Oxbridge anti-competitive?

I'll start lobbying for London Met to award PhDs for passing first year exams!

Not really. You're perfectly entitled to use the post-nominals MA with an Oxbridge MA. Most people would want to use Oxon/Cantab anyway.

If other people misunderstand that's their problem. Other people's misunderstanding doesn't oblige the universities to change their system.

Adding Oxon / Cantab or omitting it, they should not be putting down both BA and MA after their name if they've only completed one degree.

Adding Oxon / Cantab or omitting it, they should not be putting down both BA and MA after their name if they've only completed one degree.

1) I'm thinking that this may be because the very top students may get offers from both universities, and thus bring down their takeup ratio. For example, Oxford, I believe, has a 92% takeup ratio, meaning that 92% of students with offers in January actually end up firming the university and meeting the entry requirements. Oxbridge are observing that, in most cases, students who get offers are actually very likely to choose them as their first choice. If the possibility of someone firming them fell (because they also got offers from the other one), then that would obviously have a corresponding negative effect on that takeup ratio.

This is particularly worrisome for them, as, due to the tutorial/supervision system, they can't take in a large surplus of students in excess of the number that they were expecting to get. This is not only because of limited accommodation facilities, but also because they have to organise it so that their tutors get 1-on-1 time with every undergrad in their college. Having 10 or 20 more unexpected people stuffed into a lecture theatre at LSE or Imperial may not be an issue (other than increasing the amount of material to mark), but just two or three more people doing the same course at a college, who all need to be taught individually, may bring up timetabling issues and take up more of the lecturers' valuable time.

2) Oxbridge certainly know how to make themselves stand out and look as special as possible (doing interviews at their colleges, announcing results on the same day to create a sense of anticipation, informing people via physical letters rather than through UCAS updates), so this policy has the added benefit of being a marketing ploy to distinguish them from the LSE's, Imperial's and Durham's of the world.

I agree with you that Oxbridge wants to remain different.

If the tutorial system really is that good (and I'm not doubting it), then as someone else remarked earlier, why has it not been copied? Yes, money is one difficulty but surely it would be an asset to the UK if there were more unis of Oxbridge's standards and so funding COULD be provided by the govt, via taxes or some other way.

(A point often remarked is that if two students attained the same grades, one from a comp, another from a public school, it is deemed the comp student has achievement is better. Given Oxbridge's vastly superior tutorial system, why has this point not been taken into account, when discussing their students' academic achievements)?

The bottom line is Oxbridg is deliberately kept different.

Oxford and Cambridge both say that they get many more suitable applicants than they have places. It is a lottery.

So, is it conceivable that the existence of 'Oxbridge' is creating a shortage of supply (of places) at the top of the chain? Oxford (and Cambridge?) has/have very little scope to expand the number of undergraduate places. So they will keep banging on on their websites about how fierce the competition is but not really offer effective remedies.

Except the effective remedy of the very thorough and meritocratic admissions process, which you'd like to see destroyed by meddling in the system they've established to preserve it.

Every person invited to interview has merit and the vast majority of them are rejected. If the process is so thorough why do 70% of them fail to get a first. The principal examiners for finals seem to come from non-Oxbridge universities.

Why does such a thorough and meritocratic system make mistakes?

They obviously aren't going to award everyone a first. The grading is done to separate out the cohort.

Every person invited to interview has merit and the vast majority of them are rejected. If the process is so thorough why do 70% of them fail to get a first. The principal examiners for finals seem to come from non-Oxbridge universities.

Why does such a thorough and meritocratic system make mistakes?

I have not misunderstood. I'm merely pointing out some MIGHT.

There definately would be no misunderstanding if this "upgrade / change of title / call it what you want" was not available.

I have seen many candidates merely put MA after their name, which when I questioned them about their undegraduat subject, stated actually it was the Oxbridge MA, so in reality they were lying on their CV, as it should have been MA (oxon / cantab).

There are two reasons why not everyone gets a first. The first is that there is always going to be a range of abilities within any group, even if it is a perfect selection of the very best students available. The second is that the process assesses potential; when it comes to it, people will divide their attentions between their academics and other things in different ways. Your benchmark makes no sense for these reasons.

In terms of assessing potential, the system is far better than any other. Obviously no process based on human assessment of limited materials can be perfect, but it's far more effective than the personal statement + grades and nothing else system used elsewhere.

So they have potential but they choose to waste their time in other ways? That seems a very naive assessment to me. Who knows, you could be right. What a waste of 70% of the available spaces!


How do you know that?

At this point you're either trolling or just not thinking, so I won't be continuing with this.

I imagine that other universities may have teaching staff that's more resistant to actually sitting down and teaching or going over stuff with people, and may instead want to focus on delivering lectures and then getting on with whatever research they have to do.

I genuinely don't know if the faculty staff a) care enough to do tutorials/supervisions with their students, or b) can be arsed to go through the long process of petitioning the government for extra funding that isn't directed towards research. .

There are two reasons why not everyone gets a first. The first is that there is always going to be a range of abilities within any group, even if it is a perfect selection of the very best students available. The second is that the process assesses potential; when it comes to it, people will divide their attentions between their academics and other things in different ways. Your benchmark makes no sense for these reasons.

In terms of assessing potential, the system is far better than any other. Obviously no process based on human assessment of limited materials can be perfect, but it's far more effective than the personal statement + grades and nothing else system used elsewhere.

Another thing - they take the very best of the very best. So why do 70% of the best of the very best fail to get a first? Does Oxbridge fail to meet the needs of 70% of its successful applicants?