UKC

Its sad that if anything things seem worse than when I was a student in the early 80s. People are oddly surprised that wealthier families take up many of the independant and comprehensive/academy admissions places and arguably kids from poor backgrounds are as under-represented as they have been for deacdes.

I listened with sadness to BBC4 Any Answers where two pleasant dons talked about all the good work they do to encourage poor kids and completely miss the point that their peers dealing with admissions are the ones who really need help if any significant change is to occur (like the Foundation pilot course at Oxford). Public schools have always tutored students in the style of entrance exams and of interviews so any equivalently qualified kid from a poor background and a comp is almost certainly brighter and with more potential.

Why don't they just use gently shifting quotas of some kind.... places are oversubscribed by qualified candidates so I just can't see how it can dent quality? As someone else from Coventry Uni said on Any Answers it seems to work for them.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've read a few articles about Oxbridge entry over the last few days & although there's clearly a problem I wonder how much is the fault of Oxford & Cambridge - if black or other minority groups don't apply, how can they offer them places ?

Although I do get the impression that Oxford has less state educated students now than when I was there in the mid 70s

In reply to Doug:
I'm pretty sure that is a factor but more than enough apply already and get rejected so its hardly the best excuse. Its also a problem at quite a few others in the Russell Group.

A link in case anyone missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxbridge-becoming-less-di...

In reply to Offwidth:

I heard the same programme, the fella said that they went off the pupils likelihood of success, more than exam grades. So even if a comp teaches kids to pass exams, they need those more rounded attributes and extra curricular activities. Which basically comes down to parenting.

We have friends with kids in a very good private school where most boys usually go to eton for their exam years. The hours they work is pretty staggering; 6 day weeks for 3 weeks a month. School ends at 5 or 6pm, after which the extra activities start. So I think it's fair to say they earn their place, not convinced it's worth as it is killing them financially.

The problem is, how much is everyone prepared to pay in tax, for every child to have that level of education. How do you reach a mid ground, where you raise the national average.

In reply to Offwidth:
Consider this as a future for two of our graduates.
Dave has done a Manufacturing Engineering Degree at Coventry University - he is bright and comes up with great ideas for how to improve the processes that allow the UK based company he works for to prosper and grow.
John has studied PPE ( Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Cambridge and rises to a post in Government that means he determines the future viability of Manufacturing in the UK.
Bright minds both! But who has the edge?

In reply to Doug:
The easy solution would be to have bigger tutorial/year groups in Oxbridge unis. Quadruple the size. Avoid limiting the numbers. Expand the meritocracy. Make more welcome. Hey, many state schools are teaching mixed ability classes up to and over thirty students in GCSE and Alevel. Getting the nuanced focus/application for success at Oxbridge would become easier as entry awareness became more prevalent. Over time more would have attended and understand the system. But the statistic about black students was staggeringly unacceptable.

In reply to PaulTclimbing:


Thus undermining one of the main benefits of an Oxbridge education.....hmmm....

What are the number on black students? Percentage of total? Percentage of those applying? etc etc

In reply to PaulTclimbing:

Um, that's a poor idea.
Simply making them 4x the size doesn't address any of the inherent issues.

In reply to Offwidth:

Do Oxford and Cambridge provide resources to students to help them with the interview process?

In reply to Offwidth:

Elite or elitist?

The issue is that so many students get top GCSE and A level grades that it's hard to identify the really exceptional people.
The recent trend to a separate set of tests for Oxbridge is one way to sift. The issue is that by 18 the differentials are already there and hence the efforts to work more closely with schools in how they develop outstanding pupils.

If there's too much lag or gap, or whatever you want to call it, the person simply won't cope with the course.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

PPE is only at Oxford

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh well... I tried

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I was a student at Oxford in the 70s so its possible things have changed. I don't remember any help in preparing for the interview, either from school (state grammar in my case) or elsewhere. From memory (& it was a long time ago) the questions were all about chemistry - maybe it was different for other subjects.

In reply to Offwidth:
Not for the first time, there's more than a germ of truth in the coverage of this story in The Mash:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/its-not-our-fault-they-dont-take...

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm certainly not denying there's a problem but I'd expect a more rounded perspective from an academic such as you. Cambridge does huge amount of outreach work and actually has a lower proportion of independently schooled pupils than a number of Russel Group universities, Durham and St Andrews to name but two, both consistently in the top 5 of the league tables.

Oxford and Cambridge are falling over themselves to recruit students from the state sector. However, and I'm disappointed that this wasn't raised in the programme, it's a simple and unavoidable fact that academic ability concentrates in the independent sector. Bright parents beget bright youngsters. And bright adults typically earn considerably more than the less academically gifted, thus raising the likelihood of their sending offspring to public school. Independent schools aren't designed to (and they don't) send average achievers to Oxbridge. They have a full range of talents just like your typical state grammar schools. But the top pupils at Eton and Harrow, or Manchester and Bradford grammars for that matter, are outstandingly bright, exceptionally hard working, and hugely encouraged by their parents.

My wife and I both went to Oxford, and our daughter started at Cambridge only this month, having achieved her grades at a state 6th form college you'll be pleased to hear. And she got there because, well, she's brighter than both of her parents and fiercely determined too, but also because of the values of hard work and discipline that we've instilled in her. My point is that the academic elite becomes self-selecting from generation to generation, not because of any bias towards the independent sector, but because of shared values. Strong, positive values that you would appreciate.

The paucity of ambition and expectation engendered by state sector education is a genuine problem. But you can't hold Oxbridge responsible for that, can you? The message that I received from the two Cambridge academics on Any Answers was that they'd love to recruit more state pupils. The problem is that these youngsters are woefully lacking in the skills required to succeed in the intense atmosphere of an Oxbridge education. There was much talk that 3 As at a comp is as good as 3 A*s from Eton. But discipline, ambition and inquisitiveness are much more important than grades if you are to succeed at Oxbridge. And that's where the state sector really seems to fall down.

In reply to PaulTclimbing:

There is nothing which can be done to overcome the ability of Middle and upper class parents to "game" the system.
Nothing. So you have to destroy the system completely. One option;

Allocate University places at random;, subject only to a minimum educational achievement, anyone who has the ability to get a University place, gets one. Oxbridge ( and other Universities), simply get enough students to fill the courses they offer. It's up to them to do the best job they can with a mixed ability entry.

In reply to charliesdad:
>
By whch you mean encourage their kids to work hard and aspire to be the best?


Would you like your surgeon to have been chosen on a random basis?

Should Manchester United introduce random entry to their academy with a few spaces reserved for uncoordinated hooray henrys?

In reply to Doug: Thanks - I stand corrected but the point remains valid.

In reply to Doug:




Fewer, Doug fewer.

In reply to Pedro50:


Chemistry. Says it all......

In reply to charliesdad:

And the capable students go to Princeton or Stanford or wherever, probably not to return and contribute to the UK. Brilliant.

In reply to charliesdad:

The point I tried to make is that possibly state schools are educating higher numbers per teacher as a consequence of funding (they need it) and that could not this model be rolled out as a sign of the times?

In reply to Pedro50:


Fewer and lesss. Public school children are less state-educated than state-educated children. :-P

The public / private split at Oxford isn't consistent across subjects or colleges. Anything to modify intake from independents other than improving state, is just a proxy attack on independents. You could just push bright kids at independents to move to state 6th form.

The image of thick kids from rich families tutored through it to get in for PPE just isn't true. These are hard working kids, who may have well off parents. The thick kids from independents go to places like Bristol - I think it has the highest % from independent schools.

In reply to PaulTclimbing:

You could argue you can put 100 kids in a lecture theatre instead of a school classroom and show them how to pass A levels, but have they been educated?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Ooh, there is something that could maybe convince me to watch a football match! Sounds more fun than the current set up

In reply to summo:

I went to Oxbridge, very many moons ago, and have been an HE admissions tutor for the last 20 years. I don't give a flying f*ck how rounded the applicants are. If I think it is in their interest to complete my courses, which are not all that rounded, and that they likely will do so, they're in.

My institute is not Russell Group, far from it, but why would the RGs do any different? Academia is full of astonishingly capable and equally astonishingly unrounded people.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The problem is more than just encouragement.
By "gaming" I mean the ability of a sub-set of society to ensure their children get the best education, regardless of talent.

On your second point, the same cohort would still attend medical school, so it has no impact upon whether "my" surgeon is educated at Oxford or anywhere else.

In reply to MG:

No.

The bright students would thrive anywhere, and would almost certainly prefer to be educated here, rather than abroad.
Bright students don't NEED to go to a premier league University, it's a luxury better reserved for those in the middle rank academically, who would thrive in that environment.

My point is that allocating places in elite Universities on the basis of parental wealth is not a good approach, (!), and tinkering with the system will - at best - allow no more than some token proles through the net. My approach at least has the benefit of fairness.

The system is fundamentally broken.
So let's change it, fundamentally.

In reply to charliesdad:

>
The problem being is that even if there were no private schools the evidence shows that kids of wealthier and well educated parents produce the best outcomes at secondary schools.

>
If one assumes that as a generality the best qualified and brightest 18 year olds will tend to be the best and brightest at their chosen career then shouldn't one ensure they are the best trained to be surgeons or whatever?

Maybe I am not understanding your suggestion. How would the same cohort be trained to be surgeons whether they are picked at random or on the basis of prior qualification?

In reply to charliesdad:





But the role of Oxford and Cambridge, and on which their worldwide renown depends, is to produce the most advanced research and the most powerful ideas. For that, like any business or sports team, they need the strongest intake of workers. While I see where you are coming from in the social justice sense, to recruit from within a lower academic strata would be the death of our elite universities. It would also compromise the progress of our brightest pupils. Why do you want to do that? To even things up? They've just worked their bloody arses off for 18 years to reach the heights and you want to tell them that putting all that effort in, and demonstrably out-performing their peers, will be rewarded with a place in division 2. That's going to help the nation.

In reply to Pedro50:

I think you mean "Fewer Doug, fewer."

In reply to deepsoup:


Unless that's his spy name......as in.....

"The name'sh Fewer, Doug Fewer."
"Come in, I've been expecting you, Mr Fewer"

In reply to BnB:

Some will, believe me, some will.

In reply to mbh:


We can agree to disagree on what rounded might or might not mean. Given your CV I would have thought you capable of communicating without swearing, perhaps the admissions system has been flawed for some time.

In reply to BnB:


This confuses two rather different things: recruitment to research roles and recruitment of undergraduates.

In reply to charliesdad


I agree entirely. For a good few years I was the head of a successful state comp and each year we would aim to send one or two kids to Oxbridge. Some years we managed it and some years not, but believe me when we failed it wasn’t down to any lack of ambition. We were an outstanding school with a national profile for our work on international links but we’d still have years when we got nobody into Oxbridge. As a Cambridge alumnus with a good knowledge of the admissions system I always took part in the role play interviews we set up for each applicant.

The problem is that the system is fundamentally skewed against the state sector. It’s gamed by government. Let’s make a start at evening things up by getting rid of the ludicrously unjustifiable charitable status that private schools enjoy. The idea that they could continue to do so providing they worked with local schools I found deeply patronising. I could get by without free use of the fives court on a Wednesday evening once a fortnight.

In reply to Andy Clarke:


Well, every kid sent to a private school saves the taxpayer £6300 per year, which is more than the benefit of charitable status to such schools.


Other than the above issue, what else do you consider to be fundamentally iniquitous?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You could ask the question are private schools propping up UK education, without which the national average would be even lower when compared globally.

