BBC: Oxbridge entry 'dominated by five schools'

growse · 8 Jul 2011 at 12:47

If anyone wants good data on this for Cambridge, see: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2010-11/special/14/undergrad_stats.pdf

Interesting things I picked out:

47% of places accepted comes from the state sector, vs 37% from private. (Table 1.1)
46% of applications from from the state sector, vs 27% from private (table 1.1)
33% of private applications result in a place accepted, vs 25% of state school applications (Table 1.2)

There's loads of other good data in there that I don't have time to weed through.

The problem of is twofold - 1) Private schools get more pupils to apply than state schools and 2) When they do apply, they're more likely to be accepted.

UK-AL05 · 8 Jul 2011 at 12:48

Moses said:
I don't see why grammar schools have to result in there being academic wastelands all around them. Why do centres of excellence automatically make everywhere else fail? Are all unis in the UK rubbish because Oxford and Cambridge exist? But anyway, I'm not saying give all the money to the grammar schools, then send the thick kids down the mines... I'm just saying give a proper grammar school system funding, whilst retaining comprehensives/colleges/whatever (and also try and improve them, obviously).

TBH, the biggest factor in lack of attainment is the home life/parents... but there's no real way to solve that problem, unless you advocate a licence to have kids, which is obviously quite problematic!

I'm not giving opinion, i'm just stating what happens as shown by germany statistics.

UK-AL05 · 8 Jul 2011 at 12:49

growse said:
Do they select on academic ability?

According to wiki, no.

UK-AL05 · 8 Jul 2011 at 12:52

Moses said:
You can prove anything with facts, can't you.

.

---

And I was questioning whether Germany's problem is a problem with grammar schooling! Do grammar schools have to result in everywhere else being rubbish, or do they have a system where they have grammar schools... and everywhere else is forgotten (especially in terms of funding)?

Again, i'm not playing around with figures or anything crazy. There was legitimate research done on the subject. I was reading a report about it, its cited on wikipedia, then find the report in the sources section i think. Thats how i got to it ages ago.

As to your second question, I don't know but the old grammar system we had also resulted in this problem but wasn't much of an issue due to most jobs being labour jobs. Maybe someone can make up a new system?

Vonhelmet · 8 Jul 2011 at 12:52

Meh, there's other great universities in this country.

UK-AL05 · 8 Jul 2011 at 12:59

Moses said:
Link, or at least give more detail? Headline statements can hide huge flaws.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2259935,00.html

That's the only one i can find in 5mins, I think its a news site. However I found a proper academic report on it ages ago. I'm meant to be doing work, so i'm not going to spend time looking for it.

Theres also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Recent_developments

Barks · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:01

Why do people care so much about Oxbridge? I had no desire whatsoever to go to either. At the end of the day you're sacrificing a lot for a bit of prestige and a first/2:1 in a decent academic degree from any Russell Group university is likely to land you a fantastic job anyway.

Vonhelmet · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:07

scott212 said:
Why do people care so much about Oxbridge? I had no desire whatsoever to go to either. At the end of the day you're sacrificing a lot for a bit of prestige and a first/2:1 in a decent academic degree from any Russell Group university is likely to land you a fantastic job anyway.

There's a minority of employers who will care about it, but as you say - by and large a good degree from a good uni will be enough.

scorza · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:09

growse said:
Do they select on academic ability?

Nope, they don't select, track or stream pupils. At age 16, pupils can choose between academic or vocational education - until then the principle is that pupils should attend a school that is located near to where they live, and no child gets left behind.

scorza · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:12

nonhelmet said:
There's a minority of employers who will care about it, but as you say - by and large a good degree from a good uni will be enough.

I think this is perhaps part of the problem - did you go to a state school by any chance? I can't imagine anyone from Eton ever saying enough is good enough, they have it drilled into them to try to take it all.

Barks · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:15

nonhelmet said:
There's a minority of employers who will care about it, but as you say - by and large a good degree from a good uni will be enough.

There's also a minority of employers who are prejudiced against it.

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:23

scorza said:
I think this is perhaps part of the problem - did you go to a state school by any chance? I can't imagine anyone from Eton ever saying enough is good enough, they have it drilled into them to try to take it all.

Eton is for rich kids, not clever kids

TheCenturion · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:25

It's all a load of crap really. Those schools mentioned just coach their pupils on how to get to top unis and that's why they're the ones getting in.

Unfortunately some universities are happy to reject people because they're from private schools.

ps3ud0 · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:36

I guess it makes the achievement of getting in for state school kids even greater if they arent coached - indeed thats probably the people that they are looking for, those that have some form of independent thought...

A higher proportion of private school kids will apply to Oxbridge, thats a given, I tend to feel that Oxbridge admission tutors end up postively discriminating for state school pupils to an extent, which I think is wrong.

Personally Id rather see Oxbridge maintain their high standards and if that means less state school pupils get in so be it, its an indictment of how average our education system is. It annoys me how devalued a degree seems to be nowadays...

To sum up - news story is a non-event

ps3ud0

mjt · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:38

ps3ud0 said:
Personally Id rather see Oxbridge maintain their high standards and if that means less state school pupils get in so be it, its an indictment of how average our education system is. It annoys me how devalued a degree seems to be nowadays...

