The Oxbridge Delusion

Oxford and Cambridge are arguably the most famous universities in Britain, if not the world. Their reputation far exceeds that of other universities and is often linked with academic excellence and social upheaval. The spires of the Oxford Bodleian library are recognised worldwide and the universities form a long established tradition of leaders attending them, the question is; does an Oxbridge education really give you that much of an advantage?

Some may argue yes, an obvious indication of their success can be seen by the fact that many of those in the top professions have attended Oxbridge, with more than 80% of high-court judges and 38% of MP’s attending either Oxford or Cambridge. This figures makes the obvious choice of most bright student when asked where they want to attend, to be Oxbridge.

However, despite many of the most high-profile jobs being taken by Oxbridge alumni, the starting graduate salaries surprisingly is higher at other ‘less profile universities’, London-Southbank university for example, despite being less reputable than Oxbridge is in the top 10 universities with the highest graduate-starting salaries along with Manchester, Warwick and the London Universities. Oxford and Cambridge came fourth and fifth on the list with average graduate earnings being £28,000 a year, a mere £3000 over the national average. With students from less competitive universities receiving on average, higher-starting salaries, why the obsession with Oxbridge?

Listening to Michele Obama’s speech, telling inner-city girls to aim for Oxbridge, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that Oxbridge would be accessible to those who work hard enough? However this assumption is often unfounded since despite being the ambition of many bright teenagers, to attend Oxbridge, there still exists to this day, a long established socio-cultural link between Oxbridge colleges and the leading private schools.

There is a hugely disproportionate representation of privately educated students at Oxbridge, and research conducted by the Sutton Trust Charity shows that private school students are 55 times more likely to get accepted into Oxbridge than public-sector students. Five private schools, including Eton, Westminster School, St Pauls Girls, St Pauls Boys and the City of London School for Girls, in the years 2009-10, sent more students to Oxbridge than 2000 lower performing schools combined. This is a clear sign of social elitism still being practised at these two universities, and despite Cambridge claiming that more than 50% of their undergraduate-intakes are from state-schools, this is still hugely disproportionate seeing as state-schools make up 80% of students whilst 20% coming from private schools.

Despite being reputable amongst employers and academics alike, and having arguably the finest pool of academics attending, the Oxbridge dream is often just a dream for many since the universities are evidently too elitist to be deemed as accessible to even the hardest working students. This makes the choice of applying to a less renowned but more accessible university be seen as an option to bright teens, who must also be reminded that despite being one of the most famous universities, success isn’t limited to Oxbridge.

Do Grammar Schools Really Improve Social Mobility?

Grammar schools have existed for hundreds of years, during this time they have been attributed to enabling a growing sense of social progress by allowing students to have the capacity to climb up the social ladder. Their success is undoubtedly evident in the school league tables, as a growing number of grammar schools are frequenting at the top of the list, therefore competing with top private schools. But are grammar schools really improving social mobility?

To answer this question, we must first examine how successful grammar schools are in providing students, a top class education that they wouldn’t have got otherwise. Plainly from the sheer quality of education, we can see that grammar schools often provide the right environment for bright kids, since the sexually segregated environment can be argued to provide optimum levels of concentration and also allows for a greater sense of maturity by the students. This combined with the excellent facilities and teaching often seen at grammar schools undoubtedly contributes to the often stellar grades achieved by students who attend these schools.

Further justification of the success of grammar schools can be seen by the ‘Outstanding’ rating that more than 90% of grammar schools receive from Ofsted, compared with the 17% national average. Also, of the top 100 schools in the UK, grammar schools make up an astonishing 55 of them. This clearly shows their accomplishment in competing with even the best private schools, some of which charge more than £45,000 a year. The school at the top of the 2011 school league table, ‘Colchester Royal Grammar School’ managed to get 25 of its pupils to Oxbridge, whereas ‘St Pauls’ private school achieved slightly less admissions with 19 of its students gaining a place at Oxbridge. This could be seen as a sign of upward social mobility, since students from grammar schools are often able to contend with and sometimes even defeat their counterparts from private schools.

While the success of grammar schools is clearly evident, however we must not forget the criteria of social mobility. We must now scrutinize how well the working class are often assisted through grammar schools. Grammar schools are clearly very ethnically diverse, but how socially diverse are they? Research by the ‘Sutton Trust’ as shown that the majority of grammar school pupils are from middle class backgrounds, this can also be seen by the fact that 4.5% of pupils attending grammar school are eligible for free school meals, as opposed to the national average of 15.4%. This is not a good sign, since how can grammar schools be seen to be improving social mobility if they are mainly assisting middle class families as opposed to working class families?

The average household income for students at grammar schools is over £45,000, which is more than 30% higher than the national average. This suggests that not enough working class students attend these schools. A reason for this could be a result of the frequent attitude shared by working class parents that the school their child attends, does not make a difference to their attainment. We have established this to be largely false, since going to a grammar school has been shown to be significantly more advantageous for students than attending a comprehensive. This attitude, combined with the lack of adequate preparation for, and the high costs of tuition towards the 11-plus entrance exams, acts as a deterrence for working class parents, and significantly lowers the chances of their children gaining entrance into grammar schools and consequently hinders their potential for social mobility.

In essence, it would be fair to conclude that although grammar schools can be seen to be largely beneficial for those who attend it, as demonstrated by the high grades often achieved by students there. They can’t, however be seen as improving social mobility since the pupils are for the most part middle class, so in a way grammar schools can be viewed by middle class parents, as a free alternative to sending their children to private schools. This henceforth forces me to conclude that the merits of grammar schools are invariably undermined by the fact that they only allow for restricted social mobility since they simply do not do enough for the working class.