Many of you will have seen the considerable fuss today over The Guardian’s story about how few children from certain backgrounds obtain places at Oxbridge. The facts as stated are not in dispute. The difficulty lies in interpreting them.

It seems to me that the suggestion is being made implicitly, without actually being explicitly stated, that Oxbridge is discriminating against ethnic minorities and against applicants from poorer parts of the country.

I think, and explain in detail why below, with research backing, that this is simply untrue.

The explanation lies in the low expectations and defeatism of far too many State School teachers, who fail to encourage bright pupils to apply to Oxbridge. And it lies in the miserable discrimination against the poor imposed by our failed and unreformable comprehensive school system, which discriminates constantly against children from poor homes, by confining them to inferior schools after ruthless selection by wealth.

The story was much taken up by the BBC (though the BBC Today programme’s reports oddly concentrated on the paucity of Oxbridge places going to applicants from outside the wealthy South-East, whereas Mr Lammy and the Guardian seemed more interested in the small numbers of Black undergraduates).

It originated in The Guardian, following a Freedom of Information request by the Labour MP David Lammy. The Guardian account of this can be read here

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

The website headline “Oxford accused of 'social apartheid' as colleges admit no black students” (my emphasis) is a bit naughty. ‘Colleges admit no black students’ is misleading, and should really have begun with the word ‘some’. Anyone who doesn’t understand the structure of Oxford and Cambridge, which each have many colleges which admit students directly, might get a wholly wrong impression from this headline.

Interestingly the print headline is quite different, saying ‘Oxbridge still failing black British pupils’ , with the sub-heading ‘One in three Oxford colleges took no black A-level students in 2015’ For as it happens , while some Oxbridge colleges did take no black students, many did admit black students. As the report says ‘The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015, the first time the university has released such figures since 2010.’ (This link is worth following), that means that 22 out of 32 Oxford colleges did admit back students.’ Which is not quite the same as ‘colleges admit no black students’. If the Ancient Universities were not made up of colleges and were being judged *as Universities*, this sort of thing couldn’t be said. I think it’s tricky myself, and might well mislead those who don’t understand that Colleges often specialise in particular subjects, that some are far smaller than others, and that those who are rejected by one college are quite often pooled and gain places in another.

It adds that Oriel College only offered one place to a black British A-level student in six years’. Why is Oriel College picked out? Could it be a reference to Oriel College’s famous statue of Cecil Rhodes, the focus of some campaigning by the left in recent years? I have no idea.

‘Similar data released by Cambridge revealed that six colleges there failed to admit any black British A-level students in the same year.’ I would once again point out that this means a lot of other Cambridge colleges did admit black students that year. I believe that 25 out of 31 Cambridge colleges admit undergraduates on leaving school, so I think that means 19 Cambridge colleges *did* admit Black British A level students.

For me, the problem in such stories always lies in the assumption of the left (similarly made in presenting crime statistics etc) that the explanation for this must be some sort of racial prejudice.

Mr Lammy said ‘Difficult questions have to be asked, including whether there is systematic bias inherent in the Oxbridge admissions process that is working against talented young people from ethnic minority backgrounds’.

Do they?

I cannot myself think of any institutions in Britain less likely than Oxford and Cambridge to discriminate on the grounds of skin colour. It is hard to find an Oxbridge academic who is not way put on the politically correct left, and in any case, racial bigotry is such a *stupid* thing that it is hard to see it being prevalent in such places. I’m also well aware, from personal knowledge, as an Oxford resident acquainted with some of those involved, of the determined efforts Oxford colleges make to recruit applicants from outside the privileged classes who inevitably (I’ll come to this) make up the bulk of their undergraduates.

As the Guardian admitted ‘Oxford said students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds made up 15.9% of its 2016 UK undergraduate intake, up from 14.5% in 2015, and that offers to black students had more than doubled since 2010. Those figures include British Asian students and other minorities.’

Mr Lammy, very interestingly, went on to say ‘There are almost 400 black students getting three As at A-level or better every year,’ yet few of them are attracted to apply to Oxford or Cambridge. Around 3% of the British population identified as black in the last UK census.’

Note that he does not say that 400 black students with good A levels *apply* to Oxbridge every year. Because, I strongly suspect, they mostly don’t apply. Oxford and Cambridge can work miracles, but they cannot admit students who haven’t applied to them. Might this have rather more to do with the problem? And, come to that, could there also be a connection between these figures and the fact that many Black students come from poor backgrounds and are therefore condemned to the sub-standard schools reserved for those whose parents are not rich? I wonder how many young men and women from poor ‘white’ homes get into Oxbridge each year. I suspect it is not many. I also suspect few apply.

A frequent contributor here, Geoffrey Warner, is (like me) a strong supporter of the restoration of a national grammar school system, which at its height was dominated by working class boys and girls ( 65% of pupils according to Table J in the Gurney Dixon report of 1954) and whose products were by 1965 out-performing the great public schools in getting places at Oxford without any special provision (see the Franks Report 1966 -

In 1966, the Franks Report into Oxford University showed that, during the selective era which began in 1944, the proportion of state and direct-grant pupils entering Oxford rose rapidly. Such schools had won 32% of places in 1938-9. By 1958-9, they won 45% (Direct Grants 15%, ordinary grammars 30%) and by 1965-5 they won 49% (Direct Grants 17%, ordinary grammars 32%) .These improvements were achieved without any special concessions, and despite the private schools’ inbuilt advantage in Classics, then essential for Oxbridge entry.) and presumably at Cambridge too. This process went backwards after the dissolution of most grammar schools between 1965 and 1975, and has only been restored by, er, elaborate corrective methods now very much in operation. Geoffrey Warner reminded me this morning that a year ago (13th October 2016) the Sutton Trust had published the results of a survey of state school teachers, asking them about their attitudes towards Oxbridge.

https://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/state-teachers-refuse-to-push-poor-bright-pupils-to-apply-for-oxbridge/

It reported ‘Four in ten teachers said they would rarely or never advise their cleverest children to apply – despite the opportunities this could offer the students, a study found.