In reply to summo:

If by "rounded" you refer to extra-curricular activities and interpersonal skills, then these certainly make for better prospects in society and many workplaces. I can assure you however, that admissions tutors are focused (almost) exclusively on a student's engagement with and aptitude for the subject.

At Oxbridge however, there is a certain quality of mind that a tutor is looking for, as well as evidence of fierce disciplines, intellectual curiosity and the ability to defend an argument. That's why the admissions process goes so far beyond exam grades. After all, pretty much everyone who applies, and this is from state school as well, achieves at least a couple of A*s. And offers are made before the grades are achieved, so it's hard to see how fiddling with grade expectations can help.

What is the process, then? Our daughter, who's studying English, had to submit two pieces of coursework together with her personal statement. Frankly, I'm surprised more universities don't do the same. She was then invited to sit a 2 hour exam at her school. That accomplished, she attended two interviews at which the tutors systematically attempted to break her. The more impressed they are, the tougher they get. When she emerged from a second gruelling which had overrun by half the allotted time looking like she'd been beaten up, it was clear they had taken her candidacy seriously.

If by "rounded" you mean the determination and depth of character to overcome that admissions ordeal, then the students at Oxbridge undoubtedly embody that term. Does attending an independent school provide a significant advantage? I'd argue that the influence of parenting goes far deeper. When I attended Oxford it was as the first undergraduate in a family that had only settled in England a generation previously and I was knocked sideways by the confidence and expectations of my fellow students. I don't believe our daughter was hindered by attending a state school but the support of two parents who understood the process and supported her in her ambitions was probably a a bigger factor.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Deliberately so. The Cambridge academics who appeared on Any Answers specifically mentioned their longer-term, research-focused undergraduate admissions policy.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Underfunding.
Excessive interference in the curriculum.
Emasculation of local democracy and planning.
Persistent tinkering with the structure diverting energy from the real business.
Persistent tinkering with the targets diverting... etc.
Michael Gove.

In reply to Andy Clarke:


Let’s make a start at evening things up by getting rid of the ludicrously unjustifiable charitable status that private schools enjoy. The idea that they could continue to do so providing they worked with local schools I found deeply patronising.


So reduce everything to the lowest common denominator? Obviously a very sensible idea. (why can't you do pink for sarcasm in UKC)
The idea of education should not be to give every individual an equal start in life at aged 18, but to give each individual the best start in life at aged 18. Unless we live in a deeply socialist society then this won't be the same for every individual.

(n.b. 16/18/21 interchange as you see fit.)

In reply to ClimberEd:


You've outed me as someone with deeply socialist beliefs. Obviously, as a state headteacher I generally operated under deep cover... and learned to live with a lot of contradictions.

In reply to ClimberEd:


The outcome of which would simply be to restrict the opportunity of private education to an even smaller number of even wealthier families and to wealthy foreign students. Magic.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

Let's assume that the UK needs 1000 Medical students per year.
Assume there are just 5 Universities with medical schools: Oxford and 4 more, each has just 200 places.
The best 1000 applicants get those places.
But the cUrrent model is that Oxford has elite status, so everyone wants to go there in preference to the rest
In reality, Oxford's 200 places get filled not necessarily with the best students, but disproportionately by those who've had the benefit of a private education, as well as guidance, encouragement and all the rest of the aids middle and upper class parents can provide.
The chance of a working-class student from a comprehensive background getting a place at Oxford Medical School is almost nil, even if they are in the top 1000 applicants.

My model;
The same 1000 applicants get places at the same 5 medical schools.
But allocation to a medical school is random; just the luck of the draw. Nothing mummy and daddy can do to fix it for you.
You get exactly the same number of qualified medics out of the process, but everyone gets an equal chance.
(As a side benefit, over time you may find that the performance of each Medical school is rather different - deprived of the luxury of only teaching the brightest and best/richest, Oxford Medical School might have to work a little harder to maintain it's position)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Completely agree.
It's disingenuous to suggest that Oxbridge needs to recruit the best undergraduates because they then become the best researchers at post-grad level. In reality the two are completely separate, with intense competition for post-grad roles. I don't have any figures to prove this, but anecdotally I beleive the majority of post-grads at Oxford did NOT attend that University as undergrads. Which is actually a credit to Oxford!

In reply to charliesdad:
Why would you restrict the random approach to Oxbridge? If you believe that the entry should not be based on merit but on on randomness then that principle should apply to all medical schools which, by definition, are elitist institutions and recruit disproportionately from kids from wealthier backgrounds . If one follows this principle logically it will be like Manchester united recruiting from a random pool of kids.

Secondly, the point of "private education, as well as guidance, encouragement and all the rest of the aids middle and upper class parents can provide" is that it makes them "the best students". That is why Oxbridge (and medical schools) recruit them.

In reply to charliesdad:












Your 'plan' only works (let's give it the benefit of the doubt that it would work) for a subject like medicine, in which there are very limited places (total, not Oxbridge) for the best students in vocational subject with a standardised pass level. And where student numbers are based on a country's 'need' for qualified professionals. (first line of your post)

It absolutely wouldn't work for most subjects, and definitely wouldn't work for non vocational subjects where university should be about learning to think critically and independently.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The first respondent to Any Answers was the professor in charge of admissions for PPE and computer science students at Hertford College, Oxford. He specifically stated that the point of the interview questions was to pose problems that no student, whether publically or privately educated, would have been prepared for so that the admissions tutors could evaluate their reasoning abilities.

He also pointed out that if the college were to admit pupils who had not already achieved a high standard in their subject then either they would not be able to keep up with the university curriculum or the university would have to reduce its standards with the result that a degree would not be so valuable.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Completely agree that it's harder with other subjects, but I think the same principles could be adapted; let's say 10000 people want to study English, 1000 of them want to go to Oxford, and meet Oxford's academic entry criteria. Oxford has just 100 places. So you select 100 at random for Oxford.

But we may be getting off the point - I'm not suggesting I have a fully worked out solution to a very complex problem, simply that there are alternatives to the present system, many of which are better than the status quo.

In reply to charliesdad:


But the point of Oxbridge's entry system-interviews, separate exams etc is that it doesn't just identify applicants who meet a pass mark but identifies the very best who will then make the most of the very best education.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, it isn't completely random; the pool you are recruiting from consists of the 1000 brightest.
I'm not opposed to meritocracy -quite the opposite.


Private education does not make the best students.
Private education does ( very often) produce students who are most capable of getting a place at Oxbridge, which is rather different!

In reply to charliesdad:


But that is pretty much the definition of "best student". It's not just about exam grades but wider abilities, motivation, self-reflection and all the rest. The solution is to provide guidance and encouragement to all pupils at school, not to make access to the best institution based on random chance.

I've done various "outreach" activities (non-Oxbridge) for pupils from areas with low university attendance. Almost uniformly the pupils engage fully and you can see them gaining an understanding of what university is and why it might be good for them within a few hours. Unfortunately the teachers with them have almost uniformly been appalling - completely uninterested and disengaged, playing with their phones rather than encouraging pupils. Similarly schools clearly regard this sort of activity as very low priority, for example cancelling entire trips at a few hours notice on multiple occasions. Without encouragement and role models at school, of course these pupils will struggle to get into elite universities, but that is hardly the fault of the universities.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That may be the intent, but the end result is rather different; a system which consistently selects based on wealth and class.
What's more important, that a very small group of people consistently get to give their kids the " best education", or that that " best education" is genuinely open to all? I've made my choice.

In reply to charliesdad:



As soon as you randomise or otherwise interfere with selection for the top universities, then, by definition, they cease to be the top universities. It's a system used in American sport by the NFL to rotate the crown of best team. The bottom team gets first choice in the draft of college recruits and the champions get last choice. There's a rather obvious logic to level the playing field amongst the teams and it works in that one team rarely dominates for more than a couple of years. But what exactly would this achieve other than a moderating (up or down) of academic standards across all universities?

Having worked hard to enjoy a status near the top of the class through school it did me good to find myself challenged to perform better when suddenly finding myself towards the bottom of the academic pack at my college. That realisation has driven me on through life to achieve more than I would without it. I've benefited and the state has too.

In reply to charliesdad:

If you believe middle-class parents game system, why would they suddenly stop if access to UK elite universities was suddenly based on chance? Some students might prefer the UK (although many wouldn't care) but if the UK option weren't available, you can be sure the best students would look to comparably regarded institutions elsewhere.

In reply to charliesdad:

>
Defined presumably by academic results and perceived potential which, as we know, are closely related to "private education, as well as guidance, encouragement and all the rest of the aids middle and upper class parents can provide"

So what you are arguing is that Oxbridge is not good at identifying the brightest students so they should give up and depend on randomness. This would simply compound the problem of not identifying the brightest students.

In reply to MG:


Once more with feeling; I'm not suggesting an approach based purely on chance! The "cohort" you are selecting from is still those who meet the academic criteria, and if more than the requisite number meet the criteria, it's the best of them. The only random element is the allocation to the individual institution.


Ouch. No easy answer for that one.

In reply to charliesdad:



I don't think we are off point. How do you select the 1000 brightest?! And which institutions get their pick of the 1000 brightest? You've simply enlarged the same 'problem' (if you can call it that).

Unless you have a 'race for the bottom', or socialism, some will stand out and succeed over others, be this from privately funded education, parental support and guidance, or sheer bloody minded internal gumption. Some 'intelligent and capable' pupils won't stand out because they lack the above. Where do you draw the line, Gattaca esq. genetic testing? You have to discriminate through attainment and externally demonstrated ability (holding your own in an Oxbridge interview for example) at some point.

That's what's known as 'life'.

In reply to charliesdad:


No I get that. But if you take (say) the pupils with highest 1000 A-level results, Oxbridge want the top 200 (say) of those, not a random selection from the 1000. I'm sure their current selection system is imperfect but it will be much better than random.

In reply to charliesdad:




And here we have the rub of the problem. Oxbridge is to 'educate the best' (which should additionally be the best education), not to provide the best education to all.

In reply to charliesdad:

>
That the best education is available to the best students, which is in the best interests of society as a whole just as the best surgeon getting the best training is good for me if I need a new heart.

It is not the role of the "finishing schools" such as Oxbridge to try and make up for the deficiencies of the State education system by lowering their standards. This would destroy them as elite institutions to the detriment of everybody.

In reply to MG:

I think the numbers of people who would actually do that is vanishingly small in practice. When Scottish universities became cheaper the English ones there was some scare-mongering in the press that this would cause an exodus of students from the English system. As far as I know that simply hasn't happened. The idea that hundred of thousands of our best students will decamp seems very unlikely.

In reply to Offwidth:

Anyway, I can tick off 'Monday morning internet discussion with a random stranger.'
Off for a second coffee and to do some work.

In reply to charliesdad:


That's because it's not cheaper for English students - they pay £9k+ plus a year as they would in England. In fact it is more expensive because Scottish degrees take a year longer. However, there are significant numbers going to, for example Holland where degrees are cheaper, and wealthy US institutions, who can offer large discounts on fees due to huge endowments, actively recruit top students. If Oxbridge weren't elite any longer, these offers would be even more attractive.

In reply to BnB:
I fully agree with everything you say. So presuming your wife has a similar education and outlook, I would suggest that subconsciously from birth you raised your daughter in a manner that made her more rounded (whatever that is).. To have the confidence in herself, work hard, to question things she didn't understand and explore possible solutions. As you rightly say these are things which predicted grades simply can't consider.

