The Student Room Group

Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by LlamaLikeEllie

It used to be that you could go to a grammar no matter your background, as long as you were willing to work hard, and were smart. Now smart kids who still want the best for themselves can't go to grammars due to their family's income, which is completely unfair.


What does family income have to do with grammar schools? The reason most people can't go to grammars now is that demand far outstrips supply.
Original post by J-SP
Did you go to a private school? If so, you have been tutored much more thoroughly and in smaller class sizes than your state school counterpart.

I hear parents who send their kids to the big name private schools feeling pressured to get the kids tutored for the 11+/entrance exams, and then again for GCSEs, because it has become the norm. Some parents take on the responsibility themselves or pay for access to online courses.

But it isn't just that kind of extreme additional support they get. If you have your own phone that's paid for by the bank of mum and dad, your own laptop, and a good wifi connection, you have constantly individual access to various learning opportunities. Those at the other end of the spectrum are more likely to have limited access to these things, typically through borrowed resources from public services, or restricted data allowances on mobile phones. Their basic ability to educate themselves is far more restricted than someone who basically can afford to pay for the same access.

The point made above about being around peers who encourage you is also a very good one though. If you are constantly encouraged rather than discouraged, whether it be by teachers, parents or peers, you start believing in your ability (and sometimes far too much so).


I went to my local primary school (which wasn't great) because my mum didn't want me to be forced to be super academic if it wasn't what I would end up as naturally and then struggle along, had no tutoring for the 11+, got in and am still at the grammar school in year 13. It starts at primary school, because I had some teachers in my years there who didn't really make me want to do anything. I'm very lucky to have passed the 11+ without being tutored to the exam, and actually a lot of those who were tutored don't do as well as some people who were not. Now uni applications have started, a lot of those who have applied to Oxbridge and have the best chances (in my opinion) are a lot of those who just had the encouragement, and not the large amounts of tutoring that some others did.
Original post by J-SP
You are lucky to be in a LEA that offers the 11+. These are namely areas of much higher wealth, and obviously where there are numerous grammer schools to support the system. Many in poorer areas won't even get the opportunity you were provided with.

So imagine how badly those people who were tutored would have done without being tutored? There is obviosuly a raw ability here, you had that raw ability over your fellow students who were tutored. But there will be plenty whose raw ability is much worse than yours but has been managed through a system of tutoring.


It's definitely wrong that not everyone has access to it, but grammar schools have the potential to help students who have the raw ability if they live in an area that provides it. Seeing people go through it and do well is very rewarding for all of the teachers and even fellow students who may have helped them, and getting rid of them is not (in my opinion) the way to put everyone on an equal playing field and make top universities including Oxbridge more accessible, despite what many people said when the government set out their plans to create more grammar schools. There was already a huge change to the 11+ to try and reduce the amount that tutoring can help, but tutors have already caught up with it. Not sure what else can be done to 'fix' the system, which is really unfortunate.
Original post by Duncan2012
What does family income have to do with grammar schools? The reason most people can't go to grammars now is that demand far outstrips supply.


While grammars are based on so-called natural academic ability, an academic mind is a taught mind. Having a stable family environment, parents who are university educated, is going to put you at an advantage over someone from a single-parent household and whose mother is on the dole.

The idea that grammars are therefore meritocratic or egalitarian is a little misconceived.
Original post by J-SP
Even for many who have the opportunity to take an 11+, the actual ability to attend the school may also be impossible. Families are priced out of living near grammar schools where house and rent prices go up purely because there is a grammar school nearby! So they don't bother with the 11+ because there's no way their child can get to and from school safely/quickly without the parent having to take time away from work, and potentially earn less. Given that admissions to 11+ are not just based on the results, but will also take into factors such as geographical proximity, preference for those with siblings at the school, religous preference in some cases, it is not just someone's ability on the 11+ that will get them into that school.

In England there are less than 170 secondary grammar schools out of 3,000+ schools. A disproportionate of these grammar schools are in areas of higher wealth, or in city centres. Grammar schools are ultimately for the few. They either need to be abolished entirely, or rolled out consistently to provide equal opportunity for everyone. Otherwise, unfortunatley they just will increase the social mobility gap, even if their intentions are to reduce it.

Attachment not found


It's interesting to see that although there is some correlation between this map and the map of Oxbridge offers, it's not as large as you'd expect. I do wish that grammars could be rolled out to more people, but our country obviously has bigger problems to deal with right now :tongue:
Original post by J-SP
You are lucky to be in a LEA that offers the 11+. These are namely areas of much higher wealth, and obviously where there are numerous grammer schools to support the system. .


Nonsense! How do you explain the fact that Kent and Lincolnshire, both with a grammar school system are relatively badly represented at Oxbridge?


Original post by J-SP
I would expect that to be even more damning


It is interesting that you are prepared to judge based on evidence that isn't there, and even draw a conclusion from the evidence that isn't there.
Original post by FloralHybrid
It's because the top two social classes achieve the best results. That's it. If a student wants to work hard enough individually to go to Oxbridge, they are more than capable of doing so. But, in a world in which some parents pay a **** ton for their child's education - Those students are pushed to perfect the exam system. Its not about Oxbridge being "inaccessible" to everyone.


