Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    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.
    Thanks for confirming you mentioned the same programme twice. Whether it was "Rare" or not it was the same scheme, and it was your choice of a private company for our analysis. And it appears we have now established that Oxbridge's sponsorship is in the form of services to students not payments to Rare.

    So, with regard to the Bursary... do you understand what the bursary is for?
    It gives money to less privileged students (both UK and EU).
    Specifically for 2017/18 Cambridge offers up to £3,500 if a student's household income is below £42,620.
    How much was that Bursary in 2010/11 (your year of interest)?
    Answer: £3,500. But for households up to £25,000.

    The bursary fund hasn't been reduced since 2011. (The scheme terms have changed a bit but the total cost is pretty much the same.)

    And now let's look at your headline cost of outreach at Cambridge being "now £13.3m", it is wrong.

    Cambridge spends £9.8 million on "access measures".
    "Access measures" includes the £6.3 million cost of the Bursary.
    And the £3.5 million cost of outreach.
    Look... £6.3 + £3.5m = £9.8m

    So the majority of access funds are allocated to the Bursary not Outreach.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by needledropp)
    Source?

    The issue isn't tuition fees. Oxbridge students are very likely to be within the top 40% of the income ladder anyway so debt is really more of an issue for middle class students going to (no offence) crap unis.

    The issue is cost of living e.g. train tickets, food costs etc etc.

    Your previous posts referred to poorer students and Ivy Leagues. Most Ivy League assistance is directed to course fees. Now you say course fees aren't the issue and your latest comments are not directed to poorer students.

    Oxford estimates the cost of student living as being in the range of £9-13,000. Poorer students get an £8,400 maintenance loan plus a £3,700 bursary. Fees are covered in full by loans. Hence no immediate cost for poor students studying at Oxford.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Interviews are designed to assess how quickly candidates can pick-up new knowledge and apply it.
    I was trying to flush out (successfully) that AllonsEnfants wasn't really wanting to select on academic ability but was wanting to reward any past educational advantage.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    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.
    Maybe Doonesbury has some stats but how many diverse applicants does the £3.5 million generate?

    Presumably the outreach expenditure was lower in the past. Presumably the number of hard-to-reach applicants was also lower. Therefore one should be able to divide the increase in expenditure by the increase in applicants and obtain a cost per applicant.

    Is outreach, value for money? I have to say, I am sceptical. I fear it is preaching to the converted.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    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.
    A major problem with quotas is that if the benefits are great enough they will be manipulated.

    For many years, Bristol's list of contextual schools included a number of famous independent schools. They have now been excluded but to be a pupil of Rossall or Sedbergh or Dover College was to be disadvantaged in a very special sense.

    Even now Bristol gives lower offers to people from deprived areas like Iffley Village.

    At one point fully one third of Bristol's contextual offers were going to independent school students.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Is outreach, value for money? I have to say, I am sceptical. I fear it is preaching to the converted.
    Possibly not given how poor the number of application are. It’s why I stressed in the other thread that maybe they need to think a bit differently to try and resolve the problem.

    With modern technology, you’d have thought outreach was easier and potentially cheaper. It’s good that the like of Brasenose are on here, but it does sound like the outreach still relies quite heavily on that face-to-face interaction within schools.

    And I agree with you on the “preaching to the converted” aspect - the “selection” of who would be the interested parties has already been calculated, and schools with lower grades will not be targeted due to a ROI calculation having been made. Makes the AAA student who is in the minority and technically out performing their peers by some distance, less likely to be reached.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    Possibly not given how poor the number of application are. It’s why I stressed in the other thread that maybe they need to think a bit differently to try and resolve the problem.

    With modern technology, you’d have thought outreach was easier and potentially cheaper. It’s good that the like of Brasenose are on here, but it does sound like the outreach still relies quite heavily on that face-to-face interaction within schools.

