.

For example, a student from a less well off household may have to work in all their holidays rather than spend hours revising. We all know there is a lot of reading to do which cannot all be completed in 8 week terms! They may be panicking in their third year about securing employment and filling in graduate employment applications and attending multiple interviews instead.
And here is a controversial one - independent school kids as a group are more likely to be on extra time in exams. They may have carried through access arrangements and be getting first because as a group they might be more likely to be getting extra time? How many First students are qualifying for extra time?
The statistics do not tell us any detail.
The detail and real knowledge will come from those teaching the students day in and out and one would reasonably surmise that they know what they want/are doing.
For Cambridge, the real issue would be if top independent students stop applying as much because they believe they are unlikely to get a place. If there are still enough quality candidates still applying, then there is no issue for the university.
It is pretty much the same with the private school VAT. Plenty of people who could have afforded private education are now priced out, but if the top independent schools can still get enough high quality applicants in who can pay, they will be fine.

Do you mean you want contextual degrees as well as contextual admissions? So just give everyone from a comp a first and assume the ones from independents have cheated by being well educated?

There could be lots of reasons.

Students coming from state schools could have been a big fish in a small pond, and have to get past a crisis of confidence before they excel. Perhaps a 3 year degree doesn't give them enough time to reach that point.

If other top universities don't see the same pattern if private school students getting more firsts than state school students, then it could be the assessment process in Cambridge that makes things different, degree classification gained solely from terminal exams. Private school pupils are given at least annual, and often twice yearly exams in exam conditions. Perhaps these habits make the difference.

Private school pupils also have a different relationship with their teachers and become more accustomed to asking for and receiving support. Perhaps this carries on throughout university.

How many of the genius firsts came from private school students who had scholarships or bursaries and so had already been recognised and taken into the private school system, so now represent firsts from a private school, rather than a state school. In which case, we should be calling for more selection at age 11 or 13 and bringing back assisted places.

What does the data look like between STEM and none STEM? Is this marked difference for firsts between state and private students seen more in humanities and social sciences?

It sounds like an interesting puzzle to solve. Ultimately though, what does it mean? If a state school pupil gains a place at Cambridge and doesn't get a first, does it affect how capable they are in the various employment sectors or entrepreneurship?

It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that students at Cambridge (and other highly selective universities) who attended independent schools get more parental support throughout their university education than their state-educated peers. Support can take many forms: more money to live a more comfortable life, no need to take on work to cover living costs, free living costs to take up internships, summer schools, parents who themselves are better educated and can reread essays, travel to relevant places...

All of this support might contribute to the greater likelihood of an independently educated student getting a First. The same goes (with bells on) for international students. They learned more at university. Maybe that's "unfair" but life is unfair.

Drop out rates are far more relevant. And they remain very low at Cambridge so the admissions system is definitely not failing in any shape or form.

The Cambridge tripos system is quite flexible in allowing students to downgrade to an easier subject.

Perhaps selective private schools and grammar schools should stop advising students to apply to Oxbridge. Maybe some already are. Prioritise other top unis in the uk and across the world.

There is not just Oxbridge though, there is the med pathway, computer science, engineering, the bunfight that is getting on an Econ or Law course and now the most contested being certain degree apprenticeships/industry placements etc etc.
As far as I can see, on the ground, the obsession with Oxbridge is outdated anyway. It is just the parents aren’t over it.

There are no “easier” subjects, and transferring Tripos is very rare these days. Students are normally required to get a decent 2:1 in university exams in their first subject before switching, and to have a proper reason to do so. If students do badly, they have to improve or leave. They can’t just switch to another subject. That hasn’t been the case for decades now. And what are the easier subjects? Do you think students who can’t manage Engineering can just suddenly do History of Art or English (which has notoriously high entry standards)? And why would the academics in that subject allow that, or want to teach some dullards who don’t have the qualifications?

Several Cambridge students I have known in very recent years have found Maths and NatSci too challenging and have switched to Economics and Philosophy of Science. I can think of another student who switched into HSPS because she was struggling in her original subject though what it was escapes me.

Agreed. Not just Cambridge. Other top Universities, eg Warwick, will have "escape routes" for those who find they have reached a ceiling in maths.

How many of the genius firsts came from private school students who had scholarships or bursaries and so had already been recognised and taken into the private school system, so now represent firsts from a private school, rather than a state school. In which case, we should be calling for more selection at age 11 or 13 and bringing back assisted places.

Very true.