I think the solution to raising the standard of education of all kids lies with the parents. We saw it here in the last class parents meeting, a couple of parents were suggesting the teachers do x and y, the teachers said that's a great but why don't you do that at home... the parents were not impressed.

But even then, everyone can't be in the top 1%.

In reply to charliesdad:


The scottish system is not ideal. There is a cap on free Scottish kids places, it's competitive, which is no bad thing. But they are less strict on those paying fees from England or overseas. If everywhere ran the Scottish system it wouldn't work, as the English kids loans are in effect subsidising the Scottish kids degrees.

In reply to summo:


One of the results is that it is harder for Scottish kids to go to Scottish universities because there is so much competition form EU students and from English students whose fees they like to receive.

In reply to summo:


That's not actually true. English students are seen as, at best, cost neutral, and in subjects like engineering, an expense.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Per capita admission of scottish kids is down, which is ok if there are adequate non degree and vocational courses etc..

In reply to Postmanpat:
Also not true. There are proportionally fewer English students than before the systems diverged and the number of places for Scottish students is set by the Scottish government.

In reply to MG:


Only going off what somebody said on r4 who worked in a Scottish uni said a week or two ago. Might have been money programme. So he may have had bias.

In reply to summo:

Well my information is from 4 years ago, but was accurate then.

In reply to MG:


EU students are probably the swing factor.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Pretty sure that EU students from anywhere except England, Wales and NI pay the same fees as Scottish students, rather than the higher fees aid by the rest of the UK

In reply to stevieb:

They do.

In reply to Postmanpat

We'll agree to disagree, as I see no evidence that these elite institutions operating in this way is in "the best interests of society as a whole".

In reply to stevieb:


Exactly, which encourages EU students to apply to Scottish universities rather than English universities thus putting pressure on places in Scotland.

In reply to Postmanpat:

ok, fair enough, I though you were lumping them in with the English students as higher payers

In reply to charliesdad:

'We'll agree to disagree, as I see no evidence that these elite institutions operating in this way is in "the best interests of society as a whole".'

So you think it would be better if the most able academics in the land taught a random selection of students, with the result that the total level of achievement of the student body as a whole was lower than if they had been dealing only with the most able students?

In reply to charliesdad:



OK. Because it seems self evident that giving the best people the best training to be doctors is going to get the best doctors and that is good for anyone who needs a doctor.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Ha, if only. With the amounts of tutoring that I and my fellow postdocs spoon fed to a group of particularly dense students at Cambridge back in the early 2000s even a random dog would have passed the genetics exams in question. Never mind, the stupider the merrier, after all their college paid us by the hour!

Seriously, Oxbridge do not collect the best and brightest, but they are extremely good at fooling first the world at large and later their students into believing that they do. The confidence boost to some extent makes this belief true after the fact.

CB

In reply to cb294:


Annecdotally, one can look at the current political class in this country to know you are right. Oxford's PPE degree is "General Studies for those who could eat an apple through a tennis racket".

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-deg...

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think it's just the fault of the institutions and how they select their students, I suspect applications from qualified students from state-school backgrounds are also quite depressed for cultural reasons. We were encouraged to apply from my provincial state school and I was academically qualified to apply at least but the traditional (read stuffy/alien) environment of the ancient universities with all the medieval buildings, gowns and dinners etc put me off at the time. That and the prospect of yet another exam and additional paperwork at a busy feeling time in life. Looking back I appreciate those things now seem minor and that my perception of the stuffiness is probably or partially at least overblown but it's what put me off even going for a look. If you're from a fancy school, especially boarding schools where those things are the norm then that 'barrier' of it all being rather strange seeming doesn't exist. Of course you're probably also expected to apply and being coached for the entry exams which can't hurt.

It's an odd one, you'd think they'd be keen to tap into the intellectual talent they're evidently missing but perhaps that head start of additional learning and expectation 'posh' kids get is actually worth more than recruiting the very brightest. The connections they bring can't hurt either.
jk

In reply to cb294:




Ha, if only indeed.

Seriously not the case. You pick a few randoms with which illustrate your argument. Sure, it is not absolutely rigidly drawn - like everything, Oxbridge has a bell curve of talent, that bell curve will higher on the 'brightest' scale than other bell curves.

In reply to Offwidth:

I would like to see a bit more of the stats involved. So for example in science or technology subjects is there a bias? I would also like to see who after being offered a place turns it down in favour of say somewhere like Warwick or one of the other less intimidating uni's.

This is from a Dad who is currently coping with an 18 year daughter who has applied to Oxford to do Maths and is about to sit her MAT exam in 2 weeks time as part of the process.

Quite funny really as she goes to a comp and is from the " North". So she jokes about perfecting her northern accent for the interview stage if she gets through.

Interestingly when we want to the Maths open day- all the students we talked to - were from comps.One lad in very fetching long pink dyed hair and a tweed waistcoat being from a Bradford comp.

It is still an intimidating process for state school candidates.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Although that would seem consistently to be the children of wealthy upper middle class people doesn't it? Which is fine if you think there is nothing wrong with having no social mobility in society.

In reply to TobyA:

It's fine if you don't think that elite universities should be, or could be, the motor of social mobility. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him or her drink. The problem lies primarily with State school education levels and the cultural disinterest of many British in educational achievement.

In reply to TobyA:

Is that actually the case? Almost 60% of Oxbridge intake are state educated while 18% of children post 16 are privately educated. So if you take private education as an indicater of wealth and upper middle classness, there is a gap, but not a huge one. Add in the fact the private education is already selective on ability and there's not much there.

In reply to TobyA:

Wealthy upper middle class from the Home Counties is a better description.

Outside that area that description may not stand upto scrutiny.

In reply to MG:

The implied suggestion that there is some sort of racial discrimination going on also seems dubious. Last year's numbers show that black students represented 2.25% of the oxbridge undergraduate intake. Black people represent 3% of the general population (probably higher amongst 18 year olds but many of those will be recent immigrants etc). The discrepancy isn't therefore that great, and in the context of 3.5 % of black A-level students getting 3 A/A*s compared to 10% of whites (and 29% of Chinese) it seems totally explicable without resorting to implications of racism.

NB. Entry figs are for 2016. A-level results are older, 2012 ,but I assume the overall picture is still valid.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The stat was something like in the Uk about 300 black students get 3 A's ( did not say about A*). Not many when you sit down and think about it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Can you tell me a percentage of blame split between those two factor? Only asking because as a teacher it would be helpful to know how much it is my fault and how much I can blame the deadbeat parents of my students who underperform.

In reply to Offwidth:
The better solution would be for people to be a lot less obsessed about Oxbridge. For many subjects they are not the best in the UK but most people just lazily assume that Oxbridge is best for everything. There's also a difference between Undergraduate admission and research output - research does not get done by Undergraduates.

If Oxbridge have smaller tutorial groups than other Universities and the 'best' staff then that presumably means their costs are higher and that should be reflected in their fees. Let capitalism do its job: Oxbridge should be allowed to charge more so that higher prices make it relatively less attractive.

There should also be government action to stop Oxbridge graduates in publicly funded organisations preferentially hiring and promoting Oxbridge graduates. Quotas or positive discrimination should be used so that potential students are clear that a place in Oxbridge is an education not membership of a job for life club.

In reply to TobyA:

See above for my experience dealing with WP school teachers. I can't give you a number but j was quite shocked by teachers' attitudes.

In reply to MG:

I wasn't there so I won't try and defend them, maybe that's indicative of many teachers but that seems unlikely. In my first year I was working up to 80 hrs a week and still being told I wasn't doing enough, or doing it right, so when you're anywhere where you are not directly teaching a class of kids you are often trying to do the 101 other things that you are obligated to do, so might not be focused on the kids who are getting taught something by another adults. But I'm sure there are some who just aren't interested too. :-

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


That's true perhaps in terms of formal teaching and even research. However, many will wisely view university as as much about a chance to mix and interact with a huge range of exceptionally capable people with diverse interests as with formal teaching. No where does this as well as Oxbridge.

In reply to TobyA:


No. It may, of course not be the teachers' fault at all.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Except for the fact that they are 1 and 2 ( or3) in the world........ slight difference from just being No 1 and No 2 in the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The general point is children need role models, be they parents, teachers or someone else. If a child comes from a family with no history of aspiration let alone university attendance, goes to school with hundreds of similar children and is taught by teachers whose horizons aren't much bigger, they are going to lose out.

In reply to TobyA:

I know my experience was long ago but although I was at a state grammar school, I'm from a working class background (dad & grand dad both carpenters, mum was a school dinner lady much of her working life) & was the first person in the family to even apply for university - even now, a generation on, I think I'm one of only four or five to have studied at university.

So Oxbridge isn't just "the children of wealthy upper middle class people"

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yes - I used to go round local comprehensive schools and do it myself as part of the Cambridge 'Target Schools' initiative. I used to do talks where the idea was to show the 'normal' side of life there rather than the Daily mail view. Encouraging students to apply, reassuring them that it wasn't 100% posh public school people, etc and so on.

I didn't go to state school for sixth form but I didn't have this rounded, extra-curricular, CV that is expected of public school children.
In terms of preparation, I did get a practice interview from my school and some additional support for Special Papers but I wouldn't have needed Special Papers if I had been at state school. I had purposely applied to a college that offered more places to state school pupils than average, as I thought that was my best chance of a chance.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

This is exactly what they should not do. Charging more would make the situation worse. Oxbridge colleagues and universities subsidise their model and should continue to do so. They have the funds / alumni / influence to do that.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Is that a thing? My experience of work has all been in the private sector, but it's never something which I've experienced there on either side of the table (although, I suppose, it would be hard to know as the interviewee).

A fair few HR departments anonymise CVs these days to a large extent don't they, which I can see pluses and minuses for.


I must have been, and known, all the wrong sorts of students to fit this stereotype/belief.

Is this (both parts) some sort of PPE/politics issue (or perceived issue)?

In reply to neilh:

It is intimidating, but the young people shouldn't be made to feel that way because of where they come from or what school they went to. At that age I was intimidated by everything.

In reply to jkarran:

Normally I agree with your posts but I think you are being flippant here:


In my experience this is simply not the case - they are trying. There are lots of factors involved, not least the attitude of teachers, young people, and users on forums like this, spreading this message that these students are not welcome.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:





I just spilt my coffee. Laughing.

You do realise that a degree, and the quality (perceived, ranked, accurate, or otherwise) of the institution it is from is a vital distinguishing factor for getting a job in the early stages of a career ,and as such that is why a vast majority of students do their degree and pick their institution.

To remove this would to make university a redundancy for anyone other than academics. Vocational requirements could be met I suppose, but predominantly through technical colleges.

So really you are just saying there should be no advantage in life, or distinguishing achievements, until you have started your first job.
More silly socialism.

In reply to MG:


I’m shocked at how negative your experience of state school teachers has been. As a passionate advocate and defender of state comprehensive education I’m also somewhat mortified. All I can say is that my own experience both as a teacher and as a head has been very different. I’ve worked in some very tough inner city schools that helped to transform not only the life chances of many individual students but also the self esteem and reputation of the local community as a whole. This would not have been possible without a huge amount of determination, dedication and ambition on behalf of the huge majority of the staff. I believe you must have been very unlucky in the staff you met.

In reply to ClimberEd:
I think he's staying an opinion that Oxbridge graduates should avoid preferentially selecting other Oxbridge graduates as opposed to those from alternate institutions. Its not obvious how you reached your reading of that?

