This answer is focussed on social commentary rather than the question. Oxford and Cambridge both have Union societies, equivalent elite clubs (Bullingdon, Pitt) and have both made similar concerted efforts to improve diversity in their intake in the last 30 years. Including commentary on French politics is entirely irrelevant to the question.

To be fair, Pitt vs Bullingdon are like Tesco Vs Harrods: The Pitt Clubs existed in 45 cities with thousands of members, of lesser wealth, named after a famous UK stateseman, and also include women. The Bullingdon Club is limed to 30 members of the highest wealth. It's far more elitist and financially motivated than Pitt. The commentary on the 5 previous French presidents also hailing from the same school is perfectly on-point and remarkable, and gives useful context and reasons as to "why this occurs" : because it's a prevalent issue globally.

@LifeInTheTrees I think the Pitt Club has only admitted women since 2015. (As the old song goes, 'The Union, as of yore, against us bars the door, the Pitt as bachelor revives, and Hawks unmated soar'.)

There is no doubt that the Bullingdon works as a political syndicate hatchery for hedge fund managers. i.e. the Pitt club has included John Cheese, who's father was an insurance salesman, exceptionally gifted, not hungry for money and power, and only Kwasi Kwarteng for politics, who hosted the biggest mismanagement in UK economics history, and lasted only 14 days in downing street... Lots of rowers, cricketers... Bullingdon club is for hedge-fund managers children, rich MP's children. It lets in less than 10 members per year...

@Trunk, Cambridge's closest courst to PPE is HSPS which has nothing to do with becoming an MP... PPE is an MBA for politicians. Cambridge offers :"politics OF economics", you probably are thinking of that. Cambridge courses are more academic, i.e. as compared to King's College London which is aimed at politicians: ucas.com/explore/related/… vs kcl.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/politics-ba-bsc

@LifeInTheTrees Incidentally, in WS2's answer, there's a list of Cambridge graduates who've had a credible chance of becoming PM since WW2. Not one of them studied HSPS (nor its slightly-differently-named predecessor programmes).

@Daniel Hatton Just checked. Book buyer was a graduate of "Social & Political Sciences" at CU. I stand corrected. Interesting (but perhaps typical for Cambridge) that they separate the political dimension from economics. In most universities I went to the economic and social sciences were the same faculty and joint honours programmes between the two were very common. Comment removed.

@Trunk Yet on the STEM side, Cambridge has one mega-programme in Natural Sciences, not separate programmes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc..

@Daniel Hatton Yes. I am a bit surprised to see things like that. I realize it benefits those wanting to get into things like bio-materials, climate physics, polymer science, etc to have life science options. But the price is an extra year for adequate specialization. Mind you, Oxford has been overlapping engineering and the pure sciences for some time. It makes sense from a research career perspective. And if a department has the money to kit out the labs, why not ?

Now Oxford has started to diversify its student base with large quotas of ordinary students in an effort to reduce elitism. Can I have a reference for this assertion, please ? I'd like to know how lecturers deal with a bimodal distribution of abilities - if by "ordinary students" you mean average ability students.

@trunk previously 8 shools had more Oxford admissions than 2800 other UK schools, and they cost 10 15 thousand per year...that is changing... so by ordinary students i mean those with less than 100 thousand pound school educations :) google.com/…

@trunk these major new programmes will offer transformative paths to outstanding education for up to 250 state school students a year, representing 10% of Oxford’s UK undergraduate intake. This represents a significant step change for the University, boosting the proportion of students coming to Oxford from under-represented backgrounds from 15% of the current UK intake to 25%.

But Oxbridge have always been open to certain applicants of outstanding ability either by scholarships, kick-backs on fees, burses from dowagers, etc. Since the 60s university grants came in, all clever boys/girls that get their A-A-A grades at A-Level will be accepted, numbers permitting. This is a just the same old bloomers. Elite by wealth are replaced by elite by intellect. Provincial universities' raw material is stripped to buttress the flagship institutions. Silly thing is that the provincial unis best professors are ex-Oxbridge s-types and Oxbridge's are ex-provincial p-types . . .

@Trunk and LifeInTheTrees It's a neverending arms race between admissions tutors who (mostly) want to assess which applicants have the best chance of benefiting from the programmes and admit those applicants, and moneyed individuals and organisations that want to find ways to spend their money on confounding those assessments and getting their favoured applicants in - and certain elements of the press that disapprove loudly of any potentially-effective attempt by the admissions tutors to win. But now we're way off topic.

Some of the Oxford colleges have always charged 7000-20.000 per annum which was too expensive for poor students even with grants. These days the tuition fees are 9250 p.a. which gets students into 38000 of debt at the uni.

@LifeInTheTrees I think I can confidently say that no Oxbridge college has ever charged home students more in fees than the current £9250 regulatory cap, nor did they charge anything in the pre-1998 system.

Excuse my naivety here.Are you chaps saying that UK college grants no longer cover tuition fees ? Or that they are only covered to a certain level and the student (or parents) must make up the difference ? That would explain the unusual proportion of dumb toffs still going there. Considering the cost/benefit I would have thought the UK Department of education would see the advantage of helping fairly qualifying Oxbridge students from poor backgrounds. In the early 70s a friend from a modest lower middle-class London background read physics at Oxford. Never said anything about fees.

@Trunk I stupidly don't know, my father worked for the uni for 40 years as a lecturer and interviewer. Even if you study a language at Oxford, they would teach you to be a diplomat for your government for a given country/culture. The grants have changed a lot over the previous 25 years, from flat fees to variable depending on household income. Living costs range from 5000 to 7000 depending on the college accomodation, Balliol being the most expensive, and the course is currently 9250, so it's 14-17k yearly.

@Trunk In England and Wales (Scotland is different), there are (since c. 2011) no grants to cover any part of tuition fees: students take out (somewhat Government-underwritten) loans to cover both tuition fees and living expenses. Oxbridge is no different from anywhere else: pretty much all English universities charge the regulatory maximum of £9250 per year. (In fact, the total cost of study at Oxbridge is a little lower than most English universities, because the rents for university-managed student accommodation are lower.) You're right about the 70s: students were not charged fees then.

(Also worth mentioning that Cambridge provides means-tested, non-repayable bursaries of about £3000 per year for students from below-average-income families, which most other universities can't afford to do.)

@Daniel Hatton, Since recently perhaps, Oxford provides 500-4500 depending on income, with 500 for above 47,000 househoulds and 4500 for under 27000 ones.

I think your characterisation of the Oxford Union is a bit unfair. It always looked like the British version of the Veritas forum to me.