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?

Of course. Must be down to privilege, any never be down to ability, right?

That's so funny @TheaBrandt given that @Marchesman has said that lawyers typically can't do this and you're a lawyer!

It shows that different professions do need different aptitudes, and it's not down to general intelligence (since lawyers are super clever). So @Marchesman is right that subject-based aptitude tests are as far as we should go for uni.

I'm in an analytical profession, and solved the puzzle with a simple 2 step process (1.what might you have written down that makes a black diamond a thog. 2. What does that mean for each of the shapes in turn)

It took me 4 minutes including finding a pen (peri has shot my working memory so I had to write things down!)

But I'm annoyed at myself that I went through it procedurally with a 2 step solution

If I'd thought it through in a slightly more abstract way I would have seen that the shape we were told and it's inverse must be thogs and the other 2 must be not thogs. That would have been much quicker!

I still don't think we need to worry in general over this as the free market will prevail but it is very interesting. My psychiatrist (NHS doctor) father always said we were all about 50% environment and 50% hereditary. Might nowadays add a third category but perhaps just 1% for what happens in the womb, loathe though I am to lumber us poor women with yet another thing for which to be blamed.

I don't accept lawyers are less bright than doctors but again the free market can prevail and give us data on that I suppose...... anyway as someone said above different jobs require different skills. I have been working this morning for doctor client doing legal work they cannot do and I cannot do their surgical work on the other hand.

My own view is that if a parent wants to pay school fees for a good private school then that is the right choice for them and if they think it might slightly reduce their chance of an Oxbridge place then so what - there are hundreds of other reasons why I was happy to pay school fees from single sex schooling to singing Bach or Handel in choirs aged 8 (we are quite a musical family so that is just one weird thing that matters here and yes I accept you can join C of E Cathedral choirs and sing wonderful music without paying school fees).

The legal profession has been doing a lot of work to make entry fairer (whatever fair means). In fact the entire first exam SQE1 was made 100% multiple choice (a terrible mistake in my view) so that people who were not so good at English would do better in it as they would not need to write a single sentence. sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/reports/sqe1-july-2024-statistical-report.pdf?sfvrsn=39a01979_1 . Page 7 even breaks it down by religion/atheism - Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish etc.

@Marchesman - that logic puzzle seems easier than some of the 11 plus questions my 4 DC had to tackle for London grammars age 10.

TSA sample questions

@Xenia

The legal profession has been doing a lot of work to make entry fairer (whatever fair means). In fact the entire first exam SQE1 was made 100% multiple choice (a terrible mistake in my view) so that people who were not so good at English would do better in it as they would not need to write a single sentence.

Wow! I thought that the very first and basic criteria of being suitable for a job in law is perfect language skills???

Out of interest @Xenia and @TheaBrandt, how do you see gen AI affecting law in the mid-term future? (I know it's a bit of a derail!) It seems particularly at risk to me, since my impression is that practicing law involves a lot of gathering and synthesising complex information (exactly what gen AI is good at) but not so much problem solving (what AI isn't so good at). But I don't know that much about law, so I'm not really sure what skills are needed!

I've worked with both doctors and lawyers and agree with you @Xenia that both professions take only people who are very bright. The different professions may require (and foster) different aptitudes, but the same high-ability school-leavers could usually choose either - and it's more a question of interest than ability.

I've been thinking recently that I'd steer young people away from law just now. I'm sure it will remain a great career for a couple of decades at least, but I'd be wary for someone just starting out. Is that a fair concern?

You summarise the stepwise approach exactly as I tackled it. Your abstract alternative is a very elegant summary but I don't think it is possible to arrive at it without solving the problem in stages.

There has been a great deal of research into this specific problem and the use of the standard IQ tests as measures of cognitive functioning. The argument being that they (unlike this puzzle) fail to assess skills such as judgment and decision making.

https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2021.1212124

I gave the problem to my younger son when he brought his girlfriend home for the first time (actually, now I come to think of it the only time). He did classics at Oxford then international corporate law (unblemished record of A stars, firsts and distinctions) she English at Oxford (I didn't ask). Despite their combined cognitive wattage they only solved it after I had pointed out step 1.

I think different professions not only require different aptitudes, they nurture them or allow them to atrophy too. There is said to be research into how arts and science graduates perform on this test but I haven't been able to find it.

Despite all the cod-academic guff on this thread that fact remains that the most successful Western nations in terms of quality of life, have greater equality and far fewer kids in British-style private schools. Everything here is just self-serving tinkering.

Are these Shangrilas achieving utopia by holding people back despite talent, desire and resources? Or are they doing something else…like high quality universal benefits paid for through broader taxation?

I cannot be arsed to read the thread, I do hope that Cambridge discriminates against private school kids, my son will stand a better chance of getting in.

Define your terms please -
most successful Western Nations ? And don’t have “British style” private schools?
Back to Finland again?

I googled “most successful western nations” and the list included countries which have robust private school systems and, in fact, private “British Schools” which have many locals enrolled & guess what … striving for top Unis in UK. Many of those (European) countries also “stream” state school students from young ages to vocational & non-academic educations … at age 14 so actually not giving equal educational opportunities to all - where’s the equality? USA - many best schools in areas where local annual taxes of £25,000 for every house fund excellent state schools. private schools costing more than Uni. Who can afford that? Canada … private schools, boarding schools. Australia, NZ - private schools, boarding schools.

If you are going to talk equality … successful western country, British Style private education, please define your terms & support your statements.

Maybe also define "cod academic"

Do you just mean "thinking about stuff"?

I remember a few years back there was a poster from underrepresented group whose son got contextual Oxbridge place.
She was absolutely furious that top employers run uni blind admissions now.

The first principles of many of the posters are simply grounded in their own selfishness. So, all the supposedly clever analysis is just hot air to anyone outside their tiny privileged cohort.

Ah OK, so because you can't argue against the analysis - or even understand it - you choose to minimise and dismiss it.

With added insults, to make yourself feel better about it.

Over 100 British schools in Spain…

3,700 Fee Paying British schools outside uk

And…lol

Getting in with a lower level of ability to make up the numbers is not a good idea, and as @nearlylovemyusername points out, probably won't make a difference in the long run.

It is certainly conceivable that, in conjunction with the university's preference for lower ability students from state schools, university blind recruitment procedures (which are ironically also aspects of social engineering) may place Cambridge even lower in the rankings when his time comes to apply for jobs.

Employers don’t give a toss about whether ICL is above Cambridge one year on one ranking.

Who said he has a lower level of ability?
He doesn't.
And if he'd been born into a rich family he'd have gone to better schools wouldn't he?
He'll be getting a contextual offer from Cambridge anyway.
Suck it.

@winterrabbit did you read my post?

The woman in the interview had achieved the same grades in her poor comprehensive school in classes of 30+ as the privileged, coddled privately educated fellow students. There was no doubting her ability or intelligence. At least as good as theirs.

But she hadn't studied Latin (not said to be required for her course), which her tutor kept quoting, She couldn't afford to live in London for the unpaid internships that other students could. So her disadvantage, and their advantage, continued.

Employers are interested in A levels. I was surprised by this. But then it makes sense. These are national exams, externally marked, set to a consistent level. For employers looking to compare graduates across different universities, they are very useful.

You did.

Or at least it was implied by your wish for an admissions system that would discriminate against more than a third of applicants to give him "a better chance of getting in."