In reply to Andy Clarke: my comp was abysmal - I believe 3 children from my year went to university, and there was very little help selecting an institution. The idea of Cambridge, though perhaps only 30 miles away didn't even register as a possibility
That was in the 80's - I'd like to imagine those days were behind us but apparently not.

In reply to BnB:

Congratulations on your daughters succes

Do you think a factor could be, on top of the fact that she is bright and has worked damned hard, and has loving and supportive parents, is the fact that as her parents went to Oxbridge, it seemed reasoanble that she to could go, and that therefore it was worthwhile her working towards it. It was a clear and acheivable goal.

In reply to stubbed:


It was a little flippant. Still, I'm not convinced there isn't a grain of truth in it, that it's easier to stick with what you know if it works for you than to make radical changes.

I appreciate there are varied reasons going far beyond 'posh boys selecting posh boys', indeed I explained my own now slightly silly sounding and rather prejudiced 17/18yo logic for not applying despite encouragement. Having known a few people who did go from similar backgrounds (middle class provincial state education) I don't think I'd have been 'unwelcome' as such but I'd have been a fish out of water for sure.
jk

In reply to J1234:



That's a very good point and certainly one that supports the view that the middle classes have an inherent advantage.

In reply to Offwidth:

Part of it is context - if nobody in your school gets into Oxbridge you're unlikely to try. If 50% do then you feel stupid not to try

So how about a minimum % students per sixth form are offered a place - so everyone feels they have a shot at it

In reply to neilh:


According to the Times Higher Education rankings. Go on a US website and they are 5th or 6th
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-universi...

I bet if I could find an equivalent site in China or Germany the results would be different again.

The whole concept of a global league table is stupid: pretty much every university has strong departments and weak departments and you can't possibly quantify the quality of life in various universities because it depends on the individual student.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Quite, it's getting positively unhealthy. Unfortunately, as a result of the massive expansion of the university sector, I think many employers are more confused than ever about what institutions to trust and the lazy response is to default to Oxbridge for recruitment. In turn, ambitious kids (and parents) get increasingly fixated that it's the only route to a well-paid profession.

In reply to BnB:
The real issue is how confusing it is to get in if you do not you do not understand the college system. You are leaps and bounds ahead of anybody who has not been before and you will know your way round the system and what to do/ not to do.

The amount of time my wife and I have spent trying to understand it is ridiculous.

In reply to MG:


In the UK and in specific London-centered careers like politics, media, law, some parts of the city and some government departments like the foreign office there can be far too much of an Oxbridge club. When you watch a cabinet minister getting interviewed by a political journalist on TV there's a fair chance both of them did PPE at Oxford.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-deg...

In reply to MG:

Surely they should attempt to increase productivity.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I suspect if you had a look at Harvard or the top French Uni- it's the same.

You could argue that you need to look at it a bit deeper and say what backgrounds those politicians came from to make a better judgement.Afetr all John Prescott want to Oxford I think.

It suggests that they are just good at picking and nurturing the Uk's talent in that field.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I don't quite believe that. Looking at Cambridge PhD students (who I had more contact with than with undergrads, which may indeed have been biased towards the bottom end of their classes, given the extra tutoring they required), I see no difference in overall brightness to other good universities or research institutions in Germany, the UK, Austria, the US, or Switzerland (just taking into account the places I am familiar with).

However, the students recruited to our local, joint PhD program that end up at research groups at the local Max-Planck institute have the same overinflated sense of their own ability relative to their peers that end up at my uni department, even though they have come through exactly the same selection process. This added confidence will certainly help them later on, as will the exaggerated respect potential recruiters will pay to the Max Planck tag on their CVs.

IMO, the whole Oxbridge cult is the same thing albeit on a larger scale. Excellent universities, but not necessarily better than many others, but better on your CV.

If I had to pick a UK or research institution in my field just for the science, I would probably rank Cambridge second and Oxford at best fourth.

CB

In reply to cb294:
Aren't you taking the wrong sample there. Everyone knows that the Russell Group universities, and a good handful of the red bricks I dare say, are stuffed full of excellent students who just missed out on a place at Oxbridge. Indeed that rejection is for many post-graduates a defining motivation. My brother missed out on a place but is now a Professor.

Surely the relevant sample would come from the lowest ability students to have made it through the application process. I don't remember meeting many students in my time at Oxford that made me feel intellectually superior, from which you might conclude that, from my tutorial group, your sample undergrad would have been me!! Nevertheless, of the few that I looked askance upon, all have gone on to prove my judgement premature by their diligence and hard work in later life. And their success has nothing to do with the old school tie. The application process puts as much emphasis on diligence and self-motivation as it does on intellectual horsepower. Often the brightest students can struggle to contribute as much to society.

In reply to Offwidth:

Good article by a current student.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/23/david-lammy-oxbridge-...

In reply to BnB:

My perspective tends to be more pointed than rounded

Firstly Durham and St Andrews, excellent institution's they are, have, despite occasional appearances, never been consitently at the top of any league table I know (other than percentage public school entrants).

Secondly the genuinely wonderful outreach efforts made from Oxbridge barely scrtach the surface of the number of schools and colleges with large numbers of disadvantaged kids that need help. So if they are falling over themselves and getting worse they are being pretty dumb about their planning and processes. They need to look at admissions more closely across all colleges (not everyone involved with admissions will be as enthusiastic as the two dons on the radio show)

I simply don't believe bright parents normally have bright kids.. I've certainly seen the opposite in both cases (dumb parents with near genius kids and bright parents with really dumb kids). There does seem to be a correlation with parental intellect but more importantly a bigger correlation with parental support levels (see the Freakanomics website in particular). In my day, quite a few pretty average intellect public school kids got in (with parents who had gone to the same college) as did, famously, some pretty thick royals (in exam terms).. one hopes things have improved these days.

I think the two academics came over as enthusiasticly naive. Yes the outreach work was great but their institutions still turn away too many disadvantaged state school kids with the right qualifications based on interviews; interviews that are well practiced in top schools outside the state sector. Can that Oxford don that John2 mentions seriously test kids in a way that will remove school background bias. I doubt it very much indeed. As well as outreach, Oxbridge also needs some 'inreach': a significant proportion of comp kids from poor backgrounds felt like they didn't belong when they arrived and more can be done in the future to reassure sucb students that they do. Bad results from comp kids often got blamed on the intellect of the student when in fact they just felt lost and this seriously affected their studies. On the 'black' subject they always took a fair few educated African rich kids; the dearth of entrants is from the poorer UK Caribbean communities. David Cameron was right a few years back (but public school educated oxbridge success story that he was, surrounded by helpful expert advisors, didn't result in some important and desperately needed clarity on the subject).

Your last point is just plain insulting (I hope this was inadvertant) just how much discipline, ambition and inquisitiveness do you think it takes for a disadvantaged kid from a comp to get the grades and apply to Oxbridge (and how gutting to be refused even though other institutions will be queing to take you).

In reply to MG:

Where is that figure from on post 18? I've seen 7% as the normal figure for the non state sector for all years, so are really that many going into private schools for Y12 and 13?
Edit: I googled something else and saw that stay in the wiki article, but it's 2011, last census. The law has changed since then making education compulsory until 18, so I expect it will drop significantly and it will show just how much greater the chances of going to Oxbridge are for the privately educated.

In reply to BnB:


This is certainly complete bollocks.

Using the link to the Lammy info in the Guardian my area shows Oxford only took, on average, 3 pupils per year 2010-2015.

Cambridge OTOH took an average of 20 per year.

Given that the entry requirements are harder at Cambridge (especially Maths, Physics, Computing) you'd have to argue that Cambridge manages to find some extraordinary geniuses, then there is a gap in achievement leaving Oxford with little to select.

You don't need to go to Oxbridge to see that is rubbish.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Was going to link and discuss that post. Its an opinion based on the same defensive statements made by the dons on Any Answers. It looks at all the good work done to improve diversity but ignores the problem and its possible causes and solutions. I don't agree with everything Lammy says but its a fact things are getting worse in diversity terms (from a very low base) and that a good number of qualified disadvantaged state school kids get turned down. In my day before I went I expected everyone to have three A level As (when As were rare) and S levels, but in fact this was an exception from all but comprehensive entrants to STEM. This made me angry as kids from similar backgrounds to me and similar grades didn't make it. Oxbridge were not the worse: around 1980 my office mate's brother, now a genuine brain surgeon, was the only comp kid in his Bristol cohort studying medicine.

These days A stars are much more common as a percentage than A grades in 1980. Oxbridge are still not the worst on diversity terms (but I think they are the most important). Entrance exams and interviews usually decide who gets in. A very bright and hard working kid I know from a solidly upper middle class background, with an ex Oxbridge parent, just missed a place in Maths two years back, when despite exceptional Baccalaureate results (much better than normal A stars) he did less well in STEP than expected, based entirely on self tutoring ... its bloody hard to go it alone... and the situation for most bright disadvantaged comp kids is much harder. A slightly improved bias to disadvamtaged kids with top grades from a very difficult educational journey would be an excellent change in my opinion.

In reply to BnB:


Just about fell off my chair at the casual assumption that people go to other Universities because they missed out on getting into Oxbridge.

Most students *choose* other Universities over Oxford of Cambridge. If you want the best University for your specific academic interest most of the time it isn't going to be Oxford or Cambridge. Or maybe you just think - rightly or wrongly - Oxford and Cambridge are packed full of arrogant tw*ts. Maybe you like climbing and you don't want to live in Oxford or Cambridge Maybe you get your fees paid if you go to a Scottish Uni or maybe you want to save money by staying at home.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


If you don't make it into Oxbridge, is Camford your second choice?

In reply to Offwidth:

>
See my post of 13.54. Its's not even clear from those numbers that Oxbridge is bad.

In reply to cb294:


I've always laughed at post grads. Not per se, but the challenge of getting into relative to undergrads is paltry

In reply to wbo:


So, to use a sports analogy, which is precise and factual.

The best young rowers and club rowers try to row at Leander club.

The Great Britain Squad selects rowers to be in the squad. Whilst it is not based on the club at all, the vast majority (bordering, but not quite, on all) will be from Leander. The coaches will have a history from Leander.

The GB rowing squad is successful, pretty much the world no 1. Should Leander coaches (at GB level) not have selected too many Leander athletes in case there is bias?

In reply to Oceanrower:


If I had the exam results and money to go absolutely anywhere I wanted they wouldn't be in the top ten. They don't rate it academically in my field and I wouldn't want to live in either of those towns.

My first choice would still be Edinburgh. Second choice would probably be U.C. Berkeley. I'd think about Cornell, ETHZ and EPFL. Imperial College would be near the top of the list if it wasn't in London.

In reply to Offwidth:
You missed my point. I was decrying a system which fails to encourage the ambition, not the students who strive within it. My daughter is a state school product after all.

As for Durham and St Andrews, are you being a little course-specific in your perspective? See https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings

If you look at the entry level criteria you'll see that this is where the top 6 institutions in the table are particularly demanding. And that seems to me a statistically valid measure of the quality of the intake and therefore their respective ranking. For English at Durham, which ranks above both Oxford or Cambridge for the subject, the average level of attainment exceeds 3A*s, presumably via an EPQ.

During the recent process I was impressed by Manchester University's English department. It was the only establishment other than Oxbridge to require the applicants to perform a written test. The process was a lot less intimidating than Oxbridge entrance but quite diligent.

In reply to Offwidth:

There are few studies now that indicate intellect is 50% generic, 50% environmental. But this aside an outstanding teacher, school, uni etc will maximumise a given persons potential.

