Addendum to: Cambridge University discriminates against children from private schools.

[Marchesman]

"From 2013 to 2023 the proportion of UK state-school admissions rose from 61 per cent to 73 per cent. This increase was made possible by undeniable discrimination against another group of students – those who, whether through a choice made by their parents or a scholarship won by their talents, attended fee-paying schools."

For an insider's perspective on Cambridge University's descent into mediocrity see: "Decline and fall: how university education became infantilised" D. Butterfield, Spectator 26th Oct..

73% for state school admissions is about right though - if you take the cohort of pupils who get A grades at A-Level, it's approximately 70-75% of them who were educated at state schools. This result shows that a fair admissions process is successfully identifying the most talented students irrespective of what kind of school they went to. There used to be an unfair bias towards private school pupils, that is now rightfully gone. That's not discrimination.

A pupil who went to a private school has had a huge leg-up in receiving a priviledged education. They don't absolutely have to go to Cambridge too. They will thrive perfectly happily at St Andrews, Bristol, Durham or any of the other universities popular among this category of students

@DustyAmuseAlien have you tried reading the article?

I've read the article. I don't think it undermines @DustyAmuseAlien 's point at all. It just sounded like a bit of a 'political correctness gone mad' rant about the 'snowflakineas' of recent cohorts.

@oddandelsewhere yes I read the screed of whining about how sad it's not the 1960s any more. The fact that the hyperbole included decrying how terrible it is that admissions figures for state and private now don't show any significant bias in either direction is a good indicator of how many pinches of salt to add to all the other terrible consequences the author describes.

A very interesting read, though not for the quotation you draw from it. Classics, however, has been particular hard-hit by these policies because so few state schools offer Latin, let alone Greek. Consequently, Oxford and Cambridge offer state school applicants the opportunity to apply for a beginners Classics degree with one additional year, as if that makes up for the ten years of study that a student would typically have under their belt before applying.

As an alumnus myself, what I find more concerning is the description of an institution in crisis. One where the communal activities that forge a sense of belonging, foster intellectual inquiry and create the inter-generational encounters that sew an unbreakable thread between current student and the greatest academic in the university’s history, are all but dead.

I adored Cambridge. The experience was one of putting an intellectual jet pack on my back and soaring into the upper atmosphere. It was demanding and stressful at times, but that was what made it worthwhile. It doesn’t sound like undergraduates get that experience now. Instead, studying there sounds lonely and lacking in academic stimulation. The description is not even a shadow of what it was. The precise antithesis in fact.

I have read the article. I was already a Cambridge graduate before David Butterfield ever stepped foot in the place.

I don’t recognise the Cambridge he reckons that he went to as an undergraduate. Unforgettable gatherings where undergraduates and professors debated the big questions late into the night? Huh? Questions were indeed debated late into the night - but my memory was that it was “who was better - Blur or Oasis”, “pros and cons of casual sex”, “should I join the boat club” and most importantly “did X snog Y after last night’s formal hall?” Oh - and - “does anyone want another cup of tea?”

Some of his comments may have merit - 1 in 4 having a disability seems surprisingly high and may mean that those who truly need support are being lost amongst the crowd.

But work to improve student welfare sounds sensible. Cambridge in the 90s was a tough, unforgiving place. There was a reason that the day before most of the finals results were announced was called “Suicide Sunday” and our lights were allegedly designed to make it impossible to hang yourself from them. (It also failed - an engineer in the year above me succeeded.)

I’m surprised he hadn’t heard of a 70% target for state schools - that was the figure that I was quoting at target schools talks in the 90s as the proportion of the 3As cohort who came from a state school. Then we were more like 50%.

The “recovery week” (known in every other university as “reading week”) sounds an excellent idea. Not a new idea though - there was an article in Varisty in 1998 agitating for it. As a mathematician (a subject that is very much full of “building blocks”) a reading week would have made a huge difference in solidifying knowledge.