    And I agree with you on the “preaching to the converted” aspect - the “selection” of who would be the interested parties has already been calculated, and schools with lower grades will not be targeted due to a ROI calculation having been made. Makes the AAA student who is in the minority and technically out performing their peers by some distance, less likely to be reached.
    Do Oxbridge even know the overall level of engagement between individual schools and their outreach programmes, given that much of the activity is college led.?

    Can Oxbridge get tough with refusniks? What might Ofsted do with that data?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Throwing a dog (or dogs, in this case...) a bone....

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099ypqt
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Maybe Doonesbury has some stats but how many diverse applicants does the £3.5 million generate?

    Presumably the outreach expenditure was lower in the past. Presumably the number of hard-to-reach applicants was also lower. Therefore one should be able to divide the increase in expenditure by the increase in applicants and obtain a cost per applicant.

    Is outreach, value for money? I have to say, I am sceptical. I fear it is preaching to the converted.
    "Is outreach, value for money? Maybe Doonesbury has some stats"

    You can look at the access agreements for every university going back for years at:
    https://www.offa.org.uk/access-agreements/


    I have done just that for Cambridge and compared the Access Agreement for 2010/11 and 2017/18.

    Student tuition fees:

    2011: £3,000 per annum
    2017/18: £9,250 per annum (tripled)

    Typical cost of 3-year course:

    2011: £9,000 over 3 years
    2017/18: £27,750 over 3 years (tripled)

    Student Bursaries and Scholarships

    2011 = £6.3 million
    2017/18 = £6.3 million (no change)


    Spending on Outreach

    2011 = £1.15 million per annum
    2017/2018= £3.5 million per annum (tripled)

    Source:

    Cambridge Access Agreement 2010/2011
    Cambridge Access Agreement 20127/2018

    So thanks to the Lib Dems and their zeal for diversity, there has been a tripling of tuition fees for students; no increase in funds available for student hardship fund (btw in 2011 Cambridge were estimating this would have increased to £7.5m by 2013) and a tripling on outreach spend.

    So who has this helped? The Access Agreement 2017/2018 states:

    2011 vs 2016 increase in admissions

    State educated: +4.2 percentage points (to 62.3% in 2016)
    BME: +5.9 percentage points (to 21.8% in 2016 )
    Q1: +0.6 percentage points (to 3.2% in 2016)
    Q1+Q2 +1.0 percentage points (to 10.6% in 2016)

    Well, Cambridge at least has certainly poured money into outreach work for years; and as far as I can see, one of the main beneficiaries will be the ‘third parties’ selling outreach services and the new staff employed to deliver the outreach programme rather than the people who they are supposed to be helping chiefly Q1 and Q2 deprived students.

    Cambridge says the main problem remains lower academic achievement in some state schools.

    As I have often said the Government should stop moaning at universities and start concentrating on improving state schools: in other words do their job.

    And btw your previous misquoting of me and insult has not gone un-noticed so I will address that now.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Maybe Doonesbury has some stats but how many diverse applicants does the £3.5 million generate?

    Presumably the outreach expenditure was lower in the past. Presumably the number of hard-to-reach applicants was also lower. Therefore one should be able to divide the increase in expenditure by the increase in applicants and obtain a cost per applicant.

    Is outreach, value for money? I have to say, I am sceptical. I fear it is preaching to the converted.
    The OFFA statement does have some stats.

    e.g.
    Name:  Screen Shot 2017-10-26 at 11.29.39.jpg
Views: 16
Size:  61.6 KB
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    "Is outreach, value for money? Maybe Doonesbury has some stats"

    You can look at the access agreements for every university going back for years at:
    https://www.offa.org.uk/access-agreements/


    I have done just that for Cambridge and compared the Access Agreement for 2010/11 and 2017/18.

