Teachers for Supply

It’s a mystery worthy of an Oxford admissions question: just what, exactly, is occurring with applications to Britain’s most prestigious universities

As new findings published within the Guardian show, there are fresh questions for those looking to explain the distance between offers given to different ethnic groups on the university:

Oxford University have been accused of “institutional bias” against black and ethnic minority students after figures revealed that white applicants to a couple of the foremost competitive courses are as much as twice as more likely to get a spot than others, even if they get an identical A-level grades.

Figures for applications to the university in 2010 and 2011, obtained by the Guardian under the liberty of info Act, revealed that 25.7% of white applicants received a proposal to wait the university, compared with 17.2% of scholars from ethnic minorities …

White students were greater than twice as more likely to receive a proposal to review medicine than those from ethnic minorities. The effect persisted for probably the most able students: 43% of white students who went directly to receive three or more A* grades at A-level got offers, compared with just 22.1% of minority students.

For economics and management, the university’s best course, 19.1% of white applicants received offers, compared with 9.3% for ethnic minorities. Among the many most able, these success rates increased to 44.4% and 29.5% respectively.

The overall application gaps between different ethnic groups are stark, whether for all applicants or maybe only for people who go directly to get the head grades (A*A*A* or better at A-level):

Different people may jump to different explanations for the stark gaps. However the figures are worth pondering (especially given applications for law show no significant differences) in a bit more detail.

The the first thing to notice is that each one the figures relate to UK applicants – international are excluded – who provided information on their ethnicity on their UCAS forms (around a 3rd of all applicants choose to not provide this knowledge). This in any case means like is being compared with like.

The second is to identify that the long-running explanation given for an application race gap – disparities during which subjects students apply for – should have some explaining power, because the below table shows.

It shows what quantity of scholars from each ethnic group applied for a number of Oxford’s most and least competitive courses – and does show ethnic minorities usually tend to apply for a few of the hardest courses to get on.

So subject mix, it kind of feels, could account for a few of the overall gap between white applicants and similarly-performing students from ethnic minorities.

But this combination cannot explain the discrepencies within a number of those subjects themselves – and nor, as these figures show, can those differences be explained by ability, a minimum of as far as it’s reflected in the grades students go directly to get (university spokeswomen were keen to fret A-levels are only one measure of ability, which they are saying is likewise ascertained through additional tests and interview).

As ever, the knowledge can only really show us what’s happening, instead of why, or the way it could be changed. But we’ve posted the entire FOI data as released by Oxford below – have a look and tell us what you locate.

One important caveat, however: at the individual subjects, applicant numbers get very small (particularly when observing students with three A* or higher). Thus, some apparent differences between different ethnic groups will probably be due to the random quirks – or in other words, not statisitically significant.

To get robust results, we grouped all ethnic minority candidates together and compared them with their white counterparts, generating statistically significant results for medicine and economics and management.

The data is below – tell us what you discover within the comments below or via email to james.ball@guardian.co.uk.

Download the data

• DATA: download the overall spreadsheet

NEW! Buy our book

• Facts are Sacred: the ability of knowledge (on Kindle)

More open data

Data journalism and knowledge visualisations from the Guardian

World government data

• Search the world’s government data with our gateway

Development and aid data

• Search the world’s global development data with our gateway

Can you do something with this data

• Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk

• Get the A-Z of data
• More on the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter
• Like us on Facebook

Oxford University was accused of “institutional bias” against black and ethnic minority students after figures revealed that white applicants to a few of the foremost competitive courses are as much as twice as prone to get a spot as others, even if they get a similar A-level grades.

Figures for applications to the university in 2010 and 2011, obtained by the Guardian under the liberty of data Act, revealed that 25.7% of white applicants received a proposal to wait the university, compared with 17.2% of scholars from ethnic minorities.

White applicants to medicine, the most prestigious courses, were twice as more likely to get a spot as ethnic minority candidates, even if that they had the identical triple A* grade A-level scores. Older figures for Cambridge university suggested the same pattern.

David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, who have been a vocal critic of the university application system, said the figures suggested “institutional bias” and proved institutional failure.

