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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by needledropp)
    Oxbridge is obviously good but it really isn't all that for there to be quotas for it.

    Ivy leagues in the USA offer big financial aids to help poorer students, Oxbridge can offer that (although they do that anyway) but more substantially I guess.
    At least for home students; you can't get much cheaper than nothing to pay up front, other than nothing to pay, ever.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Such as? And how much?
    The majority of access funds are now earmarked for outreach if OFFA's advice is being followed. It looks like expenditure on outreach at Cambridge is now £13.3m (9.8m+3.5m) compared with bursary spend of £6.3m. In other words from potentially 85 - 90% of access funds being spent on bursaries and scholarships in 2011; they now spend just 47% on bursaries with the rest going on outreach activities which means money has been diverted from students to private companies and staff payroll etc. This is especially galling given the horrendous student debt now suffered by so many students.

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...tion-fees-offa
    (article in 2011)
    "Universities will be free to choose how best to increase diversity, but they will be encouraged to pour money into outreach work in schools and colleges, rather than into bursaries and scholarships. These incentives have been found to have little effect, Offa said. At the moment, 85% to 90% of some universities' access funds are spent on bursaries and scholarships. Universities should also consider waiving fees."

    In answer to your question, one company that benefits is RARE which organises the Target Oxbridge programme funded by Oxford and Cambridge whose board members are listed here:

    https://www.rarerecruitment.co.uk/board.php

    https://targetoxbridge.co.uk/the_programme.html

    In their access statement 2017/18, Cambridge states:

    (3.13)"Much of our outreach work is delivered in collaboration with other higher education institutions, schools and colleges, and third-party organisations, and we will continue to support this work."

    (5.2) Overall the collegiate University plans to expend 32% of undergraduate tuition fee income (and 10% of PGCE tuition fee income) above the standard rate on access measures. It is estimated that in 2018- 19, this will amount to circa £9.8 million.

    (5.3) The collegiate University has also undertaken to divert the funding that it had previously allocated to the National Scholarship Programme (which ended in 2014-15) to support outreach work. In consequence, in 2018-19 outreach funding associated with the additional fee income will amount to circa £3.5m.

    https://www.offa.org.uk/agreements/F...0Cambridge.pdf

    Cambridge states (5.4) that against the advice of OFFA that they intend to not reduce the £6.3 millon allocated to bursaries for the coming year due to student feedback.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    In answer to your question, one company that springs to mind is RARE which organises the Target Oxbridge programme funded by Oxford and Cambridge whose board members are listed here:

    https://www.rarerecruitment.co.uk/board.php
    Funded by Oxford and Cambridge? So how much have Oxford and Cambridge paid Rare?

    Oxbridge are supporting the initiative by providing residentials, etc. Nowhere does it say they are paying anything to Rare.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    So how do we measure academic ability?

    How do we control for differential quality (and quantity) of teaching?

    How do we control for differential opportunity to participate in learning activities?
    How do we...? The short answer is we can't reliably. So we shouldn't try.

    We can only rely on the facts presented to us which is proven academic success in public examination results and admission tests.

    It is ridiculous to hypothesize about maybes and ifs.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    So how do we measure academic ability?

    How do we control for differential quality (and quantity) of teaching?

    How do we control for differential opportunity to participate in learning activities?
    You can't, but the whole point of quotas is that they cut through all the fine tuning and pussy footing and go straight to the heart of the matter. When entrenched privilege at every level is preventing a major chunk of society from even getting a look through the door, let alone opening it, then quotas are a good way to make a start.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    So how do we measure academic ability?
    Many Oxford departments have entrance exams that are designed to do this.

    How do we control for differential quality (and quantity) of teaching?
    Interviews are designed to assess how quickly candidates can pick-up new knowledge and apply it.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Funded by Oxford and Cambridge? So how much have Oxford and Cambridge paid Rare?

    Oxbridge are supporting the initiative by providing residentials, etc. Nowhere does it say they are paying anything to Rare.

    I haven't a clue how much they have paid Rare; they haven't stated it in the access agreement. But sponsoring and funding= paying.

