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?

Student loans are means tested on parents income.

Maintenance grants pre fees / loans were too.

When maintenance grants were based on parents incomes, students weren't being saddled with debt which they would be paying off for decades.

It very different to give a free university to all and support some with living costs versus charging some students even more tens of thousands of pounds in order to subsidise giving some of that money to other students. Based on their parents income.

It's becoming a pattern for this Labour government. I don't know why they're so obsessed with redistribution being within the same department.

Private schools parents subsidising state schools (even though there are 15 times more children in state, so it's a disproportionate burden for a tiny number of people).

Pensions of higher tax payers raided to supplement pensions of lower tax payers (even though pension saving is too low across all incomes).

Now students with rich parents subsidising students with poor parents (for decades, when their own incomes may not reflect their childhood)

It's as if Labour are children deciding how to share money out, and only able to think of one thing at a time. Can they not manage the concept of separating incoming tax from outgoing benefits, and optimise both separately?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/25/universities-student-fees-inflation-fairest-loans

Mandelson running for Chancellor at Oxford on top of this.

These people are so self-serving. If they want to help gifted FSM kids they need to do it from very early on with support through primary and secondary schools (maybe even grammars/grammar streams at least). Otherwise it is all just trying to boast to make themselves feel good! We have almost 25% of kids on FSM now!

My DC won’t be getting loans at this rate. We will raid the pensions/ISAs or use unis abroad. None of these people think through the consequences. If they are going to make higher earner graduates pay more, they are just incentivised to leave the country.

Quite so!

40% of working households receive more in benefits than they contribute in tax.

https://fullfact.org/economy/are-half-british-households-burden-state/

We all need to be “pulling on the oars together” if we are going to get anywhere. I do think graduated taxes are right and fair, but we are unsustainably out of kilter, and getting back on an even keel is challenging.

I have read that the Scandinavian model is generous if you are working. It’s miserable if you are economically inactive. We need to look at that. Also 16 hours a week should not be enough to be considered “active” and unlock working benefits.

What actually happens if a potential student has rich but very toxic parents? Can they take the parents to court to make up the maintenance loan? Why is there always an assumption that richer kids have great, kind and generous parents and poorer kids have useless parents? It is so much more complex in reality and is case by case surely?

It's not a protected characteristic. They can discriminate in any way they wish to. Universities are just businesses these days.

This entire thread is one long list of pleas as to why the rest of us should fawn over the wealthy and their spawn whose privilege has been purchased by their mums and dads. We’ve had:

• private school kids get more firsts
• Private school kids are genetically superior
• the wealthy should play a role akin to the 18th century aristocracy
• the wealthy and privately schooled do the most for society
• they’ll all go Harvard instead!!!!
• the wealthy are better people because they don’t let their kids on screens as much.

It hilarious, tragic and disturbing stuff all at the same time. In the meantime every posho poster seems utterly pig ignorant of the benefits of reducing inequality despite their claimed analytical prowess.

@HeavyMetalMaiden
every posho poster seems utterly pig ignorant of the benefits of reducing inequality despite their claimed analytical prowess.

Is this your best ?

@HeavyMetalMaiden - we just fundamentally disagree on what social mobility actually means. To me, it means creating jobs for all that pay a fair wage and giving everyone a high standard of basic education. I just do not believe in tertiary uni education for so many, the burden on the taxpayer as a result and the individual as well. I think it is a fundamentally flawed system we now have and the cash being wasted on loans that are never repaid would be far better channeled into a much higher levels of secondary education for all and great training opportunities straight after.
I think it is ridiculous to focus huge efforts on pushing poorer students into environments like Oxford, if those places are not going to adapt themselves to the needs of poorer students first. I think it is all for show by champagne type socialists who are totally out of touch with the real working population, across many spheres from lower working class to business. In fact, most of our woes as a country are now because those in charge are just so completely out of touch. And I blame Oxford university in part for that. So as far as I am concerned, I am quite happy to get rid of the concept of elite uni education altogether.

@Fishgish

I think the answer to you last question is "Yes". If you look at posting history and some words being triggers, as well as general level of comprehension

"Pig ignorant poshos."

Charming.

I've taken quite different things from the thread.

Perhaps because I've understood it.

@HeavyMetalMaiden

You mentioned analytical prowess, and because you have had difficulty understanding me (and in fact, everyone), there are a couple of things written by some completely different people that are apposite:

"The classical explanation is that people save effort with heuristics, but at the cost of accuracy. In this view, humans and other animals rely on heuristics because information search and computation cost time and effort; heuristics trade off some loss in accuracy for faster and more frugal cognition." Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011. 62

Or put another way "'Lazy' is a harsh judgement ... but it does not seem to be unfair." Khahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011.

Oxbridge is no equivalent of the others you mentioned. It is utterly unfair that better candidates got discriminated against in the admission process just because their parents worked hard to get them a decent education in school. It is incredibly naive to think private school students don't need to work hard to do well in academic exams. This is social injustice and concerns should be voiced.

Social justice my arse!

Yes. Social justice.

Not discriminating against better candidates in the admission process.

Nobody who actually cared about social justice would be putting the life chances of ultra privileged children at the top of their list of concerns. Or anywhere near it, actually. It would be laughable if it wasn't so frighteningly out of touch.

Explain, please
in concise bullet points.

Well if you look at the world around you the group you are getting exercised about are already in an extremely privileged position! I would count my own children in that group although they don’t go to private school. I cannot imagine having the gall to say with a straight face that English middle / upper class children from wealthy supportive families are in need of “social justice”?!

But you do have the gall to claim that your children should be the beneficiaries of positive discrimination at the point of university entry.

Presumably you have an income threshold in mind above which people should not have equal rights and opportunities. Without one, your idea is just not going to work.

Finland performs better than the UK on a bunch of significant quality of life metrics. It is also a more equal society which is reflected in its approach to education. Read and learn…

inews.co.uk/news/world/finland-no-fee-paying-schools-pupils-perform-better-privately-educated-british-2664640?srsltid=AfmBOopT6BeHHcz8QrWjlocpobUuKbOeDWcmXf0Zha_Fxiefjq8f43dy

No positive discrimination given for their school nor would we expect there to be. Just find the term “social justice” when
used in this context frankly nauseating.

Makes you wonder how many Finnish students attend UK Private boarding schools …

A very small number indeed I would suggest

https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/rise-and-fall-finland-mania-part-two-why-did-scores-plummet

Finland no longer performs better! That has been widely and extensively written about and their 2022 PISA performance was a disappointment to the Finnish.

Care to comment @HeavyMetalMaiden

In fact, it is an excellent example of where researchers went Finnish system mad and now the evidence is no longer there that their system actually works.

For all their huge faults, the Tories are actually better for educational achievement per se. Believe it or not! Labour have a pretty bad track record of dragging people down rather than up.
And no, I am not a Tory. Just stating the obvious.

We are at a tech turning point - Maths, Science and Creative Thinking need to dominate our education system. The first two are straight forward, the latter is not.