Both of the country’s most prestigious universities, Oxford and Cambridge, have faced questions over the varying success rates of applicants from different ethnic groups. The distance has often been explained as being due largely to the truth that students from ethnic minorities usually tend to apply for probably the most competitive courses, resembling medicine.

But the newest figures, which for the 1st time break down success rates by both ethnicity and grades for a number of Oxford’s best subjects, cast significant doubt on these long-running explanations.

They show that white students were greater than twice as more likely to receive a suggestion to review medicine as those from ethnic minorities. The effect persisted for the foremost able students: 43% of white students who went directly to receive three or more A* grades at A-level got offers, compared with just 22.1% of minority students.

For economics and management, the university’s best course, 19.1% of white applicants received offers, compared with 9.3% for ethnic minorities. A number of the most able, these success rates increased to 44.4% and 29.5% respectively.

There was, however, no statistically significant difference in success rates between white and non-white students when applying to check law on the university.

The issue of race at Oxbridge has regularly hit the headlines, particularly since 2010, when data obtained by Lammy showed, among other disparities, that only one British black Caribbean undergraduate was admitted to Oxford in 2009, a figure later cited by David Cameron.

“After I first raised these issues in 2010, Oxford explained that the figures were as a result of prevalence of black and minority ethnic [BME] candidates applying to one of the most competitive courses,” Lammy said. “This new evidence blows that apart. We now know BME students get fewer offers despite the identical grades.

“Where there are interviews and quite large hurdles on the application stage, as with Oxbridge, it’s miles for the schools to illustrate there isn’t institutional bias. These figures suggest institutional bias, and positively show sustained institutional failure.”

He acknowledged that during the last couple of years the 2 universities had made renewed efforts to recruit BME candidates. “That needs to be welcomed, but what we want is a step change, and that hasn’t happened yet.”

Admissions tutors don’t necessarily know the ethnicity of candidates that do not make it to the interview process, although they do see their full name and details in their schooling, a spokeswoman confirmed. Admissions statistics do show that scholars from ethnic minorities apply disproportionately to competitive subjects, but that does not account for the discrepancies within subjects demonstrated by today’s figures.

The University of Cambridge refused a Freedom of data request soliciting for a similar detailed breakdowns by subject and by grade, saying the request was too costly to be handled under the act. However, it did provide some older figures dating from 2007-09, before the A* grade was introduced for A-levels, which show similar patterns to Oxford.

These figures show the ratio of offers to review medicine on the university to applicants who achieved at the least three A grades at A-level was 35% for white students compared with 24% for ethnic minority students, while for law the figures were 38% and 32% respectively.

Both universities rejected any suggestion that discrepancies in application success rates for various ethnic groups were as a result of the discrimination.

Oxford said it was closely examining the phenomenon. “Oxford University is committed to choosing the superior students, no matter race, ethnicity, or another factor,” a spokeswoman said. “This isn’t only the correct thing to do nonetheless it is in our own interests.

“Differences in success rates between ethnic groups are therefore something we’re continuing to ascertain carefully for possible explanations. We do know that an inclination by students from certain ethnic groups to use disproportionately for the foremost competitive subjects reduces the success rate of these ethnic groups overall. However, we’ve never claimed this was the sole consider success rate disparities between students with similar exam grades.

“We don’t know students’ A-level grades when selecting, as they’ve got not yet taken their exams. Aptitude tests, GCSEs and interviews, that are utilized in our selection process, haven’t been explored during this analysis and are important in reaching reliable conclusions.”

A spokeswoman for Cambridge said the analysis of the FoI figures was superficial and “ignored an important variety of relevant variables”, similar to subject mix, performance in entry tests, and interview performance.

“Admissions decisions are in keeping with students’ ability, commitment and potential to succeed in,” she said. “Our commitment to improving access to the university is longstanding and unwavering … We aim to make sure that anyone with the power, passion and commitment to use to Cambridge receives all of the support necessary for them to best demonstrate their potential.”

Rachel Wenstone, vice-president of better education on the National Union of scholars said: “My initial response to those figures was shock – it truly is quite frightening. Quite clearly, there seems to be some structural discrimination in some departments at Oxford, and the university must manage it immediately.

