September 18, 2009
Want to promote equality of opportunity? Ban these companies
Update: Rowenna Davis, making a welcome return to Liberal Conspiracy, also wants the state to ban stuff today. Hurrah for the state banning stuff! (Though her argument is considerably more thought-out than mine, and isn’t, I think, as vulnerable to as many criticisms)
It’s September. That means that up and down the nation thousands of 17 year olds are submitting early copies of their “UCAS” forms to the central government agency which organises university applications. They’re submitting them early because they are applying to two specific institutions: Oxford and Cambridge.
These two universities are some of the most competitive and difficult to gain entry to in the world. This is because they are widely viewed as being gateways to a brighter future. “Get an Oxbridge education” – the conventional wisdom has it – “and all life’s doors will be open to you”. Having completed an Oxbridge education myself, I will attest that it’s substantially more complicated than that. Nonetheless, it is true that many Oxbridge graduates go on to do high-powered, and often high-profile jobs, and that those who have received Oxbridge educations are well-represented in the wealthy and powerful stratas of society.
Correspondingly, many students are desperate to gain access to Oxford or Cambridge – and most of their parents are fairly desperate for it to happen too. What makes the Oxbridge admissions system stand out, however, is that it is far more demanding and rigorous than most other UK universities’ selection procedures are (reflecting the enormous resource imbalance present within the UK higher education system). Not least, this is because Oxford and Cambridge still insist upon interviewing applicants, as well as assessing a great deal of written work and increasingly demanding high scores in special admissions tests.
Given the all the above factors, a special industry has therefore sprung-up: organisations which claim they are able to substantially improve a student’s chances of gaining an Oxbridge place by offering advice for writing personal statements and written work submissions, preparation for aptitude tests and above all, interview technique coaching. Of course, these organisations aren’t doing it out of the kindness of their corporate hearts. They charge a fee.
And it’s a hefty one. The Oxbridge Applications company charges a stonking £240 for its “silver” package, and £295 for its “gold” package. Similarly, though not quite as extortionately, Oxbridge Interviews charges £125 for “Subject Interview” training, and £75 for the “personal statement” interview (whatever that means).
Do the services these companies provide in fact increase the likelihood of an applicant being successful? I’d like to think not: that experienced dons can see through the carefully prepared and trained, and move past the gloss to see what an applicant is really like beneath the expensive varnish. But then, Oxbridge Applications claim their succesful applications rate is 47%, compared to an Oxbridge average of 24%.
What really bothers me about these companies is not so much that they subvert the admissions process (though they certainly, they do that: rather than applicants being truly themselves in the interview, allowing tutors to make an honest assessment of the candidate before, students are trained in how to “pass” the interview by trying to second-guess and fake it). No, what really rubs me up the wrong way is that such services help make the playing field even more uneven between poorer and better-off Oxbridge applicants.
And the playing field is already significantly uneven. Despite making up about 93% of the total number of school students in the UK, those educated in the state sector represented just 53% of Oxford students and 57.6% of Cambridge students in 2008. The vast majority of the rest were privately educated. The writing is on the wall (as everybody knows) in this case: the benefits of a private education – smaller class sizes, intensive learning, better discipline, extensive expertise on Oxbridge applications and application coaching – all translate into a better chance of getting into Oxbridge.
This is one of the reasons I oppose private education: a student’s parents’ having enough money to educate them privately drastically increases their chances of going to Oxbridge, which in turn increases their access to top-quality education and, in many cases, significant career boosts later in life. Thus, the kids from wealthy backgrounds have a disproportionate grip on Oxbridge places, and are more likely than their poorer peers to go on to become wealthy (as well as to wield positions of power and influence which in turn shape society). That deeply offends against any notion of equality of opportunity, and it entrenches inequality in the process.
(The other reasons why I oppose private education are well-laid out in this excellent little book).
