When I was working in Downing Street in 2007, the government was focused on how education can be used to boost social mobility and effect change. The Sutton Trust charity published some data which we seized on, citing that 43 per cent of state secondary school teachers would never/rarely advise the most academically gifted children they taught to apply to Oxbridge. This, it was felt, was unacceptable.

Fast-forward almost a decade and recall the millions spent on outreach work, the huge efforts to dispel Oxbridge myths, the tens of thousands of new “best generation ever” teachers who have entered the system since then and worked with pupils to raise their aspirations.

And then take a look at the 2016 poll on this same subject, in which - wait for it - 43 per cent of state secondary school teachers said they would rarely or never advise the most academically gifted children they taught to apply to Oxbridge.

Yes, Oxbridge isn’t everything (although it remains the single best vehicle for access to the UKs various elites). Yes, it’s conceivable that within that 43 per cent there are savvy teachers who point out that other institutions are just as academic and better for that student’s subject. Yes, it’s possible some have rationally concluded that even their smartest pupils won’t get the grades. But come on, almost a decade’s worth of work, and precisely zero progress?

More than four out of 10 teachers, year in and year out, are at best unlikely to recommend that their pupils apply to one of the best universities in the world? It’s hard not to be depressed at that.

Nudged towards a solution

Back in 2007, we had a solution (although it never got anywhere). “Nudge theory” was just making its presence felt in policy circles. One of its techniques is to “change the default” - that is, to switch from a system in which an individual doesn’t participate unless they opt in to a programme, to one in which they need to actively opt out.

Why don’t we change the default so that every young person who is predicted sufficiently high grades is automatically entered into the Oxbridge application process?

The theory is that inertia means that many people will stay in, and so benefits will accrue to them and to society. The most famous examples are pension enrolments and organ registers.

So why don’t we do this with Oxbridge: change the default so that every young person who is predicted sufficiently high grades is automatically entered into the application process? That way, the deterrent effect from certain schools and teachers is removed and young people who may never have considered applying will find themselves invited to interview.

Of course, if they really don’t want to go for interview, they are free to opt out. But the impact of hundreds of interview letters descending on schools around the country would have a hugely powerful effect as young people realise that Oxbridge really is for them - because the universities themselves think so.

Every person who could thrive there deserves a chance to attend Oxbridge. If their schools won’t help, it’s time to go around them.

Jonathan Simons is a former head of education in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit under Gordon Brown and David Cameron @PXEducation