Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?

It isn't just at schools. I have seen the same thing happen at universities for those then seeking a "prestigious" career path. One of the most frustrating parts of my job in the past was listening to people telling me they weren't good enough when I knew that there was a significant chance they were wrong.

Its why I stress to people that it is that factor that is the true reason why you should go to a reputable university. You are far more likely to be around those who will encourage you and tell you you are able to aim that high (or often that you could actually aim higher).

Some people will get there of their own initiative and will fight against being told they are not good enough or will aspire to get there without the support of those around them. But there's far too many who will give up because they are told they should be people they respect and trust.

Not just in school or university, but in life generally. I've spent parts of my week trying to convince some people that they are amazing and capable of so many things in life. But they insist that they aren't and don't value themselves as they should. I think we may be touching upon wider issues than confined to this debate or even educational debate, but at least we're having these conversations.

Get the grades. Succeed on the admissions tests. Perform well during the interview. Get in.

Don't expect special provisions because of your socioeconomic background. That's not meritocracy.

There's no question that in our class-based society, the privileged tend to overestimate how good, useful and meritorious they are (and society tends to reward their overestimates) whilst those from the lower levels of society underestimate them and are confirmed by society in their underestimates.

Can I ask, were you actively encouraged by those around you or did you get told you wouldn't be up for it?

Oxford's stats have that breakdown:

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

That's news for you.

But to blame sensationalist news for the reason fewer poorer people get into Oxbridge is easily one of the dumbest arguments here.

Get the grades. Succeed on the admissions tests. Perform well during the interview. Get in.

Don't expect special provisions because of your socioeconomic background. That's not meritocracy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41664459
...OK, so I've hardly come up with Fermat's Last Theorem there, but according to FOI data acquired by David Lammy (a Labour MP), Oxford and Cambridge are understood to be mostly sending offers to the more well-off regions of England (mostly southern, some northern - about half of ALL offers go to those in London and the south-east). Around 80% of applicants are also understood to be in the top two social classes.

Point of consideration: Is Oxbridge really turning more inaccessible, is this a case of same-old-same-old, or is this just a quirk in the system?

You are the god of statistics! So classics, E&M, history & Russian, history of art, materials science, MML, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian, PPL, philosophy & theology seem to be the worst culprits in terms of actually receiving more applications from privately educated students than state-schooled ones. Materials and E&M surprised me there, I have to say (classics, Sanskrit, theology etc are somewhat more to be expected...)

Yes, no huge surprises really. E&M is seen as a route to IB, and perhaps so is Materials (some might say it's not a typical choice for an engineering career).

Which courses had the lowest private school rate?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Say Pupil A is the child of two consultants. They go to a private school where people often go on to study at Oxford/Cambridge and teachers who know how to help them prepare for interviews/extrance exams; they're are able to afford a private tutor if needed; their parents push them to achieve highly. When it comes to university interviews, they're not completely thrown by the questions because their teachers have helped them out a bit with mock-interviews. Their school is known for its good results, and the pupil is surrounded by high-achievers with ambitions of going to top universities and having prestigious careers.

One of pupil B's parents is a factory worker, and the other is a stay-at-home carer for their younger siblings. They go to a mediocre state school (couldn't afford to go private), their parents weren't high-achievers and don't know how to support their child to achieve highly. They certainly can't afford private tuition. Half the pupils in Pupil B's school don't go on to sixth form, never mind university. Pupil B is bullied in class when they try to get their work done, because most of their classmates think it makes them a bit of a teacher's pet, and would rather mess around instead.

These are two extremes, and no-one with any sense would suggest it's impossible for Pupil B to overcome the odds. But would you dispute that there are more obstacles to Pupil B getting a clean sweep of A*s than there are for Pupil A?

