This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Oxbridge Facts

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

Jerking My Gerking

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/responses/astar.doc
sorry

Reply 61

Jerking My Gerking

Yeah, that one works.

Reply 62

Donald Duck

stadev

For an Oxbridge applicant you're ****ing stupid. If a college has low applicants :tongue:

lace, then everyone applies there...makign it harder to get into than just picking any college would have been.

So just pick whichever college has the prettiest buildings, fall in love with it at your interview, and enjoy the rejection letter and months of anguish after.

Isn't life great?

So you presume that's gonna happen and therefore apply at Merton/Christ Church? :wink:

It goes in circles. Personally I chose one which is not in the top 5 or bottom 5, and just went for looks, food and feeling after that.

Reply 63

HCD

Huw Davies

Oxford prospectus\alternative prospectus. Going to Oxford and looking round them. Individual college prospectus\alternative prospectus.

The alternative prospectuses are something to look at in the Careers library when you're bored, nothing more. Their representation of Oxford, at least the ones I've seen, is as follows:

- No-one actually does any work
- Every student is:
- a registered sex offender,
- a raving homosexual,
- a rampant alcoholic,
- a compulsive cross-dresser, or
- a combination of the above.

They go out of their way to promote the "fun" side, and the balance is waaaay off. They're trying too hard to look like they "have fun like normal people", and end up looking like *see above list*.

Reply 64

Elles

Greatleysteg

Yes. I wanted to apply to Magdalen, but feared I'd be edged out of contention by a public or private schooler, it being one of the most over-subscribed colleges and all. (At least it's not Pembroke) Despite not being a 'fringe' applicant, to quote the other thread, I felt I'd not have a chance, although if I'd applied from Eton for example, with these grades, I'd be confident of walking it.

Isn't the "what if" going to annoy you..? Especially if you have classes/labs/lectures & meet the people from your subject who did apply & get in there, who most likely didn't go to Eton!

Reply 65

Greatleysteg

Elles

Isn't the "what if" going to annoy you..? Especially if you have classes/labs/lectures & meet the people from your subject who did apply & get in there, who most likely didn't go to Eton!

It already is affecting me, a lot - I really wanted to go there. *Sigh*. But that's life - I took the cowardly (but, at the time, more sensibly) option and submitted open.

While I'm not thrilled to be at Hilda's, I'm not letting it dampen my enthusiasm - it's really pretty, on the river, punts, JdP building, no tourists... :smile:

And a really exciting time - I'm proud to be in the first ever male intake.

Reply 66

BJack

Greatleysteg

It already is affecting me, a lot - I really wanted to go there.

I imagine you'll stop caring about those silly other colleges when you get there.

Um, and this is a totally (well, sort of) unrelated question, but why did you pick another AAA as your insurance? >_>

Reply 67

Jerking My Gerking

Also an abundance of girls, in the years above. I wouldn't be complaining.

Reply 68

Elles

BJack

I imagine you'll stop caring about those silly other colleges when you get there.

Well, yeah - only in this case, geographically it'll be hard not to notice the Tower (especially lit up at night), beautiful buildings and grounds etc. as you walk over the bridge into town. :wink:

I guess I'm too stubborn a person - my 6th form Oxbridge co-ordinator seemed slightly apprehensive about my choice of college (one of the ones that's been mentioned in this thread & the most numerically competitive for my subject when I applied), but it was the one I had decided I wanted, so... :biggrin:

Didn't even cross my mind that they might prefer someone else because of the name of the school they went to (?!) & their pooling stats at the Open Day looked pretty impressive.

Reply 69

Cirsium

trance addict

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/statistics/index.html

Cambridge still do. Oxford stopped about 3 years ago. Or they may still have them somewhere but they're no longer in the prospectus :p:

Greatleysteg

No, 'genera' doesn't work; I still take offense, as would many others. You seem to be claiming that the top students come from Eton - just because it has a high success rate - when they blatantly get in because of a bias towards private/public schools.

Oh for crying out loud. The only possible way that Eton can be given some sort of advantageous bias is if the other non-famous private schools are discriminated against. Because THE SAME proportion of private schoolers and state schoolers get in. YES plenty of people get in from Eton but it's a bloody good school. The teaching is exceptional and the students are coached to interview. It's not some sort of institutional under the table game.

Reply 70

BJack

Bekaboo

THE SAME proportion of private schoolers and state schoolers get in.

The proportion of successful private school applicants is higher, though. But of course that is for a variety of reasons, none of which is private school bias.

YES plenty of people get in from Eton but it's a bloody good school. The teaching is exceptional and the students are coached to interview. It's not some sort of institutional under the table game.

Yes, I must admit that until I looked at their results earlier today, I hadn't realized quite how good their results are. >.>

Reply 71

Jerking My Gerking

How do you think a rise in fees would effect the ratio of publicly educated students against privately educated students in Oxbridge?

Reply 72

Cirsium

I think that seeing as Oxford have a better hardship fund provision than any other university it wouldn't affect them. Realistically, a LOT of parents are prepared to remortgage, or work overtime, or do whatever it takes to get their kids to uni - so anyone that's capable of paying a bit more will. It's only going to affect the relatively small minority of people who can't pay at all, and seeing as it's possible for them to get e.g. full fee remission and 5k living expenses already it's not going to change their ability to go to the uni. If anything I think other top unis like Bristol / Durham / London ones with high living expenses will be affected more.

