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 know its a popular trope that public school kids are all like the Harry Enfield Tim Nice but Dim sketch but reality is a bit different. I went to a very minor independent school after the local state school that my elder siblings had attended became a feral bullying shithole. The difference between the two was stark, small classes, zero tolerance to poor behaviour, teachers who were genuinely engaging and cared about you and the classes they taught, up to date textbooks, well furnished labs, sporting facilities etc. The whole atmosphere was tilted towards going to university and building the soft social skills that would help you in life. Pretty confident my old school tie opened zero doors for me or connected me to some shadowy old boys network but I did leave that school with some decent A Levels in my back pocket, some strong friendships and sense of direction in life. The parents who send their kids to these schools for the most part are ‘normal’ insofar as being middle class professional types who do not have money to burn. Most of the kids I was at school with were average to above average intelligence but all were given the opportunity to fulfil their potential in a can do environment.

Then you get the likes the Eton, Harrow, Marlborough, Charterhouse, Winchester etc. These places cost £50k a year before all the add ons. Yes they offer small classes and excellent facilities too, but you are not attending these schools for that, you are buying membership of an exclusive club and support network that will serve you for the rest of your days. These elite institutions look down on the minor public schools just as much as they do state schools. If you attend one of these schools the chances are your parents have titles, land and inter generational wealth, your massive sense of entitlement that has been nurtured since birth prevents you from working in a normal career, you don’t need a job as such, it is something you do because your folks organised some soft position somewhere that has zero accountability and allows you to perfect the skill of falling upwards no matter how much you fuck up. It is these elite schools that are the problem, not the local independent whose school tie opens zero doors.

I’m sad to hear this. A family member attended Trinity Hall from a very deprived background and is now a successful corporate lawyer. They had opportunities and resources thrown at them whilst at Cambridge and we felt this was a genuine example of how a life (and the life of their family by extension) can be fully changed by opportunity.

@ChamonixMountainBum Having taught in schools such as the ones you mention above, I actually disagree with you. Yes, there are plenty of pupils from the backgrounds you describe, and of course parents who can afford e.g. Eton’s fees are raising immensely privileged children, but there are many many pupils at those schools who are genuinely academically driven and curious, and who want to study at institutions such as Oxford because they genuinely love their chosen subjects.

Should those schools discourage such pupils from applying to Oxbridge simply because they’re from
wealthy backgrounds? That doesn’t seem fair! The pupils at e.g. Harrow who aren’t particularly clever don’t go to Oxbridge anyway.

on your point about quality of modern language students my children’s state school used to offer the choice of 3 languages but stopped, they said it was because they just could not hire the teachers. As I mentioned before they now get allocated a language in Y7 with no choice.

The headline is very misleading.

“Trinity Hall use a “targeted recruitment strategy” to individually approach about 50 independent schools to encourage applications in subjects including languages, music and classics.”

The college is trying to encourage applications in certain subjects. They are obviously going to target their efforts at those schools which offer the subjects at GCSE/A levels and who have the most pupils interested in them. The schools with most pupils studying those subjects are, on the whole, a certain type of private school (expensive boarding schools). Those schools are more likely to offer those subjects as they have the most resources. The college is not targeting ALL private schools. Our catchment state school doesn’t offer GCSE Latin/Greek or music and only offer 2 modern languages (many only offer 1). Another local private school doesn’t offer Latin/Greek and only offers 2 modern languages. If a college wants to increase uptake in certain subjects, of course they are going to target those schools with pupils studying them.

I have no doubt that there are kids at those mentioned schools that demonstrate formidable academic excellence. My point is that those very same kids would probably excel at a lesser known, much cheaper, minor public school as they would at Eton or Harrow. Those latter schools however do not just offer top grades, great facilities and a raft of extra curricular activities but also membership of a very elite social club that serves them well beyond university.

The children who get offered places at the most elite private schools are not “quite thick”. These schools are extremely competitive to get into and there is no shortage of families at that type of school who are able to pay their fees, both domestically and internationally. The schools can afford to be very selective, and choose those pupils who are most academic and self driven. Aside from the academic aspect, children who have attended those schools as boarders have learnt how to manage their days efficiently, balancing lessons and activities 7 days a week. They have had to manage numerous academic demands, extensive sport, endless extra curricular activities etc themselves. They are often the type of child who can cope with the expectations at the top universities. Obviously not all private schools are like that though.

If it were about getting the best kids, not the best-prepared kids (there's a notable difference between the two) then they'd set up summer schools or foundation years for state school pupils to prep them with more focused teaching at a higher level, encourage confidence, critical thinking etc, and teach the art of essay writing. Then they could join the undergraduate programme with the gloss and extra curricular breadth of knowledge that their wealthier peers had access to for years.

