This girl got an interview for oxford but got ABBC for As levels?!

female privilegde smh

Eterna, not sure if joking but if so, what a load of gobshate.

I got ABBE AS-Levels and got an interview also, for Eng. Lit. (it's been and gone, I went and I'm back... mostly the same aside from some cheeky food poisoning I got from Mansfield's grub, and a whole lot of fun had!). Last time I checked, I did have a dick - just to clarify in full.

My two cents? Having a successful or at least intriguing, unique piece(s) of written work and ELAT/respective entrance exam seems to be the foremost factor they use when determining their distribution of interview places; that said, other aspects such as GCSE results and personal statement are most certainly considered. The most telling thing is - from what I've sniffed out - once you do make it to interview, your performance and character there seems to be the sole way they whittle down the strong pack to the stronger still(?) core - those that they want for keeps, so to speak.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 41

shoshin

10

Contextually flagged candidates will be strongly recommended for interview if they are predicted to achieve the grades, and perform to an appropriate standard in any required pre-interview admissions test.

'Note that this use of contextual information does not result in either an automatic offer of a place or a lower offer to a candidate. The candidates flagged through use of contextual information are interviewed in addition to students who are shortlisted for interview using the usual departmental interview shortlisting criteria, so they do not displace students who have already demonstrated the expected academic ability and potential'

See the 'Action to be taken' section in the link below

http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/decisions/contextual-data

Reply 42

Tessie25

1

I got an interview with AABC at AS for english, while someone else with AAAA got rejected for english. ELAT and the other tests play a big factor - I know for a fact that the other person didn't try in their ELAT, so no wonder they got rejected. I was initially put off applying after my AS results, but I contacted the uni and they said they don't care about AS levels as much as GCSE and admission test performance.

Congrats to that girl! She must have done well in admissions and submitted a good application. Oxford wants passionate students over those with astronomical grades, imo.

Reply 43

ckfeister

19

Original post by Pars12

?

So why are they in trouble with the Office For Fair Access?

I said less biased, didn't say they are a lot better than Oxford.

Reply 44

markovchain17

19

Original post by Shotte

Eterna, not sure if joking but if so, what a load of gobshate.

I got ABBE AS-Levels and got an interview also, for Eng. Lit. (it's been and gone, I went and I'm back... mostly the same aside from some cheeky food poisoning I got from Mansfield's grub, and a whole lot of fun had!). Last time I checked, I did have a dick - just to clarify in full.

My two cents? Having a successful or at least intriguing, unique piece(s) of written work and ELAT/respective entrance exam seems to be the foremost factor they use when determining their distribution of interview places; that said, other aspects such as GCSE results and personal statement are most certainly considered. The most telling thing is - from what I've sniffed out - once you do make it to interview, your performance and character there seems to be the sole way they whittle down the strong pack to the stronger still(?) core - those that they want for keeps, so to speak.

Twas a joke :tongue:

I misspelt privilege on purpose to try make it more obvious lol

Reply 45

Shotte

8

Original post by eternaforest

Twas a joke :tongue:

I misspelt privilege on purpose to try make it more obvious lol

Heh, yeah lad. I thought it'd be pretty strange, coming from you most certainly! But on the other hand, the salt factor of a tiny, unremarkable, yet abrasive and odious in volumes beyond their proportion, of the TSR men can scarce be underestimated. :wink:

Reply 46

markovchain17

19

Original post by Shotte

Heh, yeah lad. I thought it'd be pretty strange, coming from you most certainly! But on the other hand, the salt factor of a tiny, unremarkable, yet abrasive and odious in volumes beyond their proportion, of the TSR men can scarce be underestimated. :wink:

I'm going to be honest and say that you use such big words and complicated ssentences that I haven't got a clue what you're talking about :laugh:

Reply 47

ckfeister

19

Original post by JohnGreek

Evidence pls

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/feb/26/oxford-university-ethnic-minority-applicants

Reply 48

Doones

21

Original post by JohnGreek

Evidence pls

Coincidently from this weekend's Guardian/Observer:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/12/oxford-cambridge-state-school-admissions-failure

"To meet their benchmarks for disadvantaged pupils, Oxford would need to increase the percentage of state school pupils by a quarter (24%) and Cambridge by a fifth (18%)."