In some places of education there is a greater desire to stop people dropping out the bottom, to achieve a minimum level of education, which is fine but it shouldn't be to the detriment of those near the top, they need pushing too. This was the model in Sweden for many years, averaging out education, they have changed now as it was considered less than ideal long term, as you'll always need to import talent in certain sectors.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Edinburgh is lovely and made a strong case to my daughter. In fact, she accepted a place there but then decided to take a year off to clear her head after some tough teenage experiences. It was only because Edinburgh would not allow her to defer and insisted she apply again that she isn't there today.

My son has just started at TUM for his research Masters in Chemistry. ETHZ would have been an alternative but the local football team doesn't have the same appeal.

In reply to summo:

I'm aware of those studies but that wasnt my point... plenty of exceedingly bright kids in shitty circumstances don't get a strightforward jouney through school. Intellect with its genetic and environmental factors is less important than supportive parents and environment in terms of going to top Uinversities in the UK. Oxbridge is full of slightly less than the very best who just worked very hard in stable supportive circumstances whilst people with harder journeys and the same grades , so much likley brighter, get turned down with the same grades... thats the key to my point about interviews: despite the good intentions advertised (which I'm not so sure about in practice) on average they are clearly not working.

In reply to cb294:





BTW - totally agree with this. My arguments are basically that 'that is the way it is' so why pretend or expect otherwise.

In reply to BnB:

Sorry I was being the opposite of subject specific. Yes Durham and St Andrews are top five consitently in some subject areas, they are just not consistently so in combined league tables.

You may well decry the UK school system but fixing it would cost a lot of money and very changed attitudes to teaching (which would put a lot of proud mummys and daddies noses out of joint). I'd add that taking the most vociferous middle class and rich kids out of a system doesn't help (Coel's saving money point seems laughable to me: schools often need such kids, arguably more than the cash that follows them) and in the poorest areas this leads to schools facing terrible pressures due to highly distorted intakes. I bet your daughter's state school is a 'nice' one.

In reply to Offwidth:
Of course, but there is a risk people who make the most noise are just generally against what they see as elite establishments, or the principle of private education. When what they should instead be doing is promoting parents to do more. More reading at home, better toys, less Xbox type games, or even more sport... healthy body healthy mind...

I think many commentators in the press seem to miss the point, it would be better to raise the national standard in all stages of education, than have a 1000 kids who get free school meals more into Oxbridge.

In reply to redbullxtremer:


This can only get worse with the predicted huge advances in A.I. What will be the point of educating people to such a high standard if there is no renumerative employment for them ? All those idle hands with well educated brains are not willingly going to survive on State hand-outs, they will seek other paths to enrich their existences.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


They've solved that problem (almost), a few years ago there were a couple of feature length documentaries about the development of robot police..

In reply to shitdrinksaddo:
My belief is the balance of the influence of existing wealth vs intelligence on future success is sadly shifting to the wealth side as our society produces more clever ways to encourage nepotism. You name it...nursery sytems, school structures, Uni entrance, Uni Fees, loans for grants, unpaid internships, lack of diversity in senior professions all add negative bias to bright poor kids and bright lower middle class kids.

More people than ever are influenced by adverts and drink shit, when water would be much better for them.

In reply to Offwidth:


Biases in interview processes are well known so I agree the weight put on interviews at Oxbridge seems questionable (although the numbers given places don't seem as distorted as some claim). It would be interesting to know the breakdown of the interviewers' backgrounds and hence whether they are likely to be biased in particular directions. Academia is now very international so you would hope the interviewers aren't all from white middle-class British backgrounds.

In reply to BnB:

I didn't hear the programme but, as it happens, we had dinner with one the these individuals on Saturday night and unsurprisingly this came up. He is one of the most approachable, unstuffy, and supportive tutors you can imagine. He's also the director of studies for one of the most competitive courses at a college with the image of perhaps the most intimidating and elitist at Cambridge.

From experience, I can't think what else he could do, beyond the outreach and introductory courses for 6th formers they already offer but if schools don't send candidates because of their self-imposed prejudices, he never meets their students.

There's no getting round the fact that his remains a highly selective course, but they don't ask 3A*s. They do want evidence of a real commitment in terms of interest, work experience, flexibility, interpersonal skills, ability to cope with pressure and hard work.

In reply to summo:

Enough parents do a good job already. Oxbridge are turning down too many capable candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds so why not fix that first. I'll leave you with my interview analogy. A clever don in a high castle far away sits down to interview two equal prospective candidates one has been dropped off fresh after much clever and expensive effort by rich parents and the other has arrived tired from a difficult long journey having faced many dangers. As the don do you really ignore the journey and just do puzzles?

In reply to Dave Garnett:
How do you equality proof that Dave? He can care as much as he likes but if he doesn't take a risk with disadvantaged kids with top grades who didnt get a chance to get some of that experience, he will never get to realise some kids he rejects would have made the grade. Also its the whole system that is at fault and he didn't tackle that at all... if everyone thought like he did and made the effort he did I'm sure entry stats would be better but not everyone is so keen on diversity on Oxbridge admissions as he is.

In reply to Offwidth:

What advanatge does an Oxbridge degree give?
Is it,

A better degree?

Do employers value an Oxbridge degree more, 1 , 3 , 7, 10 years after getting it?

Is it the people you meet and the connections you make ?

Does it just turn out more self confident people, who expect to do better, therefore do?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Speaking as a parent who has a daughter who has been to these outreach and introductory classes, I reckon they can easily do more.Granted my daughter goes to a reasonable comp in Warrington. But when she goes to the out reach sessions in say Manchester, it is totally dominated by those from say grammar schools or the private schools in the area.It did not take her long to realise that her group of 7 from her school were clearly in the minority.There was an in joke about the state of their battered old minibus compared with the gleaming new ones. God knows what it is like if you a from a school in a deprived area.

And the people from Oxbridge who go touring round the schools from what I observed were just revisiting the same old schools every year without even knocking on the doors of other schools. Possibly because their time was short.. who knows.. but it clearly needs rethinking.

In reply to J1234:
I got to work with some of the best academics in the world with one of the strongest peer sets in the UK and with support systems that I'd be delighted if all Universities could afford to emulate. We were stretched but under careful supervision. Sure that builds confidence but more importantly it also nutures talent about as efficiently as I could imagine. Another really impressive factor was they often found a plan B if things were not going so well... if all else failed you might end up on a course that even princes could pass. In contrast, at that time my friends at Imperial were left to do almost everything on their own with a much more intensive workload, with many top class minds failing... almost a trial to destruction to test their mettle.

In reply to neilh:

Knowing some people linked to Manchester Grammar the numbers from there must be a significant proportion of that orange spot on that geographical profile. You are right that current outreach simply can't pick up more than a small minority of the institutions with deprived kids and from what people tell me is often 'infiltrated' by upper middle class aspirants from good schools. I still think interviews are the real problem.

In reply to redbullxtremer:


I seem to remember a few women students...

In reply to Offwidth:
You have not really answered my questions.
But something you have told me is that if someone is failing, the Oxbridge will help them if things are not working. Which I gather, is something a lot of other Unis do not, they are just happy to take the tution fee, and if a person fails, tough its not for them to chase them.

In reply to J1234:

The answer to your questions is yes to all of them. This is true of any university but Oxbridge has advantages over many others in terms of funding, the people there and reputation, which is why it is so competitive to get in.

In reply to neilh:


If you want to go to Oxbridge you need to get used to the idea that you are in a minority, whoever you are. Of course kids from less privileged backgrounds need to be encouraged and supported but one of the things they need to have is a thicker skin than being put off by a few juvenile comments about minibuses. Do you think the kids with that attitude are more likely to get in? If we are discussing sterotypes, Northerners are supposed to have a bit of grit, something that is a big advantage on a competitive course at a competitive college.

When my daughter went to the two-day course introduction she was initially intimidated by how overdressed, overconfident and overwhelmingly Southern many of the other participants were. As the time went on she realised that, actually, when it came to answering questions (especially volunteering answers) many of them didn't seem all that smart and nobody there wanted to be on the course more than she did.

In reply to Offwidth:


I've no idea what 'equality proof' really means. I honestly don't think this particular individual would notice whether someone was was disadvantaged or not in the sense that privilege is not what he's looking for. It's about passion and evidence of a sustained interest in the subject. It's about having read around it and thought about it. Since it's a long and vocational course, relevant work experience is required at all universities, so that's not an Oxbridge thing, but evidence that you know what you are getting into and are prepared for years of hard work is easier to get from an interview.

In reply to neilh:


Is it that the "same old schools" reply to a request to send someone, saying yes please come, whereas the other schools do not?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Possibly. But in say Manchester/Liverpool you can almost predict which schools they will be visiting on a short couple of days visit.

In reply to redbullxtremer:


And many more might say misogyny, but only if they were looking for a pointless argument.

And how come he remembered so few of them?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think for the likes of you and me ( even though I do not have a degree) our children will not find it bewildering.Amusing or challenging as you say is probably the best description.

But to somebody who maybe the first from their school to apply or the first to have applied for a long time- its a different ball game.I hope we agree that we all admire and should encourage any body in that respect.

In reply to neilh:

I think we do agree. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. More needs to be done. Neither my wife nor I come from academic families, both were the first to go to university and neither of us considered Oxbridge when at school. We both ended up doing PhDs there and, it's true, once you are in the system it seems less mysterious and more accessible.

I plead guilty to making sure our children were aware of Oxbridge as one of their options, but not the only one. Actually, Cambridge wasn't really our daughter's first choice for her subject but she was inspired and persuaded by the people she met when she visited (especially the tutor who phoned in to the Any Answers discussion).

In reply to Offwidth:


Maybe it would be better to encourage even more parents to do a good job, then support children into careers that best suit their attributes, other than a degree from Oxbridge. Is it better to raise the average, then just skim the top 0.5%?

And yes, out the window and people watching is often more entertaining & interesting than a puzzle.

In reply to ClimberEd:


Well, there is a massive problem if the GB team is pretty much the same as one specific club. For one thing a system like that is obviously unfair to people who live at the opposite end of the country.

In a niche sport like rowing with limited participation it is something that could well happen naturally as resources concentrate around one particular facility. Maybe for a sport like rowing a country can't really support more than one centre of excellence and the best thing is to live with the inequality.

However, if you look at a mass participation sport like football, if you got the situation where one club was effectively the national team it would be totally unacceptable. University education is a mass participation activity and the obsession with Oxford and Cambridge is not healthy.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
One thing they could do is, a bit like London Bridge, move Oxford and Cambridge brick by brick away from London to somewhere like Cumbria or Northumberland. That should make everything better

In reply to neilh:


If a visit-less school rang up Oxford and asked them to send someone, I'd be very surprised if they were turned down.

The usual complaint from those that do such outreach is that such schools don't show any interest in receiving a visit and don't reply to attempts to contact them.

Does anyone have information to the contrary? If there are schools that want a visit but are not getting one, there are people at Oxford who will go to lengths to remedy this.

Here is a page for starters: https://www.oxfordandcambridgeoutreach.co.uk/school-visits

In reply to Coel Hellier:


My experience too. In fact, some teachers are actively hostile for political/philosophical reasons but sometimes with a hint of personal chippiness thrown in.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Somewhere that might end up looking like this, for instance?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Durham+University&source=lnms&tbm...