Biochemistry, biomedicine, chemistry, computer science, earth science, experimental psychology, history & English, law, maths, maths & computer science, physics - mostly around 50/50 which is still pretty skewed. I suppose that's true, I was partly thinking that I remember business studies and economics being pretty popular at my school and also that in Germany if you don't know what to do, you study BWL which is pretty much E&M

Of course Pupil A is more likely, but it's not impossible for Pupil B. If B's application is considerably weaker than A's, then it is unfair on A to let B in at the expense of A. A still had to work hard for those grades. Of course there are nuances here, it's unreasonable to expect someone from a more economically deprived background to have travelled extensively and have as much extra curricular activity. But I think they have to be strict with exceptions and not let anyone in if they fail to meet the entry requirements.

Well if the news is the only reliable place you hear about it then it probably will have an effect on you, and it plays into a cycle where people think that Oxbridge is posh so don't apply there, and then it becomes posher because fewer normal people apply there! I don't think people should listen to it, but they do so we have to deal with that.

Well, you're wrong. Oxbridge's reputation for being posh doesn't come from the news. It comes from a much more powerful influencer which is pure word of mouth. It's a generic stereotype. The fact that BBC has reported that doesn't change anything.

Also, Oxbridge is posh. You make it sound like a massive misconception.

If you're serious about trying to improve state school representation at Oxbridge, please don't be an idiot and blame the BBC.

If anything, state school kids will be more likely to apply since they know that because of their contextual background they'll have a good chance.

No Medicine? Or Engineering?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thanks for your considered response.

I think it's very difficult to gauge fairly how relatively disadvantaged Pupil B has been. It's just as difficult to gauge how relatively advantaged Pupil A has been, though. And I agree that Pupil A having advantages doesn't mean that they had those grades put into their lap; they did still have to work for them.

How else do you level the playing field, though? The alternative to adjusting requirements is ignoring the disparity between the backgrounds of each, and saying it should have no bearing. Which doesn't seem fair either.

I'm not blaming the BBC, I literally said that they were playing into the existing stereotype - they're not exactly helping the cause. I don't see them reporting on all the school groups from target areas that are brought to visit the colleges every week, the summer schools, etc.
Maybe I have been absurdly lucky but I've never felt like either of them (having now been at both) have been very posh. Yes, some of the buildings are nice, yes there is the option to go to nice dinners, but I've never met anyone who struck me as particularly posh and I've never felt like I had a different student experience to other unis other than the teaching structure or that I didn't fit in here even though before uni I didn't know what hummus or pesto were and had never seen a mango before It's not like we're marching around with our butlers carrying our books as we go off to a white tie event every night with fine crystal and silverware - my reality is just me in the library/computer room all day, beans on toast for tea, hanging out in friends' rooms in the evenings.

Yeah but like that's the thing, Oxbridge is like our equivalent of ivy league so obviously they're going to report this.

And just like Oxbridge, Ivy league schools get berated for not fulfilling the "american dream" by having proportionally low numbers of underprivileged students.

Yes, you're right there's two sides to the story. But fact is students from private schools, grammar schools and schools that feed into oxbridge a lot have an unfair advantage due to having a large alumni network and prepare students very well with interview practise using real past questions, mock tests for the oxbridge tests etc etc. Oxbridge have turned a blind eye to it and it's time they do something to level the playing field.

They absolutely haven't turned a blind eye - they try as much as possible to even the playing field and spend millions on it every year, but they can't really stop schools/parents from doing all they can to prepare students. In fact the whole reason why they have interviews is so that they can see your thought processes, so they try to ask questions that you can't be coached for as much as possible or it defeats the whole purpose. I wasn't interviewed for Oxford, but in my two Cambridge interviews they didn't actually ask me that many questions but used one or two as a springboard for a discussion. For the tests, they provide specimens on their websites so that anyone can practice, and my boyfriend went on a summer school type deal at Cambridge where people from schools without a history of Oxbridge admissions could be given extra help for STEP. This is also why the Sutton Trust/UNIQ summer schools and the CUSU shadowing scheme exist - to level the playing field. I think my old Cambridge college also recently ran something aimed at getting girls to apply for economics and they run medicine access days too. Having just looked at (as an example) Trinity's website too, they're running various taster and residential schemes and even a programme for teachers and pretty much all Oxbridge colleges do the same. They all have full time schools liaison officers and access officers on the JCR committees. It's just very hard to overcome the constant portrayal of them as inaccessible!