Oxbridge also practises an interview system which further filters and additional pre-entry tests for many subjects. So we have to look at those as well as just raw A Level results. Colleges generally claim now that it's harder for privileged parents and schools to game the interview system with all the additional coaching, interview training and so on, but I think it's fair to say that the evidence remains against that. However, there is also just the basic question of who applies to Oxbridge - cultural barriers against applying are strong in many less privileged schools and areas. Then we have the outreach practised by Oxbridge, which is heavily focused on schools that 'typically' send students there way and these in the main are upper-tier grammars and the like, full of privileged students.
And perhaps genes have something to do with it?

Smart parents earn more money and move to expensive areas in London and SE.

And smart parents produce smart children who get Oxbridge offers?
It's similar with every good uni
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
While grammars are based on so-called natural academic ability, an academic mind is a taught mind. Having a stable family environment, parents who are university educated, is going to put you at an advantage over someone from a single-parent household and whose mother is on the dole.

The idea that grammars are therefore meritocratic or egalitarian is a little misconceived.


That and the preparation for the interview, etc, that is offered at the best schools.
Original post by J-SP
Someone doesn't understand how genetics work, nor how wealth can be gained.


Intelligence is passed on, with offspring averaging an IQ closer to the population average than the parents' IQ. This means that the offspring of intelligent parents are more likely to have high intelligence. Successful, high IQ people tend to marry and have children with other successful, high IQ people.
Original post by J-SP
Someone doesn't understand how genetics work, nor how wealth can be gained.


Isn't the poster you're responding to a university lecturer who has an undergrad degree in biology?
Original post by J-SP
That doesn't really mean they are more "able" it just means they are more coached. Their potential has been managed far more thoroughly and carefully through private tutition, whether it be through schools or personal tutors. They have been pushed through a system and fast-tracked. Those who haven't had that advantage aren't any less able, their potential just hasn't been facilitated yet.


Yes, that's completely right. General rules don't apply to everyone.
There are two reasons why students don't get into Oxbridge. Poor work ethic and limited ability.

It is no surprise that children from poor backgrounds fail to get into Oxbridge. They come from genetically limited stock and grow up in a culture that hates hard work. It is also no surprise that the majority of students from wealthy backgrounds and attending private schools don't get into Oxbridge. They lack the ability. Private schooling can't overcome their limitations.

We live in a resentful society where successful people receive hate for their success. We need to stop the talk of unfairness and inequality and just accept that those that get into Oxbridge are intelkecriwlky superior to students at other universities. No matter how envious you get, you can not get away from that truism.
Original post by J-SP
Intelligence is more likely to be passed on, but doesn't mean it is. It is often more nuture than nature that increases its chances of being "passed on".

High IQ does not equate to wealth. There are plenty of people who earn their wealth via means that does not require a high IQ level.


The question is it it correlates with wealth though.

However, it is a bit superficial to suggest that Oxbridge takes in people according to IQ. Academic ability =/= high IQ, again it correlates but it is not equated. There are plenty of people, especially in the past, who got into Oxbridge because they've been given 1:1 academic support from their school masters who were past fellows of All Souls' (hence do well in exams) and been trained to write their PS and perform well in Oxbridge interviews (hence do well in Oxbridge admission assessments). As well as being given the luxury of performing "exceptional" extracurricular activities because of their parent/school's influence. While this is still true, Oxbridge are wise to it and (it is suggested by some) perform "positive discrimination" against old boys.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
Intelligence is passed on, with offspring averaging an IQ closer to the population average than the parents' IQ. This means that the offspring of intelligent parents are more likely to have high intelligence. Successful, high IQ people tend to marry and have children with other successful, high IQ people.


...with offspring averaging an IQ closer to the population average than the parents' IQ. This means that the offspring of intelligent parents are more likely to have high intelligence ...

If the IQ is closer to the population average then why would the offspring of intelligent parents have high intelligence?:s-smilie:
Original post by J-SP
Someone doesn't understand how genetics work, nor how wealth can be gained.


Is there a correlation between IQ and wealth?

Is there a correlation between parental and child IQ?

Is IQ heritable?
Original post by J-SP
Did you go to a private school? If so, you have been tutored much more thoroughly and in smaller class sizes than your state school counterpart.


You would be VERY wrong indeed to assume that the only thing affecting students nowadays is their class size. There are so many variables in play that it is grossly unfair to compensate for one inequality or unfairness but not compensate for another. And not all inequalities qualify as special extenuating circumstances.
Original post by J-SP
Intelligence is more likely to be passed on, but doesn't mean it is. It is often more nuture than nature that increases its chances of being "passed on".

High IQ does not equate to wealth. There are plenty of people who earn their wealth via means that does not require a high IQ level.


Of course, but it certainly explains why the offspring of successful people do well.
I thought it being inaccessible to the point of insanity was kind of the point?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending