Oxford University’s vice-chancellor, Louise Richardson, needs a tutorial on social mobility and what it means. “We provide a powerful engine of social mobility for all our students,” she said recently. Given that 82 per cent of Oxford offers went to young people whose parents are in the top two social classes in 2015 — way more than the 31 per cent of the wider population made up by those classes — to say her statement stretches the bounds of plausibility is something of an understatement. What sort of social mobility is she talking about? The children of chief execs going on to become even better paid than their parents?

The truth is that Oxford is not some rocket-booster for social mobility. It is an institution that replicates privilege. Between 2010 and 2015, just 6 per cent of the students admitted by Oxford and Cambridge were in social classes 6 and 7 (with parents in semi-skilled and unskilled work), despite these classes constituting 25 per cent of the population. In 2014, Oxbridge took twice as many young people from Eton as it did young people who had been eligible for free school meals. More than one in four Oxford colleges failed to take a single black student between 2015 and 2017 and more than 40 per cent of its intake comes from private schools, despite the fact just 7 per cent of children attend them.

The university has all sorts of excuses why it doesn’t admit more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Let down by the school system, they don’t get the grades. They don’t apply in sufficient numbers. They apply for the most popular, competitive subjects.

Much of this is true. So is the fact that there are many individuals at Oxford who care passionately about expanding access. But it isn’t a big enough institutional priority, and no amount of pointing towards long-standing failures in the school system can disguise the lack of sufficient effort on the university’s part. There are young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who get the grades and don’t apply, and responsibility for that sits as much with Oxford as it does schools. Why aren’t more colleges offering a foundation year for students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Some might argue this obsession with Oxbridge is unhealthy. But the truth is that while Oxford and Cambridge may be anything but an engine of social mobility, you only have to look at their graduates’ over-representation in places like the UK cabinet and the bar to see attending those institutions opens doors, even to those already most privileged. Not only that, the British Higher Education Policy Institute is publishing new research that highlights the quality of education they provide. “Oxbridge is the jewel in the crown. We are about to issue data proving beyond all doubt that Oxbridge students enjoy a very different sort of higher education — for example, in relation to workload, class size and feedback. That is why access to Oxbridge is so fraught an issue,” says its director, Nick Hillman. Who gets to experience this enriched education and the access it buys, and who remains unfairly shut out of it, is of critical importance.

Oxford itself as an institution — and the students who end up there — also lose out from the lack of diversity. Going to university is supposed to be about broadening your mind, exposing yourself to different perspectives and experiences. Can a university where the vast majority of undergraduates come from privileged backgrounds really do that?

Oxford is coasting when it comes to breaking down the barriers to entry. It’s been too willing to hide behind failings in the school system that could take years to address. The government should set it stretching targets for admitting more disadvantaged students, and fewer from the most affluent backgrounds. If it can’t or won’t do what it takes to meet them, it’s time for quotas.

— Guardian News & Media Ltd

Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist.