Labourhome

How to give working class kids a real chance of getting into Oxbridge

richardscorer Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:54:17 PM GMT Facebook

For anyone who wants a Britain in which every child can reach his or her full potential, the statistics on the social background of students admitted to our top universities are uniformly depressing. Oxbridge consistently admits around 46 per cent of its students from private schools, even though those schools only educate seven per cent of Britain's children. The figures for many of the other top universities are even worse.

What can we do? The university admissions system operated by the US state of Texas is worth looking at closely. Ten years ago, after a legal challenge to affirmative action policies prevented universities in Texas from considering race as a factor in admissions, the state's legislators came up with an innovative alternative. In an attempt to make affirmative action colour blind, the top 10 per cent of students at all the state's high schools was granted automatic admission to state universities. Now, you get guaranteed entry to the state university system by being in the top 10 per cent of your high school, not by having to out-compete students from higher achieving schools. Students at the best high schools who fall below the 10 per cent line don't get automatic admission, whereas students from poor inner city or rural high schools who make the top 10 per cent of their school peer group get a guaranteed university place.

The idea was initially greeted with scepticism by educational experts. Some feared that even the best students at poor rural and inner city high schools would never survive academically at top colleges such as the University of Texas. But ten years on, the system has proved remarkably successful.

At the University of Texas at Austin, students admitted under the ‘10 per cent rule' tend to get better grades than other students. They have a higher rate of graduation. Racial diversity has improved; the number of Hispanic and African American students has risen by around 30 per cent for each group. The student body has become much more economically and geographically diverse. Before the rule, the Austin campus drew students from 616 high schools throughout Texas; now it draws students from 853 schools, many in deprived areas.

The rule has now come to dominate university admissions in Texas. There is resentment at the difficulties created for students at high achieving high schools who fall below the 10 per cent line. But the rule is politically popular. Legislators representing rural and urban constituencies have prevented it being watered down, because for the first time children from their areas are getting a shot at the best higher education the state has to offer.

The system has also proved much more effective in broadening diversity than traditional affirmative action programmes. Both poor white students from rural Texas and poor urban black students now get a real chance of entering a top university. That does far more to promote genuine diversity than the traditional affirmative action programmes which tended to give preferential admissions to children of upper-income ethnic minority families.

Could we do something like this in Britain? The details might be different, but the idea is surely worth serious consideration. Such a system would not only give more working class children a better chance of getting into higher education. It would also create a disincentive for middle class parents to congregate in high achieving schools, whether state or private. Suddenly, that inner city comprehensive might seem rather more attractive to middle class parents who want to ease their child's path to a top university. Parents playing the system (trying to find the school that would give their child the best chance of getting into a good university) would work in tandem with the right social policy objective (socially mixed schools), not against it. So Ed Balls should look carefully at the Texas 10 per cent rule. If we want a genuine meritocracy in Britain, it might help to show us the way.

Richard Scorer Labour PPC (posted on Progress website 4.4.08)

Advertise on this site with MessageSpace

tags: Progress, university admissions (all tags)

How to give working class kids a real chance of getting into Oxbridge | 10 comments (10 topical)

Social engineering misses the point (#1)

by alexanderbaker on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:41:48 AM GMT

Richard,

The Texas 10% rule seems an interesting solution to the problem of lack of equal representation in our universities - including Oxbridge.

However I fundamentally disagree with the premise that our universities should necessarily reflect the social mix in wider society. In essence, I think you're trying to find solutions to a symptom of wider problem, as opposed to the problem itself.

To suggest that universities should necessarily reflect the wider social mix is to conveniently ignore the true problem with our education system: that at the primary and secondary level we are failing far too many children who would could otherwise receive places at universities such as Oxford or Cambridge. By the time a 10% rule would kick (i.e. at age 18), it is already too late for many children.

Ed Balls should rightly focus on improving life chances by tackling inequalities as they arise from the earliest possible age. Forcing universities to put a sticky plaster on the failings of comprehensive education through social engineering is not, in my opinion, ever going to address the fundamental problem of encouraging more underrepresented groups into university.

You suggest that "if we want a genuine meritocracy in Britain, [the 10% rule] might help to show us the way". A meritocracy, by definition, relies on advancement through achievement. Advancement through positive discrimination is something else entirely.

The problem isn't with our universities, it's with our schools. And a 10% rule won't do anything to correct that.

