Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?

I think to some extent it's articles like the one in the BBC and the comments on it on Facebook that put people off from applying - it really does my nut in! I'm working class, disabled, went to a failing school and got into both Oxford and Cambridge because I didn't let myself be deterred by some kind of perceived cultural difference (so what if I speak like a chav? so what if my mum worked in tesco? doesn't mean I couldn't do just as well academically!) and because I had the initiative to research the admissions process and criteria (+ extenuating circumstances form) myself rather than helplessly viewing it as an insurmountable hurdle. TSR was actually useful for that incidentally So basically I think it comes down to whether students take the initiative or not - and if they don't they probably wouldn't do very well at Oxbridge anyway.

Yes. You absolutely can. And many do.

But my point still stands - As a general rule, those from higher social background tend to be more academically able, because of how they're taught to nail the exams.

I agree it's a shame that motivation comes from parents though.

But at the end of the day, Oxbridge pick the best applicants.

So the BBC should stop reporting on this? That's your solution?

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.

Yes, totally agree. People should be hanging around and working with other ambitious people to help themselves. Schools, particularly comprehensives, should set up something like a G and T group that brings them together. That'd be a good idea.




Yeah you're right, I think making more info publicly accessible would just be start and will still help.

The onus is on the school to help kids understand exactly what they need to know. As someone going to a public school and applying to unis for 2018 entry, I have often helped out lots of prospective oxbridge applicants with what they need to do etc etc. That's not because im cocky, but because I use this site and it's given me a lot of info. Our school doesnt get many oxbridge students in (albeit more than most schools, about 6 every year). A good example is a pupil who did not know that the TSA for oxbridge is similar to critical thinking.

I also think maths is a bit of an outlier due to the nature of the subject

Until I got to uni I didn't even know grammar schools still existed, I thought they were like something in Enid Blyton books So I think the reason most people don't go is because there isn't one nearby? Then again, until I got to uni I thought everyone went to the nearest school and that doesn't seem to be the case either

Yeah, it was definitely one of the more interesting discoveries when I went to Cambridge. Specifically chose Churchill on the basis that it had a higher state school %age than anywhere else, and then when I got there, discovered "yeah, but nearly every state student went to a grammar school". I really didn't expect the comp school %age to be as small as it was.

That said, (as I'm sure you'd agree, looking at your previous posts) people shouldn't let it put them off - I still found it a welcoming environment, I had no difficulty making friends etc.

Absolutely - there was nobody I didn't find to be reasonably normal (in the sense of not posh, plenty of people weird in other ways )

I think it is also worth noting that perhaps the children who do better in exams who are from a more privileged background may do better simply because they are more intelligent.
This is not to say that those from poorer backgrounds are unintelligent and I am aware of other factors such as private tuition and unequal opportunities. However, statistically speaking, if someone is privileged it is because their parents have done well financially due to their own intelligence. Therefore there are many cases in which the intelligence is passed on.
Of course this is not true in all cases, but it is worth noting.

Funnily, there was someone in my year who was worried people would think he was posh, so he adopted a fake cockney accent, and his parents were so horrified they sent him to elocution lessons [

That also raises another point - they should break down the statistics by course and not just by college. I think the sciences and maths are much more evenly balanced than MML (my subject), classics, land economy etc.

Oxford's stats have that breakdown:

https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissions2/AcceptanceRate?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=yes&%3AshowTabs=y&%3AshowVizHome=no

Didn't an AT point out that students from disadvantaged backgrounds disproportionately applied for the most popular courses?

Yeah in a way the bbc are just discouraging people from applying by making it seem really elitist.

Yes. So I'd expect medicine, engineering and maybe maths to have a higher proportion of state schooled students.


Posted from TSR Mobile

And that's often down to people telling them aren't good enough. In contrast, people who maybe aren't so capable are frequently told they should go for it.

I hate to think about how much underachievement (and over achievement) happens and the wasted potential out there.

Also is it true that one who got 11 A* for instance in a normal state school compared to a student in a grammar school would have a slight advantage in Oxbridge for instance? I just heard that somewhere and wanted to clarify

No, the BBC should stop sensationalising it - the headline on FB replaced 'more elitist' with 'posher'. They also barely mention the fact that they get fewer applications from the underrepresented areas, and then they have a video with a caption implying once again that Oxbridge isn't for 'people like me' basically, when there is no 'type' that can get into Oxbridge, people from any background can, and it's this constructed divide that puts people off!