Earlier this month, Lord Adonis controversially proposed that Oxbridge should establish new colleges for disadvantaged students. Both Oxford and Cambridge have since rejected this proposal, deemed “revolutionary but achievable” by the former Minister of State, and the idea has been criticised for failing to address the wider issues which are essential to discussions about Oxbridge access.

In the article in which he proposed this idea, Adonis anticipated its criticism. When we speak, this same attitude appears as he shrugs off the criticism this proposal has received over the past few weeks. Of his critics, he says: “The most insidious object, often unstated, comes from faux radicals.” It is possible to question how radical Adonis himself is, however.

“The most effective way of killing any reform is to argue that it doesn’t answer some bigger question”

I think it would be naïve of me to claim that structural reform would be an easier and quicker fix to the problems Adonis tried rightly to address in his Guardian op-ed. But surely we should be looking at Oxbridge’s access problem through a structural lens and tackling systemic and institutional issues? “I agree,” Adonis replies. But then, I respond, if we’re advocating for new access colleges, that’s not really tackling the real institutional issues that come before students even step foot in Oxbridge. “It is. It’s one structural means of doing so. But of course, there are others. I didn’t say this is the only thing to be done. And indeed, I hope that if we set up colleges which are specifically targeted at the 3,000 schools and colleges that don’t have a Cambridge tradition, that would impact significantly on the practices of the other colleges over time. So, I see these two as going together.”

What Adonis falls short of is promoting the more structurally radical reform that Oxbridge is in dire need of. We have to address the root problems which cause the imbalances in Oxbridge’s admissions. Oxbridge is merely a symptom of inequality – a mirror image of the gross educational inequality in our society. In response to Adonis’s proposal, a Cambridge representative stated: “We know we can do better still but we cannot do it in isolation.”

When I again push the argument that educational inequality is entrenched in British society and that this should instead be the focus when it comes to forming solutions, Adonis rebuts, “not instead, no. We need to do both. I’m a radical school reformer.” I realise that I have pushed him as far as he will go on this topic. Adonis claims that he is “completely signed up to radical improvements in the school system so that we have more young people with the qualifications to go onto Cambridge.”

I point out that it is idealistic - utopian, even - to believe that students in these new colleges would not be treated as second-class citizens by their peers. In his original article, Adonis anticipated this criticism. This would only occur, he wrote, “if they [weren’t] as good as the others.” The collegiate system at present is not immune to inequality between colleges, and the idea that these new colleges would be immune to this hierarchy is absurd, wouldn’t you agree? “Well, we can’t solve everything with one reform.” Correct. “Because at the moment, for historic reasons, you have a small number of colleges that have most of the assets. But, although I’m a radical education reformer, I can’t wave a magic wand.”

I’ve come to realise that our ideas of radical reform to the education system are very different. This is confirmed as Adonis goes on: “We’re far more likely to get big change from setting up new colleges than trying to dramatically change practices and redistribute assets between the existing wealthy colleges.”

In recent years, there has been increased scrutiny on colleges where figures have revealed their intake of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. When I ask him whether the establishing of new access colleges would alleviate or even completely eradicate the scrutiny from existing colleges, Adonis is certain that it “[wouldn’t] remove it at all.” He argues that instead “it would put more scrutiny on existing colleges to start asking quite quickly why they’re not following suit.” Personally, I beg to differ.

We discuss the current representation of state school students in existing colleges, taking into account official statistics often fail to differentiate between state and grammar schools, and do not acknowledge disparities in the standards of different state schools. He asks whether the latest figures for Cambridge’s admissions show that 64% of students come from state schools, which I confirm. “Well, I’d like to see that go up to 70 or 80% as soon as possible.”

“It would put more scrutiny on existing colleges to start asking quite quickly why they’re not following suit”

But when it comes to discussions on access, there is a considerable amount of nuance that is lacking. The discourse pervading access is monopolised by how we might get disadvantaged students into Cambridge, but not so much on how best to support them once they’re here. Post-admissions access is an oft-neglected topic which, while crucial to the access debate, rarely makes national headlines. Adonis immediately replies that the new colleges could resolve this issue.

“Well, I think the part of argument for new colleges is that they would develop expertise in how to support students from non-traditional backgrounds. At the moment colleges are very hit and miss in doing so but these colleges, because all their students are recruited from non-traditional backgrounds, have a massive incentive to get it right.” His ideas range from preparation classes before the start of term to special financial support and additional pastoral support.

Having implemented numerous reforms as Minister of State and head of policy for Blair, he is aware of the obstacles when it comes to pushing reforms. “I’ve been a reformer in politics for 30 years and I know that by far the most effective way of killing any reform is to argue that it doesn’t answer some bigger question which in fact is sort of impossible to address in any short time scale. It would be a classic Oxbridge defence mechanism to avoid an immediate reform like the establishment of new colleges.”

But the issues we are facing in higher education will not be solved with this kind of change – we need fundamental change to shift entrenched inequalities. Rather than relying on new access colleges which would ‘[focus] like a laser’ on schools which do not send students to Oxbridge, we should focus our attention on why it is the case that so many schools produce a disproportionate amount of Oxbridge students, while others produce very few if none at all. 

When I point out that these are plausible criticisms about the practicality of new access colleges, he frustratingly replies that these criticisms represent “a classic case of conservatives deploying arguments to defeat all reform in the guise of being fair minded.” Now, I for one am far from conservative. From the commentary I have seen, criticism has been sparked by individuals from the left, the right and everywhere in-between. Rather than dismissing such criticism on the grounds that it is simply “conservative” resistance to his proposals, Adonis should consider listening to disadvantaged students like myself and recognise that this Oxbridge-centric solution is neither radical nor, simply put, a good idea.