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?

Not as ridiculous as you believe. Someone else's words for a change:

"We also use the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England data to check the validity of our assumption that private school pupils belong at the top of the SES distribution. In fact, this analysis suggests that only around 35% of private school pupils belong in the top SES quintile (a further 30% are in the second SES quintile, and a further 25% are in the middle SES quintile)." Chowdry, Crawford, Dearden, Goodman, and Vignoles. "Widening Participation" 2013.

One in ten were from the equivalent of POLAR4 quintiles 1 and 2, and since then the proportion of children on means tested bursaries has increased.

Private schools are less highly weighted towards the top SES group than Cambridge University admissions. If the university wants to be socially representative, and approves of the idea of a lottery, rather than the present arrangement, their aims would in fact be better met by taking all of their admissions randomly from private schools.

No one called children scammers.

Personal grooming, dress, manners

You can argue that; it is the point behind the thread. Talent from other backgrounds was getting through perfectly well fifteen years ago. No "adjustment" was necessary, but it happened anyway.

I have cited Smith-Woolley et 2018 several times because when it was published it was the only peer reviewed comparison of non-selective state schools, grammar schools, and private schools. As far as I know, since then there hasn't been another. Educationalists otherwise always investigate grammar schools or private schools, never both at the same time, for reasons that should be obvious from Smith-Woolley's findings.

It is a tenet held by educationalists that in attainment terms nothing significant is gained from attending a grammar school. Smith-Woolley et al confirms this. But also shows that only twice the grammar school advantage (ie still nothing) is gained from private school attendance - private schools provide no attainment advantage over non-selective state schools.

That is the evidence. But I am interested in the mechanism that you imagine could lie behind a private school advantage if there were one. Not class size, as shown earlier, and it can't be better teachers because educationalists say so. If by exclusion we are left with "coaching" for interviews, why don't state schools do that?

If "attainment" is measured purely in terms of GCSE and A-level scores, then it won't capture many of the features of selective education that are not part of the national examination programme.

Don’t know why you’re quoting me as this offers nothing directly in response to my post.

Also, try quoting less and dropping the cod-academic jargon if you want anyone to understand or give a rat’s ass about your point of view.

Also, try quoting less and dropping the cod-academic jargon if you want anyone to understand or give a rat’s ass about your point of view.

😂😂😂

Made my day! It's evident that scientific articles are above some people understanding. Maybe the ones who want to ban Latin outside of specific course and books not on the reading list. Too much cultural capital, way too much.

Thinking of this thread... We're recruiting graduates for a large multinational, these roles open opportunities to rise to the very top of career ladder and earn six digits by late twenties. Given that top unis, esp Oxbridge, prioritise state kids, should we now assume that those private ones who got there despite, they must be truly exceptional? so we should give them a bit of contextualisation? at the end of the day our main duty is to shareholders and we need to select the brightest and the best? just thinking 😉

@HeavyMetalMaiden - is this your kinda cultural capital?

Everyone's waiting for something to happen
Everybody's waiting for something to see
Lunatics waiting for bigger disasters
Everyone's waiting for news on TV
Winding lives at the end of the spiral
Waiting dictators with their next big thrill
Everyone's looking, but no one is listening
Everybody wants to be in at the kill
….
So I watch and I wait
And I pray for an answer
An end to the strife and the world's misery
But the end never came
And we're digging the graves
And we're loading the guns for the kill
Can the end be at hand?
Is the face in the sand?
Future memory of our tragedy?
…
And we're digging the graves
And we're loading the guns for the kill
Can the end be at hand?
Is the face in the sand?
Future memory of our tragedy?
Can the end be at hand?
Is the face in the sand?
Future memory of our tragedy?
Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh

…..

@Marchesman

Interesting that this research is from 2013, assume the data used is from earlier samples. I think a lot has changed since then and representation moved even lower down the SES scale - there are a lot of first generation immigrants who will burst their guts to push their kids upwards and pay fees. They might be classified as lower SES here even though it doesn't necessarily reflect their .... shhh... cultural capital.

