Cambridge University discriminates against children from private schools.

[Marchesman]

MN threads persist in claiming that Oxford and Cambridge Universities do not discriminate against private schools. Now two "academics" have written a half-baked book that argues for further reductions in the number of Oxbridge students from private schools (to 10% of the intake).

In 2023 at Cambridge 19.9% of students from comprehensive schools obtained first class degrees (23.5% from grammar schools) compared with 28.6% from private schools - evidence of unequivocal discrimination against the latter at the point of entry.

Cambridge's own analysis shows that British state-educated students already significantly underperform relative to foreign and privately educated British students. If more of the latter are excluded, the inevitable outcome will be that at these universities the best students are foreign, while the best British pupils decamp to US universities.

Is this really what the Left wants? If so why?

So on a cursory glance at that paper - grammar school students had the best “genetic” scores but perform
less well than privately educated counterparts at Oxbridge (according to you).

Doesn’t that rather undermine your point?

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

How's that?

If I’d paid ££££s for my DCs private education I’d be well annoyed if they didn’t achieve a 1st 🤣
your stats just show that clearly you can’t buy a 1st class degree despite what some people think

As far as Cambridge goes, it is explained by a threshold for admission that differs now by school type. In 2010 pupils from comprehensives, grammar schools, and private schools all performed equally - indicating that admission was on merit. It proves my point.

See Parks "Academic Performance of Undergraduate Students at Cambridge by School/College Background" - there is link on Cambridge's page claiming equql outcomes for different schools a page or two back on this thread.

Social mobility is about redistribution. People are happy to support the idea that people can and should ge able to rise to the top through their own hard work. But the necessary corollary of that is that others will have to move down the social/economic hierarchy. And people, especially rich people, are much less comfortable with that.

This is wrong! This view is the reason for most of the problems we have - it assumes finite top positions. They are not! For person A to get to the top person B does not need to be dropped to the bottom - both can create a lot of tops! We could go down the route of high skilled high value economy if we supported and retained all high abilities people. They would in turn grow businesses allowing middle or lower abilities to thrive as well in lower skilled but necessary jobs. It's scarcity mindset.

It's communism which is about redistribution. Social mobility is about allowing people to climb where they can based on their abilities and drive.

I don’t suppose one could expect more from someone who thinks that a lower percentage of state school students achieving first class degrees than their privately educated peers is “evidence” of “unequivocal discrimination” against the latter. It’ll have to do.

It’ll all be much more skewed soon. As many from private have to move to state due to good old Labour VAT fee increase (should it happen). If their parents can afford it, they might wait until 6th form to move. So the child/ren will have the benefit of both private and state education.

Much fairer.. The private parents get the benefit of their tax paid for state education and the unis get the benefit of more student choice.

Nice in theory but in a situation where there are finite places - eg places at Cambridge, precisely what we are discussing - allowing more people to get in “through their own hard work” means that there will be fewer places available for others who have perhaps worked a little less hard.

You posted earlier in this thread that private school students achieved better degree results than those from grammar schools.

Yet that paper finds that grammar school students are more intelligent - genetically speaking - than those at private schools.

How do you explain that?

"What makes you think someone with your educational background could make it here?"

I guess this is important. I'm interviewing a lot (and been interviewed a lot).

The questions such as

• why do you believe you are good fit for the job?
• why do you think you are the best candidate for this role?
• convince me that you should get this job

Are very standard questions and normally part of any online hints & tips for interview prep.

Appreciate 18yo might be shocked by it, but it doesn't necessarily mean any social prejudice. Obviously this well might be the case in your DS's particular situation, I'm just trying to say that it's not black and white.

@nervouslandlord it's absolutely prejudicial. It would be the same as saying "what makes you think that someone of your complexion would make it here?"

You can tell, because if he'd been to Harrow, they'd wouldn't be asking.

If I asked that at an interview, I'd be sacked.

@Vabenejulio are you alright? The level of abuse in your comments is seriously worrying. People with widely differing views have been posting civilly for 17 pages. What on earth do you think your insults add?