In reply to Offwidth:
My Dad (working class from a Liverpool council estate) had an interview at Bangor for marine biology in the early 70s. Pretty much the first question he was asked was 'So what do your mother and father do?' A question which put him off university and 'the establishment' for life. Very much 'Where have you come from?' rather than 'Where can you go?' A shame, as he is very intelligent, but he took it to heart and instead ended up going into a career that he doesn't have much passion for.

I applied to Cambridge around 2009 and was invited to interviews. I was a state school pupil but had experienced private school classes in 6th year as my school didn't offer Adv Higher German. Three times a week I'd travel in a taxi to the other school. This gave me a fascinating insight into the differences in state and private education. Despite some sniggers in the corridors due to me sticking out like a sore thumb in my uniform, I enjoyed the small class and the teaching methods of the staff. There was very much an atmosphere of potential and encouragement. The attention afforded to pupils and the importance placed on discussion, debate and expressing opinions without fear was eye-opening. My teacher at the private school had gone to Cambridge or Oxford himself and one of my classmates was applying in another subject. The training process for Oxbridge started much earlier and the percentage of applicants and the offer stats were clearly much better than at my school, where I think 5 of us applied and 3 got in (a very good year nonetheless, and an anomaly).

I went to my interview and had a very mixed experience. Sat outside the interview room for French I overheard the tutors discussing my submitted example writing. 'Not particularly academic' I heard (we were writing short essays on very banal, exam-focused topics like town vs country living, positives and negatives of the internet, etc) One tutor was considerably older and more well-spoken than the other and appeared to immediately write me off when I had a bit of a mind blank at the start with a question that threw me (he asked what a Romance language was as I must have mentioned it somewhere. Of course I knew that they were French, Italian, Spanish etc, but what he was after was obviously 'A language which has its roots in Latin.' Very obvious, I knew that. I was kicking myself, but it shows maybe how narrow my focus was in the interview). He was unimpressed and started laying into my climbing, how could I expect to keep up my studies etc, whilst the other, younger interviewer began a discussion about Baudelaire and some French literature that I'd taken an interest in outside of my studies. I relaxed and felt I'd done much better in that aspect, which was later reflected in the feedback I received - an 8/10 from the second guy, which meant something like 'worth considering for an offer' and a 5 from the first guy, from the same interview! Their difference in attitudes startled me.

In the French writing test we were asked to summarise an English text in French. The article they'd chosen from The Guardian (I'd never read the Guardian before at this point, either) was about style, wearing ties and cravats or something and had the word 'sartorial' in the title. Before the test began, the examiner gave us an explanation of the word in case anyone didn't know what it meant. At 17 and with the background I had, I certainly didn't know what it meant! At least they gave us all a fair chance, but it was unsettling to be in the group that had never heard of the word, and showed the level of vocabulary and cultural capital that would be expected and that I hadn't had access to previously.

My German interview went as well as it could have, having skipped from Standard grade to Adv Higher (Higher wasn't offered at my school) and having had just a couple of months of classes at the private school. They focused on linguistics-style questions which I hadn't much clue about, and I think I received a 6 - 6 from the interviewers.

Long story short, I didn't get a offer and accepted at Durham before changing my mind and reapplying to Edinburgh after a year out, since they had rejected my deferred entry. I went to Edinburgh and reckon it was the best option for me. I don't regret applying to Cambridge as it has given me the confidence to reach a bit further than might be expected of me, or of myself. My experience taught me that there are obvious advantages to having a particular education and upbringing and that intelligence can only get you so far in some situations. I felt like I was trying to be myself but also putting on a sort of act to be taken more seriously as I didn't have the confidence or social skills to feel comfortable. I am proud that I tried, though, and that I haven't held the grudge that my Dad has for so long. I appreciate that in the 70s his situation was much different, and that I wouldn't even be applying to University if it weren't for him working so hard and getting me into a good state school in the first place.

Anyway, back to work...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

>
Well that's b*ggered that theory. Only 1.26% of Durham's undergraduates are black (including mixed race) compared to 2.25% for Oxbridge

Maybe move Durham nearer to London?

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:


It's possible that the interviewer was trying -- possibly ineptly -- to ask a few simple background questions to get the candidate talking and settle nerves. This is normal, rather than starting with something like "how do you integrate log-x-squared?". But that particular question might not have been a good choice.


Studies of interviews show that they're always highly variable according to personalities, and are a very unreliable technique for selecting people. Any fair process should not place much emphasis on interviews.

Further, interview technique, including social confidence and an extrovert attitude, are the easiest things for the private schools to coach into even dim kids.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:


I think this is key - preparing students for Oxbridge always was above and beyond just teaching for A level. Some people stayed on an extra term being coached for the Oxbridge entrance exams (which I think may be being reintroduced). It's not just Oxbridge, there now there are specific further tests required for Medicine and Vet Med. Obviously schools have a responsibility to know about this and give the appropriate support.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Great...but is that type of thing working ?Appears not to be.So a bit pointless.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
My equality concerns are ensuring the entrance processes don't inadvertently discriminate against particular groups and therefore miss some of the very best talent. It may well be some disadvantaged kids are less able in some respects to deal with Oxbridge interviews despite having the same top academic qualifications and likely better prospects overall and even in the skills looked for at interview if trained up in those areas of slight comparative weaknesses (usually due to lack of the training and awareness that the competitors from the 'best' schools get given).

Natalies comments illustrate this perfectly humans, even dons, have biases and can make silly judgements at interview. I'd rather they have more focus on tests, with good information on what the tests are for and how to approach them so its easier for schools with less experience to engage with support for bright kids.

On your reply to Neil there is simply nothing like the infrastructure to support most schools with disadvantaged kids so blaming teachers who may or may not have a chip on their shoulder (and if so probably for good reasons) is a bit rich.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No need to move anything anywhere. We just need to push back against the lazy stereotype that Oxford and Cambridge are miles better than every other University and the people who go there are smarter than everyone else.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Definitely. Other universities like Edinburgh. And Bristol.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I went to school at a comprehensive. I did my undergraduate degree (in the sciences) at Oxbridge. I did a postgraduate degree at a non-Oxbridge Russell Group university.

Firstly, I disagree with that it's a "lazy stereotype" that Oxbridge is much better than other universities. Having experience of both Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge, I would say that there is a huge difference in the standard of undergraduate teaching. That's a rant for another day though...

Secondly, I don't think the inequality is really Oxbridge's fault. As others have said, they go to great lengths with outreach programs in deprived areas to encourage applicants from poorer backgrounds. The problem is that many applicants from poorer backgrounds have no interest in applying. At my school there was almost no support or encouragement. Those few of us who applied to Oxbridge received no support from the school, and ridicule from most of our peers. My wife went to a private school and we met at Oxbridge. From year 7 to sixth-form, Oxbridge had been the long-term goal for her and all her classmates. My school only mentioned universities to us when I got to sixth-form and asked my maths teacher if I should do further-maths A-Level. I received no help preparing my application or interview, other than "read a science book so you can name-drop it."

It's up to state secondary schools to do more to encourage/support bright students, and instill in them the belief that Oxbridge is attainable/worthwhile. Better preparation for interviews might help too. Then maybe there will be more state school applicants, and a greater proportion of those will get offers.

Dumming down the entrance requirements for the top universities (as I think someone, maybe Lammy, suggested) isn't the answer.

Maybe I get a bit defensive about my alma-mater when I read all the Oxbridge bashing in the press, but I feel that the anger about inequality would be better directed towards the state schools system. It's the environment children grow up in before they apply to university which is creating this inequality, and that's what needs to change.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That would be Durham. It's a very similar environment. But nicer.

In reply to jrck2:

I think it was the 'miles better' across the board assumption and that the people who go there are all miles better than everyone else I was agreeing with.

I'd agree with your comments about some schools, but it's also true that there are still a few (and maybe more than a few at some colleges and disciplines) who have a less than helpful attitude to admissions too.

In reply to jrck2:


This is bollocks. In my postcode Cambridge makes 6.5 times the number of offers that Oxford does.

That is a huge difference that really only suggests Oxford is ignoring the better candidates, especially in Maths, Physics, Computing where the aptitude tests are tougher and the A levels expectations higher.

This is almost certainly to do with the interview process and bias from the interviewers who are used to using the interviews to determine the best of the independent school candidates rather than the best of the rest.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


It's worth stressing that there isn't a single Cambridge admissions policy - each College has complete control over its own admissions, and in each college the Director of Studies for each discipline has a lot of discretion. If you look at the breakdown by College of state school entries there's a big spread - from 74% in Kings (reliably pinko since the 1930's) to 46% in St Johns.

The autonomy does have some good points, in that it does leave room for experimentation, and there is an element of competition between colleges about their position in the final degree class table. I was a DoS at a Cambridge college in the 1990's; we made a very conscious effort to try and improve our mediocre academic performance by looking for excellent candidates from state schools who might be overlooked by other colleges, and it worked, both in making our final results better and in increasing our proportion of state school entrants.

The fact that the people who do the admissions will usually individually teach the students they admit can be good in the sense that they are confronted with the outcome of their decisions - but the risk of course is that they end up admitting the people they'd like to teach rather than the absolute best, which leads to a massive danger that they'll select people like them.

Ultimately I don't think the current situation is acceptable, but I don't see how it will change without some strong steer from the centre of the institution, which is difficult to imagine happening given how it is organised. (I don't know Oxford so well but suspect that everything I've said here applies even more so, certainly their colleges have even more autonomy than the Cambridge ones).

In reply to winhill:

Not sure that this may stack up. Oxford do state that they make less offers and that they expect those offers to be taken up. Whereas Cambridge make a lot more offer but expect fewer to be taken up.

Both seem reasonably open about this in their open days pointing this out .

So you could argue that Oxford is more thorough in its process .

In reply to neilh:


Not sure it's a lot more, 10%, which would reduce that ratio from 6.5-1 down to 6-1.

2-1 would be scandalous but 6-1 says something has broken and it's nothing to do with the schools.

Continuing to blame the schools or teachers or kids is just mindless denialism.


I didn't bother with the open days, having had a kid at Cambridge already but one of my others has done HE+ at Peterhouse this year and Oxford (Magdalen) has done little in comparison. But he says that ratio wasn't openly discussed by either of them.

Cambridge certainly do more to help less advantaged kids, one I know does Biology at Cambridge (even though Maths and Physics were his best subjects), just to avoid a Maths test at Cambridge, which he wasn't sure he'd pass. He knew he wanted to go to Cambridge so he switched subjects to get in.

My lad's in a very similar position, a Maths genius destined for A* in Maths and Further Maths but going for Oxford to duck the Cambridge test. It's very fine margins but a lad from his school got in to Cambridge to do Maths last year and the teachers have a fairly good idea of the level you have to be operating at and advise accordingly. That's at an average state comp/academy. (Their university advisory teacher is a graduate of North London Poly, something she kept quiet about til Corbyn came along!)

Maths is an easy example, of course, being objectively testable and the difference between the very, very best and the very best still noticeable.


You could try but locally, here, it would be a very weak argument.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


This is such a perfect example of what Bourdieu means by cultural capital I might have to use it in my sociology class (mentioning no names of course!). Normally I use the example of me dragging my kids around national trust properties, regardless of whether they are that into it or not, as my example but yours trumps it I think!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I teach 6th formers, including mentoring some through the UCAS process, and I've not seen anything about these courses. I'm sure I could Google something up, but it is genuinely a shortage of time very often that's stops you pushing on these issues as much as you would like.

In reply to TobyA:


Cultural capital? It's only through Laurie Taylor on R4 that I've even heard of Bourdieu!

