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'm sure if you're rich enough or smart enough you can get into Oxbridge still, if you happen to go to private school and are still not rich or smart enough for Oxbridge, I guess that's what it's been like for the majority of people for the last however many centuries.

You compare Uni results with a level results. State school pupils do better with the same results. You tweak your admission criteria to reflect this.

Your statistic is probably not even independent of obvious demographic variables like "has two parents at home"

100% this. I have friends who have children in both state and private so exactly the same home life but just different types of schools. Where on earth would those children sit in this debate?

You can't extrapolate that from one year of 2023 data though - you've got to look at more than one year for a robust conclusion

Surely the really smart smarty pants private school kids could just opt for state school, and wow their way through oxbridge anyway?

Bit of a generalisation there classing all kids the same according to the type of school they went to. You're assuming that a state school education gives academic advantage and that's elitist.

As I've mentioned I think admissions tutors can probably see past any private school polish. If they are good at the job of interviewing applicants.

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.

Sorry, I am really struggling to understand what you are saying. I actually went to Cambridge from comprehensive school - back in the 90s- but I studied an Arts subject and I really don’t understand these stats.

So a higher percentage of private school pupils get Firsts. So why does that mean they are being discriminated against at entry?

One thing I would say, however, is that using. First as a measure of success at Cambridge is a bit artificial. It is harder to get a Cambridge First than a First at many other universities. Not many people did when I was there. In my experience the people who did get Firsts were either STEM geniuses or people who did absolutely nothing but study, some to the point of making themselves physically or mentally ill. Loads of us who got 2:1s and kept our mental health have had very successful careers. Do you have the 2:1 stats?

This is the sort of discrimination I dream about facing!!!! Where and how can I swap for this sort of discrimination!???

Also @Marchesman I've looked at the research you mentioned - and I can't see it saying that about private schools anywhere.

Genuinely the overall trend across unis is that state school kids with the same results do better - and it makes the most sense.if they've got the same grades without the extra help private schools give, they're gonna be smarter kids

Are you aware that the Cambridge university term is 10 weeks long?

So students need somewhere to go in between terms for almost as long as they're at university.

All previous education and socioeconomic factors aside, do you really think that the place that a student spends 22 weeks per year, 3+ years of their life whilst studying at Cambridge has no effect on their results?

Are you saying your single data point can rule this out?

I know a student who accessed hardship funds and bought a laptop with it, because to access hardship funds at Cambridge you can still be what I would consider essentially rich. Whereas at other universities because the cohort is in general much poorer the students accessing hardship need it for things like rent and food.

In my view, Cambridge University (and all other universities for that matter) should accept only the very brightest and most able students. Whether they were privately educated or went to a state school should be totally irrelevant.

It may well be that some exceptional students who went to state school were let down by that system so have not yet reached anything like their full potential, and if that is plainly obvious to the universities, then there is no reason why they should not make an allowance for that. It may equally be that a privately educated student may already have been crammed for their exams and did well, but have already peaked with nothing more left in the tank. The universities may look on that student less favourably than one who got the same results, but at a sink comprehensive.

Well they haven’t really have they? They say they have, they’ve just replaced it with what is essentially still a personal statement broken down into three subheadings. Which will give even more guidance /spoon feeding to individuals.

• Why do you want to study this course or subject?
• How have your qualifications and studies helped you to prepare for this course or subject?
• What else have you done to prepare outside of education, and why are these experiences useful?

This is what I currently expect to see in a PS anyway 🤷‍♀️. Though it’s amazing how many don’t cover this and I reject any application which doesn’t tell me this within it. So the ucas changes are going to make my job harder as now they’ll all say it. And they can still get someone (or AI) to write their statement under these three subheadings. It will change nothing!

i used to read references, but i can promise you that when I’ve had a really ropey, unmotivated, lazy student I’ve gone back and looked at their reference and it’s glowing. And I just don’t believe people have changed that much from 17yo to 18yo and decided that even if a student is not great they will still get a glowing reference. 80% of the reference is always about the school anyway. I don’t care what % of the school get FSM.

Sorry, but you are VERY wrong.
You're quoting numbers which are fed to the public by biased media and public then repeats it without bothering to check.

The latest Cambridge stats:
Layout 1 (cam.ac.uk)
Page 5: Out of all offers 23.5% went to overseas students, 54.8% to state and only 19.3% to private.
At six form 17% of all students are in private. So 17% vs 19.3% are pretty much spot on.

OP, I'm very much with you (and would appreciate if you linked this stat). It shows that quality of PS students is somewhat higher. Usual motive about spoon fed PS kids is really a slogan which people like to believe but is simply not true.

I'm also with you OP with regards to the brightest PS kids are giving up on British unis and going abroad. I do see a lot of this happening in London very top of the league PS. These are incredibly bright and driven children. Their families aren't flogging the dead horse anymore, they are going to study abroad, US predominantly. It's a huge loss for the UK, but anything goes in the name of equality I guess.

I definitely know quite a few not bothering with applying in this country. I mean who would like to even live here given it is in so much decline. The only people remaining hate the aspirational middle classes and see the creation of wealth as evil. 😂

Your dream is unrealistic.

There will always be a way to advantage a student with money - private tuition or buying/renting a home in an area with a great state school. The great state school will drive catchment house prices up up up … driving inequality as its only for the affluent.

Areas with underperforming schools become unattractive and some employers leave as cannot attract employees who care about education. Creating a cycle of poor educational and employment outcomes.

Having great state schools is NOT unrealistic, yet it seems nearly impossible to achieve on large scale in the UK. Thinking it can be achieved thru VAT on private schools (any time soon) is laughable.

I literally just said - a blind lottery.

But why is this always assumption that state kid was let down and PS one has no more potential left?

FFS!

For the poster trying to eliminate private schools. Do you even know the amount of tutoring that goes on state school and grammar schools? Do you think they are all poor. I just know quite a few rich kids going to grammars to make sure they go to Oxbridge. What level field playing? Have you heard of post code lottery? Also, that 50 % of the 1 percent of high earners kids go to state schools? Go and see the numbers and stop being so idealistic.

I thought this thread was unusually informative and (bar a few chippy odd posts) quite a civilised argument for once! What's the tetchiness for @timetodecide ??

Mumsnet might reflect that, because Mumsnet is a collection of thousands and thousands of people. I'm not sure why you find that odd

I had one of my children in private school for 3 years but the rest and the other kids in state school, for full disclosure.

my own opinion (not reflective of Mumsnet Borg) is that State Schools are awful due to too many kids in a class and not enough teachers and support staff or money to care for them and educate them. without a doubt, private school buys privilege. and I don't think that should be possible

But why a blind lottery when you can have another element (personal statement in whatever format) to sort the ones who have the edge?

Why not? Privilege is everywhere. Looks, brains, health, parents or not, catchment area. You will never level any playing field and if you try, in my opinion it should only be in an upwards direction. The comprehensive system has failed (according to your post) and yet you also don't want a system that does currently work well (the private system). It's strange.

I await the op-ed in the Times from a beleaguered ex-private school pupil who was accepted to Cambridge against the odds and thereafter gallantly battled to find a post-grad job at a magic-circle / top accountancy / consultancy firm or whatever because companies are discriminating against everyone who is white and privately educated with a degree from Oxbridge I can imagine the headline: 'Beating the odds - They wanted me to fail from A'