    Student tuition fees:

    2011: £3,000 per annum
    2017/18: £9,250 per annum (tripled)

    Typical cost of 3-year course:

    2011: £9,000 over 3 years
    2017/18: £27,750 over 3 years (tripled)

    Student Bursaries and Scholarships

    2011 = £6.3 million
    2017/18 = £6.3 million (no change)


    Spending on Outreach

    2011 = £1.15 million per annum
    2017/2018= £3.5 million per annum (tripled)

    Source:

    Cambridge Access Agreement 2010/2011
    Cambridge Access Agreement 20127/2018

    So thanks to the Lib Dems and their zeal for diversity, there has been a tripling of tuition fees for students; no increase in funds available for student hardship fund (btw in 2011 Cambridge were estimating this would have increased to £7.5m by 2013) and a tripling on outreach spend.

    So who has this helped? The Access Agreement 2017/2018 states:

    2011 vs 2016 increase in admissions

    State educated: +4.2 percentage points (to 62.3% in 2016)
    BME: +5.9 percentage points (to 21.8% in 2016 )
    Q1: +0.6 percentage points (to 3.2% in 2016)
    Q1+Q2 +1.0 percentage points (to 10.6% in 2016)

    Well, Cambridge at least has certainly poured money into outreach work for years; and as far as I can see, one of the main beneficiaries will be the ‘third parties’ selling outreach services and the new staff employed to deliver the outreach programme rather than the people who they are supposed to be helping chiefly Q1 and Q2 deprived students.

    Cambridge says the main problem remains lower academic achievement in some state schools.

    As I have often said the Government should stop moaning at universities and start concentrating on improving state schools: in other words do their job.

    And btw your previous misquoting of me and insult has not gone un-noticed so I will address that now.
    The tripling of the cost of a degree is a bit of a non-issue. You only pay it back once earning what will be over £25k, and 75% of people will never pay back the full debt. If you had to pay the fees out of your own pocket, then bursaries would be needed and extended, but it is basically a exceptionally long public loan that most people who take it up, will never pay back.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    The tripling of the cost is bit of a non-issue. You only pay it back once earning what will be over £25k, and 75% of people will never pay back the full debt. If you had to pay the fees out of your own pocket, then bursaries would be needed and extended, but it is basically a exceptionally long public loan that most people who take it up, will never pay back.
    You're obviously happy with a near £30,000 debt in tuition fees round your neck after 3 years. Good for you.

    According to your stats: 25% will be paying back the full debt.

    And everyone else will be paying back somewhere in between

    And then you've got the debt from living expenses (say £24,000 over 3 years ) - When do you pay that back? I don't think that's part of the tuition fee loan.

    University is sometimes a con for the poorest in our society:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rd-petrol.html
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    You're obviously happy with a near £30,000 debt in tuition fees round your neck after 3 years. Good for you.

    According to your stats: 25% will be paying back the full debt.

    And everyone else will be paying back somewhere in between

    And then you've got the debt from living expenses (say £24,000 over 3 years ) - When do you pay that back? I don't think that's part of the tuition fee loan.

    University is sometimes a con for the poorest in our society:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rd-petrol.html
    Actually the average debt will be closer to £50k. But given the special grants awarded, the poorest in society would actually have a smaller debt than that. Your maintance loan is also part of your student loan (fee loan + maintenance loan), so you pay that back in exactly the same way you pay back your student fees.

    Anyone who is paying back the debt on any level will be earning close to or above the national average salary. They have benefited from a degree, so why shouldn't they be responsible for paying for it when they can afford it.

    Someone earning £30k a year is only paying back £91 a month, or just over £1k a year.

    If they called it a graduate tax (which is really what it is) then there would be less uproar about it.

