Haha, I would cast doubt on that! Were that the case, nobody from my school would have got in - and if you combine all the schemes together - about 12 people did.
I think that the whole thing is laughable if they take people in from the top state schools (and even those in the top streams/sets of other state schools) - which, arguably, provide a comparable education to the best schools in the private sector (with the exception of certain unteachable things, such as social skills and contacts).
I seriously don't believe that any of the 12 people accepted on the scheme, from my school, were really 'disadvantaged'.
I wouldn't say that I'm disadvantaged either (certainly not in economic terms), but when pushed, I can produce a set of personal characteristics which might suggest
Although I didn't bother going overboard on the application form, which (with hindsight) maybe I should have done.
I honestly believe that the vast majority of people who would most benefit from the access schemes, often do not actually apply to the schemes or, in the final analysis, to Oxbridge.
A situation therefore occurs where people who clearly are not 'disadvantaged' (other than, maybe, on paper) tussle for the spoils - the winners are usually those who produce the most 'creative' applications.
This isn't access - it's a joke. The sad thing being, that certain people will gain an undoubted boost to their CV (and perhaps, their application*) as a result of doing this.
*Why else term it an 'access scheme' if it doesn't present those on it with an advantage when it comes to Oxbridge application success?