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.

@Denim4ever I agree that Cambridge has good admission statistics for state school students.
The academics on this thread have highlighted that for some subjects e.g. Humanities, state school students can be at a disadvantage due to their lack of cultural capital and so they may not do as well at Cambridge after being admitted.
Thanks goodness this does not matter in the sciences, where cultural capital cannot prevent someone from just being very good at a subject. I feel a bit sad that cultural capital should have any impact on how well someone does at university. It also feels really pretentious to be going on about cultural capital. IMO, going to a couple of Shakespeare plays, visiting a few museums and castles etc. is not what will improve a child's language to the extent that they will do well on a Humanities course at Cambridge. I think it is more about being able to debate and justify your points. Perhaps what we really need is more critical thinking and debate in the national curriculum and less emphasis on learning mark schemes to do well on tests.
Other posters have said that Cambridge should not have to adjust it curriculum but I disagree. I cannot see why Cambridge is offering so many places on subjects that are clearly inaccessible for state school students and unpopular with private schools students too. However, I do think Cambridge shouldn't be forced to take students that are not up to the right level. Private school students should not be disadvantaged just because they go to a private school. So many state school students are richer than private school students.

Perhaps what we really need is more critical thinking and debate in the national curriculum and less emphasis on learning mark schemes to do well on tests.

I agree - provided it is actually a debate in which participants can actually say what they want rather than what they think the teacher wants to hear.

IMO, going to a couple of Shakespeare plays, visiting a few museums and castles etc. is not what will improve a child's language to the extent that they will do well on a Humanities course at Cambridge.

I think it can help. There are plenty of words and facts I first learnt about from plays and museums. Still do. That's not yo say you don't also need critical thinking and debating skills, but seeing things, rather than just reading about them in a book can make things sit in your head better. And the more things you've learnt about, the more references you have to use in your arguments, be they debates or essays or a chat in the pub.

@fairyring25 "thank goodness this does not matter in the sciences"

I'm not entirely sure that's true . Evidence?

I have caught up with the thread with interest this afternoon. It's been a varied read but one thing that does stand out is the resentment from some quarters that the privilege they thought they had secured for their dc by sending them to a fee-paying school is perhaps less likely than they thought to include an Oxbridge place. This has then led to comments about not being wanted and choosing to go elsewhere, which is of course their prerogative. Is that really such a loss for Oxbridge? I don't know and I don't think it has been proved. One poster has been at pains to demonstrate that students from state school are less likely to get firsts than those from independent schools, but is that really such an important measure? Does it really prove those students weren't as able as their A star gaining counterparts from fee-paying schools or is getting an Oxbridge 2.1 from a deprived background, or at least, an average comp, just as impressive as getting a first if you have come from a highly selective independent? Does the possibility that they were unlikely to get a first mean they should not have been admitted? And it's anecdotal, but my ds says some people he has met at his Oxford college are not really focused on getting firsts and are more involved in some of the extra-curricular opportunities. The data doesn't tell us anything about that and only takes us so far. As for some of the comments...I still haven't made up my mind whether the person who mentioned wealthy students from abroad not wanting to be with people who hadn't even been skiing was arguing for the other side or not.

To me, the real point is, if we do agree that widening participation has led to poorer outcomes for Oxford and Cambridge, what do we do about it? Shrug our shoulders and say we'll have to just prioritise students from the 'right' schools and backgrounds? The answer to that surely has to be no, regardless of anything else. That cannot be acceptable. I'll admit, I would shut down all the fee-paying schools tomorrow if I was in charge, because it is unarguably a system that perpetuates inequality and division and should have no place in a modern society. I don't really see another solution.

And the obsession with cultural capital is just a thinly veiled excuse for snobbery and nothing will convince me otherwise. I have a first in English Literature (not Oxbridge) and am well aware of the importance of identifying classical/biblical references and other, more general, benefits, of being cultured and having broad knowledge, but, leaving Classics aside, I don't accept that having this store of knowledge beforehand is absolutely essential to all hums/arts degrees and therefore it's best for state-educated students, especially from certain backgrounds, not to apply. This can be learnt and improved while you are studying, including at Oxbridge, and to deny that is lazy snobbery and reveals an obsession with superficial markers of excellence. People have also mentioned sport being done at a high level at private school building character and resilience but many seem to refuse to value the more varied experiences students from other backgrounds may bring and the types of setbacks they may have had that built their resilience just as much as the terrible season when Sebastian's rugger team struggled to win a game.

