Equalising Access to Oxbridge?

A week ago I did a poll on LinkedIn asking connections if they thought attending a private or state school should affect the chances of a student getting into Oxbridge. Eighty-six percent of you answered 'no,' which consequently implies most of you agree Oxbridge entries should be based on meritocracy.

In reality, especially in 2020, 2021 and possibly 2022, this hasn’t been the case.

As a result of an algorithm mishap in grading A level results, and then later on, an over-correction to use the better grades out of all available means, more school leavers than expected got the A's and A*'s they needed last year to secure their firm choice of university. For those who narrowly missed the grades, universities were encouraged to take a sympathetic view towards applicants who were deemed 'disadvantaged', either through economic hardship or originated from schools that traditionally didn't perform, or wouldn’t have been able to offer consistent online teaching in the lockdown. All three conditions put state school offer holders in favour. For example, my alma mater King's College Cambridge issued 144 conditional offers, of which 50 offer holders missed the required grades. Aside from the candidates who didn’t perform in the Cambridge-specified STEP exams, which were sat in person, 28 eventually had their offers ‘reprieved’ under exceptional circumstances. Of these, 27 were from state schools.

Given senior school leaver exams have been cancelled again, and that the nation has been in lockdown for one third of this academic year, we can assume history will repeat itself. Except there will be fewer places available at OxBridge this year. Taking into account the number of students who deferred from 2020 due to covid-related reasons, or simply because of the lack of capacity to accommodate all students who met their conditions, OxBridge has been more stringent on issuing conditional offers this year. Some say the proportion of offers issued are down by 15% yoy, with one admissions tutor from a Cambridge college stating he reduced the number of offers issued per place from 1.3 to 1.1 in an attempt to avoid another ‘bulge’ in enrolling numbers.

Oxbridge offer rates increased significantly for many selective state schools in 2020, and already we’re hearing the same story this year. With fewer places on offer, and a general consensus in OxBridge admissions giving candidates from disadvantaged background the benefit of the doubt, it’s safe to assume state school candidates will fare better in the next two years of application cycles.

To the general public, this could be seen as welcoming where OxBridge entry is finally becoming a level playing field for all. But in truth, the majority of state school offer holders are from highly selective schools, which are often more competitive to get in than an average private school. Many students would have had years of private tuition to get into these state selectives, and some would have continued to be tutored to ensure they met the conditions set by OxBridge. By consciously increasing access to candidates from the state sector, while it will for sure benefit those who got there against all odds, a great number of students may still be of similar socio-economic background as their private school peers. Equally, students who are on full or partial bursaries at private schools, despite their less privileged circumstances which make them closer to those from state schools, will be put in a disadvantage.

In short, celebrating Oxbridge application successes from state schools doesn't paint a picture of equalising access. Taking a conscious bias towards students who have attended certain type of schools does not make the Oxbridge admissions process fairer. In the long run, Oxbridge runs the risk of a brain drain as the most capable 17 and 18 year olds will trickle their way to other countries where university admissions are more holistic. My two girls, essentially, will be prime examples.