Talk guidelines include not being personally abusive I think.

Why are you taking it personally? I did say anything about you at all. I said I thought that comment in the interview was appalling and prejudical. How is that an insult to you?

If you think it's a personal attack, report it. I'd be happy to accept MNHQ's judgment and post it again without quoting you.

We are such a family. Ironically. DH has first from Oxford and a PhD from elsewhere, followed by high level technical job. I have a media background.
I suppose we naively never imagined such a question!

All was well - DS grew in his gap year and thrived at the Other place.
But someone less thick skinned and sure of themself might never have reapplied.

@Marchesman

"That is a question that has exercised a lot of people much smarter than me. One important paper is "Differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them" Smith-Woolley 2018"

To simplify the argument from this article by Smith Woolley - if you have a selective entry requirement to any school (private or state) then you will have more clever (or well tutored) students and therefore higher grades. It's not that complex.

As for solutions (this is NOT a serious suggestion ) to achieve greater equality then you could force people with high IQs to only have children with partners of lower IQs in order to average out the genes!

@Marchesman

You’re all over the place.

If you have been to university you will know the importance of being able to state your argument, and its supporting evidence, clearly and simply in a sentence or two.

I’m not sure you can do this.

@DadJoke I wasn't responding to you, but to Vabenejulio unless that's your alter ego.

I have reported the two abusive posts.

Bingo! That was exactly my point earlier on this thread.

Otherwise it's unfaaaair and dumps social mobility. We do need to push for a proper redistribution of genetic advantage!

(Once IQ is sorted let's go for beauty please. Otherwise I feel very deprived for not being pretty)

I'm so sorry! I misread it. I don't do sock puupets.

It was a bad point when you made it earlier @nearlylovemyusername and it’s a bad point now.

Any arguments resting on genetic advantage are dangerously close to the fascist eugenicist view of the world.

I’m just off out and will respond properly in due course. I don’t think I’ve said anything abusive or seriously worrying or insulting. Certainly not relative to someone who (on misplaced “evidence”) is arguing for finite resources to continue to remain the preserve of the already-privileged few (by their own statistics). That is the very definition of insulting, worrying, abusive.

There’s a huge amount of waffle in fancy-sounding (sounding) language (why use 1 word when 5 will do, eh?). The bottom line is someone who is goading/attacking policies designed to improve outcomes for all because they think they have unequivocal evidence that it leads to overall lowered standards. So many layers of fallacy, illogic I think other posters have gone into (haven’t RTFT), but what is so insulting is that the basic premise is that excellence is only measured by the utmost success at two specific universities. To my mind, this makes the OP the ideal candidate for education in the benefits of diversity, equity and inclusion.

FYI I was privately educated in the U.K., studied at Oxbridge-equivalent universities in Europe, and have my children in private school in the US (where all this is chicken feed compared to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT etc).

(Apols in advance for typos as I’m walking, don’t want it to reflect poorly on my educational achievements 🙄).

Agreed. If there wasn't such a firmly misplaced belief that Oxford and Cambridge favour applicants from private schools, the question would probably have been taken at face value rather than rattling the interviewee.

@JumpinJellyfish

Not at all. My point is that not all differences in life can be explained by inequality. My point is that society should support all aspirations according to their abilities, not trying to dump down based on ideology.

Fascist eugenicist is very different, you might want to google it if we are to have a proper conversation, not just slogans.

@Marchesman as a side note, thank you for this thread, it's been really interesting and educational in terms of papers linked here, I (sort of) enjoyed it.

Sure, it could be me.

Or, it could be your failure to comprehend.

What I have written is there for others to judge. If you think you have found fault with it you should defend your position and if you can't then anyone reading this thread will know where the fault lies.

@nearlylovemyusername

Is an equitable distribution of weight possible? That way there would be no fat or thin people just an average weight for everyone.

I have several kilos of surplus weight that I would be happy to transfer to a thinner person (or more likely persons!) in the name of a fair and equitable weight for everyone.