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?

@JumpinJellyfish

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

FFS - I was very clear that this was not a serious suggestion.

By the way can you please define what you mean by fascism or fascist. It's a term that gets thrown around a lot but no one seems to be able to say exactly what it is.

Sorry @1dayatatime , I'll pass, I'm wealthy enough in terms of extra weight, can share with someone else as well 😂

The previous poster referred to me re eugenics given that I also share your view about significant hereditary component of intelligence.

Ok, here goes as best as I can understand your points.

You posted:
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.

Although this was not clear in the quote above (it initially appeared you were suggesting the very opposite), it transpired what you meant was that because PS kids get more firsts per head efforts should be halted/reduced to reduce their proportion of the student body at Cambridge.

Others then suggested that it is fine to reduce the proportion of the privately educated as they aren’t necessarily the most intelligent given the privilege their parents bought for them in terms of private schooling.

Research was discussed which concluded private school afforded no advantage to the private schooled in gaining access to RG universities. You, however, reject this as flawed, so, if I understand you correctly, this does not form part of your argument.

Another poster claimed the privately schooled have a genetic advantage, intelligence having a genetic component. Yet, it transpired non-privately schooled kids had ‘better’ genetics in this respect which supports the argument that private schooling confers an unfair advantage.

So all we’re left with after pages of discussion is your continued assertion that Cambridge should prioritise awarding places based on likelihood to achieve a first without taking into account parentally-purchased privilege, Others have pointed out the numerous flaws in this position. I don’t need to repeat them.

I thought the whole point is that a university trying to second guess “parentally-purchased privilege” is somewhat too crude and basic? Especially for an elite institution that should know better?

My children attended state schools, but had the privilege to have parents in their lives who speak 5 languages fluently, play several instruments, love of a bit of reading etc and definitely never stop talking and innately teaching. The privilege of not working those additional 40 per cent (which I do), nobody is going to assess those. The privilege of someone choosing academia as a job and foregoing the real opportunity to earn more and pay more tax (!)- is that a privilege as they are then possibly privileged to pass on that intellect and spend time teaching their DC? Is every teacher’s child privileged?
Where does it start and where does it end?

What is far more likely is that it is yet another stealth try and strike the “bankers” kids for the parents selling out.
The trouble I have with it is that it is not a very sophisticated way of doing things now is it?

@HeavyMetalMaiden

Yet, it transpired non-privately schooled kids had ‘better’ genetics in this respect which supports the argument that private schooling confers an unfair advantage.

Is there any chance you could please point me to the part of the thread where this point was discussed? e.g. time of the messages or any research linked? I missed it and would like to have a look. I promise I'm not being sneery or anything like this, I'm very interested in topics of education, intelligence and sociology.

TIA

2-3 pages ago I think.

@HeavyMetalMaiden

Many thanks

Yes, a number of variables can constitute privilege, I agree.

Perhaps one day more sophisticated analysis will be carried out at the level of the individual candidate across more variables. If you know what these might be that would be interesting to hear about

But right now there is plenty of evidence private schooling confers advantage; ergo the state schooled candidate with the same grades is likely the more intelligent one - and by that I don’t mean understanding Bojo type quips in Latin.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘bankers selling out’ - you’ll have to expand.

@Araminta1003 stay quiet please. Don't give away all the list of all advantages your kids have - they will come after them once they are done with privates.

@nearlylovemyusername - I do not really care one bit. With the list of advantages come 4 passports and ample countries willing to have any one of my DCs, so if they want to continue down this path, most welcome!

It is like the ending of the Roman civilisation and they probably deserve it after what they did to India!

DS knows some really talented ex public school boys through the international Maths Olympiads and most are pissing off to the States or even Imperial. It is not a coincidence that Imperial is suddenly doing better than Cambridge.
It is for the universities to stand up to these social mobility woke warriors and adjust their Admissions like the rest of us do in the private sector. We have a great Admissions process and know exactly how to get the best candidates, regardless of background either way.

And employers now recruit from the next tier unis so the private school kids can still get access to the best jobs!

Employers just want the best candidates, they simply do not care about which school or uni etc.

The reason privately educated applicants have an attainment advantage prior to entry is interesting but irrelevant to my original post. However, if you think that I have not taken into account the question of "parentally-purchased privilege" you have not been reading the posts that you are so ready to criticise, and you cannot have read the Smith-Woolley paper, although it has a well written introduction and discussion covering this aspect. Smith-Woolley again:

"Controlling for all of the selection factors and EduYears GPS together ... attending a grammar school compared to a nonselective state school was associated with an increase of just 0.03 of a standard deviation in GCSE, and for private schools, the increase was 0.07. In addition, no significant differences emerged between non-selective schools in varying selectivity areas."