Independent school pupils are discouranged from applying to Oxford and Cambridge because those universities have discriminated against them for years. Students from independent schools increasingly go to Durham, St. Andrews, Bristol, Exeter and other universities that welcome them. So Oxford and Cambridge are falling down the university rankings and suffering from poor admissions. Witness the idiot who was elected president of the Oxford Union with a clutch of 'B's at A level and a massively inflated sense of entitlement, who had to be removed from the presidency of the Union. What Trinity Hall is doing is righting a decades old wrong in an uncharacteristically sensible move.

@Jugendstielbut as posters including @cantabsupervisor have pointed out, a summer school cannot possibly fill in the gaps or provide the ‘polish’ or cultural capital that a private education often delivers. It would largely be a case of papering over the cracks.

This is a really interesting nuanced thread and has reminded me of the importance of not jumping to conclusions.

Very interesting to read @cantabsupervisor insight. I went to Oxford many moons ago from a really crappy private school (large classes, all ability, teachers without qualifications) and I could see the difference between my education and my many friends who'd been to Westminster. Those doing English A level spent the whole of lower sixth/y12 reading the canon and only started their A level texts in y13. I was so far behind and was actually asked to leave. I caught up and ended up with a first but I felt pretty demoralised throughout. So I'd agree that a minority of private schools churn out very Oxbridge-ready pupils.

But where the nuance comes in response to Trinity Hall is that it's for three subjects alone. And these are, bar a few very niche subjects like Anglo-Saxon, by far the least competitive subjects to get into but also the ones that bright ambitious state school kids are really unlikely to want to study. I work with these pupils and they all want to do STEM or economics or medicine. I suspect that these subjects could take 99% of their students from state schools and not have a drop in quality.

What Trinity Hall are trying to do, as far as I can see, is shore up these dwindling departments. As PP says - they want to persuade a smart Oxbridge-ready kid from St Pauls Girls to apply for classics at Cambridge instead of economics. I know a girl who's at Oxford doing classics - her college made four offers. Only two of the pupils got the grades to take up their places. They're desperate to widen participation in these subjects but they don't want students who, if they can't get 3As at A level without strong extenuating circumstances, are unlikely to do well.

The whole Oxbridge superiority thing is totally diluted now due to the enormous gulf in selectivity between subjects. You can't compare getting an offer for modern languages with computer science. A tutor told me that they will make an offer to all state school boys applying for French or German as they're such unicorns. Of course they still have to get the grades and I'm sure are worthy it's incomparable to competing for a place to do engineering.

Do Oxbridge really discriminate against Private schools... or is it just they actively encourage State school pupils (rather than in the "olden days" when I applied where it was known they had a list of schools where they they trusted the teachers references and predicted grades, and were more wary of unknown schools? Including state and private schools)

Read what I have written up the thread. Several colleges have foundation courses. All colleges have outreach programmes. Every college has a regional link with lots of state-education-only courses and visits, etc. But a summer school or even a foundation year cannot reverse or make up for nearly two decades of being in an entirely different environment and the innate self-belief, ability to reference and critical thinking skills. This can only happen day in day out. I know that not all the clever Oxbridge students will have sat the Westminster Challenge or Kings Scholarship, but being immersed in these worlds is really shaping.

Interviewers can small 'preparation' a mile off. So it's really not just about getting the best-prepared kids. It's always a bit of a lottery, and many good people don't get in and some bad people do. But some of the stereotypes above are very silly and show the huge gulf in understanding about just how clever you need to be to attend schools like Westminster and Winchester these days, even before you add on the amazing education these already bright kids receive once they get there.

Yes I agree with that last point - the kids who get into places like Westminster are a) v v bright b) normally affluent c) from incredibly supportive pro-education families. The fact that they then go onto receive an excellent education is the icing on the cake. I suspect that many of them, were they to go to a good-enough state school, with a high starting IQ and ferociously ambitious families, would do extremely well too.

DD attended a bog standard Northern Comprehensive secondary. She aced her SATS, no one does 11+ because there are no grammar schools in our county. She did amazingly in her GCSEs, winning several prizes in sciences.
For A levels she attended the only (average) sixth form within a forty mile radius, whilst registered as a young carer. Her maths teacher went AWOL in second year. Despite all this she gained grade As in physics, chemistry and maths.
When she attended open days she felt out of place at several universities, Oxbridge were not the only ones.
If a level of intelligence is what universities are after, and not just education, surely pupils like DD should be looked at more closely. It must be easier to gain top grades at GCSE and A level if you attend a selective school.