    I'm more concerned about the £13.3 million, most of which would have previously gone into bursaries and scholarships for debt-ridden students but is now being directed to private companies and costs associated with delivering outreach. And if Cambridge hadn't put their foot down, OFFA would have made them direct more money away from bursaries to outreach. In section 5.4 Cambridge are almost apologetic that they have not followed OFFA's advice in this respect: "Whilst mindful of OFFA guidance on this subject, we believe that..."

    With regard to Rare, in the access agreement, Cambridge state:

    (7.10) As a first step we have recently agreed to sponsor the Target Oxbridge programme offered by Rare

    https://www.offa.org.uk/agreements/F...0Cambridge.pdf

    and on the Target Oxbridge website Rare lists Cambridge as a main sponsor:

    The University of Cambridge has aided the expansion of the programme from 45 to 60 students in 2017/18.

    https://targetoxbridge.co.uk/sponsors.html

    They didn't achieve this by offering Rare fairy cakes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    You literally have made about 20 comments on another thread espousing offensive ideas and commentary, some of which have actually been removed by moderators due to the offensive nature of the commentary.

    My intention is to defend those from abuse and being intolerant of intolerance is the first step towards that.
    You're quite nasty tho
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    I haven't a clue how much they have paid Rare; they haven't stated it in the access agreement. But sponsoring and funding= paying.

    I'm more concerned about the £13.3 million, most of which would have previously gone into bursaries and scholarships for debt-ridden students but is now being directed to private companies and costs associated with delivering outreach. And if Cambridge hadn't put their foot down, OFFA would have made them direct more money away from bursaries to outreach. In section 5.4 Cambridge are almost apologetic that they have not followed OFFA's advice in this respect: "Whilst mindful of OFFA guidance on this subject, we believe that..."

    With regard to Rare, in the access agreement, Cambridge state:

    (7.10) As a first step we have recently agreed to sponsor the Target Oxbridge programme offered by Rare

    https://www.offa.org.uk/agreements/F...0Cambridge.pdf

    and on the Target Oxbridge website Rare lists Cambridge as a main sponsor:

    The University of Cambridge has aided the expansion of the programme from 45 to 60 students in 2017/18.

    https://targetoxbridge.co.uk/sponsors.html

    They didn't achieve this by offering Rare fairy cakes.
    Sponsors in the form of services provided (residential places, etc) to the end-users (the students) not cash to Rare. Unless you can show different.

    Seems like a good initiative.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Sponsors in the form of services (residential places, etc) provided to the end-users (the students) not cash to Rare.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've provided you with links to show Cambridge are sponsoring and increasing the number of students.

    Could you please provide your links about Cambridge only providing residential places (which still would be a cost to Cambridge obviously)
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    And, just out of interest, Doonesbury why are you so interested in the relatively minor aspect of Rare? It's just one example of a 'third party'. Insignificant in the overall huge scale of things.

    Of far more interest is the £13.3 million being spent on outreach most of which would have gone to students in the form of bursaries and scholarships.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Jesus christ with this thread being on the front page- getting soo many reps for the first flippant comment!
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    I've provided you with links to show Cambridge are sponsoring and increasing the number of students.

    Could you please provide your links about Cambridge only providing residential places (which still would be a cost to Cambridge obviously)
    It's a cost to Cambridge that doesn't benefit Rare or go to Rare's coffers. It directly benefits the students.

    Rare get the PR. And they are a recruitment company offering "diverse" applicants to hiring companies (blue chip employers). Where will their next batch of prospective employees looking for work come from?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    And, just out of interest, Doonesbury why are you so interested in the relatively minor aspect of Rare? It's just one example of a 'third party'. Insignificant in the overall huge scale of things.

    Of far more interest is the £13.3 million being spent on outreach most of which would have gone to students in the form of bursaries and scholarships.
    You showcased Rare at the outset (twice).

    I'll return to your £13 million later.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    It's a cost to Cambridge that doesn't benefit Rare or go to Rare's coffers. It directly benefits the students.