    And did you really just quote a Daily Fail article that compares an electrician to a performing arts graduate to try and support your argument?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The real solution is to get politicians to care enough about the working class, disabled people and/or ethnic minorities to fix the broken education system. The current solution of access is certainly justified but it is a temporary solution to a wide-spread structural/institutional problem.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I was trying to flush out (successfully) that AllonsEnfants wasn't really wanting to select on academic ability but was wanting to reward any past educational advantage.
    "I was trying to flush out (successfully) that AllonsEnfants wasn't really wanting to select on academic ability but was wanting to reward any past educational advantage. "

    You didn't flush out anything. Here's a summary of the discussion:

    #92 (ME) I even think existing access agreement targets are wrong, let alone introducing quotas. I think the state vs private school measure is too crude and the POLAR targets open to abuse. They should just make the admissions system more open to independent scrutiny; keep all records and have spot checks to ensure that all offers are being made fairly with regard only to academic ability regardless of race, religion, gender or anything else.

    #93 (D) So the context of an application doesn't matter?

    #95 (ME) In my opinion, for the most part no. And the reason is because there are so many variables to a person's life and circumstances that you cannot possibly take them all into account: everyone has a cross to bear when you dig a bit deeper. Illness and a disability such as blindness should be taken into account, but not some sob story about hardship which cannot even be verified anyway.

    If the Government wants to see more lower income students getting into Oxbridge, then they need to create more Mossbourne Academies not introduce targets and quotas for the universities. The model that worked at Mossbourne should be rolled out across the UK in failing schools

    #125 (YOU) I was trying to flush out (successfully) that AllonsEnfants wasn't really wanting to select on academic ability but was wanting to reward any past educational advantage.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    as far as I can see, one of the main beneficiaries will be the ‘third parties’ selling outreach services and the new staff employed to deliver the outreach programme rather than the people who they are supposed to be helping chiefly Q1 and Q2 deprived students.
    Evidence?

    I note you've dropped your £13 million claim. And not addressed your error on that calculation.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Thanks for confirming you mentioned the same programme twice. Whether it was "Rare" or not it was the same scheme, and it was your choice of a private company for our analysis. And it appears we have now established that Oxbridge's sponsorship is in the form of services to students not payments to Rare.

    h.
    "Thanks for confirming you mentioned the same programme twice. Whether it was "Rare" or not it was the same scheme, and it was your choice of a private company for our analysis "

    I have not confirmed it all. I confirm I did not mention the programme twice and I did not mention the company twice. The first mention of the company name was because you asked for it specifically and the other mention was the programme name only in a post several hours earlier in a completely different discussion.

    And it appears we have now established that Oxbridge's sponsorship is in the form of services to students not payments to Rare.

    'We' haven't done anything of the kind. It may be true, but all 'we' have is you saying it is true without evidence.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Evidence?

    I note you've dropped your £13 million claim. And not addressed your error on that calculation.
    Evidence?

    Source: Cambridge Access Agreement 2017/2018

    "Much of our outreach work is delivered in collaboration with other higher education institutions, schools and colleges, and third-party organisations,"

    That's why I think they use outside companies. Now you tell me why you are so convinced they don't.

    I note you've dropped your £13 million claim. And not addressed your error on that calculation

    I have addressed 'the error' because I listed the correct figures in my post above. You also addressed the error in your previous post and now you have referred to it again. That makes three references. Is there a specific number of times you would like for it to be mentioned? Or is three enough?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    Evidence?

    Source: Cambridge Access Agreement 2017/2018

    "Much of our outreach work is delivered in collaboration with other higher education institutions, schools and colleges, and third-party organisations,"

    That's why I think they use outside companies. Now you tell me why you are so convinced they don't.
    Collaboration doesn't mean they pay a significant fee to them. For all you know it's, like Rare appears to be, quid pro quo. Also, third-party organisations are last in the list.

    I note you've dropped your £13 million claim. And not addressed your error on that calculation

    I have addressed 'the error' because I listed the correct figures in my post above. You also addressed the error in your previous post and now you have referred to it again. That makes three references. Is there a specific number of times you would like for it to be mentioned? Or is three enough?
    You didn't acknowledge you made a significant mistake.

    PS. Try using split quotes - it's fun.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    We're talking about quotas and no one's gonna mention how Imperial has become London's Chinatown?
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.