To sum up - news story is a non-event

ps3ud0

This.

Greebo · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:38

Seems like a lot of people have missed the point in this thread.

I was listening to it on radio 4 this morning and the research showed that for pupils with the exact same grades that 50% were accepted from private schools versus 32% from state schools.

So all pupils have the same level of intelligence so what makes the private schools have a better acceptance rate then?

They had a guy on from Oxford/Cambridge and his theory was that although all the pupils were equally intelligent, he feels that pupils attending private school have more confidence and a greater belief in their worth than ones from state schools which comes through at interview which is why they get a higher proportion of the places.

I can relate to this and I do beleive it to be true. I went to a Grammar school and my brother went to a Comprehensive. I can;t pass judgement on the quality of the teaching at the Comprehensive and I am sure there were kids who were as intelligent or more intelligent than ones at the Grammar school.

However, at the Grammar School, discipline and respect was instilled into us and we had access to do a far greater range of non academic things. We had our own swimming pool, library, computer room, 18 rugby pitches, hockey pitches, indoor and outdoor tennis courts, squash courts, cricket pitches, assault course, firing range, airfield for gliders, photography, film making etc.

Also there were far more trips to places than the comprehensive school offered.

With all that opportunity it is far more likely that pupils leaving a Grammar/private school will be more rounded and confident than their equivalent state pupil.

As it was I turned down Oxford

kiteloopy · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:39

TheCenturion said:
Stowe is for rich kids, not clever kids

corrected.

Vonhelmet · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:42

scorza said:
I think this is perhaps part of the problem - did you go to a state school by any chance? I can't imagine anyone from Eton ever saying enough is good enough, they have it drilled into them to try to take it all.

I went to a Grammar School to do my GCSEs and got bullied and didn't go as well as GCSE as I could have done. I mean, sure, I got 11 with nothing below a B, but I could have done better.

I started A-Levels there, but got fed up of being bullied so moved schools. Got 5 A grades and a distinction in special level physics at a state school.

Interviewed for Cambridge but didn't get in, so went to Durham instead.

My degree got me onto a graduate course, and that was it. I'd have sooner spent the three years studying for my tax qualification and started earning straight out of the gate, than pee £15k up the wall on going to uni. It was a waste of time.

Dave · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:45

scott212 said:
Why do people care so much about Oxbridge? I had no desire whatsoever to go to either. At the end of the day you're sacrificing a lot for a bit of prestige and a first/2:1 in a decent academic degree from any Russell Group university is likely to land you a fantastic job anyway.

I don't see how people cannot have the desire to go to one of the world's top universities? You get the opportunity not just to learn from and work with top academics in your field, but also get the opportunity to make lots of connections and contacts with important people both in academia and industry. A degree from any Russell Group university is always going to put you in excellent stead for the future, but I think that Oxbridge will always be the icing on the cake.

growse · 8 Jul 2011 at 13:47

scorza said:
Nope, they don't select, track or stream pupils. At age 16, pupils can choose between academic or vocational education - until then the principle is that pupils should attend a school that is located near to where they live, and no child gets left behind.

Is there no weight to the argument that a very able pupil put in a class of less able pupils suffers? My suspicion is that this may be true, but it depends massively on things like teaching style, class size etc.

nonhelmet said:
Meh, there's other great universities in this country.

100% this.

Greebo said:
Seems like a lot of people have missed the point in this thread.

I was listening to it on radio 4 this morning and the research showed that for pupils with the exact same grades that 50% were accepted from private schools versus 32% from state schools.

So all pupils have the same level of intelligence so what makes the private schools have a better acceptance rate then?

They had a guy on from Oxford/Cambridge and his theory was that although all the pupils were equally intelligent, he feels that pupils attending private school have more confidence and a greater belief in their worth than ones from state schools which comes through at interview which is why they get a higher proportion of the places.

I can relate to this and I do beleive it to be true. I went to a Grammar school and my brother went to a Comprehensive. I can;t pass judgement on the quality of the teaching at the Comprehensive and I am sure there were kids who were as intelligent or more intelligent than ones at the Grammar school.

However, at the Grammar School, discipline and respect was instilled into us and we had access to do a far greater range of non academic things. We had our own swimming pool, library, computer room, 18 rugby pitches, hockey pitches, indoor and outdoor tennis courts, squash courts, cricket pitches, assault course, firing range, airfield for gliders, photography, film making etc.

Also there were far more trips to places than the comprehensive school offered.

With all that opportunity it is far more likely that pupils leaving a Grammar/private school will be more rounded and confident than their equivalent state pupil.

As it was I turned down Oxford

The grades stat is meaningless because predicted A-level grades tell you nothing about whether that student would benefit from a learning environment that a university might provide, and sadly it tells you little about actual intelligence either.

As you rightly point out, universities don't offer applications on the basis of academic ability alone. If you turn up to an interview with a brilliant academic record and then act like an ass in the interview, more often than not the fellow interviewing will think "I don't really want to teach this guy" and not offer a place.