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..

Only if you assume that the education at Cambridge isn’t building on foundations of the education received before Cambridge.

Part of the issue is people disagree whether Cambridge should be selecting on ability/intelligence alone, or some element of prior “education” (in a very broad sense). Someone with an A in English Lit from a “crap” state school is likely to have read less widely, seen less drama in production, done less background reading, have a half-decent grasp of a second language, generally “know less” than someone who’s been to a (good) private school. It has nothing to do with intrinsic intelligence.

(I’m not arguing that Cambridge shouldn’t select on potential/ability/intelligence, by the way - I think they should. But even someone in the top 1% of intelligence may need to catch up on “wider reading” / “general knowledge” / “cultural capital” before they can achieve a Cambridge 1st.)

Ah, still making friends and winning argumenrs.

I have wondered whether the widening gap in 1sts (but less / not in 2:1 pluses - good degrees) might echo widening disparity in school funding / teacher experience/ teacher presence at all in some subjects between state and private, and thus widening gaps in this ‘prior experience’? Similarly, education during the pandemic looked different in state and private sixth forms and this is likely to have an impact on solidity of foundations for students matriculating between 2020 and 2022.

In this shifting educational landscape, and using only a retrospective metric of final exam results, nearly 4 years after admissions decisions were made, it is hard to isolate a single factor and say ‘that means we now need to do y instead of x to truly identify underlying ability and potential’.

(People like to talk about ‘private school pupils with all A stars who have been denied places’, forgetting that in many subjects the effective point of admissions decision making is well before any A levels gave been taken at all. Standard offers are, in general, well within a student’s predicted grades and less than their actual grades - not quite the old ‘2 Es’ but not meant to be a significant hurdle in sorting the admitted from the failed)

@Rhinoc
So, back again and still making cogent and highly valued contributions.

When you said you didn't want to derail the thread you were making that up too. I applaud your consistency. Can't wait to see what else you've got.

edit @

And in yet more news, pompous, bigoted, condescending twats can't see any further than the end of their pampered noses.

Considering the short sighted bigotry of your first post that is actually very funny. Do you do parties?

I am also driven to wonder about ‘progress’ and ‘societal good’. Is it ‘better’, in a moral sense, for a publicly funded institution to aim to continue to reward the already privileged? Or is it ‘better’ to aim to reward those whose prior education is less elite and for whom a ‘good degree from Cambridge’ represents far greater progress from their starting point? If the latter group does reach slightly lower final grades, is it ‘better’ morally to identify and seek to remove barriers to their progress - through bridging / foundation courses and the like - rather than simply revert to selecting ‘those we have always selected, who come pre-prepared by virtue of their prior schooling’?

Splendid. A bit like a spider who keeps remaking its web. You should get together with blacksax, you would be a riot.

A cousin’s child is at Cambridge. The school asked their three recent alumni currently at Cambridge back to discuss their experience there with the current hopefuls. Not one of the three recommended it and all wished they had gone elsewhere. Not what the school wanted them to say!

I am far from short-sighted. I can see much further and more clearly than you, and what I can see is that some wealthy people genuinely believe that their children are entitled to places at the best universities irrespective of whether they deserve a place or not, and that those places should be awarded, not on merit, but on the wearing of the right school tie.

All this thread has done is to prove (once again) that money does not buy intelligence.

But at the end of the day, who cares? If your little darling doesn't get into Oxford, they will be fine elsewhere, it really isn't the end of the world.

@Rhinoc you should try not to become so enraged and insulting about any particular poster. It seems to me that the OP has provided evidence for what he says, from Cambrige itself. You may not like to hear the truth, you may not think it matters if Cambridge is no longer a centre of excellence, but it is possible to express either of those views without being quite so rude. Is that how you speak to everyone? It must make day to day living quite exhausting. I have reported you.

But no comment to @blacksax ?

So you think 'Posh nobs' is OK with zero provocation (let alone the later insults) but not 'thick plebs' in response?

I think everyone should show courtesy towards other posters. But I do understand OP snapping at childish insults and playground taunts - which happen way too often on these threads (almost always only in this direction) from posters who don't bother to actually engage their brain to think about what's being discussed.

There's certainly an argument for this. It's been argued that an Oxbridge degree does more good to the life chances of a weaker student from a lower SES than to a stronger student from a higher SES. Because the stronger candidate will still succeed.

Cambridge could choose social benefit over meritocratic entrance, the highest possible academic standard in undergraduates and the highest level of advancement of knowledge. It's a choice.

But Cambridge should be honest if they decide to make that their aim. They need to be honest with themselves in order to be able to monitor whether their actions are successfully supporting their aims. And as a publicly funded institution, they have a duty to be honest to the public. And arguably they also have a moral duty to be honest to candidates and students.

More pragmatically, there's a limit to how much they can lower the academic bar in order to pursue a social agenda without diluting the very benefit they're trying to provide!

But I'm not convinced that it's a choice Cambridge should be making at all. Someone up thread (or possibly in the linked one) said that they were sick of people choosing an elite university degree as a route to a better career, rather than for interest in the academics. That resonates. It diminishes universities to see them that way, and I don't believe that it brings the best social good long term.

Or rather, whilst it's appropriate for school-leavers to be planning for their careers (in addition to a love of their subject) it's harmful for elite Universities to see themselves that way!

Oh noes! People might end up sending their child to a state school and seeing if they can go to Oxbridge on their own merits rather than daddy's bank balance

The thing is... it is almost always going to be in one direction.

When you have a thread where the OP and others are complaining that the state-educated children of peasants are ousting their expensively-educated offspring from their rightful places at Cambridge, it is hardly surprising when the peasants respond with insults.

Universities are not private schools, and they should be open to everyone with the brains, the natural talent and future potential, and some might be astounded to learn that there are exceptionally bright children in state schools.

See above about engaging your brain to understand what's actually being discussed.

Instead of getting all worked up about opinions which you imagine people have because you can't be bothered to read and understand what they are actually saying.

And then writing silly insults because it makes you feel better.

You could be right. If so, that's pretty sad if state education is becoming so poor in places that it's impossible to catch up even in 3 years. Maybe ever. Universities have been saying for years that intervention needs to be much earlier.

That's no reason to deliberately destroy other children's education though, or prevent them from progressing.

It comes down again to the purpose of universities - especially elite ones like Oxbridge. I still believe that their main purpose should be education and furthering academic knowledge, not social engineering.

In fact, if that's the mechanism, then it would suggest that the education is not just inadequate in a small number of schools (which was always the case) but that it's become so poor so widely that approx 30% of state students can't catch up to the level needed to get a first in 3 years.

That's pretty damning.

Especially when you consider how critical workforce education and ability is to the UK's ability to compete globally and have a successful economy (and hence standard of living).

All the more reason not to fuck up the education sector which does actually work.

(based on the 1.4 times more firsts achieved by private students than state which OP has brought up)

I would be really interested in this being broken down by subject.

I do think that there is more of an element of ‘style’ in the arty subjects and room for subconscious bias towards a certain type of writing.

In Maths, to choose the purest of the STEM subjects, there really is nowhere to hide. Wranglers are universally extremely smart, at least in my experience.