Poorest pupils &#x27;55 times less likely to go to Oxbridge

eugh, this whole discussion annoys me every time.

ive lived on a council estate all my life, went to a crappy high school and go to the local state sixth form which is decent. i had free school meals in primary school and have always been entitled to them but i took packed lunch all through high school because of some comments made in primary school about free school meals.

i applied to cambridge with 5 A* prediction (having already achieved one in maths). i never once felt like i was being discriminated against. it was completely fair - my interview was as tough as any oxbridge interview and at no point was i made to feel out of place because of my background.

i got an offer.

i wish people would criticize the system which produces the candidates when its not the unis fault that the best people applying to them usually come from public schools.

i also wish that state school students who got rejected would stop blaming their background and accept that it is possible to get into oxbridge regardless of your background.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 46

Original post by RK92

eugh, this whole discussion annoys me every time.

ive lived on a council estate all my life, went to a crappy high school and go to the local state sixth form which is decent. i had free school meals in primary school and have always been entitled to them but i took packed lunch all through high school because of some comments made in primary school about free school meals.

i applied to cambridge with 5 A* prediction (having already achieved one in maths). i never once felt like i was being discriminated against. it was completely fair - my interview was as tough as any oxbridge interview and at no point was i made to feel out of place because of my background.

i got an offer.

i wish people would criticize the system which produces the candidates when its not the unis fault that the best people applying to them usually come from public schools.

i also wish that state school students who got rejected would stop blaming their background and accept that it is possible to get into oxbridge regardless of your background.

I agree with you on the whole, except for the end part.

I agree the 'blame' part and excuses need to stop. If you have grown up in a deprived area, live with it, nobody is going to come and do miracles for you - you have to work hard.

However, I will concede people from different backgrounds have to put in a different amounts of work to get to certain places in life. I definately think someone from a working class background will have to put in a lot more effort to get an offer from Cambridge/Oxford, than say somebody who has been privately educated from a young age.

As I said in my earlier post, this isn't because Oxbridge discriminate or treat people unfairly. It is because you are at a different starting position. It requires more work, the correct help and advice isn't there for you on a plate. You have to go out and get it.

Half the people I've grown up with don't even know anything AT ALL about University, the different courses, careers etc. They are illiterate beyond belief and unfortunately - they are the majority (or so it seems on most days :tongue:

). So I think people from your background deserve the extra praise, conversely though, people who didn't get in shouldn't blame the Universities for their own inadequacies.

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that its not even the inadequacies of the application sometimes. Competition is very high for a place at Oxford or Cambridge. There are people who have 3-4 As at A2, a very strong overall application, who come from a rich background and still they get rejected.

Its not the end of the world.

Reply 47

Original post by Steph90

I agree with you on the whole, except for the end part.

I agree the 'blame' part and excuses need to stop. If you have grown up in a deprived area, live with it, nobody is going to come and do miracles for you - you have to work hard.

However, I will concede people from different backgrounds have to put in a different amounts of work to get to certain places in life. I definately think someone from a working class background will have to put in a lot more effort to get an offer from Cambridge/Oxford, than say somebody who has been privately educated from a young age.

As I said in my earlier post, this isn't because Oxbridge discriminate or treat people unfairly. It is because you are at a different starting position. It requires more work, the correct help and advice isn't there for you on a plate. You have to go out and get it.

Half the people I've grown up with don't even know anything AT ALL about University, the different courses, careers etc. They are illiterate beyond belief and unfortunately - they are the majority (or so it seems on most days :tongue:

). So I think people from your background deserve the extra praise, conversely though, people who didn't get in shouldn't blame the Universities for their own inadequacies.

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that its not even the inadequacies of the application sometimes. Competition is very high for a place at Oxford or Cambridge. There are people who have 3-4 As at A2, a very strong overall application, who come from a rich background and still they get rejected.

Its not the end of the world.

i agree, what you have said is absolutely true. personally, i dont think its fair to expect oxbridge to drop their standards because of the imbalance in the education system. i dont like the fact that maybe people from poorer backgrounds do have to work a little harder, but i dont agree with the constant oxbridge-bashing that goes on and im not convinced that oxford and cambridge are somehow morally obliged to positively discriminate.

also, im sure i heard that cambridge consider the high school you got your GCSEs at and scale up your scores to account for lower performace? im pretty sure they dont see someone with 2 A*s at gcse and instantly reject them seeing as my friend has an oxford offer with those grades..

Reply 48

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/handbook/section2/2_6.html

aha, there we go. cambridge systematically considers your GCSE score taking into account your high schools typical performance.

Reply 49

Original post by RK92

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/handbook/section2/2_6.html

aha, there we go. cambridge systematically considers your GCSE score taking into account your high schools typical performance.

wow, maybe I should have applied.

My high school's pass rate (A* - C) was less than 15% consistently for 4-5 years.

But more to the point, this disproves a lot of the rubbish people spread about the more prestigious institutions (or Cambridge at the very least).

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 50

Hem

Original post by Steph90

Its not the 'gap' that is important.

The Labour Party always refers to the 'gap' between rich and poor; but it actually widened to record levels under their government.

Its not the gap that is important in these things. Its about bringing up the level of education recieved at the very bottom of society. That is where the focus should be in my opinion.

I for one don't care if the gap remains. If the gap was to be closed - it would rely on atleast one of two things:
1) That the top institutions - across the board - slow down in progress; or
2) That the top institutions - across the board - completely halt in any progress.

Both would be extremely bad for the country.

I'm not some tory toff - but Labour is much worse for poorer people than the tories are.