There is a lower probability of obtaining good honours in science courses and they have a higher proportion of students from state schools. You might regard this as evidence that "cultural capital" (however defined) is even more important for the sciences.

The fact is that references to cultural capital have as much bearing on reality as the notion that students from state schools are disadvantaged, because socioeconomic status does not affect degree outcomes.

Students from state schools were doing fine until the university stopped admitting purely on merit. Selection determines outcomes, if tutors are under pressure or feel inclined to admit students on grounds other than merit they should not be surprised if their cognitive abilities prove not to be up to scratch.

@pinotnow or we could decide that it's a scandal that students from comprehensve schools demonstrably do worse at Oxbridge because they are being admitted with worse prior attainment.
Do you really think that your naive idea of closing all independent schools would raise standards in the state system? Of course it wouldn't, it would simply lower the standard all round.
There is nothing wrong with the best comprehensive schools, which are just as good as independents. Has it occurred to you that if all independents were closed those are the schools that the ex privately educated pupils would go to? Not paying school fees would give their parents much more cash to spend on a mortgage. So better off families would still have an advantage.
Is education the only thing you think people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on? Or do you object to people jumping the NHS queue by paying privately too? Or what about buying expensive houses in grammar school areas?
The main thing that would improve state educated kids education would be if the state actually pulled its finger out and educated them properly.

I agree but this is also where pupils at the London top schools - not just the elite indies but also the super selectives like Tiffin etc are at a real advantage. There are so many free museums so many v cheap tickets (and ticket schemes) to see plays and concerts etc. A London teenager can take themselves off to see the Science Museum, attend lots of lectures including at universities, go to the Proms, look at antiquities at the British Museum or stare at pictures at the Tate. It does mean that they are at an advantage over a teenager at a rural comp who might not be able to get a bus to the nearest town at the weekend. The internet can go someway to filling the gap but it is still not the same as seeing things for yourself. Calling up a Greek vase on the BM catalogue doesn't necessarily put it in context in the same way as seeing it alongside other vases painted on a similar theme.

I'll admit, I would shut down all the fee-paying schools tomorrow if I was in charge, because it is unarguably a system that perpetuates inequality and division and should have no place in a modern society. I don't really see another solution.

@pinotnow Would you also ban overseas students from applying to British universities as they will almost certainly had money spent on their education?
Or what about British children who were educated in a private school abroad?

@Marchesman
Where you do you get the figures from that state school students at Cambridge do worse than independent school students in science? I tried to look it up but couldn't find the information.
Is cultural capital really necessary in the sciences? If cultural capital means going to Shakespeare plays, art galleries and museums, I think no. If it means that people have the confidence to follow more intellectual pursuits including science then maybe. I just think that a lot of what people say about cultural capital sounds like snobbery to me.
A lot of black and Asian kids I know would say that Science, Maths, Law etc. is something they would like to do at Cambridge if they got in but not Classics. On average, their parents have never taken them to see a Shakespeare play or gone to an art gallery. They are a clever bunch on the whole and I think they are more likely to go to the London universities, which seems a lot less snobby than Oxbridge.

@pinotnow and how do you feel about many parents buying privilege through tutors? Especially at state grammars and some comprehensives in wealthier areas. Some parents cannot afford tutors. So why should tutors be allowed, it’s not fair.

@38thparallel I don't want to ban anyone from applying to anything. I just want a fair society in which all children receive an education that allows them to fulfil their potential, which for some will mean being able to consider elite universities.

Do you really think that your naive idea of closing all independent schools would raise standards in the state system? Of course it wouldn't, it would simply lower the standard all round.

Why would it? It wouldn't erase all inequality and children would still be from a variety of backgrounds and would have varying levels of parental support, which will always be the case. But if everyone just went to their local school knowing it was well-funded and staffed by professionals who were well-trained, well-paid and respected, instead of this ridiculous choice/competition-fuelled lottery of an education system we have, which seems to be unique globally and which lets so many children down, far more children would receive a high-quality education and we wouldn't be reinforcing snobbery and division in the way we educate our children. It's grotesque.

