The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Colmans
Except for Cambridge have researched who goes on to get 1sts at Cambridge and have tailored their admissions policies to make sure they select these candidates.
All this information is available on their website.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/research/

So the suggestion that people who don't get in were as likely to get firsts (at Cambridge) as the ones who did is demonstrably wrong.

May be true at Oxford of course, they don't publish their research & I don't know if they have done any.


If there are only 100 places available at Cambridge, is it possible that in the whole world, for that year, there are exactly 100 Cambridge standard candidates and they all apply to Cambridge?

Of course not. Maybe there are:

A) 150
B) 90

Now what does Cambridge do?

A) Provide 50 extra places to ensure the extra 50 don't go elsewhere
B) Leave 10 places vacant because there are only 90 that cut the mustard?

I doubt it.

For A) the other 50, remember all along are Cambridge standard, will go elsewhere

For B) 10 non Cambridge standard will get into Cambridge
Reply 161
Original post by reallytired
If there are only 100 places available at Cambridge, is it possible that in the whole world, for that year, there are exactly 100 Cambridge standard candidates and they all apply to Cambridge?

Of course not. Maybe there are:

A) 150
B) 90

Now what does Cambridge do?

A) Provide 50 extra places to ensure the extra 50 don't go elsewhere
B) Leave 10 places vacant because there are only 90 that cut the mustard?

I doubt it.


For A) the other 50, remember all along are Cambridge standard, will go elsewhere

For B) 10 non Cambridge standard will get into Cambridge





The flaw is the statement "Cambridge standard" applicants as if there is no variation. *If that was the case there would be no need to grade Cambridge degrees as they would all be "Cambridge standard"students.

This implies that the admissions policy is no better than random at picking those who get a place from those who don't. Or that the ten who don't get in are the same as the 100 who did.

It also implies that one to one teaching, intense courses with famously high workloads and competitive atmosphere have no effect on the eventual standard reached after 3 years.
Original post by Colmans
The flaw is the statement "Cambridge standard" applicants as if there is no variation. *If that was the case there would be no need to grade Cambridge degrees as they would all be "Cambridge standard"students.

This implies that the admissions policy is no better than random at picking those who get a place from those who don't. Or that the ten who don't get in are the same as the 100 who did.

It also implies that one to one teaching, intense courses with famously high workloads and competitive atmosphere have no effect on the eventual standard reached after 3 years.


Are you stating that Cambridge admissions ALWAYS end up choosing the best?

If so, that is definitely not true because:

A) Not all the best will apply to Cambridge, inevitably at least ONE candidate in the whole world would choose to study elsewhere.

B) If there were only 100 places at Cambridge, is it not possible for there to be 150 ABSOLUTELY IDENTICALLY AMAZING OUT OF THIS WORLD candidates?

C) Human error on Cambridge's behalf?
Original post by Colmans
Except for Cambridge have researched who goes on to get 1sts at Cambridge and have tailored their admissions policies to make sure they select these candidates.
All this information is available on their website.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/research/

So the suggestion that people who don't get in were as likely to get firsts (at Cambridge) as the ones who did is demonstrably wrong.

May be true at Oxford of course, they don't publish their research & I don't know if they have done any.


Very interesting...

since we know there are about 1.8 thousand pupils in England getting 4A* or better (sauce http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_level_a_results_for_england_fo#incoming-260890 )

and table A1 there shows 582 of them ended up at cambridge - probably a similar number at Oxford... it's still a lot of people with 4A* A levels or more who didn't get in to Oxbridge whether they wanted to or not.

What I don't see is any validation of the oxbridge interview process... that's just a correlational study - measuring what's easy to measure - I think I'd get slapped down for turning something like that in without a more thorough discussion of it's limitations.
I don't care about the debate but I just had a look about this research paper from Cambridge and find it really ridiculous.

They did a simple OLS regression on Tripos score and A* and found a positive correlation?

So they take people with A* to study at Cambridge?

Genius...
Original post by Frenchous
I don't care about the debate but I just had a look about this research paper from Cambridge and find it really ridiculous.

They did a simple OLS regression on Tripos score and A* and found a positive correlation?

So they take people with A* to study at Cambridge?

Genius...


I think it needs to be seen in the context of calls from the world outside oxbridge for less reliance on raw A level results in the admission process and more weight being given to 'contextual information'... calls which oxbridge are generally somewhat resistant to afaict.
---
If these oxbridge interviews are so fab then IMO they should be able to get the interviewers to rank successful candidates and then see if they're able to predict which ones go on to get the best grades.
Original post by Joinedup
I think it needs to be seen in the context of calls from the world outside oxbridge for less reliance on raw A level results in the admission process and more weight being given to 'contextual information'... calls which oxbridge are generally somewhat resistant to afaict.
---
If these oxbridge interviews are so fab then IMO they should be able to get the interviewers to rank successful candidates and then see if they're able to predict which ones go on to get the best grades.


I'm not too sure what you mean by this. Oxford at least gathers a fair amount of contextual information about each candidate and I'm sure Cambridge do too. Decisions aren't made mostly on raw A Level results - otherwise why bother interview? And how would people like me get in? :p:

Also, what makes you think that interviewers don't already do this? I'm sure many of them do privately. Some Music tutors are well-known for only taking those who will achieve Firsts. My tutor isn't one of those but he obviously had a very clear idea of who would be getting what amongst my cohort when he took us in :yes:
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Frenchous
I don't care about the debate but I just had a look about this research paper from Cambridge and find it really ridiculous.


That's the other thing... research done at Oxford and Cambridge is taken as Gospel Truth by default even if total nonsense.