In reply to winhill:

Is it not possible that Cambridge make offers but then you cannot get a place at a college, so you are still left high and dry.Whereas Oxford this may not happen as there are alot less offers?

You are in a different league to me with your experience.

In reply to neilh:

no - Oxford and Cambridge universities do not make the offers - it is the colleges.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Basically it's the idea that it is not just financial capital that enables children to succeed in the school system but accumulated cultural capital from their parents also. The school system is based on middle class cultural values and devalues working class culture. Hence the kids who get taken to museums, theatre, given Horrible History books to read have an advantage in school. Parents having been to elite universities themselves and knowing the system (and having dinner with the admissions officer!) also fits well in that idea. Bourdieu wasn't saying middle class values were "better" than working class ones (and he was writing in 1970s France), indeed I think he believed that working class culture valued solidarity, family allegiance etc. - all good stuff - but schools (as institutions of social control, legitimising and reproducing inequality) value middle class culture, hence "our" (thinking of what you, BnB and myself have said) children have advantages.

I would say that I don't actually have much financial capital. I'm in my third year as a teacher paying off the loan I took to qualify, my partner is a social worker, so we are both on lower rungs of the public sector pay scales. But we have oddles of cultural capital: my kids are bilingual, they've lived in two countries and visited many more. They've been taken to endless museums, science centers, historic sites (we are currently on hols in Sardinia and we are NOT LEAVING until we've visited some of the neolithic sites!). My oldest son is very into science and doing well at it. My mate who is a research group leader and Fellow of the Royal Society no less!, has said in the summer holidays, my lad can come down to Nottingham and do some work experience in the lab with his doctoral students - a brilliant opportunity that will make his uni applications much stronger. But he gets all of those advantages from my cultural capital, not his seemingly quite good aptitude for science.

Working class kids might well learn how to fix cars with dad, fish or even hunt in some regions, cook great food with mum and gran (yes, I'm aware of the gendered stereotypes!), all hugely useful skills but, Bourdieu would argue, not ones the school system values. I see lots of working class parents come and support their kids playing school football matches; my middle class/teacher values make me think why don't I see more of them on parents evening, but as a sociologist I suppose I know the answer!

In reply to TobyA:


You have now

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about/increasing-access/widening-access-and-participati...

In reply to neilh:


No, the opposite probably, Cambridge operate a pool where people rejected by their college of choice can be picked by any other college that hasn't filled all it's places.

At Oxford, as you probably know, you get interviewed by your prospective college and then have a second interview at a random college.

Which again points to the Oxford interview process as a possible problem.

In reply to winhill:


You can argue this both ways. For very bright but perhaps unconventional candidates (unusual background and schooling, mature students with relevant work and life experience, those with dyslexia) well-conducted interviews can be very helpful. Also for distinguishing the very bright who can solve problems on the spot or just 'see' the logical solution immediately. Many colleges would also argue that until this year's new A level grading scheme was introduced A* no longer really stretched the most able in some subjects (Maths, for instance).

Some colleges have a reputation for accepting interesting students on their merits rather than insisting on stellar A levels. Of course, knowing which ones is part of Toby's cultural capital point, and it is only reputation, I don't know whether the statistics bear it out.

In reply to Offwidth:

I have to echo the points jrck2 made. I came from a working class background, via a very average state comp, and read physics at Oxford. I've spent the best part of twenty years in education since then, both state and private, and my current work includes preparing applicants for their PAT papers and interviews, so I dare say I've seen this from more sides than most.

It is not Oxbridge's job to level out societal inequality. It's their job to pick the very very best from the pool of applicants. It's all very well saying that there are plenty of black candidates with AAA or better, but that's just a fairly minimal entry criterion. Imagine telling Mourinho that he has to better represent Mancunians in his side, and it'll be fine because there seem to be lots of kids from Manchester who are pretty handy with a football.

The quality of a university education isn't just about the teaching and facilities; it is, in part, down to the relative ability of the people on the courses. I am quite sure I could have learned just as much science by going to UCL or Durham, and in some aspects it may well have made me a better scientist. But the reason Oxford changed me was being placed in an environment where I was surrounded, day in and day out, by some of the brightest people I'd ever met. It made me get better. Any quota system is going to dilute that.

About 2.6% of UK applications are from black students, compared to 3.0% of the total population, so there is a substantial shortfall in applications. This seems largely due to black students underperforming at school; 11% of white students get AAA or better, while around 4% of black students achieve the same level.

And one statistic that's been almost completely overlooked: black students miss their offer grades far more than other groups. When you compare offer % to take-up %, for every other group there is a couple of percentage points difference, representing those who choose to go elsewhere (very few, post-offer) or miss their grades. For black african students, 16% of applicants get offers but 11% take them up. 25% of black caribbean applicants get offers but 15% actually take them up. This is indicative that black students are significantly underperforming compared to expectation in their A level exams.

There is a major problem here, and it needs attention, but it's not at the university level. David Lammy is succeeding only in focussing the attention in the wrong place.

The argument about applications being needed earlier in the year is a red herring. If these pupils are bright enough to cope with Oxbridge then they can get their UCAS forms done on time. It's the same for all courses that have significant pre-tests and interview processes - medical, vet med and dentistry courses are just the same.

The state/private split doesn't look terribly wrong to me. It's between 55% and 65% state educated in most RG universities. Bear in mind that 18% of all sixth formers are in independent schools, and that most of those schools are academically selective so would expect to send a higher percentage of their cohort to RG unis. Bear in mind also that most private schools actively poach from state schools by offering bursaries; during my time teaching in a state school, we frequently bemoaned the fact that we were surrounded by six independents, all of which would offer free places to our very best students, so about half of what should have been our top set was creamed off.

Yes, many independents are better at preparing their students for the aptitude tests and interviews - that is, in my opinion, one of the few things they are genuinely better at than the state sector (because by gods it's not the quality of the teaching). Some state schools are good at this and some are not; I've certainly been in state schools where there was no encouragement, and almost active discouragement, from applying to Oxbridge, from staff and peers. Oxford and Cambridge are working hard to help schools get better at preparing their students but it's up to the school to invite them in.

And the admissions tutors aren't morons. They can tell, very quickly, who has been immaculately prepared for interview. I utterly screwed up my first college interview - I was poorly prepared by my school, and froze like a rabbit in the headlights. I was duly packed off to another college for another go, and did reasonably well. Reading betwen the lines, I was given a place not wholly on the strength of my second interview but on the improvement I made between the two. And this was in the late nineties; things are rather better now.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Out of interest you say you are currently involved in helping candidates preparing for PAt tests etc.Where are you based? Is this private or state sector? Is it an affluent area or a deprived area?

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:


Actually, it strikes me there is another interpretation of this. Perhaps the unusually large proportion of black students missing their offer grades is due to admissions tutors (either consciously or subconsciously) making more speculative offers to slightly weaker black candidates. In effect, already applying the positive discrimination that Lammy is calling for.

Of course, if this is true (and I have no way of knowing if it is) then it's being scuppered by the fact that they're not hitting the A level grades they need. The only solution to this would be to selectively lower entrance grade requirements for black students. That's a terrible idea - it opens every black Oxbridge undergrad to the accusation that they only got in because they were black, and effectively devalues every black Oxbridge degree.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
If someone has the right grades from a disadvantaged background and the top Universities care about breaking down such disadvantages they should take them, not turn them away. You say its not Oxbridges' job to sort out systematic educational and socail problems but the institutions clearly don't agree as they are trying very hard to help in doing just that. Oxbridge has some of the best student support systems in the world and numbers are low and many students are so bright and confident they need little help so there is much capacity on the support side. They have a long history of flexibility in course movement to deal with students who dont quite fit. They are very experienced in dealing with many reasonably bright but far from exceptional students .... average intellect, hard- working posh kids with family history in the colleges have been around for a long time and always coped .(with much less intellect on average than many of those kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who had to overcome goodness knows how many hurdles to get top grades). Pretty much everyone there ends up with at least a 2.1 and there are very few fails in any years. Teaching at a good new University I have to try and deal with failure rates in the tens of percentages and students with massive mismatches to our courses (mainly due to BTEC structural problems for degree entry on technical courses) with about a third of the available staff.

Were you a different person in terms of intellectual promise at the first and second interview or were you proving my point that interviews just add another layer of pointless potential discrimination against disadvantaged kids.

In reply to neilh:

I'm freelance, based in Oxford itself. My clients are roughly evenly split private and state. Some are very wealthy; some aren't.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Go tell all those high acheiving black americans who just wouldnt be there without affirmative action they are second class citizens. I'm not even suggesting affirnative action.. just take all you can and stop pretending people who did get the grades are not capable based on interviews that are known to be flawed. It wasn't socialist dogma that drove affirmative action it was research evidence on unfair discriminatiin at all levels and liberal political and kegal pressures based on that. The modern evidence clearly shows that talent was being missed.

In reply to Offwidth:


Of course I wasn't a different person at the second interview. My point was that, at the first interview, the tutor saw that while I was bricking it, there was something in there worth pursuing, so I was pooled out for someone else to have another look.

At the time there were no A* grades, so without interview I was just yet another applicant with AAA predicted. How else were they to distinguish?

Even now, with the PAT to pre-filter before interviews in my area, it's surely better to interview and make judgements based on that than to simply take the very top PAT scores. That gives you the people who are best at taking tests, no more.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


The problem is that "solving problems on the spot" in an interview situation is very different from solving problems on the spot when alone and just thinking to oneself.

Doing well at interviews really does depend on social confidence and lots of factors other than academic ability, and -- just as with everything else -- depends to a large degree on having had previous practice at it.

I recall, ages ago, when I went for an Oxford interview, that I'd never previously been in anything resembling an interview situation in my life. I'd never been in a one-to-one tutoring situation (you don't get that in a state comp of 1250 pupils). I had, for example, never spoken to the headmaster of my school. As for practice interviews or anything like that, not a chance.

So I don't think I did at all well in the interviews. How would I be expected to, it being utterly alien to anything I'd previously experienced? (I got an offer of a place largely on the performance in the Oxford Entrance Exam, since exams were something I had had practice at.)

In contrast, independent schools will give a kid 6 practice interviews, with coaching and feedback between each one. And they'll have been in an environment where they do things like have tea with the headmaster since age 11 or so.

For such reasons I'm highly dubious that placing weight on interviews is at all fair to state-school applicants. Many state-school applicants will be naturally good at interviews and do fine, but many will not.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Free school meals is a pretty obvious indicator in the UK and there is lots more they could do if you look at research and the practical success of the US system. Nothing will ever be perfect but top UK universities could be a whole lot better. I also think 'inreach' is important... I was OK as a comp kid at Oxbridge despite it being rather intimidating but some kids do mistakenly feel like they really dont belong when they arrive and targetted help early on from people with similar backgrounds who did well would improve the performance problems this often leads to (currently too often written off as 'I guess they weren't really up to it'.).

In reply to Offwidth:

Coel, I agree with everything you say, but I think you are underestimating the degree to which admissions tutors can see through preparation. You and I are both state school applicants who got in despite interviewing not terribly well, and anecdotally I knew a lot of state school undergrads with similar recollections of their entrance experience; I think it contributes quite a lot to the feeling of not 'deserving' to be here that some state educated undergrads have. We all felt we squeaked in; the independently educated students felt it was a breeze.

Offwidth, I am not disagreeing that there is a massive, racist problem with education in this country. I'm just disagreeing that university is the right place to focus our efforts to fix it (and even if it was, it's by no means purely an Oxbridge problem - that's just what David Lammy is obsessed with).

