"Oxbridge takes fewer state school pupils"

My main point, I suppose, is that there IS still a problem. I believe that the percentage of state school and private school students that recieve offers should relate to the amount of state and private school students in the UK, not that apply.

Oh and this is different from what you say because you assume that achievers aren't clustered in private schools - I on the other hand am assuming they are - I'm not saying that is a good or a bad thing, just that you must take it into account if you want to be fair.

I disagree. I would say that
1) the ratio of applicants private/state should be the same as the ratio of (predicted) AAA-achievers private/state and
2) the ratio of offers private/state should be the same as the ratio of applicants private/state.

Apparently point 2) is already the case. Oxford/Cambridge don't have much influence over 1).

Oh and this is different from what you say because you assume that achievers aren't clustered in private schools - I on the other hand am assuming they are - I'm not saying that is a good or a bad thing, just that you must take it into account if you want to be fair.

A student who achieves AAA at a state school has most likely worked harder than a student who achieves AAA at a private school.

A student who achieves AAA at a state school has most likely worked harder than a student who achieves AAA at a private school. Shouldn't these students be rewarded for their effort? Is it fair that they suffer to achieve good grades because their parents weren't economically stable enough to finance a private school education?

I get the impression that most people posting have either attended private/good state schools. I urge anyone that holds the view "oh, AAA is AAA, state school or private" to research or perhaps even visit some of the worst state schools in the UK. Having attended one for a brief time, I can quite confidently say that it is almost impossible to achieve an AAA there, and anyone who does so most certainly deserves a place at Oxbridge.

Is the education system not about enforcing social mobility? About giving an equal chance to all students, and allowing those from poverty stricken backgrounds the ability to shine?

Of course, this is not a black and white area - I believe that careful consideration should be extended to all applications, concerning the reputation and standard of the school they studied at, and judgments should be made accordingly.

I think the issue of potential is complicated as well- while Oxbridge should be looking for that as well as achievement, it's pretty difficult to measure. I think that possibly, after a point, it's also irrelevant. You don't just need AAA to get in, a lot of the time you need significant knowledge of/interest in your subject beyond the A level syllabus as well (not that everyone at Oxbridge found A levels really easy or anything, but A level mark schemes are so specific that it's possible to do the necessary without going anywhere near the kind of thing Oxbridge require). If someone has been really appallingly disadvantaged, gone to a terrible state school, and not had any guidance from teachers or parents of what extra reading they should be doing or that they even need to go outside the syllabus, they may, despite the fact that they have admirably got decent A level results in difficult circumstances, be too far academically behind by that point to realistically be able to cope with the course (at least initially).
Of course some people are bright enough to catch up, but personally I found, even having been to a good state school, that the gap between expectations at A level and the very minimum at Oxford was so large that I would definitely have struggled without the outside-syllabus guidance I had before I got there. Maybe I'm substandard and should never have got in in the first place, but I think there's only so much the tutors can do with potential in the amount of time they have, without altering the course. Also, while they may (and should) make allowances for disadvantage in the admissions process, once you're in I suspect that the allowances don't last that long. So I'm sure state school pupils of great ability and potential are losing out unfairly, but as has been mentioned, they are casualties of the system long before university entrance and Oxbridge can't offset such deep-seated inequalities, only take them into consideration.

I understand what you're saying completely, but I think that it really depends on one's tutor. I'm academically far behind my tute partners (partly because of my school but also because I've always struggled with the options that appeared in the first year course) and this has been reflected in pretty much everything I've done (including exam results: I passed but haven't done as well as I'd hoped). I wouldn't say allowances have been made for me and I haven't coped particularly well with the course this year, but my tutors (or at least two out of the three main ones) have worked extremely hard to get me to the same standard as the other two, splitting the group up to give me individual tutorials, etc. They seem to think I have the potential, so they've worked hard to help me reach it.

That said, I'm not sure all tutors would bother

I should clarify that I was really thinking about the most extreme cases of disadvantage when I suggested that it might lead to an inability to cope with the course- I suppose I think it's a matter of degree, while the achievements of each applicant should be placed in context, I just think there's a level which probably has to have been reached, and if it hasn't, it will just make things much much harder for the student. There's little point in the admissions system being considerably more flexible than the actual course and exam system (though there is room for more flexibility). But the current situation is a long way from giving offers to people who won't be able to cope because their education has been inadequate, I think Oxbridge probably needs to be bolder in increasing access. There are just practical problems with contextualising achievement totally, as some people have suggested.

You're absolutely right that it depends on the tutors though, and I was speculating wildly and unfairly how they might respond to a state school pupil judged to have potential. I'm sure, as well, that it can vary from subject to subject, I'm definitely not qualified to talk about any apart from my own. I'm quite heartened by your experience, actually, as although my tutors were very good in their way, if anyone had particular problems their advice did tend to be of the "Well, you should pull your socks up, then" variety.

Surely the people at private schools would have MORE money for drugs?