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?

There are British Style private schools educating locals (not just UK expats) all over the world. All those “greater equality western” & non -western countries have parents paying fees for “better” than state funded education.

Just pointing out that UK is not an anomaly in people paying for British Style education and applying to Oxbridge ...
we are not unique. Parents same everywhere … except maybe Finland …

There is so much more going on in education across Europe / world & you seem unaware and making a lot of assumptions.

@Laurensorrenson you seem very sure that your son will get an Oxbridge offer. Do you know that many people even with the right predicted grades don't get one?

You are also spectacularly rude.

Blimey if you think that's rude you've had a very sheltered life.
How blessed you are.

It should discriminate against them though

You heard an anecdote on the radio?

An alternative and statistically more likely explanation is that she didn't do the same facilitating A levels as her peers, received a contextual offer on lower grades (or was simply given a place as a lower ability applicant from a state school) and was so far behind educationally at the point of entry that she found Cambridge too difficult.

In statistical terms attending a state school has the same effect as cognitive and learning difficulties. At the lower end of ability that is problematic, and it was recognised as such by a previous head of admissions who said: "Our bottom line would be that it actually would be a really, really cruel experiment to take a bunch of students and hypothesise that they have what it takes to thrive at Cambridge and then see them fail because they don't." After his tenure they went ahead and did it anyway.

Most students from state schools and private schools at Cambridge are equally "privileged" and "coddled". If your radio programme left you with a different impression you were misled.

a weak response not specifically related enough to my point

What subject was she studying? If it was law, there are actually only about 10 or so Latin phrases that are used regularly and they are usually explained first time they are used, or can be looked up pretty easily. I did study Latin at school to A level equivalent (state school in Scotland, weirdly) but even I didn’t know the legal Latin when it was first used on my Cambridge law course. I also know for a fact that hundreds of my peers who went to private schools did not study Latin.

I think the same could be said for use of Latin expressions by perhaps a pompous Boris Johnson-style English or social science supervisor. Latin used scientifically is taught alongside the science eg plant names or medical terms and you don’t need to know the grammar for those- it’s just vocabulary and there are no courses at any University that don’t involve learning some new vocabulary.

Much as I sympathise with anyone who feels like a fish out of water at Cambridge I feel that “I didn’t know Latin” is a bit of a tired trope that is unlikely to have been the real reason for that person’s failure to thrive there.

London internships are a different issue altogether. There is no rule that says Cambridge success = job in London.

Things have changed on that front now anyway, you will not find any corporate/bank/law firm/accountancy firm that allows unpaid internships and doesn’t facilitate social mobility. I think things have changed in media/publishing/the arts too. so while that person may have been unlucky, the same barriers are less likely to face students now.

Again, is this your best?

There is a funny slide show that can be found by googling: LSE events Engines of Privilege: Britain's private school problem. My favourite slide is the typical private school.

There is also an excruciating accompanying Youtube video.

What is amusing is that Lancing College was one the fifty independent schools found by the OFT to be running an illegal price-fixing cartel which drove up fees for parents.

Ah, is that the school they're showing? I thought it was Hogwarts. About as rooted in reality.

Well that was quite the list of the 50 price fixing schools. How embarrassing.

How lovely of you to be so concerned for private school parents, and for smooth-running free market economics.

Maybe you could extend your concern to the government's outrageous interference in the same market?

Ie forcing a 20% cost increase with the deliberate aim of distorting the market. Even to the point of charging VAT on private boarding, but not charging it on their own (paid for) equivalent offering. Outrageous price fixing in their favour.

Oh and what's embarrassing is engaging in purity-spiral thinking.

I like the way that you minimise illegal price fixing that deliberately rips off parents. Good work.

I don't like the way you pick up something you don't care about and use it as a weapon in a purity spiral.

I consider that immature thinking.

Gosh you’re on fire this morning.

Coming from someone who called Lancing ‘Hogwarts’ because they think it makes some kind of point, I think I’ll take your opinions on immaturity with a pinch of salt.

Touch a nerve?

Touch what nerve? Don’t be so silly.

@SabrinaThwaite are you talking about the great price fixing scandal of 2005, i.e 19 years ago?

Oddly, there seems to be no evidence of price fixing after that, but it was the year Labour borrowed millions in the 'cash for honours scandal'. They're still at it.

Did you forget about the CMA writing to independent schools in 2020 to warn them against price fixing again @oddandelsewhere ?

schoolsweek.co.uk/competition-watchdog-warns-private-schools-over-fee-fixing-collusion-during-coronavirus-outbreak/

Lancing College - no good deed …

The founder of Lancing College, Nathaniel Woodard, priest and educational visionary, established The Woodard Corporation (now called Woodard Schools) in 1848 as a result of noticing that the Church was providing education for the poorer families, the wealthy had private tutors but the middle classes were being neglected. He established schools with a strong religious ethos that addressed the needs of the whole child – mental, physical and spiritual. He believed strongly that education is best delivered in a supportive community where every child is valued and encouraged.

Ah, is that the school they're showing? I thought it was Hogwarts. About as rooted in reality.

@SabrinaThwaite Come off it. The worst criticism of independent schools you can come up with is an article in an undistinguished journal about a leaked letter containing a rumour?

Independent schools were warned against doing something that they weren't doing.

'The Independent Schools Council said it knows of 'no evidence' that schools are deliberately sharing information with each other and that the matter has been resolved amicably with the CMA'

Not much of a story.

'

@oddandelsewhere

It was also reported in the Times and the Telegraph too - it are they ‘undistinguished journals’?

Here’s the Telegraph report:

archive.ph/hdyfM

As for the ISC, they denied any knowledge of price fixing in 2005.

^The Independent Schools Council (ISC), the umbrella group which represents 60% of private schools, rejected the OFT's findings and said there was no evidence to support the claim that the sharing of information had led to a rise in fees.

amp.theguardian.com/money/2005/nov/10/consumernews.publicschools

The OFT disagreed.

www.gov.uk/cma-cases/independent-schools-exchange-of-information-on-future-fees