: Re: Social engineering misses the point (#3)

by doctordunc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM GMT

It's an interesting proposition, of course. I think it would only be a tinkering at the margins, and possibly a fairly unpopular one. After all, the 90% at the higher performing schools will probably still get onto a good cause somewhere (though they would doubtless be angry about apparently being penalised based on the school they attend) but the 90% at the lowest performing schools would still probably end up not going to university at all. So the initial effect would be slight (i.e. students who were likely to go to universities and get good degrees would be more likely to get onto 'better courses' or more 'elite' institutions). The long-term effect, I agree, could be much more radical, if it did change the way in which certain schools become hugely over-subscribed and others are left underfunded and without high-achieving students; also it would probably undermine independent and grammar schools (which can only be a good thing). But overall it might be a bit of social engineering that is essentially a leap in the dark. There would be a changing of the guards really, insofar as there would likely be an influx of middle-class students into the 'second rung' of universities, replacing high-achieving lower-middle and working-class students who have been given an automatic place 'higher up'. I don't know whether that ends up achieving anything particularly solid. If it led to students going to university AT ALL who aren't now, that would be more tangible, but the top 10% in most sixth forms/colleges (which is, presumably, what we're talking about - we're not talking about GCSE results?) already go.

[ Parent ]

Re: How to give kids a chance (#2)

by jkitleft on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM GMT

This is an extremely interesting post- I do not know which side of the argument I would come down on yet.

Re: How to give working class kids a real chance (#4)

by RedRooster on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM GMT

It's an excellent idea. The only problem I could foresee is students who don't have a Russell Group university near them. Children from somewhere like Southampton could get an automatic place at Southampton Uni, which has a fairly good reputation. Coventry students could get a place at Warwick. But there are bound to be some cities without Russell Group universities within commuting distance- where do they go?

Texas and affirmative action (#5)

by Mike Ion on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM GMT

I think the idea is worthy of further investigation but...

1. The Texas model is 'limited' to a distinct geographical area. For a similar scheme to work here in the UK would (probably) require some universities to link to schools in a particular region or locality - would such a move help get more of our nation's comprehensive school kids into Oxbridge? Probably not.

2. If the Texas model were to be applied nationally then the top 10% of students in all of the nation's 11-18 schools or sixth form colleges would be granted places at... where? Because of the numbers involved you could not just limit the scheme to Oxbridge, you would have to extend it to other 'premier' league universities and you would probably have to extend the scheme to FE colleges and, sadly in my view, to private schools.

3. I wonder whether the issue really is about getting more kids from disadvantaged backgrounds applying to university? The truth is that over 80% of students who study A Levels (regardless of their background) go onto university. Perhaps the real challenge is to get more kids from the inner city studying for A Levels - presently only 30% of kids from 'working class' backgrounds stay on after 16.

Re: How to give kids a real chance ? (#6)

by musicman on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:19:14 AM GMT

Interesting post. I dont know what to say.

a real chance of getting into Oxbridge (#7)

by AlanJi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:21:04 PM GMT

Interesting post, but rather lacking in relevant statistics.
What proportion of young people in Texas are entering higher education and at what age? How does this compare with other US states? What proportion of them go there straight from High School? Are some of these US Universities public sector institutuions? Some of ours used to be, but now they are all voluntary sector.

What would be the point of applying such a cut-off to our Secondary Schools, when there are more A-levels taken in Sixth Form Colleges and in FE colleges than in 11-18 Schools?

On the other hand, opeing new doors to the Secondary Modern students of Kent and Bucks would be good....

How to give working class kids a decent education (#8)

by Mark Wadsworth on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:56:12 PM GMT

... er, how about having a Swedish voucher system, that would give nearly all kids a much better education and level up the playing field?

Don't forget that average spending per State pupil (including DfES, LEA running costs, teachers' pensions, quangos, capital expenditure etc etc) is far higher than the official figure of £5,500 - I guess around £7,000 to £8,000.

And don't worry about average private school fees - what's important is the cheaper and better value private schools - which by definition must be better than state schools, else parents wouldn't spend all that money sending their kids there. And the cheaper/better value private schools are also around £7,000 to £8,000 a year in fees.

education for the nation (#9)

by williamcobbett on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:55:00 AM GMT

middle class parents don't congregate at the best schools, they create the best schools. they give the teachers and their children the support they need. why should parents have to send their children to poor peforming schools, just to make a few MPs feel good. it's ok for MPs, they have connections to help their kids out in their careers, the rest of us have to get qualifications and work.

Re: How to give working class kids (#10)

by talkingcats on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM GMT

I should have thought that one obvious way of giving working class children a 'real chance of getting into Oxbridge' would be not to charge them thousands in tuition fees and to have a generous maintenance grant. When I got to Oxford in 1978, I was the first from my family to go to university and my father was a poorly paid semi-skilled worker. But I didn't have to worry about money as I had a full grant and I didn't have to worry about fees. But that was a real Labour government, not what we have now. I stopped voting Labour in 1997 when it ended the maintenance grant and I doubt I will ever vote again. I very much doubt that someone from my background would now be able to get into Oxford. That's progress for you.