Is it true you can BUY your way into Oxford?

I don't have a huge amount of experience with dons but the ones I've met couldn't really give two hoots about anything but their subject. The fact that Oxford dons voted to condemn the government's HE white paper before any other university is at odds with the idea that they'd pander to the government in order to get honours. Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think Oxford's reputation is grossly exaggerated.

As is usual with such things, the issue is how the question is framed.

If the question is can someone buy a place for a first undergraduate degree, then the answer is "no".

Are strings pulled for the well-connected to get on such courses, probably "no".


The last scandal I am aware of concerned two Trinity candidates for 2002 admission.

http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/Ingrams.html

However, if you are reasonably bright, have an undergraduate degree elsewhere (or even are studying at an elite institution abroad) and money and course are no object, then you will not have any real difficulty getting in to Oxford.

That's the US where the college system is completely different to over here. Alumni donate billions to universities each year, so legacy admissions are very common.

And Benazir Bhutto bought her position as president of the Oxford Union yes?

Oh, I'm not doubting that the redbricks have given out BBC offers....But I'd be interested to know if Oxford or Cambridge have actually made any BBC offers in the last few years. As far as I'm aware they haven't, and fewer than 2% of their undergrads got less than AAA at A Level (I know one of those people, he went to a state school, he got A*A*B and missed his last A by one mark, so they took him on anyway).

It's not in Oxford's interests to accept below-par candidates because it's primarily an academic institution. It raises enough money through sponsors/the government/bequeathments and in general Oxbridge alumni go on to become successful independent of their family's wealth - it's the Oxbridge degree that gives them the advantage. And then there are stories like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/29/atlantic-records-founder-26m-oxford - as far as I'm aware, the donor didn't even study at Oxford.

Oxford and Cambridge already have an impressive list of alumni. They don't need to accept a dictator's son in order to look good. Many of the state-schooled students that they taken on will most likely go on to become famous (Margaret Thatcher being one of the most prominent examples so far). While St Andrews clearly capitalised on Prince William, Oxford never really makes a big deal about its alumni and it certainly wasn't the impression I got when I looked round. Oxford doesn't actually want students to apply because Blair's son went there. They want students to apply because they love their subjects.

Have you actually been through the Oxbridge admissions process?

x.

I don't know how many BBC offers Oxford or Cambridge have made in the last few years, I certainly couldn't tell you. But if you're telling me that fewer than 2% of their undergrads got less than AAA at A-levels, which with an undergraduate population of 10000-12000 for both unis, that's still 200-250 people. In any case, this is still irrevelant, firstly cos it only takes one academically sub-par child of a powerful magnate or politician to prove the system isn't fair and secondly my focus wasn't particularly on the fact that the progeny of the rich and influential don't always get the grades, it's that even if they do, for example, get AAA at A-levels, they were always more likely to get in than Joe Public, son of Mr. John and Mrs. Jane Public, who also got AAA at A-levels, due to the influence of their circumstances. Both might be equally matched in aptitude, but it's the one from the influential background that gets the place. The only reprieve is that the mega-rich and influential are in the minority and so are their progeny in any one year, so it's not like the majority are of such kind. However, if you go to Oxford and Cambridge, and do a census for students who happen to be sons and daughters of highly influential people or royalty, I'm sure it's higher than the national average of such students at higher institutions in the UK or (dare I say it) of even the other redbricks unis, and this is undeniably so when in any year group, you go to the Bullingdon, Gridiron , and Pitt Gentlemen clubs and count the number of heirs or close-relations to poweful families (and that just an example of 3 clubs). I understand that whilst there, these students may go on to prove themselves academically, but that is not the point. Again, does their fame or their parents influence carve them a place at Oxbridge, thereby potentially ousting the place of another hopeful? I believe it does.

Name: A-Levels Grades: Year : Uni

Prince Charles: BC: 1960s : Cambridge
Prince Edward: CDE : 1980s : Cambridge
Polly Toynbee: 1 A-Level but got scholarship : 1960s : Oxford
David Miliband: BBCD : 1980s : Oxford
Rowan Pelling: ABC : 1980s: Oxford
Angus Mackinnon: BBBCC : 1970s : Oxford

Maybe the standard offer was a lot lower in the past, they did well in the fourth term / STEP papers or represented GB in the Olympiad and subsequently got unconditional offers, though I can't see how Polly Toynbee could have got a scholarship to Oxford with only one A-Level.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/1033826-Getting-into-Oxbridge-with-average-A-level-results-via/AllOnOnePage

So in all fairness, I think it's certainly NOT impossible to buy your way into Oxbridge, or any other uni for that matter, Harvard included (possibly more so).

Once one says something isn't bribery ie offering money to secure a place; it isn't string pulling ie seeking preferential treatment on the basis of personal connections; and it isn't preferential access in terms of grades then what one is left with is merely the natural advantages that money and connections gives one.

An 18 year old who has mixed with royalty ought to be more polished, someone who has seen politics at first hand ought to have a better understanding of political history and someone who has travelled widely ought to have greater cultural awareness. That's without regard to paying for a good education.

Prince Charles is often trotted out in this context. He might not be the brightest thing on two legs but at 18 he could no doubt have brought far more life experience, both personal and reflected in the persons with whom he would have spoken, to bear than the average lad from a northern grammar school.

Oh dear! Lol. This is an interesting perspective albeit a rather bigoted one. You certainly humour me. You make the assumption that the 18-year-old "polished" child, is somehow rendered more mature by cause of the fact his parents buys Duchy's Original sausages instead of ASDA basics, as opposed to these being, at best, mere associations. An 18-year-old, however "polished", most probably will have never dabbled in politics, even if their parents are politicians or even political state leaders, and you're argument is flawed in the sense that you imply that being the president's son somehow gives one innate unction and knowledge into such vocation, when actually the truth is that such teenagers get into such positions by way of the fact that agency is given to them because mummy or papa is a prince or president.