So Cambridge has a lower target to hit because it's doing "better" already...

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 49

Gnomes&Knights

20

I know a girl that had BDE for AS levels and got offer from UCL without interview.

Reply 50

Shotte

8

Original post by eternaforest

I'm going to be honest and say that you use such big words and complicated ssentences that I haven't got a clue what you're talking about :laugh:

They probably wouldn't either, which is why I delighted in phrasing it in such a circuitous, clothy ol' manner!

But boiling down to braised flesh and bone, I just used my posh words in a way so as to slate the guys who are constantly posting threads and comments putting down women and self-aggrandising and glorifying their own so-called 'plight'... of sitting behind a computer keyboard hammering out vitriol!

And I knew very well you're not one of 'em, buddy boy. :P

Reply 51

markovchain17

19

Original post by Shotte

They probably wouldn't either, which is why I delighted in phrasing it in such a circuitous, clothy ol' manner!

But boiling down to braised flesh and bone, I just used my posh words in a way so as to slate the guys who are constantly posting threads and comments putting down women and self-aggrandising and glorifying their own so-called 'plight'... of sitting behind a computer keyboard hammering out vitriol!

And I knew very well you're not one of 'em, buddy boy. :P

I understand :biggrin:

kind of lol

Reply 52

Shotte

8

Original post by eternaforest

I understand :biggrin:

kind of lol

A few people, just a few, on TSR can be bigger jerks than even Levi Roots' excellent Jerk Chicken sauce. c:<

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 53

Doones

21

Original post by JohnGreek

Indeed:
"Of UK students attending state or independent schools or colleges in the UK, 56.3% of places went to applicants from the state sector and 43.7% to applicants from the independent sector." - Oxford
"For applications from Home students attending UK schools/colleges the proportions of acceptances by school/college type are:Maintained 62.2% (61.4% in the previous cycle)Independent 37.8% (38.6% in the previous cycle)" - Cambridge

So those headline rates have Cambridge doing "better"...

Anyway, Cambridge publishes stats for maintained v independent success rates per course. Does Oxford? (Genuine question.)

http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

Point me at the Oxford stats, pick some courses and then we can compare.

Eitherway we are straying far from the original contention that you need to be privileged (or a child of a Doctor and not a single parent) to get a place at Oxbridge - I think we can agree that's rubbish...

Reply 54

Milzime

18

Original post by eternaforest

female privilegde smh

uhmmmm not really ?!

Reply 55

markovchain17

19

Original post by Milzime

uhmmmm not really ?!

(read previous posts and you would've known it was sarcasm)

Reply 56

Doones

21

Original post by JohnGreek

We can certainly agree that that assertion is false :u:

And, certainly, if we look at the headline figure, Cambridge is doing "better", if we define better as being a higher ratio of state school or disadvantaged offer holders.

But my point is that we can't compensate for what Cambridge and Oxford get in the first place in terms of the "quality" of their applicants, and that is something that can't be boiled down to a simple "state vs. private" school dichotomy - both types of school can vary hugely in terms of their performance and the extent to which the encourage and prepare their students for any top uni.

It's obvious, for example, that a poor, inner city state comprehensive in East London that's on special measures by Ofsted can hardly compete with top comprehensives (such as St Bart's in Newbury, or The Downs in Compton) that were ranked as "Excellent" or "Outstanding"... The same applies to public.. sorry, private schools.

I couldn't find any stats on school type per course, even though, to go back on topic, I think that this page was an interesting contextualiser with regard to the wider question of overt discrimination against poorer applicants: http://prntscr.com/9eh854

The closest I could find to answer your question was this: http://public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissons/Courses?%3AshowVizHome=no#2 I couldn't find anything more detailed than that.

Looks like Tableau has the Oxford data by course after all - I'll have a dig around
http://public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissons2/AcceptanceRate?:showVizHome=no#2

And agree that state v private isn't necessarily the best measure but it's A measure. (Although there's many crap private schools too...)

Oh but one might contend that Cambridge applicants are of a higher overall standard given the Cambridge typical offers are higher.

/gets popcorn...

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 57

Milzime

18

Original post by eternaforest

(read previous posts and you would've known it was sarcasm)