fluteflute's bumper thread of Oxford admissions statistics

Scroll to see replies

As pointed out in the applicants thread, the university have released on their website information on admissions broken down both by college and by subject: http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/undergraduate_admissions_statistics/offers.html

I think this really does show the futility of trying to "second guess" the admissions system.

Look at St Hilda's. In the last three years they had 18 places to read classics and 17 applicants. Yet only three of those applicants got in.

Reply 221

nexttime

Original post by fluteflute

I was looking at some of the intakes thinking how could such small colleges possibly be taking so many chemists... but its 3 year totals obviously. Not 3 year averages. Silly Oxford :rolleyes:

EDIT: its also interesting just how common it is for colleges to both 'import' and 'export' applicants for a single subject in a single year. You'd have thought they would either fill up their spaces or they'd be looking in the 'pool', but apparently not. Is so much movement really necessary? Explanations?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 222

Poppyxx

Original post by fluteflute

I like how it says "extreme caution is advised in attempting to draw conclusions about any given individual's chances of success based on this information"

There will still be people trying to play the numbers game.

Reply 223

nulli tertius

Original post by Poppyxx

Oxford suppressed this data for many years. I think a certain TSR member's :holmes:

FOI requests have forced them to publish.

When the data was previously published, it, coupled with the Norrington Table, did lead to wild swings in applicant numbers as top Norrington positions coupled with high numbers of applicants in previous years frightened candidates away. I personally benefited from this.

However at that time applications were more competitive between colleges. There was no re-allocation and colleges stole each others' better candidates by offers of scholarships and exhibitions (a process known as trumping).

I think colleges are now more willing to turn down mediocre applicants and fish for talent in the wider university.

Reply 224

fluteflute

Original post by nulli tertius

However at that time applications were more competitive between colleges. There was no re-allocation and colleges stole each others' better candidates by offers of scholarships and exhibitions (a process known as trumping).

I think colleges are now more willing to turn down mediocre applicants and fish for talent in the wider university.

I haden't heard of that :eek:

Reply 225

nulli tertius

Original post by fluteflute

I haden't heard of that :eek:

From the introduction of a unified Oxford admissions system some time in the 1960s until the mid 1980s, the principle was that scholarship trumped exhibition trumped commoner's place. The key rule was that an applicant was not able to turn down a better offer to go to a preferred college. An applicant either accepted the better offer or withdrew from the Oxford admissions process.

However, only candidates who took the entrance examination were eligible for exhibitions and scholarships so the minority of applicants for serious conditional offers could not, and the even smaller number of applicants for non-examination matriculation offers did not have to, sit the exam and were not eligible for awards.

There were limits on the number of awards that could be made and until the early 1980s some came with strings attached (e.g for the children of jam makers from Barnsley)

The colleges played cat and mouse with each other over candidates. You needed to use your awards to protect the candidates you really wanted from poaching by other colleges but also to poach from other colleges. There was no idea that top marks in the exam=an award.

Competition became more acute as the colleges went mixed. The women's colleges had to become particularly aggressive to obtain talent. Moreover, the idea was gaining ground that admission should be on academic merit alone which put pressure on the traditional sporting and social colleges.

All this was swept away in the mid 80s. What replaced it was the open application. This provided some initial flexibility in the revised system. This was supplemented in the 90s by the non-aggression pact (an agreement between the colleges that no college would introduce an innovation in admissions without the support of a majority of the colleges), the abolition of the entrance examination, and then pre-interview re-allocation.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 226

maii4213

Someone please tell me what does "OVERSUBSCRIBEDNESS" means please? =(

Reply 227

shoshin

Original post by maii4213

Someone please tell me what does "OVERSUBSCRIBEDNESS" means please? =(

A measure of how many people applied to a college compared to the number of places available. If a college had 80 places available and 80 people applied there, it would not be oversubscribed. If 160 people applied there, it would be 100% oversubscribed.

But remember that within these totals there can be wide differences at the subject level. Besides, colleges that appear to exhibit relativeunderoversubscribedness get several opportunities to increase the number of candidates to be considered. By the time you get through your interviews there is next to no difference in your chances of an offer from Oxford, whichever college you apply to.

Reply 228

Yes, alright

What excellent sleuthing, FluteFlute. Does anyone know if any comparable college info for graduate applications is knocking about anywhere?

Reply 229

Pars12

Original post by fluteflute

I've just added a new column named "oversubscribedness". So despite the whopping numbers of applicants, Brasenose is not as oversubscribed as Worcester and Magdalen (no surprises there). Balliol, Keble, Hertford, Jesus and Trinity are next in line.

Also it's probably worth mentioning that at the bottom of the spreadsheet you can toggle between viewing the data for 2007-2010 averaged (the default view) and seeing only 2010's data.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asg7Ze9sc7PfdERINU5BSjJXdVN1dEs5eVl2cFVyaWc&hl=en_GB#gid=4

Have they changed the way they allocate open applications?

Reply 230

fluteflute

Original post by Pars12

Have they changed the way they allocate open applications?

Not that I'm aware of?

(except you can no longer opt out from being allocated to St Benet's and Regents Park)

Reply 231

Pars12

Original post by fluteflute

Not that I'm aware of?

(except you can no longer opt out from being allocated to St Benet's and Regents Park)

I understood they allocated in proportion to number of applications. These figures seem to show that the less popular colleges get more of the open allocations. Have I misread this?

Reply 232

Yes, alright

Original post by Pars12

the less popular colleges get more of the open allocations. Have I misread this?

St John's say this is how it works on their website

Reply 233

Pars12

OK. But looking at the admissions website ...

What if I don’t want to choose?

No problem. You can make an open application by choosing campus code '9' on your UCAS application. This means we will randomly assign your application to a college or hall that offers your course.

Making an open application does not affect your chances of getting a place. In 2014, 18% of applicants chose to make an open application.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/colleges/choosing-a-collegeX

Is this an acceptable use of the word "randomly"?

Reply 234

nulli tertius

Original post by Pars12

OK. But looking at the admissions website ...

http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/colleges/choosing-a-collegeX

Is this an acceptable use of the word "randomly"?

Dead link

I think it probably is, in context.

As TSR shows, university applicants are almost entirely reductionist.

That is probably because as a society we do not give children the experience of a wide choice over things that matter and so university entrance is the first serious decision they have to take where there are more than 2 or 3 possible answers.

I doubt one could get over the idea that one has a greater chance of getting St Hugh's or St Hilda's but still a realistic chance of Worcester or Brasenose.

Reply 235

Pars12

Original post by nulli tertius

Dead link

Sorry! It was simply the source of the quote I used.

As TSR shows, university applicants are almost entirely reductionist.

That is probably because as a society we do not give children the experience of a wide choice over things that matter and so university entrance is the first serious decision they have to take where there are more than 2 or 3 possible answers.

I doubt one could get over the idea that one has a greater chance of getting St Hugh's or St Hilda's but still a realistic chance of Worcester or Brasenose.

The information is presumably there for people who wish to make an open application. On this spreadsheet (2010 data?) St Hilda's get 305 open applicants (79% of their total) and Worcester get 6 (1% of their total). I can see why they do it but it doesn't match up to my idea of "randomly assign your application to a college or hall that offers your course".