Educationalists loathe any form of selection - if it is not parentally purchased along with a house. Their ideology has it that Grammar schools are bad because they confer no advantage to the children in them, and private schools are bad because they do confer an advantage. For convenience they avoid addressing these dissonant ideas at the same time - unlike Smith-Woolley et al who show trivial benefits from both grammars and private schools.

I said I think that Cambridge should increase private school admissions if they aim to be meritocratic. As they evidently prefer a more inclusive state school bias, as someone has explicitly advocated earlier in the thread, then that is a different matter. But if they keep things as they are, they should let it be known, because, as someone else on the thread showed, state school pupils misunderstand the situation to their detriment.

Finally, you keep bringing up firsts as though there is an alternative metric. There isn't, because the number of lower seconds and thirds is too small for statistical analysis.

Employers like the so-called soft skills that privately educated students have in spades.

https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/how-the-british-elite-lost-its-way/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw0aS3BhA3EiwAKaD2ZWwheDTpIFxe2xTN8j9TvIwxu3VaWpyfi8sJ22gB6wxhjYL3bfKLqBoC_f8QAvD_BwE

Again from the point of view of Cambridge person, the university don't really care all that much about undergraduates, they aren't that important compared to research and donations. And I would argue sheer presenteeism. They like existing because its fun to be them, the people who run it I mean. It is the most glorious bubble.
I think they may well admit state school kids more in response to whatever Oxford is doing, the old enemy, than any reason to do with social justice or statistics. They aren't evil but aren't good either just a reflection of our society.
In my opinion of course.
I've always thought going to a fee owing school showed you were already had privilege rather than by attending you acquired it.

This.

Sorry - just to be really clear about this - I don’t deny that intelligence has a genetic component.

What I really strongly object to however is your suggestion that privately educated kids are more intelligent than state educated, on the basis that their parents are able to afford private education thanks to their own superior intelligence, (which the kids have inherited).

Leaving aside the dodgy science (IQ and heritability don’t work like this); and the (in my view) very dangerous suggestion that there might end up being some kind of intelligent superior elite vs thick underclass, it also completely ignores (a) the class system in the U.K. and (b) the fact that IQ is really not the be all and end all when it comes to (i) academic success, (ii) university admissions, (iii) degree result, (iv) job offers, (v) income.

In other words, you cannot draw a straight line between parent brains - parent cash - child brains, much as you might want to.

Regarding the true British elite and “noblesse oblige”, there is nothing wrong with very clever, very educated upper class and upper middle class people with true loyalty to the country and centuries of loyalty to the poor, running the country, civil service and diplomatic services. These are all poorly paid jobs etc and the problems only start when grifters like Boris Johnson get in and are in it for themselves. Boris Johnson was not upper class, he was a scholarship boy and is the type to allow his wife to do social media and use his kids to promote stuff like Scott Dunn on T-shirts. British upper class are just not like that - a lot of them have this innate loyalty and also humility and charity deeply instilled. As long as they are actually talented intrinsically, we are making a mistake as a country with all this wokeism across society. We need a certain elite to be properly educated in the best unis. It won’t affect the rest of us either way - what matters more for everyone else is a fair wage and work needs to pay for all.

@Araminta1003

I would add to that by reiterating an earlier point. This is definitely not about improving social mobility.

Cambridge sets a target for low SES quintile admissions, and a separate one for state schools.

Between them the result is around 20 additional low SES quintile admissions from comprehensive schools, a decrease of top quintile admissions from private schools of around 100, and an increase in top SES quintile admissions from comprehensive schools of about 150 p.a..

If it was aimed at improving social mobility there would be no need for the second target. Someone earlier said that the university is doing its best. Another interpretation would be that if they concentrated all of their efforts on the first target the figures would be less ridiculous.

Last post from me as I find your arguments and writing style hard to follow.

I find the genetic research you shared of dubious quality, but as a thought experiment let’s say all kids were tested for genetic markers of intelligence and those above a certain threshold prioritised for entry to Cambridge. You do realise that due to the far bigger size of the state schooled cohort you would end up with MORE state schooled kids at Cambridge.

Honestly @Araminta1003 I am truly shocked that there are still
people around with this servile attitude - that there is a ruling class in this country that deserves to be there thanks to their “innate loyalty” with “humility and charity deeply instilled”. That the true “upper class”
are somehow more entitled to be in positions of power thanks to these innate characteristics. That we need a “certain elite” to take the top spots in our best universities so that us plebs can be properly governed.

The “as long as they are actually talented intrinsically” is really doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there.

Im embarrassed for you. Diversity results in better outcomes for everyone, in every context.

But you carry on doffing your cap to those whose only qualification for their status is that their great great granny once shagged a long dead minor royal.

Fuck. Me.

How do you cope in the modern world??