He also hates the fact that people don’t all dine at high table anymore. But a quick google of him shows a picture of him with a baby so presumably he didn’t either. Cambridge academics are no longer single men (with beards) - there are now mothers and fathers and people who just don’t fancy eating every meal with their colleagues like they are a character in “Call the Midwife”. One of the problems I had with Cambridge was that it was just so insular.

I was genuinely happy at Cambridge. But I was not blind to the place’s faults. And I think that if I had gone now then it would have been a better more caring place. And that care would have made me a better mathematician. And that is what really matters.

As an inmate for more than two decades and a fellow for most of that time Butterfield is in a better position to have observed the institution's general downward trajectory than people here.

There is no point revisiting the matter of Cambridge's preference for lower ability applicants from state schools over applicants from private schools. You either accept the university's examination data analysis, and admission and access targets as credible or you don't; Butterfield does.

The reason for flagging this article is that it chimes with much that was discussed in the original "Cambridge University discriminates" thread. Contributors to that thread will probably find it interesting.

Shock horror, state school kids are Bright! Grammars out perform private schools time and time again, it just finally looks like they’re admitting on Merit and not the name of a school.
What a waste of money for private school parents though.

No, on all counts.

Best bin off all those state school kids who work really hard and gain some of the best grades in the country. Much better to reserve Oxbridge for the kids whose parents paid lots of cash.

Perhaps just "bin off all those state school kids" who don't deserve to be there.

I agree with a lot of what you say about being a 90s undergraduate there. Most of his complaints relate to the impact of technology - virtual learning, social media etc. In the mental health graph there is a sharp bend in 2014, which corresponds with smart phones and which can also be found in studies of secondary school children. However, I did get invited to some very nice social events that traversed the undergraduate, graduate and fellow boundaries, so those did exist. I can’t comment on high table as undergraduates don’t sit there.

There is no point revisiting the matter of Cambridge's preference for lower ability applicants from state schools over applicants from private schools

Lower attaining maybe, but that doesn't mean lower ability. It's entirely possible that those state school kids could have attained as highly or even higher as their private school counterparts if they too had access to all the best teachers, tiny class sizes and fancy resources that were missing from their state school.

To the point about state school pupils being admitted to read Classics from a standing start: only a very bright, very determined and confident candidate would elect to attempt such an intellectual feat, especially in full knowledge that a sizeable number of their peers would, as you mention, already have a ten year head start.

I knew a state-school pupil who managed it in the 90s and the experience was ten times more intense than my humble degree. The hours and effort that undergraduate put in were astonishing. There were times of utter despair and hopelessness as the scale of the challenge, but ultimately success was underpinned by excellent tutoring and an unwavering love of learning.

I would have thought these are exactly the kinds of student Cambridge should be looking to attract: driven learners.

OK, these students may not turn gain sufficient skills to become the Classics Professors of the future but the vast majority of Classics graduates are not going to stay in academic life. So who do you really want in these courses?

You don’t want to end up in a weird situation where the easiest entry point to Oxbridge from a private school is via a Classics degree. It would be mean all sorts of kids (or their overbearing parents) who valued a Cambridge-branded degree above all else would be tempted to strategically apply to a subject they were not passionate about.

Lower ability.

I didn’t contribute to that thread. I was shocked by aspects of this article though. Like replacing exams with open book, untimed assessments in the privacy of a student’s room. In the days of AI, that’s simply lunacy. It doesn’t need to be pastoral care or ruthless competitiveness. If anything, it sounds like mental health is in a worse place, not a better place.

🙄

All the grammars around here out perform the private schools, I’m in Gloucestershire. Google it, it’s just stats.

It's anecdotal. The discussion is about Cambridge University, where students from grammar schools perform significantly less well than students from private schools - that's stats. Google it.

Because all the advantages of private schools don't actually make any difference to exam results and those private school kids only achieve the same as they would have achieved in a state school with no teacher and double the class size? Are you sure?

I absolutely love how much this annoys the OP.

Actually I think the OP is loving how much it upsets others.

Oh I’m going by GCSE and A levels, where grammars constantly out perform private schools.
And grammar schools are free.

At the end of the day, what are you going to do Op? Change how Oxbridge recruit? Not a lot you can do is there?