Should Oxford lower their offers for state school pupils?

But state school kids do better at university than private school kids with equivalent grades. You should be picking people based on where they would be in three years rather than where they are now. And statistically, a state school kid on AAA will be further than a private school kid on AAA. Therefore we should be perhaps looking at the AAB state school kids along with pupils from the top private schools.

A-levels are more about satisfying the mark scheme than actually being good at anything. Especially in arts subjects. However bright and motivated you are, if you don't have the teaching in your subject, you run the risk of ******* up a question or a paper entirely, and that can let your otherwise good A slide to a B. I know of more than one person who got five high As and one U in an arts subject.

I agree letting in blatantly ill-qualified people is a mistake, but that's exactly what we're already doing when we let in large numbers of public schoolboys many of whom can't actually cope and spend three years struggling before receiving their gentleman's 2.II or third.

Yet, it is possible - indeed likely - that one could show promise in spite of the stringent spoonfeeding of the A level syllabus, which some just aren't suited to. The point is that in terms of meeting an offer, if the teachers are rubbish then it's undoubtedly more difficult than it would be at a place where the teachers all have PhDs.

Just because you went to a state school doesn't mean you should be at a disadvantage either.

Lower offers are not appropriate to the Oxford admissions system. As Teebs has said, most rejected candidates go on to get AAA+ as well, including thousands of state school applicants, so there's no logical reason to give a lower offer to anyone. The grades are a minimum entry requirement.

What hasn't been mentioned is that Oxford does have a system in place to ensure that candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds are not automatically discounted by subjects whose short-listing decisions are mechanistic:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/finding_out_more/contextual_data.html

As others have said, it's the interview that really decides the candidate's success or otherwise. The contextual data system means that students with great potential from (academically and/or socially) poor backgrounds are flagged up. Tutors are encouraged to interview these students rather than let them slip through the net purely on the basis of grades that don't tell the whole story.

Also, whoever suggested that Oxford isn't doing enough to encourage state school applications needs to do a bit more research before posting. Even the most cursory glance at the relevant sections of the admissions website would tell you that plenty of work is being done.

I know the OP is only trying to promote a healthy discussion, which is fine, but it's not uncommon knowledge that the targets the government sets are wholly unrealistic given Oxford's current application pools. With the 14-19 curriculum changing so much at the moment lower offers is really not the way to redress the balance.

What hasn't been mentioned is that Oxford does have a system in place to ensure that candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds are not automatically discounted by subjects whose short-listing decisions are mechanistic:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/under...tual_data.html

You're missing the fact that considerably more state school students get AAA than get into Oxford.

Some evidence for the large numbers of public schoolboys who can't cope and then get a 2:2 or a third?

On this website:
"5) an applicant’s participation in either a Sutton Trust summer school or the Oxford Young Ambassador Scheme."

Would this make them more or less likely to accept you, if you had been on one of these things?
I don't really understand how this is relevant to how disadvantaged you are!

But, if they bias towards you, that's great: I've got a Sutton Trust summer school this year
If the reverse is true ... oh giraffe.

More - the point of Sutton Trust, at least, is that it encourages good state school students to apply, so that's the link. Out of last year's History summer school, at least five of us made it to Oxford and at least two to Cambridge, and that's not accounting for the fact that a lot didn't apply (due to bad AS grades or wanting to do a course that Oxbridge didn't offer).

Woop, this is brilliant news!
I guess that that kinda makes sense XD

I think I might have pulled a double in any case, because the Sutton Trust summer school I'm going to go on will be held at the University of Cambridge.
So I can try and semi-establish myself there at the time, as well as getting the extra admissions kudos!

Yep - mine was at Oxford, which explains why so many more ended up going there. It's a really good week - you get lectured by real academics (and possibly get a free book - we did), you make good friends, and if you get in it does give you a bit of a social network.

That is rather cool.
Have you kept in touch with the people there via facebook and that, out of interest?

Also: are the academics from the University of Oxford itself?
And ooh, a free book!

Oxford and for that matter all the red brick / "better" universities should not be in any way influenced by this ridiculous social justice campaign that seems to be prevailant at the moment

They should expect the same from State, Private and Public students alike
Anything else is bordering on discrimination in my opinion

Choosing a state schooler over a private for a university is just the same as if someone walked into a job interview and was refused it due to their "working class background". Descriminating against any class - Working, middle or upper is simply unacceptable