    Rare get the PR. And they are a recruitment company offering "diverse" applicants to hiring companies (blue chip employers). Where will their next batch of prospective employees looking for work come from?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's weird why you are so fixated with Rare: any money going to them is peanuts in the grand scheme of £13.3m.

    You seem so concerned to say that Rare are not receiving any money despite what it says on their website and in the access agreement. Strange.

    I have provided two links to show that Cambridge are "sponsoring" and "funding" the Rare programme to allow them to increase numbers taking part. I am sure Cambridge also assist through the provision of residential accommodation, but that doesn't mean that they don't give Rare any money.

    But I'll take it then that you cannot supply a link to show that Cambridge ONLY supply residential accommodation then?

    But as I said, Rare will only be one of many third party suppliers making money out of the outreach schemes.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    You showcased Rare at the outset (twice).

    I'll return to your £13 million later.
    No I didn't.

    You asked me to give an example of a company and I said Rare.

    I have repeatedly told you that Rare is unimportant. They are just one example of a company benefiting from money spent on outreach. Or at least that's what I thought; now I am beginning to wonder.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You can't, but the whole point of quotas is that they cut through all the fine tuning and pussy footing and go straight to the heart of the matter. When entrenched privilege at every level is preventing a major chunk of society from even getting a look through the door, let alone opening it, then quotas are a good way to make a start.
    What do quotas actually achieve? The passing appearance of equality while ignoring potential inequalities in admissions processes while actively continuing practices that should be averted, just targeted towards a less disadvantaged group? I do sympathise with the intention, but I really don't see how it's supposed to do any good.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    No I didn't.

    You asked me to give an example of a company and I said Rare.

    I have repeatedly told you that Rare is unimportant. They are just one example of a company benefiting from money spent on outreach. Or at least that's what I thought; now I am beginning to wonder.
    You showcased Rare in Post #25 and again when asked for a private company being paid by Oxbridge
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    You showcased Rare in Post #25 and again when asked for a private company being paid by Oxbridge
    It really is frustrating when you accuse me of saying things I clearly haven't.

    Here is a brief summary of our discussion:


    Me: #95 Now that money is being spent on outreach activities, and so often going straight to private companies involved in the provision of outreach activities.

    You:: #96 Such as? And how much?

    Me: #104 In answer to your question, one company that benefits is RARE

    You: #105 So how much have Oxford and Cambridge paid Rare? Oxbridge are supporting the initiative by providing residentials, etc. Nowhere does it say they are paying anything to Rare.

    Me: #109 I haven't a clue how much they have paid Rare; they haven't stated it in the access agreement. But sponsoring and funding= paying. I'm more concerned about the £13.3 million, most of which would have previously gone into bursaries and scholarships for debt-ridden students (provides links to Cambridge sponsoring and funding Target Oxbridge run by Rare in access agreement and on Rare website)

    You #111 Sponsors in the form of services provided (residential places, etc) to the end-users (the students) not cash to Rare.

    Me: #112 I've provided you with links to show Cambridge are sponsoring and increasing the number of students on the course. Could you please provide your links about Cambridge only providing residential places

    Me: #113 And, just out of interest, Doonesbury why are you so interested in the relatively minor aspect of Rare? It's just one example of a 'third party'. Insignificant in the overall huge scale of things.

    You: #115 It's a cost to Cambridge that doesn't benefit Rare or go to Rare's coffers.

    You: #116 You showcased Rare at the outset (twice).

    Me: #118 No I didn't. You asked me to give an example of a company and I said Rare. I have repeatedly told you that Rare is unimportant

    You #120 You showcased Rare in Post #25 and again when asked for a private company being paid by Oxbridge:

    Actually in #25 I responded to abuse from another member regarding my one post that had been removed and clarifying its contents to show there was nothing offensive. I did not ‘showcase’ Rare; in fact I did not even mention the company’s name, just the programme name.


    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It could be argued that bursaries are not needed in huge sums, especially given the way in which student finance is provided and maintenance grants/special support grants are calculated.

    And all the evidence from the other thread suggested the issue was getting diverse applicants to apply in the first place, so maybe all the outreach activity is more important given the lack of applicants.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 1, 2017
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.