No allowances for state schoolers
The widespread belief that state-educated pupils will outperform their privately educated contemporaries at university has been challenged this week by Oxford academics.
Over recent years admissions tutors at top universities have adopted a more lenient approach towards state school applicants, under the premise that these candidates will go on to achieve higher grades than those from private schools.
Research published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 2003 supported this claim with evidence that, given equal Alevel scores, a higher proportion of state-educated graduates achieved a 2:1 degree compared to those from the independent sector. Further studies by Smith and Naylor, readers in Economics at Warwick University have blamed the so-called `independent school effect' which describes the observable fact that independent candidates may seem more intelligent than they are due to their school's ability to pull everyone through with high A-levels.
However, a new study conducted at Oxford University by Dr N.G. McCrum, Emeritus Fellow of Hertford College, Dr C.L. Brundin and A.H. Halsey, Emeritus Professor of Social and Administrative Studies, has found no evidence of this phenomenon within Oxford or Cambridge. According to their findings, Oxbridge colleges should not make concessions for comprehensive pupils, with the exception of males studying science.
The study compared the final scores of Oxford and Cambridge graduates, from various academic backgrounds, between 1976 and 2002. Pupils with two A grades and one B grade were compared with entrants who had achieved three A grades at A-level. Dr McCrum and colleagues showed that pupils with lower grades continued to fall behind their higher achieving peers regardless of background, concluding that there was no relationship between the student's final score and their previous education and therefore that a student's ability could be accurately predicted from A-level results alone.
The academics published their research in The Oxford Magazine stating that "for both types of school for both genders at Oxford and Cambridge, A-level dictates finals score, except in the sciences for males". The dons have been careful not to enter into the perennial access debate which surrounds the university application process, insisting that the study makes "no comment on the intrinsic value of different institutions and courses". Dr Brundin, reader in engineering at Oxford, is quick to point out that their paper is not a denunciation of the funding council's 2003 paper and must not be taken as proof across the board: "We're saying we can't challenge their study as a whole, but that we cannot say it applies to a single institution and in particular, it does not apply to Oxbridge."
However, the study has received some criticism. John Thompson, an analyst for the funding council, claims that the present study fails to "fully appreciate" their original research and maintains that "overall, if you make a comparison, keeping everything the same, state school students do a little better". Although, Thompson does admit that at the most selective universities the effect of a student's background on their final classification is less apparent.
The publication of the funding council's initial report met with mixed reactions upon publication. Many supported a system in which an applicant's results were judged in the context in which they were achieved, but some labelled the move nothing more than social discrimination, albeit of a positive nature. Whether this latest study will herald the return to a system where students are measured entirely on academic ability remains to be seen, but as its authors acknowledge this is "surely a boost for the use of A-level in the admissions exercise".
Comments