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?

Given that you haven't understood most of it, I find that surprising.

The point is this: “private school” or a person’s presumed background is not a protected characteristic at law currently.
However, the way things are going, perhaps it needs to actually be.
Why is a person’s background “relevant” to their performance in a job or at uni?
The answer is, it is not.

The June 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court - by then 9 justices, including 3 Trump appointees, with CJ Roberts as chair, an openly super-conservative court, with votes cast on party lines - rolled back precedent on the direct, immediate application of affirmative action on the basis of race. Not private school versus public school - race.

Are you asking whether white-majority children’s access to universities might be curtailed by civil action in the UK by parents of BAME, especially Asian, parents who might argue that discrimination against private schools = discrimination on the basis of race, because they make up a greater percentage of private school student compared to their white peers than in the local population, and therefore this is indirect discrimination against them?

If so: no.

And I wouldn’t compare to the US. It’s apples and pears, and even then it’s not like they have it right.

Better to look at the EU’s pronouncements over the last 48 hours about their bafflement at Starmer not being interests in the UK taking more Erasmus students.

Oh god…it goes on….lol

I challenged a claim made by a poster that ‘Many private school students are from disadvantaged backgrounds.’ If we define ‘disadvantaged’ as being eligible for a full bursary, then it’s 1%, so not ‘many’.

You then responded, quoting my post, with ‘Private schools are less highly weighted towards the top SES [socio economic] group than Cambridge University admissions.’ This point doesn’t counter my point. To do that you’d have have to have provided some additional evidence ‘many’ private school pupils are ‘disadvantaged’.

In no circumstance is it possible to say that an A is worth more than an A star, because the person with the A has not demonstrated the ceiling of his or her ability. If Roger Penrose sat an A level paper in Maths the best he would achieve would be an A*.

edit: keyboard or MN not reproducing asterisk in line one

Also a problem with the asterisk in line 2, but you get the drift.

“Better to look at the EU’s pronouncements over the last 48 hours about their bafflement at Starmer not being interests in the UK taking more Erasmus students.”

That is because they won’t attract CASH and UK unis are desperate for cash via international students. So the last thing they would want is Erasmus students taking the places of UK students which do not cover the cost of the courses either for many degrees due to the fee cap. Hardly surprising.

It’s also because of race. After Brexit, Farage etc, the last thing he wants - despite his claim to want to forge closer ties with the EU - is an influx of non-white EU citizens. Not his personal politics, in my opinion, but where a good chunk of the country, and posters on this thread, have shown they’d like the country to be going. Unbelievable that anyone can equate an A grade from Jacob Rees-Mogg’s daughter with an A grade from the 3rd daughter of a single mum working two jobs and claiming PIP for her other children. Perfect illustration of how education does not = intelligence.

No one defines disadvantage in that way. It is nonsensical. Inventing you own terms of reference is not conducive to effective communication. The thread is about Cambridge and they define disadvantage as POLAR4 q1 and q2. The proportion of which is given in the quotation:

"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.

If those figures are applied to primary and secondary schools that's about 60,000 - i.e. many.

Having done that, I made another point. A total of two points.

You may find this complicated but if you take your time with a bit of luck you should be OK.

Not my field. But I wouldn't be surprised to be told that it sails close to some sort European Court legislation.

You’re killing me here lol

60,000 is about 10% of privately schooled kids.

10% isn’t a great example of ‘many’ is it?

The main issue I have with the argument that private school students are overrepresented at elite universities is that it relies on a predicate that these universities should be considering only / mostly potential in their admissions policies. This would seem to require looking back to the innate (presumably genetic) potential of a child and then trying to adjust for all the life experience and education that they have had since that time. This treats education as something superficial when I would argue that the education a person has had forms them and the way they think just as much as their genetics.

I think sometimes there is an argument for looking mainly at potential / pure natural ability If, say, you have two applicants for a French course, one of whom has had a couple of French lessons and therefore knows the basics and one of whom hasn't, you might look at language aptitude rather than the level of French that they have on application when choosing who to admit. This is on the basis that if the applicant who has done no French before has higher language aptitude, they can quickly catch up on a couple of lessons and overtake the other candidate. This probably applies more in some areas than others e.g. sport, music, maths etc. where some people are truly gifted. If, as I think was the case previously, Cambridge were finding that state school students were outperforming private school students once at university despite appearing less qualified on application, I think it's reasonable to slightly adjust the entrance criteria for state school students to reflect this and then monitor the effect of this. Incidentally, the Cambridge application process does a far better job at looking at innate ability than A levels do - e.g. I did a language aptitude test which involved translating a made up language.

But if we are talking about 18 years of advantage (whether that's going to a good school or having involved parents or any other advantage), that in itself affects intelligence. The brain continues developing after birth and is shaped by all these advantages. Children from deprived backgrounds are around 18 months behind at age 16. A university can't necessarily make up that gap.

Private school students get 70% A or A* at A level, compared to 40% getting these grades at state schools - there are just far more qualified candidates at private schools so you would expect them to be overrepresented.

I think the private school / state school argument in the context of Oxbridge is a bit of a red herring. Almost all students at Oxbridge have some "advantage". Most (obviously not all) are from at least a middle class background. Most went to a reasonably good school or at least had some good teachers. Those that didn't mostly will have had something that made them an Oxbridge candidate, even if only involved parents who cared about their education.

@Fishgish 😂

@Circe7

Excellent point. I read it somewhere, can't quote now, that Oxbridge were trying to explain that by the time kids apply the gap is already to big to bridge, that support to disadvantaged children has to come at much earlier stage and unis are at the end of the chain. This is the reason for them still having MC kids mostly.

