The Spectator

Letters: The true state of Oxbridge admissions

iStock 
issue 28 May 2022

Applying myself

Sir: It was interesting to read David Abulafia’s rather damning critique of the Oxbridge admissions process (‘Who’s out’, 14 May), given the fact that he entirely contradicts much of what he must have seen as a professor of history at Cambridge. Abulafia criticises the fact that ‘candidates from one type of school with better scores (on the TSA) are being turned away in favour of those from another type of school with lower scores’. I’m a Year 13 student at a state school and was turned away from Cambridge this year after applying to study philosophy. For me, there was little to no advice given by the school, and no friends or family members or teachers to ask about it (as none have been to Oxbridge). Perhaps Abulafia could visit a state school like mine to see the difference. He would realise that although private-school candidates look further over the educational wall, it is because they are standing on a much larger box. It is the role of these world-leading institutions to give promising state-school pupils the education they deserve, over those from private schools who have been given every tool for success.

Alex Wells

Witney, Oxfordshire

Crime and non-crime

Sir: How disappointing that Nick Herbert, chair of the College of Policing, should seek to justify its actions (Letters, 14 May) without making any reference to the substance of Toby Young’s complaint, which was that about 250,000 ‘non-crime hate incidents’ are recorded per year. Accusing a person of one can affect the rest of their life. Meanwhile, the police solve about 5 per cent of all burglaries. Given that NCHIs are by definition not crimes, this seems unreasonable.

Dr Ken Pollock

Cheltenham, Glos

Police priorities

Sir: I have to take issue with John Evans’s suggestion that the police lack the resources to make a serious attempt at tackling the tidal wave of fraud in this country (Letters, 21 May).

GIF Image

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it

TRY 3 MONTHS FOR $5
Our magazine articles are for subscribers only. Start your 3-month trial today for just $5 and subscribe to more than one view

Comments

Join the debate for just £1 a month

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.

Already a subscriber? Log in