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?

I went from a comprehensive school to Cambridge. I think 10% is too low. Being blunt, the number of exceptional students will be higher in private schools, as they are selected by both parental income, parenting style, and ability to pass entrance tests. You do get students like this in comprehensive schools too, but the % will be lower. Some "contextualization" of state school kids' offers does make sense though, given that their applications will not have been helped along by their schools in such a slick manner. I have said this before, but part of the reason for this pushback is probably connected with the shortsighted and greedy decision by many private schools to inflate their kids' grades to the max during COVID. I can see why they were tempted, but it seems to have resulted in private school kids' achievements being viewed in a more skeptical light than before.

People seem to be focusing mainly on "kids from disadvantaged comps," but thinking back to my own cohort....I think the question of whether we had gone to private schools came up once in group discussion. There was basically no difference between those of us who had been to state schools and those of us who had been to private schools. We all had similar backgrounds, had had the same sorts of cultural experiences and been on the same types of holidays, had parents who had done similar stuff. My parents bought a house near a good comprehensive school and paid for some tutoring. The top sets in my school were full of the same kinds of people. State school does not necessarily equate with "rough school"; in the case of Cambridge applicants, it mostly will not mean those kids.

As for American universities; I think this will become commoner, but I can't quite see it taking off en masse. The US is culturally very different to the UK, and the dollar is so strong that it's just a very, very expensive option, especially when you take into account all the flights back and forth, the "shoe-leather" costs inevitable when doing anything overseas, the fact that in most parts of the US it's impossible for students to manage without a car and car running costs have gone through the roof in the US... As PP said, it actually tends to be Indian heritage students from state schools who go this route, and it's dependent on getting scholarships. US unis seem to have rather different criteria to British universities; for better or for worse, there is more of a "liberal arts/allrounder" emphasis, and also an obsession with extra curriculars! UK kids who want to try to go the US route should get specialist advice from early on.

@GreenTeaLikesMe "There was basically no difference between those of us who had been to state schools and those of us who had been to private schools. We all had similar backgrounds, had had the same sorts of cultural experiences and been on the same types of holidays, had parents who had done similar stuff. My parents bought a house near a good comprehensive school and paid for some tutoring. The top sets in my school were full of the same kinds of people. State school does not necessarily equate with "rough school"; in the case of Cambridge applicants, it mostly will not mean those kids."

Exactly so - the data confirms this. The creation of a division where none exists is a hallmark of extreme left-wing actors, and no logical explanation for it has emerged on this thread - bar the occasional misplaced reference to a playing field (and the provision of employment to large numbers of academics and journalists) .

The differential fees mean that some British students (or their parents) are spending a fortune on US universities when they might have been happier spending more than £9250 pa for Oxbridge.

It seems likely that the £9250 pa will go up pretty soon. I'm quite supportive of that - or alternatively the government paying universities a direct per-student subsidy. Costs have certainly gone up in the last 10 years, and it's not realistic for fees to stay frozen.

What really wouldn't be OK is means-tested University fees. Even means-tested loans is a bit iffy: adults getting lower government support based on their parents' income. But a higher rate of graduate tax for most of your working life, due to your childhood privilege? That really would toll a death knell for UK universities.

I haven't seen it suggested, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. It matches all the trends we're seeing. You saw it here first.

The student loan system has been such a massive fiasco that one would hope that any new system would be better checked for structural flaws before launch.

I don't know much about it: I'm too old and DD is too young.

What's gone wrong?

I think there is no way that fees will not go up. Not yet, it is politically unpopular, and Labour is haunted by what happened to the Lib Dems in coalition when they allowed this to happen on their watch. But go up they must, the maths on this is simply unavoidable. The US will always be far more expensive though, due to wealth differentials and the strength of the dollars, plus several other structural factors that make US uni v v expensive.

The other thing that will happen is that international students are going to get soaked, even more than they already are, as universities get more and more desperate for money. I live outside the UK and am looking into English-taught degrees in other countries, for my own kids. My “expat” friends in places like Dubai are thinking of having their kids board in the UK for a couple of years at the end of their school years to try and prepare for this and maybe get round the rules, as they feel it’s likely that it will be harder to ask for “home fees” going forward if your kids have been educated overseas.

My “expat” friends in places like Dubai are thinking of having their kids board in the UK for a couple of years at the end of their school years to try and prepare for this and maybe get round the rules

That could be tricky - children may or may not be considered ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK if their parents live overseas and the sole purpose of the child being in the UK for the relevant 3 year period is to receive education.