“What’s really worrying is this hasn’t been picked up. Despite the fact that the reason for the space is something subtle, the distance itself seriously is not. Oxford must seriously look into itself quite carefully and assess why here is happening.”

• See the whole data and methodology at the datablog.

• If you’re from an ethnic minority background and applied to Oxford or Cambridge, we’d have an interest to listen to about your experiences. Whether good or bad, successful or not, tell us within the form below, together with how we will get involved with you.

Loading…

A headteacher and five members of training staff at a main school was suspended amid concerns over the wellbeing of pupils.

Parents of kids at Revoe primary school in Blackpool, Lancashire, were told the “professional judgment” of the six employees had been questioned when “isolating them during challenging behaviour”.

The Blackpool Gazette reported that the alarm had been raised over claims that a child was placed in a room described by one parent as being the size of a cupboard.

Headteacher Cath Woodall was among those suspended as Blackpool council and Lancashire police launched an inquiry, although the council said it did not believe any child had come to harm.

In a letter to parents, Charlotte Clarke, the council’s head of universal services and school effectiveness, wrote: “Before half-term Blackpool council became concerned about the pro judgment made by these staff in relation to the wellbeing of pupils when isolating them during challenging behaviour.

“This has led to six members of staff being suspended. The suspensions are a neutral act to allow a full investigation to take place as quickly as possible.

“I realise this will be concerning news and I am writing to reassure you that swift action has been taken and the priority of the council is always the wellbeing of pupils.”

An experienced headteacher were drafted in while the investigation continued and temporary teaching staff were also in place, the letter added.

In a statement, Sarah Riding, the council’s cabinet member for education and schools, said: “Before half-term we were made aware of an issue at Revoe primary school that raised concerns to us about the professional judgment made by a number of staff in relation to pupil wellbeing.

“These concerns have led to the suspension of six members of staff while a full investigation is carried out. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the nature of the investigation until it has been concluded.

“Although we have no reason to suspect any child has come to hurt this is a serious situation that needed immediate action to be taken.

“In the meantime temporary staff have been recruited and there shall be no disruption to children’s learning. All parents will receive a letter explaining the current arrangements in place.”

A spokeswoman for Lancashire police said: “This allegation, like any allegation involving the wellbeing of young people, is being taken extremely seriously and will be thoroughly investigated as our priority is the safeguarding of young people.

“We are in the early stages of this inquiry and are working closely with the school and the local authority to establish the circumstances. No arrests were made at this stage.”

Every interview has a beginning, a center and an end, but like all story, the start and the tip are the foremost memorable. Be sure to get them right. The useful thing about preparing for the start and the tip is you could in all probability predict what they are going to be like.

The greeting

You will usually be greeted by someone at the panel, perhaps the pinnacle or the chair of governors. Attempt to have a bit of of a feeling of humour, even at this point. If the top or chair of governors shakes your hand and asks: “How are you” It’s perfectly alright to say, “I’m a nervous wreck actually!” – so long as you assert it with a grin.

You will also prepare to make some humorous small talk if you end up walking up the corridor to the interview room. a light-weight-hearted introduction might help break the ice and show paradoxically, that you’ve got confidence. Besides, self-mocking humour is both charming and disarming. Just be sure whatever you assert is acceptable for an interview.

The first question

The first question at every interview is the single they provide to warm you up. It is going to most likely be: “Let us know a little about yourself”. With one of these gift, you may prepare what you are going to say right down to the last detail. Since you should keep your answer reasonably brief, you may and will rehearse it.

Talk concerning the course on the university or training centre you attended and the belongings you enjoyed most concerning the course in addition to something personal – like a love of sport or music – which you pursued or developed once you were there.

If you’re a career changer, give them a short history of your career to date but again, include something personal, like what you enjoy doing together with your family when you’ve got one, or your hobby or pastime.

The final question

One of the largest mistakes people make at interview is they don’t prepare for the ending. Just imagine – you’ve got spent an hour or so in advance of the interview doing various grueling exercises and activities to check various aptitudes, now you’ve just got through another 45 minutes or so of answering more than a few challenging questions. You’ve flown your colours from the head mast. Then the chair of the panel says: “Do you could have any questions for us” and also you say: “Err… no i do not believe so…” Wrong.

