Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Yes. So I'd expect medicine, engineering and maybe maths to have a higher proportion of state schooled students.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    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.
    It's one of the biggest issues in our education system,

    From what I see, it's more due to the things young people are exposed to: nobody on their street going to university, nobody in their school going to Oxbridge (like mine), nobody really leaving a neighbourhood of deprivation creates this cycle of no ambition whereby people assume they are chained by socio-economic circumstances to never escape that demographic bubble.

    It's less about what they are told and more about what they are surrounded by.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XxxvatxxX)
    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
    Yes but not much, GCSEs aren't hugely important. If you do well in a "poor" school that's a good thing. However if you do badly at GCSE but are doing very well in your A-levels, that's even better.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    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!


    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    It's one of the biggest issues in our education system,

    From what I see, it's more due to the things young people are exposed to: nobody on their street going to university, nobody in their school going to Oxbridge (like mine), nobody really leaving a neighbourhood of deprivation creates this cycle of no ambition whereby people assume they are chained by socio-economic circumstances to never escape that demographic bubble.

    It's less about what they are told and more about what they are surrounded by.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't an Oxbridge problem - the problem is far wider than that. Oxbridge simply takes in the top achievers.

    The problem is that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are considerably less likely to get those top grades. Poor funding for schools and less stability could be factors. Some teens from poor backgrounds have to work long hours for money which of course isn't good when you're trying to get A*A*A.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XxxvatxxX)
    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
    Oxford does use contextulised admissions systems to some extent. It isn't as simple as being a "normal" state school though. The system picks up whether a state school generally under performs compared to a national average, and will then create a flag as to whether that person's application should be considered outside of estabished parametres like predicted grades. If you went to a high performing state school, the flag won't happen on the same measure.

    Contextualised admissions go way beyond just your school data though. It uses various measures to potentially create "flags". The more flags you have, the more the university is likely to look at factors like your personal statement, maybe be flexibile on your predicted grades by a grade or two, or offer you an interview. The flags basically suggest the admissions person should be more open minded - how many of them actaually go on to be open minded is another issue.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hirsty97)
    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.
    Unfortunately, there are special provisions.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    Although I completely agree, I should also say that this is a generalisation and there are loads of exceptions on both sides of the coin (such as yours truly:innocent:)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Liberal equality of opportunity is a crock of ****.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    Can I ask, were you actively encouraged by those around you or did you get told you wouldn't be up for it?
    Not actively encouraged and warned by teachers and support staff that I had to prepare for the fact I probably wouldn't get in. I grew up listening to my mum tell me how glad she was that she didn't go to university!

    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Oxford's stats have that breakdown:

    https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO...showVizHome=no
    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...)


    (Original post by itsfantanoo)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hirsty97)
    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.
    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 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?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    -
    (Original post by Carbon Dioxide)
    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?
    I think these statistics are just consequent of each other, not a target for Oxbridge- the top social classes usually receive a better education as they have the means to provide it. there are normal people who get into Oxbridge too if their grades are good enough- a boy from my school just started physics at Oxford and although I attend a good school it is incomparable to the standards of grammar or private schools. but he clearly made it work and it's clearly possible.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    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
    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 :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    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?
    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.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    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 :lol:
    No Medicine? Or Engineering?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.