Why does Oxford not ask for A*?

For Oxford Arts courses, why does the A* grade not form part of the entry requirement like at Cambridge? Given the level of competition for Arts degrees at Oxford, an AAA requirement seems very generous.

Edit: removed the last sentence

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

username738914

Original post by anonlad

Entry requirements are not the sole reason for a uni's prestige.

Entry reqs are affected by supply and demand, hence a uni, let's take Manchester for example, can set high entry reqs for a course (its Physics course: A*A*A) because of how popular a choice it is amongst applicants (in other words because of Brian Cox). So, stating that the entry reqs 'slightly undermine the prestige' is a bogus claim. AAA are still a top set of grades.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

the1akshay

Original post by Princepieman

There are a few things universities must consider when determining entry requirements:

Are these grades achievable for the vast majority of successful candidates?

Will these grades put off potential applicants?

Is it necessary to require higher grades to maintain standards?

Oxford must strike a balance between these three questions, with the first two pressuring grades downwards and the third pressuring grades upwards.

Reply 3

poorform

I imagine most people who are deemed worthy of an offer will probably end up getting a few A*'s anyway so it's inconsequential also it could put a few very talented and capable people off applying when they would excel in that environment. Also art subjects are quite **** tbh STEM is where it's at.

Reply 4

abc:)

Original post by anonlad

With other unis (and this may apply to Oxford as well, I don't know, I never applied) the stated requirement may actually end up being lower or higher than what they ask of you. This depends on how many people apply, and the standard of the applications.

Also, if you're predicted AAA, but you have some really good experience or knowledge, you may be considered a better candidate than somebody with A*A*A* but no experience.

I would have thought Oxford would take into account other parts of the application such as what I just mentioned, the quality of your personal statement and interview, etc, rather than just focus on grades.

Reply 5

anonlad

Original post by Princepieman

That's the thing - I know demand and supply are the main determinants but there are definitely other factors at play. For example, Law at Oxford has 7 applicants per offer with an AAA req., whilst Durham has 3 applicants per offer with an A*AA req? Why have Oxford opted for AAA when I'm sure the vast majority of applicants exceed such conditions?

Reply 6

Gnomes&Knights

Last year in my sixth form I know a guy that got an AAA offer to study BA Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford and he managed to get in with better grades than that. He deserved it anyway as he was certainly Oxford Material.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 7

Pars12

Original post by anonlad

By the time you get to the offer they have decided you are good enough. They don't expect many students to miss their offer. It is more a question of whether you think their selection process is "generous".

Reply 8

Noble.

Essentially, the primary reason this is the case with arts subjects is because the difference between an A and A* in something like English Lit or History is significantly more subjective than with science/maths subjects, and not necessarily an indicator of someone who is better or with more potential.

You also have to remember that Oxford does research the statistical significance of certain factors in determining success at the undergraduate level. The entry requirements remaining at AAA would logically seem to indicate that there isn't a statistically significant difference in the success of undergraduates in these subjects on the basis of A/A* at A-Level.

As to why Oxford would keep them at AAA when competition is 7 applicants per place, and universities with less competition have higher requirements - simply put, Oxford has more information on each applicant from admissions tests and/or interviews and so can afford to discriminate based on other factors that they may, or may not, have found to be (statistically) significantly better predictors.

Reply 9

UpInTheMorning

Original post by anonlad

Another reason is because Oxford has more of its own entrance exams than Cambridge, so can rely on A-levels slightly less.

Reply 10

El Salvador

Because school-leavers from the state sector tend to have lower a-level scores despite a higher intelligence and/or ability to do anything and everything.

To set the minimum requirement at AAA instead of higher is to make it easier for state-schoolers with the same intellectual capacity and potential to get in despite their educational disadvantage. As it stands, 33% of all school-leavers achieving AAA or above are from the independent sector, so to bring it up any further will just make it significantly more difficult for state schoolers to get in.

Reply 11

Magnus Taylor

Original post by poorform

We will ignore this statement because it suffers from the disadvantage of being wrong

Reply 12

El Salvador

Original post by UpInTheMorning

Another reason is because Oxford has more of its own entrance exams than Cambridge, so can rely on A-levels slightly less.

Indeed.

For example, they have a separate test for MFL applicants, and you will not receive an offer if you fail that test with whatever a-level grades and/or interview performance.

And they did do a research on it to see if the test is a good predictor of success - in one of the years, I believe in 2006, they admitted people who failed the test and admitted them based on their a-levels and interview scores only. Then they offered to them a two-week intensive course to train their grammar, and it's proven that it's ineffective.

Reply 13

El Salvador

Original post by Magnus Taylor

We will ignore this statement because it suffers from the disadvantage of being wrong

lol I like the way you put it

Reply 14

jenkinsear

Original post by anonlad

Noble basically covers it in his answer, but I would add that Alevel is not a great indicator of how well people will perform at degree level. I know of one person who got AAB at Alevel, got let in anyway by her College because they liked her so much at interview, then went on to win the prize for top performer in her final exams out of 230 odd people. All of those people will have done better than her at Alevel, yet she still trounced the lot of them.

I personally think that you get a lot of people in the British school system who are not actually incredibly intelligent but simply do very well in exams because they work very hard. These people are by and large well served by a system that focuses on grades. Those who are perhaps very gifted but less well served by an exam-focused system benefit from an AAA grade requirement as it avoids them being excluded despite any evident ability they may have demonstrated at interview/in entrance tests. I think we have a good balance between valuing exams and understanding the nature of different applicants personally.