As this final question is a near certainty, it’s something you may really prepare yourself for. Even better, you do not have to respond to it, except by turning the tables for your tormentors. Endings create impact and that is your last chance to depart a favorable impression. Be charming. Ask something complimentary. Ask the top or perhaps the complete panel to offer you one sentence each about why they’re pleased with their school. Ask the pinnacle what the folk you will be working with – in case you were to get the job – are like.

Alternatively or additionally, you can ask something philosophical. Ask the top: “What’s your philosophy of education” or ask the chair of the panel: “What’s your idea of a perfect school and respectfully, how far do you suspect you’ve got towards that ideal with this faculty”

Such questions will again show your confidence and assurance. Since your interviewers it is going to be meeting with a lot of candidates, you shouldn’t miss this chance to invite this type of question and make yourself stand out.

On your way out

Don’t forget to grin and thank them for his or her time. If you leave, the panel would be talking about you needless to say. They’ll be filling out forms, ticking boxes and grading your experience, qualifications, communication skills and – greater than they are going to be allowed to confess – your personality.

The reality, whatever interviewers say about impartiality, equal opportunities and equity, is that their decision won’t just be told by how experienced and well qualified you’re; but in addition how memorable you’re. With some preparation at the questions you realize for certain will come your way, that memorable person is additionally you.

This content is delivered to you by Guardian Professional. To get articles direct for your inbox, and to access thousands of free resources, sign on to the Guardian Teacher Network here. Searching for your next role See our Guardian jobs for schools site for thousands of the most recent teaching, leadership and support jobs

I’m still wondering how Michael Gove admitted he was wrong on two key policies and came out of it almost politically unscathed. the media coverage of his climbdown at the English baccalaureate and plans for a single examination board, you would be forgiven for thinking that the govt had discarded a number of inconsequential policy ideas or was merely postponing them to a later date.

Neither is the case. Both were cornerstones of presidency education policy and had become shorthand for everything that ministers think is inaccurate with schools – a dumbed-down curriculum and a lowering of exam standards.

The implications are removed from minor. These policies had already resulted in significant changes in secondary school staffing and curriculum and the Secretary of State has wasted schools’ time and resources and assured a continual period of uncertainty.

Whatever reasons Michael Gove gave for his change of mind, the fact is that the policies were deeply flawed and that i doubt we’ll hear much about them again.

So why so little political damage to the government

First, the education world was, overwhelmingly, against the EBC. The consequences of narrowing the curriculum, the threat to arts and creativity and the devaluing of vocational qualifications were well understood. And that i suspect that the reversal of policy was so welcome that the majority schools would rather not complain a few ministerial change of mind.

The loss of criticism from the media is rooted elsewhere. Journalists – of all political persuasions – appear to have bought into Gove’s view that things was better within the old days. They think that Michael Gove is synonymous with “rigour” and, whatever the mistakes he makes along the best way, is a typical-bearer of a brand of Conservative politics that has a future.

The policies that now seem top priorities – his proposed return to O-levels in all but name, his A-level reforms and national curriculum changes – are all headlined as bringing back rigour to education. The difficulty is, he can only understand this in terms of the kind of education he himself experienced.

It is time the word “rigour” was reclaimed. It belongs to the trendy world and the trendy curriculum just up to it does to the times of Michael Gove’s youth.

Anyone who has seen an exceptional drama or art lesson, watched worthwhile sports teams or listened to a college band, cannot fail to recognise the rigour involved. They’re perfect examples of the abilities and attitudes the govt. says it desires to promote. Nobody who sees a baby learning numbers in a set, instead of sitting in rows facing the instructor; or learning history by studying a portrait from the National Gallery instead of memorising the kings and queens of britain, can deny the rigour of that learning. Yet here’s the type of pedagogy that was undermined by the actions of the federal government.

The excellent news is that we now know that Michael Gove is someone who can change his mind. It offers hope for the long run. More worrying is the realisation that vast sections of the media – most of whom probably had an identical education to Michael Gove – also share his interpretation of what constitutes educational rigour and standards.