Companies which offer coaching services manifest the same problem in a different form. The fact is, applicants from poorer backgrounds will simply lack (or perhaps better, their parents will simply lack) the resources to pay for these kinds of training schemes, or at any rate will lack the resources to the same extent as their richer competitors. After all, whilst poorer families may be able to scrape together enough money to afford maybe one of these expensive sessions, the wealthier another applicants’ parents are, the more times they can go on these training schemes – and the more they will enhance their chances of gaining Oxbridge entry.
The result is the private school phenomenon, extended. I do not believe this phenomenon can be justified, on the grounds that it upsets equality of opportunity too much: these companies further entrench the ability of the already-wealthy to gain access to institutions which are disproportionately likely to increase likelihood of becoming wealthy. As a result, I believe the state has a right to ban these companies: the freedom to seek profit by offering Oxbridge application training, and the freedom to pay for such services if one can afford them, is outweighed by the harmful and detrimental effects on equality of opportunity which result. This matters, because we need equality of opportunity if we are to have anything like a fair society, in which people are equally able to get to the top jobs regardless of whether they were born into poverty or to the manor.
Furthermore, banning these companies would have another important feature: it would be a symbolic statement that wealth will increasingly not be allowed to dictate futures, and that a genuine commitment to equality of opportunity for rich and poor is held. After that, we can get to the real meat: getting rid of independent schools entirely (starting by stripping them of their ludicrous charity status).
–
Appendix
To head off an early objection: but those applicants with friends and family who have successfully navigated the Oxbridge admissions process will stand a better chance than those without such expertise to draw upon. The world being what it is, these applicants are disproportionately likely to be middle-class and upper-middle class. The poor still find themselves disadvantaged – so am I going to advocate the state banning people from talking to friends and family, on the grounds of equality of opportunity?
Reply: To an extent, a consistent advocate of equality of opportunity would have to agree that it is problematic that, as an empirical observation about the world, the middle and upper-middle classes will, through friends and family, stand to gain advice and help on Oxbridge admissions that the poorer generally will not. However, it can consistently be recognised that the cost of the state interfering in such personal relationships would be intolerable: the impact upon privacy, freedom of association, and the importance of individuals’ lives going well by being able to share experiences and help friends and family would be intolerably horrific. As a result, it can consistently be recognised that in such cases, the state must tolerate the attendant negative impacts upon equality of opportunity (as the distinctly lesser of two evils, so to speak).
However, the case is significantly different from that of private companies offering the above-described services: in that case, the negative impact of the state ban upon the freedom of private companies and of the wealthy to buy their services is something a free and liberal society can reasonably tolerate, insofar as the value of equality of opportunity is deemed to “trump” it. There’s a big difference between banning a form of service being provided by profit-seeking companies, and trying to regulate the individual relationships of hundreds of thousands of human lives. The cases are therefore significantly asymmetric, and different conclusions follow from both.
Grace said,
September 18, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“Oxbridge Applications claim their succesful applications rate is 47%, compared to an Oxbridge average of 24%.” – but correlation doesn’t equal causation, my guess is that those who pay for oxbridge applications are more committed/dedicated/hard-working than the average applicant, and so more likely to get in anyway.
“such services help make the playing field even more uneven between poorer and better-off Oxbridge applicants” – but how many people actually use these companies? I suspect not that many – I know it’s only anecdotal evidence but I go to a private school where ~40 people are applying to oxbridge, and no-one I know of has paid for one session with oxbridge applications (let alone several!) – we were told that it was a waste of time and money.
Paul said,
September 18, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Hmm, so you don’t think that the rich applicant who has been through coaching session and done proper practice interviews is at an advantage vis-a-vis the poorer applicant who, say, can’t afford these practice sessions and goes to a school where no additional help is provided by teachers because e.g. they are overworked, and don’t understand the Oxbridge admissions system or how oxbridge interviews work?
And by the way, having been through the whole shebang and right out to the other side, there isn’t much of a guarantee that only the committed/dedicated/hardworking kids get in. Cos they don’t. Loads of lazy and not-that-bright-it-turns out (and, i’m sorry, but in my personal experience, privately educated) applicants get in.