Of those admitting they did not encourage pupils, 19 per cent said it was because they felt the children were unlikely to get in and 13 per cent said they didn’t think they would be happy there.’

The Daily Mail and the Guardian both reported this finding. The Mail wrote: ‘STATE school teachers refuse to encourage bright, disadvantaged pupils to apply to Oxford and Cambridge because they assume most 'won't be happy there'.

Four in ten teachers said they would rarely or never advise their cleverest children to apply - despite the opportunities this could offer the students, a study found.

Of those admitting they did not encourage pupils, 19 per cent said it was because they felt the children were unlikely to get in and 13 per cent said they didn't think they would be happy there.

The findings come amid a Government drive to increase the number of students from deprived backgrounds going to top universities. In previous years, both Oxford and Cambridge have faced criticism for not doing enough to encourage children from state schools and disadvantaged backgrounds to apply for courses.

Theresa May has highlighted the injustice of white working class boys being the least likely group to attend university.

The Government hopes to reintroduce grammar schools to the poorest areas in the country to help more disadvantaged bright children get into Oxbridge.

Yesterday, experts said the findings showed many teachers in the comprehensive system were failing to help bright students fulfil their potential.

The study of 1,607 primary and secondary school teachers was carried out by the Sutton Trust, a charity providing educational opportunities for children from under-privileged backgrounds.

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: 'Many state school teachers don't see Oxbridge as a realistic goal for their brightest pupils. It is vital that the universities step up their outreach activities to address teachers' and students' misconceptions.' Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: 'Lots of teachers, it seems, are actively damaging the future prospects of the children they teach.

'If the Government seeks an extra argument in favour of grammar schools for helping raise the attainment and expectation of children from deprived backgrounds, this research finding provides it.' The news comes ahead of the deadline this Saturday for applying to Oxford and Cambridge.

Just one-fifth of the polled teachers said they always advised their bright pupils to apply and a quarter said they usually did.

Researchers also found teachers' common misconceptions extended to the proportion of state school students at Oxford and Cambridge.

Just over a fifth thought fewer than 20 per cent of students came from the state sector when the actual figure is about 60 per cent.

Alan Smithers, professor of education at the University of Buckingham, said: 'It is shameful that these teachers cut across the chances of bright, poor pupils by assuming they would not be happy there.'

The Guardian reported, under the headline State school teachers still not pushing best pupils to Oxbridge.

Survey finds 40% rarely or never tell brightest to go. Sutton Trust says outdated misconceptions persist

‘More than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to Oxford or Cambridge, according to a survey of teachers. Research by the Sutton Trust reveals that despite a decade of well-funded outreach to state schools by both universities, the proportion of teachers who would encourage kids to apply has not changed substantially since the trust asked the same question nine years ago.

The survey by the educational charity also revealed teachers' stubborn misconceptions about the background of those pupils who did gain entry to Oxbridge, with the majority of those who responded underestimating the success rate of state school applicants, many by a wide margin.

"We know how important teachers are in shaping young people's aspirations which is why we run teacher summer schools at Oxford and Cambridge," said Sir Peter Lampl, the Sutton Trust's founder and chairman.

"Today's polling tells us that many state school teachers don't see Oxbridge as a realistic goal for their brightest pupils. The reasons are they don't think they will get in and, if they get in, they don't think they will fit in. It is vital that the universities step up their outreach activities to address teachers' and students' misconceptions." The figures come as the deadline for next year's Oxbridge applications looms on 15 October.

The poll of 1,600 primary and secondary school teachers found that little more than a fifth always advised their brightest students to apply to Oxbridge, while 28% said they usually advised them to.

But of those teachers who did not encourage their pupils to apply to Oxbridge, in most cases it was because they did not advise students on their university choices. Of the remainder, nearly a fifth said it was because they did not think their pupils' applications would succeed. But at least one in 20 of the teachers said they would not advise bright pupils to apply because they "didn't think they would be happy there," the survey found.

Both Oxford and Cambridge have spent heavily on widening access in recent years, according to figures from the Office for Fair Access.

In Oxford's case the effort has had success: last month it said nearly 60% of its undergraduate intake were former state school pupils, the highest level for decades and an increase on the nearly 56% it admitted in 2015.

But Louise Richardson, Oxford's new vice-chancellor, believes the university needs to do more in attracting the best. "In an increasingly complex world, the best may not be those who look and sound like ourselves. They may not be those who naturally think of coming to Oxford. Those with the greatest potential may not be those who have already attained the most. We need to seek them out," she said.

It seems to me that the best explanation of this disparity lies there, in the failure of the schools both to educate bright children form poor backgrounds, and to encourage them to apply for the best universities, and it is irresponsible of the Guardian and the BBC to engage in this sort of journalism, when they know perfectly well that this is the case.