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?

What soft skills? The private school swagger, the arrogance, the misplaced sense of their own importance which they fondly imagine is confidence , but deeply unappealing to 90% of the population?

This is just so bizarre. I went private and to a RG uni (ok not Oxbridge but I know people who went to Oxbridge from my friends and their experience was similar) but I know of no one that had a ready made social network. No body knew each other- how would that be possible unless everyone was on the same course and the same uni? Private school children do not just hang with private school children once at uni in some weird secret private school society. Everyone just is desperate to find people to hang with so not be a loner for 3 years. I am amazed you think people can be that picky. I honestly think back to the people I went to uni with and I have absolutely zero idea where they went to school.

and villas and whatnot? They went on holiday for a couple of weeks to Spain like a whole lots state educated children do? I don’t know anyone who didn’t get a summer job whatever their background. I certainly did and some of us got internships, some of us working in pubs, some doing random jobs from an agency. I spent weeks stuffing envelopes from what I recall- quite lucrative!

all my friends from school were the children of teachers, accountants etc and that so the same for my children. There are a few super rich I don’t deny but most are pretty ordinary, living pretty ordinary lives. I feel this is just you seeing things that actually weren’t true even if you felt they were and it just perpetuates this idea that that there is a massive divide when there isn’t.

I’m not arguing that any old lummock be a heart surgeon 🙄. Dh is a case in point. First in his family to get to university (Cambridge). Parents blue collar workers who left school at 16. He’s amazing at his job just as good if not better than his St Paul’s / good family peer group.

Arguably the talented child from a less supportive background has more fire. Listened to a radio 4 program a startling number of people who rose to the very top in varied areas had lost a parent before the age of 10.

the irony of someone making a truely unpleasant comment about the alleged unsubstantiated unappealing traits of private school children…

One thing private schools tend to teach, and most state schools don't is debating and public speaking. In my glorious reign all kids will debate. I'm always surprised when politicians and members of the royal family give rubbish speeches. What was that elite education for, ffs!!!!

Children at Private Schools can get contextual offers.
Please research contextual offer and who gets. A child can be educated privately, and still be a carer, still be disadvantaged in another way. Many private school students are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many many schools offer scholarships and students can get contractual offers despite being in private education.
And contextual offers are made by other Unis, not just Oxbridge …

The same faulty assumptions that an A and state is worth more than A* private.
Not every private is Eton

Not every state is bad or In special measures, and reasons for special measures don’t necessarily impact every student or every year group, and often for safeguarding and not academics. Can be related to serious safeguarding or policy failures that don’t impact every student.
And who says student at this school doesn’t have a private tutor or a hothouse Oxbridge Alumnus parent providing academic support?

Oxbridge offers don’t require 3A, a few programs require two A, most require one A* or AAA and offers from Oxbridge often same grades required for other RG. So if you don’t meet the offer for Oxford, your safety choice can’t be imperial, lse or Bristol.
So, mostly, not requiring impossible grades or beyond other RG. Many programs require an entry exam and video interview (panel style). With support available if you don’t easy access to laptop or phone ...

@TheaBrandt

Well done to your DH, he's really inspirational example.

He’s amazing at his job just as good if not better than his St Paul’s / good family peer group.
Absolutely, however, does this mean that St Paul's / good family peer group should be excluded from the run? I'd imagine that your DC who have successful and supportive well educated parents now fall into at least the second (good family, assume not St Paul's) group. Fallowing your logic they should be excluded? or is this school type only you're against of? don't you see the irony here?

Just a thought - with VAT policy a very significant proportion of parents will move their DC to state (possibly not move now, but won't go for private at the next transition point). Those who stay will be true elite and most likely will go to US/St Anfrews. This means that pool of state kids from "good families" will expand making it very difficult if possibly at all to differentiate within state. What will you have then left? FSM/foster care?

Arguably the talented child from a less supportive background has more fire.
Quite possible, esp when it relates to family situation. It does not mean though that simple State/Private school cut means less supportive background.

Of course I’m not sating private school people should be excluded that’s insane but surely you can’t argue against there needing to be adjustment so talent from other backgrounds can get through? Hardly think that’s a controversial position. The years where private school confers a natural advantage really need to end.

@CurlewKate

"One thing private schools tend to teach, and most state schools don't is debating and public speaking"

No they don't, sure there are debating societies they can join but it's not as though it's on the curriculum and everyone does it.

Plus plenty of state schools have debating societies

The EPQ requires them all to do a presentation to parents and staff about their method and topic. I know because we sat through them! There seem to be frequent prompts to do public speaking in schools now.

‘Many private school students are from disadvantaged backgrounds.’

This a ridiculous statement. There are, of course, different ways to define ‘disadvantaged’, but chair of the Independent Schools Commission admitted only 1% of pupils get a full bursary. It’s 6% at Eton- hardly ‘many’.

As for the granting of bursaries, any claim this means that private schools contain ‘many disadvantaged’ pupils is also ridiculous. The majority of bursaries go to middle class families with a good proportion connected to staff discounts, music and sport. Less than half of them help less well off families with fees.