Maybe they are, if you’re already paying thousands for an education that puts you at a distinct advantage vis-a-vis the 93% of state-sector educated students in the country.
Or maybe your school has an incentive to say they are a waste of money because, you know, parents might get bit uppity at the implication that despite spending thousands on an education which is in huge part tailored to achieve Oxbridge admission, they need to go out and spend yet more on another service provider…
Grace said,
September 18, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“goes to a school where no additional help is provided by teachers because e.g. they are overworked, and don’t understand the Oxbridge admissions system or how oxbridge interviews work” – i don’t deny that this sort of thing probably makes a difference, however it’s not a simple as “private school = amazing oxbridge tuition”. there are very significant differences between schools – a friend at westminster gets millions of practice lessons etc, the ppe applicants in the year above me at my school got absolutely no help.
anyway. i think in that paragraph you conflate the advantage gained by being rich and going to a private school with the advantage gained by using oxbridge applications, from my experience it’s not the private school students who use these companies (perhaps they’re more confident about the system?)
“an education which is in huge part tailored to achieve Oxbridge admission” – not all private schools are like that, quite a few are for the “rich-but-dim”. my school does very well in the league tables but (proportionately) badly at oxbridge admissions, one of my teachers says it’s because of the way they teach us, spoonfeeding etc, little intellectual stimulation – we’re tailored to achieve exam success not oxbridge entry
“93% of state-sector educated students in the country” i read somewhere (can’t remember where) that when you look at students doing a levels (the pool from which oxbridge applicants are drawn) the % at private school rises to 25% – there are loads of girls in my year whose parents were only willing to pay for private school in the later years of their education
Joe Otten said,
September 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Isn’t it possible that these companies are offering the principal benefit of a good private school: Oxbridge admissions coaching, at a fraction of the cost of a private education, and are therefore substantially levelling the playing field.
Paul said,
September 18, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Joe,
That is actually an interesting way of looking at it.
Guess the way I would respond is:
1. Even if it’s a fraction of the cost of private education outright, it’s still money that many students can’t afford (my girlfriend’s parents, for example, were quite upset that when she was applying to Oxbridge they simply wouldn’t be able to afford these extra tuition seminars etc, the same was true of a friend I had during A Level). So I guess I think my point still stands, even if there is – as you say – some levelling as well: the end result is kids at the bottom-end are still disadvantaged (even if it’s only a confidence disadvantage, e.g. feeling ill-prepared vis-a-vis other candidates, which can make a huge difference say at interview)
2. Your point only really works if we assume the continued existence of private schooling as a given. I can see why, for practical purposes, there’s lots of good reasons for that – but the original piece was largely intended as a bit of a polemical attack on both companies that further advantage the wealthy, and on the private school system which is an even more egregious case of that. Hence, I don’t really want to work on the assumption that private schools should go on existing (even if, for practical purpsoes this is basically a given) so as to find ways of justifying these companies’ activities.
Grace,
sure, there’s differences between private schools. and some state schools are very good, and can compare to lots of private schools. but as a general rule, a private education stands a student in massively good stead vis-a-vis the state educated, and that extends way beyond just oxbridge applications success.
Though I take your point about nuances, the general picture is still that you are disproportionately likely to get into Oxbridge if you were privately educated (and note, not just because of interview coaching: lots of private school kids just get better educations (it is, afterall, what parents are paying for in large measure!). This point stands even if you are right that when considering A Levels alone, the private school percentage rises.
Ste For Sure said,
September 18, 2009 at 7:04 pm
,
I had Joe’s thought too
a thoroughly joe-average, or even perhaps below average income household could whack a 200 or so quid on the plastic to help their bright kid get to oxford – and they would want to given that they couldn’t afford to send their kids to private school and so they know their bright kid is at a disadvantage and they themselves don’t know anything about the oxbridge admissions process.
