Should Oxford lower their offers for state school pupils?

Who says you are though ?
You seem to be under this ollusion that by going to a state school you automatically have it harder to achieve better grades...its simple not true. There are state schools near me who nearly all achieve AAB or AAA, while smaller private schools fail to get mainly B's. So basically what you are saying is not give more places to state school kids, but more places to schools which in general are perhaps not as good.

It still doent solve the problem however, that by lowering entrance requirements you will be allowing people in who simply can not complete the course.
If you got a A*A*A from a state school you could quite easily get into oxford etc, same for those from private schools, yet if you wish to let in people from state schools with ABB, then you'd be a fool to think they would do well at somewhere like oxford. They are called the best univercities in the country for a reason. So many people get AAA's now that by lowering the entrance requirements to ABB for state school kids would be redicoulous, practically a third of the country would be eligable for oxbridge.

you missed my point. most of them would rather have someone from a private school than a state school. with elite i did not mean intellectual elite but social elite.

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.

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.

I didn't miss the point at all. I was just pointing out that it's utter crap. OF THOSE THAT APPLY STATE SCHOOLERS GET THE SAME PROPORTION OF OFFERS AS PRIVATE SCHOOLERS. There is no secret handshake, no bias, the only issue is the lack of applicants.


Why? (Not to mention how? Sure, some state schoolers with AAB are hard working intelligent people who just didn't get the start they needed in life. And some are not. Some are smart kids who can't be bothered to work, and that wouldn't change. There's no way to differentiate between those. You CAN differentiate between those already succeeding, who on the whole are more likely to succeed in the future, and those not). To give an analogy, tonight I have been playing with the (city of) Oxford Symphony Orchestra. Now, one might argue that when picking members they should pick those with the most musical talent - maybe those who do best in clapping back rhythms or singing back a tune. After all, there are a lot of kids whose parents can never afford music lessons, who probably could be budding musical geniuses. But that would completely detract from what the Orchestra is. It's not somewhere where those who might have potential might achieve it. It's an orchestra for people who are, theoeretically at least, the best musicians living in Oxford.

The University of Oxford is an academic institution aspiring to excellence. A place there is not a right for the most intelligent 18 year olds in the UK. It's a 'gift' (sorry that sounds really patronising, but I'm trying to make the point that it's something given out of choice not obligation) to those who can demonstrate this. It is a meritocracy, and as such, can only reward those already demonstrating merit. It does its best to reach out to all who demonstrate potential, but there has to be a bench mark. Quite apart from the fact that enough state schoolers already get AAA for a LOT to be rejected with those grades (i.e. you wouldn't get more in just because you let some with AAB apply) Oxford does its best to choose the best it can FOR ITSELF.


Which is why Oxford interviews, and why the History tutors at St. Hugh's routinely give out BBB offers. What's your point? The mark schemes are freely available - yes it may be jumping through hoops, but learning to satisfy the mark scheme is no harder than learning the material in the first place.


Large numbers? Doing what subjects? Last year 8 biologists got 2:2s. One was American, one was Chinese... none of them went to Eton. A similar number of musicians got the same grade. Again, I know most of them and none of them have ever struck me as being particularly 'public school'.

Of the top-school people I do know, there's a UCS boy about to take his probable-first and go on to be a solicitor... There's a Highgate PPEist doing city things with a pretty 2:1.... A couple of Classicists who will probably get 1sts this year.... One from Latymer who came damned close to a 1st... I don't know anyone who got in to Oxford and then sat back on their laurels.

meh. there is so much elitism in this country. the mere fact that you still have a house of lords (ok i dont know much about it, and as far as i know it doesn have that much power, but still) is just one example.

not saying you are totally biased. but its there.

english uni. ergo i think it has a right to take more english students. no, not just a right, but a duty. foreigners are less likely to stay in england and use their learnings to benefit england in the future (and im german so im nowhere biased in saying this).

But that doesn't make any difference because those 'foreigners' will be paying a hell of a lot more for their british uni education.

no. uni gets about 3-4k more from non-EU students. its just subsidised by government the rest of the 9k EU students pay.

3-4k is not a hell of a lot more imo. ok they have to pay it all themselves. but that doesnt matter.

So if a 'foreigner' had slightly better grades than a brit who applied, you believe the place should go to the Brit??

I think most people would agree that if one is 'good enough' to achieve an offer from Oxford, they should also be 'good enough' to achieve AAA at A-Level. To introduce such a system would be to the detriment of the quality of the university, and I think even the most ardent supporters of higher educational equality would be unable to deny that it seems almost to be pandering to state school pupils, and is certainly not fair.

not for state school scum

I've done lots of college open days, access and target schools stuff etc as well...maybe I've seen you around. Anywho...I've seen these statistics a few times before and they seem reasonable and an excellent argument for why Oxford isn't doing too badly. But the government target is for something like 77.5% ox Oxford Students to have gone to state schools. Do you think there's any realistic way AT ALL of reaching this target or do you think Oxford ought to ignore it?