In its ‘Office for Fair Access’ report, Cambridge’s University Council has recently decided to opt not to allow giving lowering offer grades for the most disadvantaged UK students. This seems to me a naïve and dangerous denial that an inequality of opportunity exists within higher education, as the report appears to illustrate an ignorance of the issue, and threatens to perpetuate elitist stereotypes that cling to Oxbridge as an institution.

In ideal world, there wouldn’t be disadvantage or privilege, and therefore a contextual approach towards granting offers would be unnecessary. However, until that day I believe it is imperative that the University exhibits some affirmative action towards the disadvantaged. Without this, a whole generation of academically-gifted students could miss out on the opportunity to benefit from Cambridge’s high quality of teaching.

Among the state school students that I have spoken to, there is a broad consensus that contextual offers should be essential to the Cambridge admissions system. Anna Pick, a first-year HSPS student commented: “if Cambridge acceptance was purely based on merit then there would be perfect social mobility and the composition of students here would perfectly reflect the seven/93 per cent private/state school split in the general population as a whole. The fact that the proportions do not reflect this shows that talent is being wasted.”

Many state school students who come to Cambridge are not in need of a reduced offer and are able to achieve as highly as someone who has received a private education. However, the offers are part of a wider access issue: they are linked to Oxbridge’s image and feeling of exclusivity. Disparities in the preparation schools provide for the interview process and admissions tests – extended by the fact that most private or grammar schools will have Oxbridge-educated teachers – make the Cambridge admission system more favourable towards those educated independently. Students from grammar schools are also advantaged (to a lesser extent), skewing access statistics as these schools tend to be of a higher standard than comprehensives.

Kit Stout, a first-year historian, said that “the state school I attended did have ambition and passion, but reference to Oxbridge was a rare occurrence, and I would definitely consider the high entry requirements an incentive not to apply. What I think about most when I look back on my time at secondary school is the great difficulty of teaching a group in which the aims and goals are at the extremes: I can imagine this isn’t the case in good state schools and private schools whose students are mainly aiming for A/A* grades.”

However, lowering the offers for disadvantaged students is not condescension on part of the University. Isaac Squires, a first-year NatSci explained “people have different opportunities in life depending on their backgrounds, and the fact that lower offers for disadvantaged students is not being considered is just ignorant: it’s obvious that a high-quality education is linked to someone’s economic situation. The philosophy here that ‘we only care about merit’ assumes that an individual’s merit is separate from their upbringing and privilege”.

This point is supported by the statistic that students on free school meals (with a household income of less than £16,000 a year) account for 15 per cent of the school population, but make up less than one per cent of Oxbridge admissions. Reducing offers for disadvantaged students therefore is not a sacrifice of Cambridge’s intellectual rigour, but an understanding that these students may not have previously been in an environment where they could achieve their full potential.  

Organisations such as the Sutton Trust or the Durham Progression Scheme, which look at multiple forms of disadvantage when accepting students onto their schemes (such as whether a school or college regularly receives A Level results below the national average, and if the student has been in care or receives free school meals) recognise that social and economic inequality affect intellectual achievement. In giving standard offers regardless of the student’s background, the University of Cambridge is ignoring these realities, keeping the problem of under-representation alive.

Although those who are disadvantaged may be deterred from applying to university for financial reasons, the report states that there are plenty of bursaries available for support where necessary. So, the issue is getting the students from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply in the first place. The daunting prospect of having to achieve the same grades as someone from a private or grammar school is just one factor here, but perhaps the easiest one to remedy. In 2010, one third of all pupils in England who achieved A*AA at A Level were educated independently, and pupils with lower predicted grades than this from state schools are regularly deterred from applying.

While it could be argued that we should deal with the problem before the point of A Level achievement, as it would obviously be better to improve the UK education system itself so as to render corrective measures redundant, this is a much harder and more arduous process.  Giving a lower offer to students from disadvantaged backgrounds is a simple move that would affirm the intellectual capabilities of the student (in that the receipt of AAA or AAB from a failing comprehensive is as impressive as gaining an A* from Eton), and also make a concession for the fact that the student may not have received the same meticulous training for exams as someone from a private or grammar school.

I believe that that the positive psychological effects of a lowered offer for disadvantaged students would be colossal, as it removes a barrier which currently discourages state school students from applying to Oxbridge and entrenches the inequality of opportunity generated by wealth. University application is an important place where affirmative action can be applied to balance out educational disparity.  By declining to provide contextually-considered offers, a determining factor in entrance to Cambridge becomes whether your parents enrolled you at a private school or sent you to the only school they could.