* I don't want to ban anyone from applying to anything. I just want a fair society in which all children receive an education that allows them to fulfil their potential, which for some will mean being able to consider elite universities.*

@pinotnow you haven’t answered my question.
You said you want ‘grotesque’ private education banned, along with a spiteful comment about ‘Sebastian’.
Do you not also think it unfair that children from overseas private schools should have such privileges? Why should they get to apply to UK universities when they’ve had more advantages than many state school educated British students?

A lot of black and Asian kids I know would say that Science, Maths, Law etc. is something they would like to do at Cambridge if they got in but not Classics. On average, their parents have never taken them to see a Shakespeare play or gone to an art gallery.

This is sad to hear and part of the problem of sustaining arts and humanities courses, and thereby the associated professions, who are working hard to reach all communities and improve diversity in these sectors. Even if cultural exposure isn't necessary for STEM, it's part of a rounded education and, well, fun. The traditional museums and Shakespeare aren't for everybody, but there's a such a range of places and performances, even in my remote corner of the country. It's certainly true that Londoners of all backgrounds (and to a lesser extent, other city catchment dwellers) have an advantage in cultural access and it's a shame to think they aren't enjoying this for its own sake.

@fairyring25
Science courses - which have a lower probability of obtaining good honours - have a higher proportion of students from state schools. This has (incorrectly) been put forward as an explanation for the underperformance of students from state schools.

I imagine that it would then be hard to argue that their underperformance is due to a lack of cultural capital, unless you believe that cultural capital is particularly useful to scientists.

These days, Cambridge is not very forthcoming about the effect of school type on academic outcomes, the only to way find this is through an FOI request.

@TenSheds But the black and Asian kids I know have travelled to their home country and countries nearby so they have been exposed to other cultural traditions e.g. music, food, dance, films etc. On the other hand, they have not been exposed to Shakespeare or traditional museums or art galleries in the UK-what posters on here say leads to cultural capital. They haven't travelled as much in Europe as Asia or Africa. This doesn't mean they are not exposed to a wide range of ideas just not European ones. They are also just less interested in subjects like Classics at university. And on the whole they don't go skiing!
@Marchesman So we can't say definitively whether state or private school students do better in sciences. My guess is that it doesn't matter what your background is. Anyone can do well in sciences if they are bright.

Well said.

Our local grotesque private school was the only option for my child to get any form of education.

Could tutors be the big difference? Tutoring has become popular over the past decade and a year or more of one to one with a tutor in an essay writing subject would provide a huge advantage. Even though it's common in the state sector, perhaps it is still more common in the private sector.

?

It would lower the standard all round because the nation would spend less money on education.

Pupils in the top quintile of "non-selective" state schools are twenty-four times more likely to go to Oxford or Cambridge than children in the bottom quintile of non-selective state schools - a threefold greater difference in rate than there is between independent schools and non-selective state schools; and there are more pupils in the top quintile of non-selective state schools than there are in independent schools.

So where is the inequality and division most problematic? Does a relentless focus on shutting down independent schools increase or decrease the likelihood that anyone might feel incentivised to address the more difficult problem within state education? And if independent schools all closed who, apart from a small number of ex-fee-paying parents, would be better off? Will rampantly socially segregated state schools become more or less segregated?

Sometimes it's best to be careful what you wish for.

So where is the inequality and division most problematic? Does a relentless focus on shutting down independent schools increase or decrease the likelihood that anyone might feel incentivised to address the more difficult problem within state education? And if independent schools all closed who, apart from a small number of ex-fee-paying parents, would be better off? Will rampantly socially segregated state schools become more or less segregated.

Those against private education don’t care about any of that. All they care about is private schools being abolished for the likes of ‘Sebastian’.

@pinotnow do you really think UK is the only country with a private schooling system? Lots of my French colleagues send their children to private school for about a grand a term – and the worst thing is the fees are subsidised by the state. The egalitarian French don’t feel the need to abolish private schooling, so why should the British?

Personally, I think grammar schools are a massive scam - cementing middle class privilege in the guise of a state school. And don’t get me started on religious schooling and the requirement to go to church to get a place - That’s pretty egregious too, and in the state system paid by our taxes.