Actually, you’re suggesting private students are superior by needing some sort of handicap. Dumbing down is an obvious consequence of lowering entry standards to meet quotas, entirely obvious. Just think it through a bit before posting.

Choosing to believe that private students are actually more able and intellectually superior

The big explanatory factor here is selection.

A large proportion of private schools are academically selective. Far more than in the state sector. (And for the schools Trinity Hall is targeting, they are massively selective).

So the question is whether we should expect a smallish pool of children who have been academically selected to be “more able and intellectually superior“ than a largish pool that by and large hasn’t.

I think obviously we should expect that. That’s not a slur on state schools, it’s a basic product of differential selection.

That's so sad @ThePerfectWeekend. What do you mean by 'she felt out of place' and 'looked at more closely'? Do you mean that she felt she should have received extra attention at open days, help with applications, explanations about what it means to apply for and attend these institutions? Because if so, I fully agree.

You're right that it is certainly easier to gain top grades at GCSE and A level if you attend a selective school. That's why all As is just the baseline for an interview. It's also the case that it's easier to develop the sort of skills I outline above at selective schools (which go beyond good grades). The point I'm making is that, rightly or (definitely) wrongly, by age of 18, it's a big task to start developing them in someone, and that task can't fall to the university.

But it sounds like your DD is a scientist so the situation is a little different for her. What is she doing now? If this is a recent story and she is still interested in applying to Oxbridge, I would be happy to help or advise if you DM me.

Yes, because of the ‘selective’ bit. Unfortunately, Labour killed off most of the grammar schools years ago, ironically using a lot of the arguments people use today for quota entry to universities. The remaining grammar schools are more over represented at Oxbridge than selective private schools, which makes sense when you think about it.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm an educator. I'm quite aware of what I mean. I am of course talking about the accusation of dumbing down universities standards to be able to encompass state students. YOU are suggesting that state school students aren't able to rise to the challenge. Which is bullshit.

Maybe open your Bleary Eyes a bit more to enable greater deduction.

You do realise that primary kids are being tutored from years 1-2 to pass entry exams for ‘elite’ schools?

Of course everybody says that their kid passed at 100% without ever opening a book, but having myself tutored my kid, everybody knows that is absolutely b***cks. Theres a whole industry built around parents trying to get their kids into selective schools.

No I’m clearly suggesting state school kids are just as able to rise to the challenge as any other kids and don’t need dumbed down entry standards (and non state kids don’t need handicaps) to meet quotas. Do you agree? It sounds like you do

“Of particular concern is the proportion of pupils getting extra time in private schools – almost 42% compared with 26.5% in state secondaries – which has led to suspicions that some schools are “gaming” the system.“

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/23/extra-exam-time-why-do-so-many-schoolkids-suddenly-need-it

I don't agree entirely. Of course a single summer school can't replace years of excellent teaching in a supportive, conducive environment. But a long intensive - say two or three months - July to September, could prime a state school pupil to learn critical thinking skills, essay writing and research skills, confident presentation and in particular how to get the most from the slightly combative viva-voce style of one-to-one tutorials. It could encourage reading of key background texts they may not have been aware would be useful. And the best state school students should have an innate curiosity that reaches beyond their curriculum.

The focus should be on providing the brightest pupils with the best education. Bright state school pupils who never get that extra push and polish won't shine, nor will well-schooled, hard-working but average pupils from good schools. If Oxbridge wants to maintain its status of academic excellence, it needs to prioritise finding and nurturing the most original and brilliant thinkers - whatever their background and not screen them out because they went to Eton or because they grew up on a council estate.

The universities might also want to consider that they are no longer top of the league tables because they no longer nurture their academic staff. When I was at uni my tutors could afford a home in the centre of town, with rooms in college, lined with books. They had tenure. Now so many undergraduates are taught by tutors on zero-hours contracts who can't afford a home. There was a piece in the news before Christmas about how many Oxford academics used the local food banks. No one is at their educational peak if they are worrying about affording a bag of pasta.

@januarybikethief, in relation to overseas students, you say that “The high numbers studying at Cambridge are the result of their very specific government education policies, and not evidence of the global super rich paying their way in or whatever.”

The question that was asked of @cantabsupervisor
by another poster and echoed by me was simply curiosity about the educational preparedness of overseas students compared to that of the home state and independent school students she described. It wasn’t an attempt to flush out evidence that the super-rich were buying their way in despite not being the best potential students.

It sounds like the answer to the question may well be that @cantabsupervisorteaches very few overseas students because so few read humanities subjects, despite them making up a quarter of the undergraduate population (and their fees being very much relied upon). I don’t remember meeting a single one in lectures or supervisions in the 90s but my double European language MML degree would have been quite an odd one for an Asian student to choose.