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.

Well I don't think it discrimination, for once I think the system has it right and its actually a real reflection on life past university. It follows through that higher education would also want to send out offers in a diverse way instead of just having the non flexible system you are suggesting. Why wouldn't universities look at the whole picture instead of grades?

For example. Should universities have to take disruptive students i.e ones with poor school reviews just because they got the right grades? Instead of a student who missed out by a grade but has an excellent school review? Why would they do that?

If it was a) happening and was b) potentially discriminatory, it would be legally challengeable.

Absolutely...and ringfence their time for their research interests. Can't possibly teach construct knowledge with the hoi polloi if they are not going to be of any use to them as a possible lackey further down the line.

what is it you don’t think is discrimination? What is sending out offers in a diverse way?

Did you see the definition of discrimination?. Saying we are going to accept offers in a ‘diverse’ way based on your skin colour would be discrimination on the basis of skin colour. It’s still discrimination even though you think it’s good discrimination. Throwing in the word diverse doesn’t change it fitting the definition. Although try throwing in the words equality, decolonisation and diversity in a sentence to justify discrimination and I might agree with you.

But you only have to consider the number of people on Mumsnet who will instantly trot out the tired old hackneyed Daily Mail/Reform crap about “Tony Blair wanting to send 50 percent of kids to university blah blah”.

Newsflash: far East Asian economies like Singapore are sending 80 percent plus of their kids to university. We look like rank amateurs next to them, and our economies are declining partly because we still trot out this nonsense about too many graduates, we crap on the HE and FE sector, dumb down the state school system, and burden our kids with stupid amounts of debt just for their education.

Even Labour is going in for it now and they ought to know better. We are deskilling, and, what’s worse, large slices of the population are proud of it.

Progress 8 narrowed options so much it's a wonder any schools teach music GCSE or offer instrument lessons.

You haven’t answered my question.

There are some rather wild suggestions being thrown about on this thread now about how contextual information is used. I would suggest that people take a look at the link i posted earlier about how Cambridge use contextual data.

the most well-rounded thinkers have grown up doing lots of different things. So they're good English students because their school also offers Latin and German, etc. One of the best violinists in my year at Cambridge read for the maths tripos.

That bolded statement is worth repeating. Taking all the unprofitable (i.e. non-STEM) subjects out of State schools leads to in-the-box thinkers when we need outside-the-box thinkers.

Amongst the absolutely solid musicians I know, there's a maths lecturer, a chemical engineer, an electrician, several secondary teachers, a building site manager, and a nurse. Ensemble playing builds team skills and situational awareness. Playing an instrument helps develop motor skills. Playing to an audience builds confidence when doing things in front of others. These skills are useful in all those jobs.

That is the definition of discrimination, not my opinion.

Exactly! They are trying to shore up courses that don’t get many applicants surely?

Also: Makes me think we should be looking harder at modern languages…..!

@OhDear111 - regarding Music at Oxford/Cambridge, the profile of our friends DC who got in are all the same. At least one parent a musician or a music teacher, often both parents, either already organ scholars or in the national youth orchestra or choristers, and then on top running groups/emsembles at school/college already. And typically A stars and Distinctions in grade 8 in early teens (latest). Some are state, some were private, all the private ones had music scholarships. Just remembered one who had already published compositions.

I still think the biggest advantage is parental not school. If your parent is an academic teaching English at Oxford and you are applying for English at Cambridge, that surely trumps all possible advantages. Not sure being dumped in a boarding school for most of the year however privileged and expensive would ever trump positive parental input.

Also, plenty of state school students don’t feel they can afford to take an extra year to convert to law. It’s an extra year not earning, the cost is never fully covered even if you get a training contract.

Agree. As a society there is a collective moaning about the participation rate but offer no solution regarding our dchool leavers.

We used to spend time nurturing school leavers in their first roles. We don't do that anymore as a society and rely on universities to also teach those transferable employable skills. Unless you are one of the privileged few getting an apprenticeship with e.g one of the big four, there are no entry level posts for 18 year olds.