@nearlylovemyusername I think you have to take anyone with a private school education and an Oxbridge degree seriously , they are very well educated and have beaten the discriminatory system.

When one of my children (Old Public School and Oxford) was interviewed for a job with a big 4 accountant they only asked him which university he went to after they had offered him a job, and said that he didn't have to say if he didn't want to. Surely many interviews are conducted 'blind' like this.

@oddandelsewhere

I know, right?

Will ask quid cogitas tomorrow 😂

Oh dear.

Academic articles are fine, it’s the OP’s poor use of them that’s the issue. You can’t get a first (or any degree really) if you use use unexplained acronyms in your essays, use data that doesn’t support your argument, and make points that don’t follow from what came before lol.

Nobody suggested banning Latin on this thread.

Nobody suggested banning any books.

Never mind academic articles, simply written Mumsnet posts seem beyond you.

@Marchesman - what are your thoughts on the cases in the US where the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action pretty much?

We do have an overrepresentation in some private schools of BAME, especially Asian minorities, so could they have a claim against eg Cambridge university? Is it conceivable?

@HeavyMetalMaiden - @Marchesman has me fooled, sounds more like whistleblowing to me than anything else.
Must be frustrating when you see the dogma lead to Imperial beating you, right?

Goodness-- people, stop conflating knowledge of Latin with an ability to write or discern academic papers. DD works in academia, in the field of climate change. Maths is a heck of a lot more useful. And besides she went to a crappy comp which didn't teach Latin--

There are some eccentric characters on this thread!

Can we keep USA and affirmative action aside, doubt UK audience is au fait with system and the recent challenges to its Constitutionality…

Ooooer how did all that striking out appear on my post? I suppose that might make me look quite eccentric!

An "overrepresentation in some private schools of BAME, especially Asian minorities"?

An overrepresentation implies you think there's a correct level of representation. And that those BAME pupils are there to represent. Does it occur to you that they may be there on merit? That - as it at the root of the affirmative action situation in the US - some communities support/value/pay more to ensure a higher academic standard than their peers? You're saying this on a thread purportedly about merit-based college acceptance?

Your posts aren't even dog-whistling. They're blatant. I've been in correspondence with @MNHQ today.

@Vabenejulio - nice try… won’t wash.

An “overrepresentation” means compared to local average.

How does "overrepresentation" mean "compared to local average"?

What does that mean?

Local average what? %age of the population?

Do you think there should be a quota system? So not at all merit-based?

Why should it be local?

Why should there be a comparison to local averages?

What am I trying to do? I have, actually, said what I see. I'm not trying to do anything more than that.

If there are higher percentages of certain races in private schools and the Government and universities are discriminating against private schools, then yes, RACE is a protected characteristic. At law.

I know I'm going to regret this but here goes.

Someone said: "Many private school students are from disadvantaged backgrounds"

To which you responded: "This a ridiculous statement." followed by some ill informed and rude stuff about "scammy bursaries".

My response was to quote a paper that contained actual data on the proportion of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I appreciate why from where you are sitting, showing you to be wrong again was a poor use of an academic article.

What I don't understand is: "You can’t get a first (or any degree really) use unexplained acronyms in your essays, use data that doesn’t support your argument, and make points that don’t follow from what came before lol."

In the circumstance that would be hilarious. But I'm really, really, struggling to understand how you could end the tirade with a bloody acronym!

edit: an article, not articles

Lol - I care not one jot where Imperial and (presumably) Cambridge sit in a ranking scheme. I’ve got nothing to do with either.

I’ve found this thread really interesting though in seeing how some rather privileged folk attempt to justify that they and their offspring are not actually privileged, and are in fact some sort of victims. It’s all rather tragic and hilarious at the same time.

It was @Fishgish who pointed out that many children in private schools are from disadvantaged backgrounds.