Yes, I've heard that too. It also depends on the institution in question, and of course the application of the rules is likely to get stricter over time, due to universities' being in increasingly dire need of money :/

I'm in Japan, not Dubai etc. and the yen is low giving us low purchasing power in the UK, so it does feel a bit unfair, but hey ho, it is what it is. Will definitely be looking into European options, though, not least because this brings the opportunity to learn an extra language at the same time as taking an English-taught degree.

There's no way that children ordinarily resident in Dubai will get around international fees by boarding. The documentation that overseas parents have to provide in order to get home fees is very extensive.

Is this based on child's or parents residency though?
I can imagine a lot of noise in press if UK resident children with British passports are treated as foreigners for Uni fees purposes

The rules on this have been clear for decades. It’s not controversial. There was even a court case on it.

Under 18s are assumed to be ordinarily resident with their parents, so if their parents are ordinarily resident in Dubai then sending children to the UK for boarding school doesn’t make them UK residents.

Whether someone is temporarily resident on a 2-3 year secondment in eg Dubai is what often gets discussed, with the unis themselves, on a case by case basis!

I think you generally have to prove that you have a fixed term contract or assignment, plus proving that you have maintained links to the UK during that time.

It’s fair that wealthy long-term ex-pats who have paid no tax in the UK should not benefit from lower UK uni fees.

I don’t know @HeavyMetalMaiden - there are plenty of foreign unis in Europe with hardly any fees, as an alternative. So if we want our best and brightest back giving them local fees may be a good investment. DS is at ETH in Zurich and pays £700 per term and gets loads of teaching hours! I am so surprised. Living costs would be horrendous though but he is staying for free with family and also has a very lucrative part time job. Given the demographic challenges I think putting off talented young people is mistaken.

And don’t come back (economist.com) The UK has never done much to try and persuade expatriate Britons (or their kids) to come back, though; it's just a cultural thing in the UK! Luckily we are happily settled overseas anyway. At least we are better off than overseas Americans in some ways. I have American friends who hoped their kids would study in the States and are now weeping at the cost of it, with the US dollar being where it is.

I think this is one of those Heuristic judgements OP mentions. It was my first reaction too: that expats don't pay tax and so shouldn't be entitled to home fees for their children. (Just as my first heuristic reaction to the bat and ball question was 10 cents)

But education (whether school or Uni) is a benefit to the person receiving the education, not their parents. We all receive our own education, then pay taxes during adulthood, and receive our pension. Our childhood and elder benefits are effectively paid for by our working-adult contribution: just shifted in time (and averaged across the population - as all taxes and benefits are).

It gets complicated by people coming and going from the UK at different times in their life.

Rationally, the effective thing for the UK would be to make an investment in education - which is what home fees are - for those students most likely to stay in the UK for their contributing adult years.

I think it's fair to say that children born of British parents and resident their whole lives to date in the UK are the most likely category to stay in the UK during adulthood.

But figuring out the increased probability of other categories of children leaving after university is trickier - and also more political:

1.other national origin (does this depend on the age the child came to the UK? And maybe which national origin? I expect that US origin vs Afghan origin will show different emigration rates to their country of origin after graduating)

2.UK nationality but parents currently expat, which is what we're talking about here. Maybe length of time away and in which country also changes behaviour. You could as easily add a 3 year rule to this as you could for 3 year UK residency. Or a different number of years.

The UK has come up with a set of rules, and that's fine. But it's wrong to suggest that it's self-evident or morally right. It's just a choice.

And in fact, if you get the UK nationality kids back into the UK for university, then that may encourage their parents back to the UK earlier, whilst they're still working and paying tax. Our highest tax years are often late career, so that's worthwhile.

So the UK benefits twice: they get tax from the returned expat child after graduation (having not paid for their school education) and they lose less of the expat parents' tax (having paid for their education then lost them for a while)

International fees are for profit. I'm not at all sure that the UK should be dissuading young UK citizens with an international upbringing from studying at UK universities and becoming productive members of society - many of them have a great deal to offer.

@strawberrybubblegum we take parental income into account when deciding how much loan a student can get, despite them being an adult and entitled to a uk education. This is another choice we in the uk make.
I’m not entirely sure we want the older tax payers to return to the uk just as they reach the snipers alley that is living over 50. If you are in this age bracket you will know how many peers have their first major health worries during this decade. High blood pressure, cancer, mental health issues, hip replacements before we even start on pension payments and care home fees.

Bloody hell, pretty much as soon as I said it, news channels have started to talk about it. Uni fees likely to go up, but maintenance grants reintroduced. Ie means tested university education.

But means tested on the parents means, not the students. Even though it will be the student paying it back their whole working life.