Apprenticeships are sometimes more competitive than Oxbridge!

Regarding 'left wing' idea - the Conservatives were in government from 2010-2024, during which time contextual offers increased.

The Guardian does not run either the country or a university.

It is your interpretation. Take the policy/approach to court if you feel confident you will win.

when I was at school there were free music lessons and I was put forward for all kinds of outreach and gifted and talented stuff.

I was assessed as "gifted and talented" at primary school but there was no money for the special provision, so I didn't get it. A few years later, musical instrument lessons stopped being free. This was the late 80s. When were you at primary school?

Your comments are correct, but not relevant to what I write. This is what I wrote:

But anyway, you lost me a 'left wing nonsense
Is the guardian not left wing ? Is access to education resources based on identity boxing not a left wing idea? I think the nonsense part speaks for itself

If I had known that throwing in things equality and equity would of helped I might of done so. The point people don't enter university on a level playing field, the start line is different and so varied for so many different people that there has to be some adjustment. When you are saying about skin colour are you talking international students, students from public/private schools or deprived areas? Because TBH, my daughter is white, from a pretty middlish class family (all be it her Dad and I seperated) and has just had a contextual offer from Durham or as you say dumbing it down which i find offensive.

@Araminta1003 I agree about parental input and I have argued strongly it’s the same for MFLs. I think academic parents are best placed to tutor and do!

Just to let you know, my DDs boarded and were not dumped for weeks on end. Most schools are flexible on boarding timetables now.

Many boarding dc have very high earning and talented parents and dc absolutely benefitted from this as indeed they did from school music and MFLs not being seen as too hard or not necessary. Some parents won’t coach but the schools coach for them!

Nope, it’s the definition of the word.

It wouldn’t have helped.

When I say skin colour, I mean skin colour.

I haven’t said your daughters offer dumbs down universities, I said lowering entry criteria based on the secondary school you went to or characteristics such as skin colour would dumb down universities. Would you not agree? It seems quite obvious.

I am glad Trinity Hall have raised their head above the parapet and also that a few Cambridge academics have given their perspective on what they are experiencing. The universities can’t make up for years of so so education. They try to give state school applicants the benefit if the doubt but it comes with risk as some will shine but others won’t. Clearly in some subjects they need to admit to the differences between state and private applicants in order to preserve the existence of those subjects and their credibility as an educational institution! State secondaries in my area get better results in the sciences/stem subjects in most cases. This is where they are putting in more effort.

This is precisely why. They can't find enough students with a good grounding in these subjects at state schools anymore.

Comprehensive school type has a statistically significant (negative) effect on examination performance in the multivariate analysis that was carried out by Samoylova and Hall. In other words, while it is not necessarily causal, it is associated with a worse outcome when other factors have been taken into account.

Knowing this to be the case, it is somewhat perverse to design an admission system to preferentially seek out this characteristic. You might as well argue that the university should increase its intake of applicants with cognitive or learning difficulties - because the effects are similar.

Interesting thread. A few points.

In the past bright children who ended up studying humanities would usually have been bookworms as children. The best possible way to learn to write well is to read widely. Reading for pleasure appears to be less popular amongst the young. Public libraries are under threat. School librarians are rareties. I often see teachers and parents of current schoolchildren commenting that they don't read whole books at school, not even those set for GCSE or A level. Social media has much to answer for. Attention spans appear to have fallen.

Next point: the UK has a thriving arts sector. This contributes a lot to the economy but it's also a reason we still have influence and connections in the world out of all proportion to our size and wealth. If we have declining numbers of children going into acting, music, fine art and the humanities subjects that often lead to a career in creative or other sorts our arts sector is doomed.

Finally, my children are in their 30s now so I'm not up to date first hand with what's going in schools, but my impression is that there's been a huge emphasis on trying to get as many kids as possible to achieve passing grades in the core subjects. Very laudable but with large classes, stretched budgets and state schools, teachers and heads judged on reaching those targets there's been little incentive or capacity to do anything else. Disheartening. Education should be about far more than just acquiring the skills and knowledge needed for a job. Culture matters.