Focusing now on your use of "polished", I guess this is a word that I can apply to some of those who went to my school and university, who are sons and daughters of politicians, foreign office envoys, and prominent businessmen and women, who mostly spent their gap years hammered in South Asia, shagging Aussie and Kiwi antipodeans and at present seem to have their noses in lines of white powder more than they do in books on the vocations of their parents. This I am led to believe, according to your marvellous insight such matters based on empiricism and not opinion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), makes them more cultured, refined or indeed STD-free, and all the other connotations linked with "polished", etc.

I don't doubt that money and resource help to broaden the mind and refine character, but it is a double-edged sword, that can equally in-still arrogance and a sense of having a right above others (much like your honourable self is displaying at this moment) into young minds.

I'm often perplexed at the nonchalance and confidence with which people regurgitate inflammatory nonsense about others such as "the average lad from a Northern grammar school", when such Northern lads, like half the male medical cohort I work with, who hail from the North of England, seem like nice and rather refined friends and colleagues. It also bemuses me somewhat, how offentimes the categorisations and stereotyping of people seems to be based on arbitrary notions like their accent. Anyway, it's been riveting listening to your bigotry, but I've got a few errands to run. ;-)

Oh dear! Lol. This is an interesting perspective albeit a rather bigoted one. You certainly humour me. You make the assumption that the 18-year-old "polished" child, is somehow rendered more mature by cause of the fact his parents buys Duchy's Original sausages instead of ASDA basics, as opposed to these being, at best, mere associations. An 18-year-old, however "polished", most probably will have never dabbled in politics, even if their parents are politicians or even political state leaders, and you're argument is flawed in the sense that you imply that being the president's son somehow gives one innate unction and knowledge into such vocation, when actually the truth is that such teenagers get into such positions by way of the fact that agency is given to them because mummy or papa is a prince or president.

Focusing now on your use of "polished", I guess this is a word that I can apply to some of those who went to my school and university, who are sons and daughters of politicians, foreign office envoys, and prominent businessmen and women, who mostly spent their gap years hammered in South Asia, shagging Aussie and Kiwi antipodeans and at present seem to have their noses in lines of white powder more than they do in books on the vocations of their parents. This I am led to believe, according to your marvellous insight such matters based on empiricism and not opinion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), makes them more cultured, refined or indeed STD-free, and all the other connotations linked with "polished", etc.

I don't doubt that money and resource help to broaden the mind and refine character, but it is a double-edged sword, that can equally in-still arrogance and a sense of having a right above others (much like your honourable self is displaying at this moment) into young minds.

I'm often perplexed at the nonchalance and confidence with which people regurgitate inflammatory nonsense about others such as "the average lad from a Northern grammar school", when such Northern lads, like half the male medical cohort I work with, who hail from the North of England, seem like nice and rather refined friends and colleagues. It also bemuses me somewhat, how offentimes the categorisations and stereotyping of people seems to be based on arbitrary notions like their accent. Anyway, it's been riveting listening to your bigotry, but I've got a few errands to run. ;-)

My, my, we have touched a raw nerve.

I should say that my comments come from my experience as a working class lad from a comprehensive at Oxford, albeit many years ago.


It is naive in the extreme to believe that the advantages in life that some people have, do not rub off on them in any way, even on yourself. You refer to knowing the sons and daughters of politicians, diplomats etc. Well, I think I knew someone whose father was a GP and I was at school with the son of the local Methodist minister and a RAF officer. You refer to people with noses in white powder. I don't think I knew anyone at school who had had tried cocaine; my contemporaries were more likely to have got high on Evo-stick.

I don't doubt that money and resource help to broaden the mind and refine character, but it is a double-edged sword, that can equally in-still arrogance and a sense of having a right above others...

They don't need to accept a dictator's son in order to look good.

Given that they rejected Saif Gaddafi, I would venture 'no'.

Three theories.

1) You're lying to perpetuate myths about Oxford.
2) He's lying about his "offer."
3) He seems quiet to you but may be excellent at his subject and felt more comfortable talking to people who share the same passion for his subject, excelling at interview.

I wish you would calm down a little. It is conceivable that underneath all of your rambling and repetitive sophistry you may have one or two intelligent points to make, but this will be impossible to assess until you look properly at the question under discussion and respond to it in a more direct, evidence based fashion. I hope that you bring a more rational approach to medical diagnosis.

Could you please just tell us, in a few sentences if at all possible, why you believe that you (that is, anyone with enough money) can buy (that is, without having the requisite academic ability) your way into Oxford (not LSE, Cambridge, or anywhere else). By all means take issue with the first two of my parenthesised caveats, but try to stick to Oxford as the case in point; we can't speak for other universities, and your repeated recourse to the Said Gadaffi/LSE example rebuts rather than supports the case against Oxford, for reasons that have already been explained to you but on which we can elaborate further if you insist.

There is a lot of truth to that comment as not just Oxford, but Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, the other redbricks and their American equivalents have a long history of accepting the progeny of the rich, the famous and the influential, and particularly those from abroad. I suppose a mixture of money and maintaining ties upon which both parties mutually benefit from lies at the heart.

Let me put it differently, if they didn't have the connections, the fame or the financial resource, would they have still gotten a place and I think (with the greatest objectivity in mind) the answer is either "No" or at best, "maybe".

Again, does their fame or their parents influence carve them a place at Oxbridge, thereby potentially ousting the place of another hopeful? I believe it does.