Grace’s story of being at a private school where 40 percent of people apply, and are all told not to bother with such services cause they are waste of time is instructive. The message sounds like “you are already getting better preparation here.” and the implicit subtext is “those services are for people who can’t afford to come here”.
just thoughts though. the argument in the OP seems to work…but it probably underestimates the purchasing power of ordinary households. Now sure, an unemplyed single mother on a sink estate isn’t going to affrod the fee…but the problem there is more that a tiny tiny tiny fraction of kids in such households ever even dream of applying to oxford. this problem is to do with entrenched inequality of course, so we are absolutely on the same page in terms of the issues at stake.
Dan said,
September 18, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“you are disproportionately likely to get into Oxbridge if you were privately educated”
I am not 100% sure, but I think this is strictly speaking false; last time I saw any figures, the proportion of privately/state educated students *admitted* to Oxford was almost exactly the same as the proportion of privately/state educated students who *applied.* If this is right, the issue is not the admissions process itself but the numbers of state school applicants who apply in the first place. And banning shit (despite it IMO being unjustified for independent reasons) doesn’t even seem like it would make a difference in that respect.
Tom James said,
September 19, 2009 at 12:11 am
“because we need equality of opportunity if we are to have anything like a fair society, in which people are equally able to get to the top jobs regardless of whether they were born into poverty or to the manor.”
I was with you up to this point. Equality of opportunity is insufficient, as it is impractical to attempt to correct for every advantage or lack of advantage that every individual human being experiences in their early life.
People have different aptitudes and different upbringings that make a practical implementation of EoO impossible.
I’m not arguing *against* EoO I just don’t think it’s practical.
What is practical is equality of outcome.
If Bufton Tufton junior is born in a manor then fair enough. The children of the wealthy tend to do well for themselves, or have wellness thrust upon them.
But why should that child of the manor inherit the manor?
And why should anyone be allowed to live in poverty, if they don’t want to?
Equality of opportunity is a red herring. What is needed is a strongly redistributive tax system and much higher wealth and inheritance taxes.
A final objection to equality of opportunity is aesthetic. It looks ugly. The image that comes to mind is of thousands of government bureaucrats fussing around schoolchildren with calipers and aptitude tests, determining how much help Little Timmy needs to Fulfil His Potential.
It is much more straightforward for the state to send a cheque to Little Timmy’s parents and a tax demand to Bufton-Tufton QC.
However I concede that in the current political climate the only viable argument for greater equality of any kind must use the avenue of justifications of Equality of Opportunity.
Equality of opportunity may be impractical but it is the only viable political option.
Paul said,
September 19, 2009 at 10:14 am
Dan,
If you’re right, that probably knocks down my argument, to be honest.
Tom,
Your post is very confused at a number of key points.
1. It may well be insufficient – but relative to what? If you mean relative to all goals of social justice, then I agree: I think a truly just society would need a lot more than just equality of opportunity (what about those people unlucky enough to be born completely talentless, and who will lose in the capitalist rat race even if they are given 100′% EofO?). But that doesn’t mean EofO doesn’t matter. It just means other things do to.
2. Your statement about impracticalities therefore does not follow from your claim about insufficiency.
3. Even if EofO is impractical – and it’s not clear what you mean by that word which does so much work in your post – in terms of EofO being implemented at some level, it doesn’t mean we should therefore not pursue the goal of EofO at all. Sure, it is impractical to correct for every instance of lack of EofO – but it surely doesn’t follow that a) EofO doesn’t matter and should be disregarded completely, or b) that we shouldn’t pursue some EofO, i.e. that which is practically realisable. And i think it is eminently practically realisable for the state to ban a few companies supplying a certain service, in the name of EofO. The fact that more inequality of opportunity would nonetheless remain isn’t a defeating consideration. (Consider: I have the chance to save 1 baby from the baby-slicer, but even if I do 5 more will still be sliced. Does it follow that there is no point or good moral reason for me to save the first one in light of this fact?)