This has been a fascinating thread, so just take your snobby “Sebastian” BS elsewhere thanks…

He makes some interesting points. But this stood out for me: schools in the U.K. (state+private) do not teach to the high level needed to get into the top cohort of physics applicants. So the U.K. students he does see at this level tend to be state school applicants who are so intensely driven that they get there on their own. He speculates why these small numbers of state pupils are more driven than others, including private school applicants. (But note he’s talking about the very top applicants, not the overall applicant pool.)

It is very very sad to me that we do not nurture brilliance; we don’t have a school system that wants to stretch the very best of the best. This is just one prof at one oxford college, but he will see a lot of international applicants and he’s saying our students are simply not as good, except a handful of very driven, self-motivated state pupils (2-3% of applicants) who get there in spite of, not because of their school education.

[As an aside he also makes the point that not all independent schools are equal and a top London state school will have more Oxbridge applications experience - and be able to better prepare their pupils - than a small rural independent. ie these admissions tutors know their onions….]

I would like to see our own schools better funded and producing students better-equipped to compete with overseas students. In addition, I would like to see universities better funded so as not to be reliant on the higher fees they can charge overseas students. I made no spiteful comment about 'Sebastian.' I was attacking the lazy and smug assumption coming from many posters on this thread that the experience children get in private schools is far superior to anything gleaned by state school students in very different circumstances. The theatres, museums, galleries, sports clubs, music lessons they have had all mean that they are ideally suited to Oxbridge, and other experiences which may develop and broaden critical thought, resilience and perspective just as much or more are dismissed. Children from those backgrounds aren't suitable and are bound to do worse if they do get in apparently, thus robbing the place from a 'better-educated' child who would have done better. I have nothing against any child, called Sebastian or anything else, who goes to a fee-paying school. They are children. There are parents on here though who have pretty much said 'tough,' in relation to children from less privileged backgrounds and are pretty sanguine about them having fewer opportunities in life. That's worse than spiteful.

@Marchesman You bamboozle me with all your figures but this It would lower the standard all round because the nation would spend less money on education I take issue with. At the moment the extra money is being spent on a tiny amount of students based on luck in terms of the families they were born into. I would like to see the government spend more on all our children.

pinotnow · Today 14:29
I have caught up with the thread with interest this afternoon. It's been a varied read but one thing that does stand out is the resentment from some quarters that the privilege they thought they had secured for their dc by sending them to a fee-paying school is perhaps less likely than they thought to include an Oxbridge place. This has then led to comments about not being wanted and choosing to go elsewhere

I have been following ths thread pretty much from the start and am surprised that you see resentment from some quarters that the privilege they thought they had secured for their DC by sending them to fee-paying school is perhaps less likely than they thought to include an Oxbridge place. I disagree with this. I get the impression that most of the people commenting here have Oxbridge connections themselves or have Oxbridge DC - so why would they be resentful? The thread has been so interesting but name calling just reduces the quality of the discussion. It is justified to debate whether closing private schools leads to improved state education - I don't believe it does for reasons that have already been stated here and on other threads but it is good to hear opinions and possible solutions from people with opposing views. However, what seems to always be the argument is that it isn't fair (unfortunately life isn't fair) and private schools are 'evil,' or 'grotesque.' (they really are not). In an ideal world every child would have equal opportunities and the best way would be to improve the system for the truly disadvantaged. I do not believe this will happen by closing all private schools - I suspect it will be the truly disadvantaged that would suffer the most - as also discussed previously, the displaced private school families will always try to get their DC into the best grammar and comprehensive schools any which way they can.

You didn’t answer my previous question about whether you consider being able to pay for tutors a privilege. But never bother.

I’ll ask you another question based on this quote from your pp ‘At the moment the extra money is being spent on a tiny amount of students based on luck in terms of the families they were born into.’

Where do you suppose the wealth of These families came from? Does that matter to you? How about 2 wc parents from a poverty stricken background, went to shit schools, became wealthy anyway. Was that luck? They send their kids to a top grammar school because they live in ann expensive house in a nice area, both kids get into Oxbridge. Is that allowed? Should those children be penalised because their parents were successful?