One way of resolving the issue would be to use own entrance testing instead of A-levels and interviews, something like this made up language example. They would be able to select true ability, there would be very limited opportunity to tutor (if at all). Assuming blind testing and no interview there wouldn't be any option to discriminate incl positive discrimination. This could be even done online to avoid situations when disadvantages child can't travel. I'm sure even private schools could share facilities to allow such kids to sit these exams.

I think the private school / state school argument in the context of Oxbridge is a bit of a red herring. Almost all students at Oxbridge have some "advantage". Most (obviously not all) are from at least a middle class background. Most went to a reasonably good school or at least had some good teachers. Those that didn't mostly will have had something that made them an Oxbridge candidate, even if only involved parents who cared about their education.

Possibly true @Circe7 . The trouble is that there is privilege piled onto privilege. I know a variety of people who went to Oxbridge - DS and DH among them, both from decidedly bog standard, rather than 'good' comps. DH's mum was a primary school teacher, and he is also the most driven person I've ever met. Among the others are the son of a fisherman, the daughter of a a woman who literally flips burgers, and the daughter of a physio and oil company engineer. They all have stable and loving home backgrounds. Only the latter though went to a 'top' private school; the others are the products of comps. I would argue the latter had a double dose of privilege over and above the others.

I wish people who had this advantage acknowledged it instead of whinging about it. My son definitely acknowledges he won the education lottery in being born to me and DH, despite his lack of school advantage.

It's the hand wringing and whining from private school parents I find hard. Own it people! Let's face it, these places wouldn't exist if parents didn't think they were giving their children an edge.

I guess it depends whether you think Oxbridge should primarily be a means of social mobility, or whether its priority should be to nurture the best minds in their subject and advance academic research.

Schools exist for the purpose of the students, but by the time you get to employment it's about objectively finding the best candidate. University falls in between, and different opinions about its primary aim are valid.

I've certainly seen it argued that an Oxbridge education has more social benefit if given to a less able but less privileged student than when given to a more able but more privileged student, since it makes more difference to their life outcome. But that can only be done for a minority of students without degrading the value of an Oxbridge education.

Anyway, I think it's wise to be clear about what Oxbridge should be trying to achieve (and what the cost of that choice is: there is a cost either way).

If you believe the aim should be for Universities to take the candidate who will be the best physicist/doctor/linguist by the time they finish their degree, then the tricky thing for admissions tutors is to compare two candidates current potential (not genetic potential at birth, which is pretty irrelevant really), when they have had very different educational experiences.

I agree with@Circe7 that education changes a person and makes them better than they would have been. It's not fake. It may be privilege which gave the person that education and those experiences, but they are now part of the person and contribute to that person's current potential.

It's quite fixed-mindset (and anti-education!) to think otherwise, surely?

Do you really only see Oxbridge as a golden ticket to a better job, rather than as an outstanding educational experience which will form a person's mind and outlook? Why do you think 14 years of school is different?

I'm not sure Cambridge is getting it quite right just now, given the high difference in outcomes based on school type. I find it interesting that when it was state school students getting better degree results, that was readily accepted as evidence of a barrier to entry from State school. But now that the pendulum has swung the other way, it isn't accepted that this is evidence of a barrier to entry from private school.

@strawberrybubblegum while actual detailed research (not undisclosed FOI requests) suggests that state school students do achieve better outcomes than private school ones based on their A level results, I don’t think we should stop PS students attending Oxbridge on that basis.

I agree with you. We should not.

Because your "actual detailed research" doesn't investigate Oxford and Cambidge admissions.

Which you presumably know. Given that your carefully worded statement refers to research on other universities and includes "details" such as lumping first and second class degrees together, and assuming that degrees from disparate universities can be directly compared, in order to achieve the educationalists' desired research outcomes.

Anyone with any sense would use Cambridge's data to draw conclusions about Cambridge, whether acquired through a FOI request, available to anyone with the urge to find out, or more readily from the university's most up to date published analysis.

@Marchesman
These data you're talking about will never be published or researched. It's politically incorrect.
Even if it's sent to media, BBC/Sky/FT and the likes won't publish - politically incorrect.
Even if by some miracle it gets to any media, it's going to be "privilege lingers".

Which is very sad.

If Oxford and Cambridge overlook higher performing privately schooled applicants in favour of less highly performing state school applicants, their ranking in the world will be affected. And a brain drain will ensue - already privately schooled UK students do travel to the US to attend Ivies and other extremely well regarded universities.

"They would be able to select true ability"

There really is no such thing as selection for "true ability" at 17. All students will be a product of interaction between their own intelligence and the culture they have encountered. The less culture, the less ability to a large extent.

Letters in the guardian saying capping Oxbridge private school intake at 10% is too generous as only 6% go to private school.

I thought it was more like 15%+ at 6th form level?

Even in c.2013 when the research I think you are referring to was done (and I believe the main study looked at students who started university in 2006), it was selectively reported. The news articles failed to mention, for example, that students who have been to fee paying schools were more likely to get a degree at all (89% to 82%) and more likely to get at least a 2.1 (65% to 52%).

I think private school students were slightly less likely to get a first once at university compared to other students from state schools at the same university.

It is the very definition of cherry picking for the media to pick up on % getting a 1st and ignore the rest of the study because it didn’t suit their agenda.

In any case, the situation has likely changed since that research was done.

it's just under 17% in six form