No. These things make total EofO in the real world probably impossible to achieve and almost certain prohibitively expensive in terms of cost, resources, interference etc. It doesn’t follow that some actions designed to promote EofO are thereby impossible or not worthwhile. This claim is manifestly false: lots of things can be done that improve equality of opportunity, even if it remains the case that people have different aptitudes etc meaning total EofO will never be achieved. Again, it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t take some steps towards EofO where that is possible.
I’m not arguing *against* EoO I just don’t think it’s practical.
er…so what are you arguing for then?
I dunno what you think the word “practical” means here, but consider: is it not possible that one way to secure greater equality of outcome compared to present society might be to promote EofO? Indeed, that would seem a very practical way of going about things…far more practical than, say, the state taking hold of everyone’s possessions and then redistributing them “equally”…
It is not a red herring. It is a complex issue at the heart of a wider complex issue (equality generally). I never said EofO was my only value (i’ve argued before at length that it musn’t be) – but it must certainly feature in a picture of social equality. To see this, consider: could one of the advantages of higher tax systems and much higher inheritence taxes be that they promote EofO as well as equalising wealth and resources?
1. Be careful about justifying/rejecting things on aesthetic grounds. If somebody thought slavery “looked beautiful”, would that provide grounds for justifying slavery – or for that matter, banning it? Are you sure you want aesthetic considerations to do work in moral questions?
2. And if you do, note that EofO may be decidedly less ugly than the state stripping resources from people and redistributing them “equally” (which isn’t to say I don’t support the latter – i do – or think the two aren’t related – they are – but I think what definitely is a red herring is to start judging distributive questions on some mysterious grounds of aestheticism).
I hope I don’t need to spell out for you just how fantastically contradictory these two paragraphs are…
Grace said,
September 19, 2009 at 1:16 pm
re success rates, http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-00616.pdf says that “In 2008….The acceptance rate for pupils from the maintained sector was 25% at Cambridge and 26% at Oxford; the acceptance rate for independent school pupils was 31% at both.”
from http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/adstats.pdf – in 2007 the “maintained” sector provided 46.5% of applicants and 46.8% of acceptances, compared to 34.0% of applicants and 44.5% of acceptances from the private sector
however, that private school students are more likely to get in doesn’t necessarily provide evidence of bias. at my school (i know the evidence is only anecdotal so of limited value) they do their best to “weed out” those not clever or committed enough to apply to oxbridge. all potential applicants had to go to completely timewasting sessions after school, we were repeatedly told that we were allowed “no social life” and “no free time” this term because of how much work you need to do in preparation, people who the school didn’t think were clever enough (including girls with 9A*s at GCSE) were “strongly discouraged” from applying. the same hasn’t happened to my friends at state school
Tom James said,
September 19, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Good points.
Let me see if I can pick up the pieces (working backwards):
“how fantastically contradictory these two paragraphs are”
When I say “Equality of opportunity may be impractical but it is the only viable political option” I mean/t that I think it is a bad idea but that it is currently the *only* manner in which equality can be discussed in mainstream politics. This is what is meant by politics being “the art of the possible”. You’re dealing with voters who have bounded knowledge and bounded rationality – if you want to push for equality you have to push for it in language that is deemed acceptable (unless you are willing to be brave and radical, which few politicians seem to be).
Aesthetics:
links for 2009-09-19 « Rumblegumption said,
September 20, 2009 at 1:36 am
[...] Want to promote equality of opportunity? Ban these companies « Bad Conscience [...]
Rob said,
September 20, 2009 at 11:30 am
I have been approached by someone working for one of these companies, who said that this one at least used some of the fee to subsidize providing the same service to less well-off applicants. I turned them down, but I’m not entirely comfortable with having done that whilst remaining perfectly willing to speak to applicants from my old sixth-form, which I’m sure would give them a significant advantage since I have done admissions and understand how the process works.