Bursaries as they stand today are just a scammy attempt to create a bulwalk against criticism of the sector.

This was actually discussed in the press the other day
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/sep/16/state-schools-should-set-up-debating-clubs-says-senior-eton-leader

I remembered this post.

So the person finds themselves surrounded by people with more cultural capital.
They have an option to learn and grow own cultural capital.
Instead they shout "unfair privilege" and want to exclude this group from the environment. And by doing this (excluding) make the environment poorer for everyone.

My DC now move to state, they won't be classified as PS anymore for uni purpose. They know Latin, we were discussing issues like Lehman crisis when they were about 7yo, they read Yuval Harari at 9, they travelled the world (albeit on the very cheapest option), regulars to museums / galleries/ theatres / libraries.

How do you deal with this privilege? Because person from the above example will feel equally overwhelmed in company of kids like this.

I think we have all been brainwashed by “education, education, education”, culminating in Gove & his curriculum, tons of kids pushed into unis etc and the chickens are coming home to roost now.
The academics will scream on the side, because the uni sector is overinflated.

The real issue is quite simple. It is absolutely fine to be a chef like your father and be brilliant since you cooked in the kitchen with him since you were 4. It just has to pay a proper wage and housing needs to be reasonably priced and being a chef and doing it well, should be just as respected as being a uni professor or doctor. We actually need more properly trained electricians and apprenticeships. We don’t need more people pushed into studying politics, clearly.
And that is why I keep going on about intergenerational wage mobility. We have failed on that.

Most kids who really are inherently talented and bright are actually discovered early on by good primary school teachers. They do need better support into secondary schools but really state schooling should be able to cope with that, and in most cases, it does. It sometimes fails when there is SEND involved. I would love for every child in the UK who has deprivation factors (including ill health of parents etc) to have an ongoing educational mentor.

Also, anecdotally every state school kid I've seen at a top uni found it a doss - while the private school kids have to slog to keep up

I don't know how people can actually type this stuff, let alone believe it.

They do teach it at preps because many secondary prep interviews need you to be articulate. But it’s in forms you won’t realise is important unless you know about they impact public speaking and confidence - eg dance / theatre / debate club / music / sports

With first hand experience of this (and colluding with it - albeit reluctantly) I absolutely agree. Years ago, too many to recall exactly, the proportion of doctors who were the children of doctors started to be seen as a problem. This was the start of a search for "diversity" in the medical profession. Inevitably this meant a shift in emphasis from academic attainment and all it involves (gratification delay, resilience, memory, intelligence etc) to "soft skills" (emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills etc) and changes in the curriculum to accommodate it. Unfortunately, anatomists, pathologists, bacteriologists, biochemists, physiologists, radiologists, anaesthetists (mostly), and in my experience, orthopaedic surgeons get by perfectly without these soft skills.

In the past the system took care of itself, directing people into speciality areas that suited their skill sets. Now an unremitting stream of extremely basic fatal mistakes has become the norm, and junior doctors work fewer hours but with expectations and behaviour that on the whole would have been unimagineable thirty years ago.

Alternatively we could decide that some kinds of ‘cultural capital’ should be regarded as of lower value. Anyone making quips in Latin outside of a Latin glass where if safe to assume most understand is a Bojo-esque cock in my experience. Latin is useful in small number of fields of scholarship, but pretty much irrelevant in most other fields. It’s nice your kids read Harari. But he’s an OK pop sci/history writer, hardly the stuff of university reading lists. As the curriculum becomes increasingly decolonised we should place more emphasis on other forms of knowledge.

lets face it most people are terrible at Latin (it is very very hard to get to grips with) and my experience and experience of my children is that most drop before GcSE. A few fantastic linguists take it further but the rest of us came out with ‘Caecilius est in Horto’….And that is literally given me no cultural capital in 25 years. The idea that private school pupils are quipping away in Latin is ridiculous.

Perhaps you are a little biased and stereotyping? It’s conceivable that parents choose private schools because they care about manners and old fashioned values and will pay for a school that aligns with those priorities.

Not many parents would pay to turn their children into jerks. It would be self defeating.

What else "we" should decide is a lower value cultural capital (in quote marks?)?

Shall we limit selection of books to university reading list?

I'm sure you don't realise that you're creating a fast lane to the bottom. That in an internationally mobile world UK will quickly become a sink hole education wise? You see a gap and instead of trying to bridge it by raising, you want to shave off those at the top.

The number that attend private schools is less than that.

However, the meaningful numbers are of pupils who reach the end of secondary education. Specifically those who reach the basic standard below which, as a rule, coping with Oxford or Cambridge's (current) academic standards is not possible.

Respectively they are 15% and 30%.

My favourite is Churchill who saved Europe from Nazism; less keen on Lloyd George, who called Hitler "the greatest living German."

Where do you stand on Churchill and colonialism?

Festering … and just downright unpleasant you are.
How dare you call these children scammers!