All my life, I've seen Oxford as a wondrous place full of mystery and magic, where clever people congregate to do clever things. Naturally, therefore, when I received the offer of a place from Oxford, I was ecstatic. However, getting an offer has also shown me that other people do not see Oxbridge as the fairy-tale place of their dreams, but as an elitist institution which stubbornly reinforces an old-fashioned and unfair social hierarchy. It is even possible to draw links between many people’s views on Oxbridge, and the way that Marx viewed the Church, or the way John Berger viewed advertising- they are all identified as things which artificially support the current social structure, and the way society functions. I’m not trying to argue that Oxbridge is not elitist- I am aware of the facts; 44.6% of Oxford places given to UK students in 2010 were given to those who attended an independent school, while only 6.5% of students are educated in an independent school (although this figure rises to 18% for over-16 year olds). However, I believe that firstly, these figures need putting into context, and secondly, the distortion they reveal is not necessarily Oxbridge’s fault.
 |
| Cameron and Johnson both went to Eton, then Oxford |
First of all therefore, I would like to point out that the percentage of acceptances in each sector, is roughly proportionate to the percentage of applications from each sector. While it may seem ridiculous that state sector pupils only gained 55.4% of offers, when you look at the fact that only 62.6% of applications came from state sector pupils, this figure becomes less shocking. Furthermore, when you consider that 41% of state sector applicants applied for the four most popular subjects, compared to only 33% of independent school applicants, it is even easier to see that the figures are not entirely irrational. This does not mean to say that these figures are acceptable, or that it is okay for Oxbridge to continue to educate a disproportionate number of independent school students, however, it does suggest that the reasons for this distortion do not lie within Oxbridge itself.
Part of the reason for these unbalanced figures, is to do with the (mis)perception of Oxbridge, which I alluded to earlier. Because Oxbridge is often seen as an unattainable goal, open only to a selected elite, many do not even bother applying. An article I read during the student protests (which I have since been unable to find) perfectly embodied these misperceptions. It was written about the protests which took place in Oxford, and suggested that, because of the privileged background of the students concerned, they had no right to be protesting, as it was almost hypocritical. It was suggested that these students, who got a top class education at the expense of their parents, would not be affected by higher fees, and therefore should not be protesting. However, this is the sort of popular opinion which allows Oxbridge to remain the preserve of the elite. If people see it as somewhere open only to the rich and powerful, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those who do not fall into that category do not apply. In fact, I believe it is especially important that students from universities such as Oxford were involved in the protests, as they are the universities which will be able to charge the full fees, which will further discourage students from less privileged backgrounds from applying. One important step towards redressing the balance between state and independent school students is adjusting people’s perceptions of Oxbridge, so that a wider range of students apply.
Another reason for these figures is a real difference in the educational attainment of state school versus private school students. In 2010, 52% of A-level entries from independent sector schools received an A or above, while nationally, the figure was only 27%. This, therefore, naturally biases acceptances to universities like Oxbridge towards the private sector, which achieves better grades. This surely cannot be seen as a failure on the part of Oxbridge, but as a failure of the education system as a whole. I believe that in order to change the way the tertiary education sector functions, we need first to address the problems in the primary and secondary education sectors, and even nursery care, as these institutions affect how children develop the whole way through their school life. I do concede that society cannot continue to emphasise academia in the way it has, and should make a move towards introducing more apprenticeships etc (as well as raising the profile and status of these), but we need to make both academic, and practical subjects accessible to children from all backgrounds.