I'd be very careful about what you read and the information you use.
Reply 169


Sod all. I thought TSR was full of ill-informed rambling...
Original post by jjarvis
Sod all. I thought TSR was full of ill-informed rambling...


PRSOM :frown:

Though speak for yourself. I never make ill-informed ramblings :nah:

:p:

:ninja:
Original post by Bubblyjubbly
You're all missing the mark, I'm afraid.

Any Oxbridge 2.1 would have achieved a 1st anywhere else (including Imperial/LSE), that's why they are chosen; a 2.2 might have done which is why an Oxbridge 2.2, with the exception of Law, gives you a decent chance in most graduate schemes - I could give you lists of Oxbridge 2.2s who have, in recent years, secured top graduate jobs in banks and other leading financial services firms. The truth of the matter is that we have seen a number of people leave Oxbridge after or during the first year, not being able to take it, and ending up with firsts at places like Imperial. The joker who thinks that a first from LSE is comparable needs to stop dreaming - it's nowhere near. The Cambridge Economics Faculty has found that those with 2.1s from Oxbridge are outscoring firsts from the next best universities in their MPhil courses - Oxbridge and Imperial/LSE aren't remotely similar, sorry.


I can quote people who dropped out of Oxbridge, started at another top 20 uni and also failing.

There are also people with a 1st from non-Oxbridge unis going on to do Part III maths and scoring higher than those that were Oxbridge undergrads.

What does that say about Oxbridge?
Original post by reallytired
Are you stating that Cambridge admissions ALWAYS end up choosing the best?


Your reply is based upon a misreading of what 'colmans' has written.

"This implies that the admissions policy is no better than random at picking those who get a place from those who don't."

This statement doesn't suggest a belief that Cambridge always chooses the best people, but that it is better than a random process at picking candidates based on specific criteria.

Yes, admissions tutors make errors, and potentially people who are rejected could have done very well. I know someone who was rejected at Oxford and then accepted at Cambridge, proceeding to come top in his year. However, the system is designed that, on average, the people statistically most likely to do well will be chosen.

And, of course, no-one could reasonably suggest that Oxbridge manages to skim the cream of the world's university-eligible minds! The criteria are highly context-specific, to begin with. Not everyone wants or can go to university, due to loads of different reasons.

Regarding the question, there is no way to give a definitive answer, since employers (this is whom I presume 'looked on' is referring to) vary massively. There are complex sets of factors involved in the process of getting a job, and these sets vary between occupations. Arguably, for example, in some professions having good 'contacts' and 'networking' is more valuable than having a first than any university. Moreover, mitigating circumstances such as illness, or heavy participation in an important hobby/activity, will affect people's view of a particular degree class.

God, what a banal subject.
Original post by T-o dore
Your reply is based upon a misreading of what 'colmans' has written.

"This implies that the admissions policy is no better than random at picking those who get a place from those who don't."

This statement doesn't suggest a belief that Cambridge always chooses the best people, but that it is better than a random process at picking candidates based on specific criteria.

Yes, admissions tutors make errors, and potentially people who are rejected could have done very well. I know someone who was rejected at Oxford and then accepted at Cambridge, proceeding to come top in his year. However, the system is designed that, on average, the people statistically most likely to do well will be chosen.

And, of course, no-one could reasonably suggest that Oxbridge manages to skim the cream of the world's university-eligible minds! The criteria are highly context-specific, to begin with. Not everyone wants or can go to university, due to loads of different reasons.

Regarding the question, there is no way to give a definitive answer, since employers (this is whom I presume 'looked on' is referring to) vary massively. There are complex sets of factors involved in the process of getting a job, and these sets vary between occupations. Arguably, for example, in some professions having good 'contacts' and 'networking' is more valuable than having a first than any university. Moreover, mitigating circumstances such as illness, or heavy participation in an important hobby/activity, will affect people's view of a particular degree class.

God, what a banal subject.


I suppose people asking this question are generally about 13 years old and just expect a yes/no answer to satisfy their idle curiosity... probably it's not worth the amount of effort it receives tbh.
Admissions are taken far less seriously than school age students think or would be comfortable with. The academics are mostly interested in their research. At Oxbridge, the very most rigorous universities for entry, they talk to you for 20 minutes and make a decision based on that and a whole lot of random factors. At most places they skim your application for a minute or two.

If you have better A levels you will, in general, get in to better universities. When you reach the point at which everyone has near-perfect A levels it becomes more random still. The system is probably better than picking names out of a hat, but it's not as different you'd like to think.

T-o dore: You have a ridiculously affectatious, pretentious style of diction. Or should I rather say, you write like a prat.
Original post by DynamicSyngery
T-o dore: You have a ridiculously affectatious, pretentious style of diction. Or should I rather say, you write like a prat.


I'm guessing this part must be an attempted parody - is 'affectatious' even a word? My browser's spell-check and TheFreeDictionary.com don't have it.
Original post by alex_hk90
I'm guessing this part must be an attempted parody


Attempted? How dare you, Sir!
Reply 177
Original post by DynamicSyngery
...At Oxbridge, the very most rigorous universities for entry, they talk to you for 20 minutes and make a decision based on that and a whole lot of random factors...


I wouldn't have put so much effort into the two hour aptitude test if I had known that it was just a 'random factor'.
Original post by shoshin
I wouldn't have put so much effort into the two hour aptitude test if I had known that it was just a 'random factor'.


Aptitude tests are not used in general, only for some subjects.
You'd be surprised how much you can gauge about an applicant in 20 minutes :yes:

Latest