"You'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich aren't any richer." - or words to that effect were uttered by Margaret Thatcher. That is exactly what modern day socialism is (and probably was from the start). Fuelled by the lies and propaganda spread by Gordon Brown and Co.

*awaits the neg rep* lol.

I disagree, a lot more could be done to help fund those schools which are under-achieving, primary schools aswell as high school. Im attending an under-achieving school and it has now been turned into an academy...even worse. I think instead of spending £120,000 on a new head teacher which all staff and students hate, it would have been better to invest in 2 or 3 teachers to support the students more and help them achieve higher grades, giving them that extra push and time which those in private schools get. Although I do agree that Labour were not much help either, but even still I prefer them to Tories...maybe because Im a working class guy :colondollar:

Reply 51

Original post by Steph90

wow, maybe I should have applied.

My high school's pass rate (A* - C) was less than 15% consistently for 4-5 years.

But more to the point, this disproves a lot of the rubbish people spread about the more prestigious institutions (or Cambridge at the very least).

yeah, i was hesitant about oxbridge because i really believed a lot of the "snobby" stereotypes thrown about. i was talked into applying by my maths teacher when they gave me a few bits of advice about the whole system (and basically told me that i was the sort of person who would benefit from the way oxbridge does things)

also, cambridge give out ridiculous bursaries to its students. as someone from an incredibly poor family, i will receive a bursary from cambridge of £3400 a year.
basically, the money i will receive will be:
£3497 maintenance loan to be repaid after graduating
£2906 maintenance grant
£3400 bursary from the uni
totalling £9803 to live off a year... the bursary is down to cambridge being pretty damn generous to poorer students, obviously because they are such an elitist institution, right? :tongue:

they give plenty of monetary incentive to apply, they account for school performance when assessing gcse scores and they really dont discriminate from my experiences with interviewers... so tbh i think the claims of public school bias are bull****.

i really think that all poor students should just give it a go, its one choice on ucas and its worth a shot.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 52

Original post by Hem

I disagree, a lot more could be done to help fund those schools which are under-achieving, primary schools aswell as high school. Im attending an under-achieving school and it has now been turned into an academy...even worse. I think instead of spending £120,000 on a new head teacher which all staff and students hate, it would have been better to invest in 2 or 3 teachers to support the students more and help them achieve higher grades, giving them that extra push and time which those in private schools get. Although I do agree that Labour were not much help either, but even still I prefer them to Tories...maybe because Im a working class guy :colondollar:

Lol, I'm working class too. But its all a misconception in my opinion that the Labour party is better for our demographic. They have spread this lie for so long, its seems to be considered the truth wherever I turn. But that is for another thread..

I was stating that same as you essentially, more investment needs to be put into the poorer schools to improove their performance. Not doing the opposite, by hindering the progress of some of the best universities in the world.

People in the UK need to realise that we are now competing on a global scale in almost everything, no less in Education. We need to keep on supporting the improvement and progress of our better educational institutions but at the same time, helping to improve the grass roots in the poorer parts. Its a big task overall I think, like I said before, its not something money can simply be thrown at. It requires a lot more than that. Hopefully the government, local government and the schools/colleges themselves will make the right decisions over the next few years to make a real difference.

Reply 53

Original post by RK92

yeah, i was hesitant about oxbridge because i really believed a lot of the "snobby" stereotypes thrown about. i was talked into applying by my maths teacher when they gave me a few bits of advice about the whole system (and basically told me that i was the sort of person who would benefit from the way oxbridge does things)

also, cambridge give out ridiculous bursaries to its students. as someone from an incredibly poor family, i will receive a bursary from cambridge of £3400 a year.
basically, the money i will receive will be:
£3497 maintenance loan to be repaid after graduating
£2906 maintenance grant
£3400 bursary from the uni
totalling £9803 to live off a year... the bursary is down to cambridge being pretty damn generous to poorer students, obviously because they are such an elitist institution, right? :tongue:

they give plenty of monetary incentive to apply, they account for school performance when assessing gcse scores and they really dont discriminate from my experiences with interviewers... so tbh i think the claims of public school bias are bull****.

i really think that all poor students should just give it a go, its one choice on ucas and its worth a shot.

Wow, sounds good :smile:

Are you starting this coming september or are you already in your first year? What course are you doing/planning to do?

Good luck anyway.

Reply 54

TsarinaMeg

7

sad, but true. Even when a child from a fairly average-income family actually is offered a place, and works full-time and over-time during their gap year and STILL can only just about scrape a year's fees... it's tough :frown:

Reply 55

Original post by Steph90

Wow, sounds good :smile:

Are you starting this coming september or are you already in your first year? What course are you doing/planning to do?

Good luck anyway.

yeah, i get a bit irritated by these sorts of topics because i feel like if i make it through the degree and graduate then have cambridge on my cv, some people will sterotype me as being some sort of snob :s-smilie:

im upper 6th at the moment and have an offer to start studying physnatsci (with the intention of becoming a physicist unless i discover a passion for materials science or chem :s-smilie:

)in september/october (whenever the term starts :tongue:

)

thanks a lot, same to you! :smile:

Reply 56

akash11

Just impliment a nation wide intelligence tets for all uni applicants in year 12 it will make the system much more eglatarnisim

Reply 57

Original post by akash11

Just impliment a nation wide intelligence tets for all uni applicants in year 12 it will make the system much more eglatarnisim

another test which public school students will be better prepared for? great plan :rolleyes

also, it wouldnt change the fact that public students do better in a levels which are a prerequisite to going to uni. being able to do iq tests doesnt give you the subject knowledge which a levels do (although a levels could do this a lot better).

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 58

akash11