In reply to Offwidth:

The moral maze covered this topic last night. Worth a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099ypqt

Interestingly it seems that Cambridge already employs algorithms to make "contextual adjustments" (I think that is the term) to offers.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Well if they see well enough to account for things like preparation how come so many below par rich kids get in. The only consistent answer is some admissions tutors must want that. I think they see less well than they think and some are biased to people like them and no one can see anything if the unprepared blank out (as you did)...I thought getting pooled was nothing to do with the first choice interview.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Cheers, will listen in later.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:


I would suggest you may have become part of the issue itself, I am not aware of anybody who provides freelance services to do what you are doing in the North-West.

if you do, can you let me know.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes, it has its limitations but its also a way of getting past the sort of exhaustive preparation that benefits some privately-educated candidates. Of course, it takes a smart interviewer to come up with the right sort of puzzle that the candidate won't have heard before, especially now.

I think it's somewhere in one of Peter Medawar's* books where he gives an example of one his Oxford interview questions. He had print of one of Modigliani's rather etiolated portraits. He would discuss the characteristically elongated feature and then comment that some people had suggested that this was evidence that Modigliani had a problem with his eyesight and that perhaps he really saw objects in this distorted way. Medawar's test was that if the candidate immediately objected that this was a ridiculous explanation then they were probably quite bright...

*Oxford immunologist from the lab where I was a grad student and a bit of a hero of mine.

In reply to Offwidth:

how come so many below par rich kids get in.


This.

This is your real gripe. You don't like 'rich kids' who in your opinion are 'below par' going to the best universities in the country and benefiting further from that environment, experience and name on their CV.

The admissions process is unarguably and unfixably imperfect, and you would like it to bias the underprivileged.

What you really want to do is remove any privilege or benefit individuals have in their early life before university.

Absurd and idiotic.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Well the USA in places like Harvard etc manage this extremely well, and if they can do it we surely can.

FFS if you do not know about the lack of social mobility in the UK then you want to open your eyes a bit.

In reply to neilh:




Of course I am aware of it. But I take significant issue with the idea that anything should be representative of demographics (gender, socioeconomic or otherwise.) So saying that x% this or that should be y% is a load of bollocks.
Take one of the posts above, the local private schools 'poach' the best pupils from the state schools by providing scholarships. Are those kids then record as state school or private as part of the university %? Why is there this idea that the system should bias against nuture, or even assume that nature makes the same bell curve of everything. Everyone isn't equal and life doesn't provide equal opportunity. Just get on with it. (and before anyone rants at me I sit firmly in the middle of 'life's opportunity' with others having both considerably less and considerably more)

In reply to neilh:
https://www.firsttutors.com/uk/tutor/joe.maths.physics.chemistry.biology.1/

That took me about 15 seconds on google. There will be hundreds.

I'm sorry, but you are not telling me that by offering reduced rate (and occasionally pro bono) mock interviews to local state school applicants I am part of the problem.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:


Can you explain the 6-1 Cambridge:Oxford difference in my LEA area?

In reply to ClimberEd:
What's absurd is such lazy emotive attacks on liberal meritocratic intentions. I want fairness in admissions and better support for those for whom coming into a college arrangement (similar to many public schools) is a bit more of a culture shock. I witnessed the opposite in my time but with clear intentions to improve and in a situation that had clearly been getting much better in the previous decade. Now we are going backwards again. Its not all Oxbridges' fault but they could help more. Its a simple fact that lots of less than outstandingly bright rich kids get in from public schools and cope quite well (its shows the bias in admissions and dispels the myth that taking small risks is a big performance worry). All the disadvantaged background kids who came through public schools did so on scholarships, they were all obviously very bright when they got to public school.

If Oxbridge took every qualified disadvantaged kid they could some less than outstanding rich kids would still get in (just down to subject support that is not available in most state schools). There are some very big differences college to college which also prove my point (eg Kings Cambride who do things very much better than many others)

In reply to Dave Garnett:


But this assumes that, provided one schemes up a puzzle that the candidate hasn't thought about before, then it is a level playing field between state and independent-school candidates.

It isn't, since the independent-school candidate still has a huge advantage in having had much more of that one-on-one style verbal interaction with teachers.

Again, at the time when I went to an Oxford interview, I'd have never previously been asked to answer such a puzzle *verbally*. I'd produce answers to such things in written form as homework or on exams.

In reply to winhill:


I don't know. What's the Cambridge:Oxford application ratio?

My best guess - not knowing at all what your LEA is - that there are a few schools with long standing links to one or more Cambridge colleges, so they tend to apply that way.

There were three reasons I applied to Oxford rather than Cambridge - the good one was that I preferred the idea of Physics over Nat Sci, but it was also because my school had sent several people to Oxford in the years above me and few (none?) to Cambridge. Oh, and Oxford was much closer.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:



The application figures seem hard to come by but 6:1? Really?

It's not reflected in my experience of local schools.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I thought Medawar's question was quite a good example of something that only required logical reasoning, independent of any prior knowledge but one's own experience. You either see immediately what the fallacy in the reasoning is, or you don't.

It does, I suppose, assume you have enough about you to speak up, but that's a given at interviews, surely? And this was quite a long time ago. In my experience, one things kids are definitely better at now is expressing themselves and presenting their opinions.

In reply to Offwidth:


Where do you get this from? Some students are more outstanding than others and I suppose some get lucky but I haven't come across too many obvious dimwits at either place, rich or otherwise.

In reply to winhill:


Without application data we're simply guessing. Where are you? Is this a long-term trend or a freak year?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


In my experience this isn't particularly hard. There seems to be remarkably little communication of classic interview questions down through the years. I regularly find that pupils, even from independents with history of sending pupils to Oxbridge, have never heard of Monty Hall, for example.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Who said anything about dimwits (although I did meet one or two of who looked to be towards that direction and the royal princes were arguably in that category with their poor grades despite excellent individual tuition). I'm talking about a good number of students who seemed to me nothing like as bright as the average there. Even the stats showed issues back then: everyone in my college on Nat Sci had at least 3 As and a top S level... others didn't. Kings next door had equally high standards and a bigger proportion of comp kids.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:


Not at all, there is a very, very slender chance that for some reason the area is a statistical anomaly and has 6 times the applicants to Cambridge but it's way out on a limb, a limb of denialism.

For many subjects, science, maths, computing the entry requirements are higher for Cambridge as well. Bear in mind even Cambridge is behind it's national average for offers too.

It was over a 5 year period according to the Lammy data.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
I found this interesting - I had never heard of PAT tests, so had absolutely no idea that there was a private sector industry preparing students to take them! I'm a teacher (although of Humanities/social science, not sciences) with a PhD, who had studied at 4 universities if you include my PGCE - I even got interviewed at Oxford although I didn't get in - yet I had never heard about these tests until reading about them here and googling.

In reply to TobyA:

likewise I'd never heard of them, despite having studied at 3 UK universities, including Oxford. When did they appear ?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Your recollection of your interview sounds similar to mine. My high school had sent kids to Oxbridge previously but not many and not every year, there was no institutional knowledge of how it all worked. I clearly remember reading about the college system in the Oxford prospectus and explaining it to one of my teachers who also didn't know that is how it worked. I applied to a college because it was big and I figured I'd have more chance of making friends, no one told me that was the most popular, hence difficult, college for PPE. The interview process itself was other worldly, I remember it being great fun as we were there for days and the bar served us! I met Americans which seemed hugely exotic and I remember desperately trying to chat up a girl who turned out to be the daughter of the Bangladeshi foreign minister or some such, she was at a Swiss finishing school - something I had only heard of in movies before. I'm comfortably middle class and had not had a tough upbringing, and I had already worked that out by 17, but still those days in Oxford were like nothing else I had experienced. I don't think I did terribly in the interviews, but I had never done anything like that before. The philosophy professor who interviewed me I remember particularly as being kind and seemed genuinely interested in my answers, but my philosophy preparation had been reading a book called Teach Yourself Philosophy that one of my teachers has brought in for me from his own bookshelf. I suspect other interviewees managed to produce more organised answers to my waffling!

In reply to Doug:

In their current form, as a really bloody hard test paper taken to filter applicants before deciding who to interview, in 2006. They really are tough (the average score is mid fifties, and generally low sixties will usually get you an interview). I think the MAT (maths) and BMAT (medical sciences) ones have been around longer than that.

I spend most of my time working with GCSE and A level clients, but at this time of year I get a sudden rush of people wanting help to prepare with the PAT. Of course, in a few weeks when the scores are released, I'll get another rush of schools and parents wanting mock interviews.

In reply to Doug:


I was vaguely aware of it.

Back when I applied (decades ago now) everyone did the Oxford Entrance Exams (I took papers in Physics, Maths and general essay-writing paper).

Then they decided that this was unfair to state-school kids (private schools would give special tutoring for these exams, whereas state-school kids didn't get that), so they dropped them and decided to go with only A-levels and interviews. (For the reasons above, I don't think this would have benefited kids like me from a state comp, even though that's what it was intended to do.)

Then it came about that grade As at A-level became much easier to get, and so straight-As no longer distinguished the Oxbridge-calibre student. So, Oxbridge entrance exams, in various guises, started creeping back in in various subjects.

In reply to ClimberEd:


You're right. It was walk in the park (South Parks actually).

In reply to Dave Garnett:

If they could climb I would certainly favour them. Unfortunately few did so I had to rely on more conventional methods. Remember that the choice of candidate usually involved several interviews. As my experienced colleague used to remind me when I first became a don, don't forget you've got to live with them for three years. Personality also counted. The end result was an interesting social, regional, sporting, and academic mix. And that seemed to be the pattern in most colleges from my experience of teaching special subjects across the whole faculty. But I do have a certain pride in being involved in selecting the first woman president of both the climbing and the caving clubs at Oxford and of course there was a Prime Minister who managed to slip in somehow. However, all that was a long time ago. Doubtless things have changed for the better now.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham & Coel

So relatively new

I sat the Oxford entrance exams in 1975, I think the 3rd year Sixth at my state grammar school had about 10 students including a couple who transferred from other state sixth forms. I think about half got places. But I do remember one friend who went on to be a professor of maths failing to get into Cambridge as he couldn't pass French O level despite sitting the exam at least 5 times.

In reply to Doug:


But I do remember one friend who went on to be a professor of maths failing to get into Cambridge as he couldn't pass French O level despite sitting the exam at least 5 times.
>
I bet he voted brexit

In reply to Postmanpat:



Unfortunately I lost contact with him many years ago, last I heard he was teaching in an Irish university so maybe he didn't vote brexit

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Pretty sure I got Monty Hall in one of my interviews!

In reply to jrck2:


Must be an Oxford thing. Certainly it was what passed for banter the one and only time I was on High Table at Pembroke.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Is that a big flat-topped limestone sea stack?

In reply to Robert Durran:


It should be - that's where I'd rather have been!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

An Oxbridge thing... I was at Cambridge.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Great overview - the mind blank happened to me on my postgrad oral exam - an awful feeling, the proverbial deer in the headlights. Or more possibly a rabbit in my case.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

My lasting memory of Pembroke College is two drunk professors playing combat lawn bowling (presumably that is what it mist have been) around lunch.

The rules apparently have the defending team running for the trees or other cover, as the bowling team stumble across the lawn, trying to mow down as many flower beds, potted plants, and undergrads as they can before they either lose their bowling balls or it is time for another drink.

Bizarre doesn't even start to describe the scene!


CB