Reply 73

Huw Davies

Assuming you mean state vs. private, I don't think it will dissuade anyone from going to Oxbridge specifically (unless they lift the cap and Oxbridge raise fees more than other universities), rather than university in general.

I think actually that Oxbridge-standard sixth-formers are more likely to see a university course as a good trade-off for the extra debt than those headed for 3Cs at A-level.

Also, most state school students at Oxbridge are class-wise not much different from most of the private school students, having gone either to grammar schools or to "nice" state schools. So are still likely to have middle-class parents who are keen on university and prepared to help pay for it.

Reply 74

Jerking My Gerking

If the fees go up I'm fried, I'm a triplet so my parents would have to pay 7x9= 63,000 in 3 years.

Reply 75

Huw Davies

Sell one of you, to pay for the others?

Arguably you are better off under the new system than the old, since you don't need to pay up front.

Reply 76

t.w.

Greatleysteg

Many of the very best candidates come from the very best schools. This is mind-numbingly obvious. These schools provide an infinitely better preparation for Oxbridge than almost all state schools. I'm not going to bother responding to your absurd claim of bias - you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, you seem to not consider that maybe people just really don't mind which college they go to? To claim that the best candidates choose colleges on the strength of fellows and professors is rubbish - at my college, it has one of the highest numbers of fellows and tutors for my subject, and I was sent there through open application.

I really can't make head nor tail or this. You happen to have been allocated to a college that had a lot of fellows for your subject, therefore this refutes my point that many top applicants are attracted by famous or leading experts at certain colleges? Non sequitor of epic proportions.

There were also several people who'd been allocated there (many of whom were rejected in the end) with 5/6 A's, including myself.

Try actually reading the posts. Have I claimed all open-applicants are weak? Then again, 5/6 A's is a very questionable measure of strength of applicant, which weakens your already irrelevant point even further.

Some of us only submitted an open application because we were hoping that it would counteract our coming from comprehensives - i.e. really wanting to maximise chances of getting in.

So what? It's still blatantly obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that open applicants are, on average, weaker.

Reply 77

TheEnergizerRabbit

t.w.

Pardon the butting in, but whilst I've found myself agreeing with most of your points I am a bit worried about this one. Greatleysteg tried to condense what is in actual fact quite a profound debate and found himself a little lost in the emotion of it all. What is mind numbingly obvious is exactly what you said - the preparation received by public schoolers for Oxbridge bears little comparison to that on offer from state schools. What I (hope) he was getting at, is that where the criterion for entering a top public school (I assume for simplicity non-selectiveness - see grammers) is just the ability for parents to pay, one should not expect there to be a truly significant difference in "inherent potential" between public and state schoolers. However when the data is looked at, there are pockets of unexpected disproportion-ality within the public school sector (even when compared with top grammers) with regards to Oxbridge admissions. Oxbridge assert they look only for this "inherent potential", so this variance goes unexplained. Greatleysted cries foul, which is absurd. Methinks it has more to do with the difficulty in differentiating between preparedness and natural ability/potential.

Again; picky but tends to make a difference. Greatleysted and you are talking about different things. You mean, that statistically due to the types of applicants that make open applications they are on average weak (true). He means (again I hope) that you think that the fact that they are open makes them weaker i.e. A good applicant's application is wrecked by making it open - or he just disagrees with your 'profiles'/'reasons' of people that would make open applications.

Reply 78

t.w.

TheEnergizerRabbit

What I (hope) he was getting at, is that where the criterion for entering a top public school (I assume for simplicity non-selectiveness - see grammers) is just the ability for parents to pay, one should not expect there to be a truly significant difference in "inherent potential" between public and state schoolers.

Here is the crucial point, and it is here that you are mistaken. To claim the sole difference between state and privately educated applicants is the wealth of their parents is completely untrue. We must consider the meaning of the word wealth in this context. It does not simply mean monetary value, because there is an indisputable correlation between wealth and education, and education of parents is very much related to the success of an applicant. I have mentioned the importance of the school in terms of preparing the candidate for an application, but by far the most important influence is the household and the parents (numerous studies show this). Coming from a household with a barrister or stockbroker as a parent makes a significant difference. I don't think there can be any objections to the claim that in general the parents of pupils at schools like Eton and Westminster are far more educated than those at a randomly selected state school. The wealth of the parents is very often related to their level of education - I really wish I had the statistics for % of private school children whose parents have a degree and the comparative statistics for state schoolers.
So this inherent difference you speak of between state schoolers and public schoolers certainly exists in the form of the intellectual environment in which they are brought up.

However when the data is looked at, there are pockets of unexpected disproportion-ality within the public school sector (even when compared with top grammers) with regards to Oxbridge admissions. Oxbridge assert they look only for this "inherent potential", so this variance goes unexplained.

No, it's explained perfectly by what I said above. Not only do private schoolers get a better education at school, but they get, in general, a better and more stimulating academic environment at home. It is this that accounts for the inherent difference. Inherent ability of applicant is not limited to genes only - it is undeniably determined by their upbringing - and therefore applicants being brought up in homes that can afford public school prices are at an advantage (due to the afore-mentioned correlation between wealth and education).

Greatleysted cries foul, which is absurd. Methinks it has more to do with the difficulty in differentiating between preparedness and natural ability/potential.

I actually think the above is almost irrelevant, although it is the most common explanation. The confidence probably comes more from the parents having a university education themselves, or from copies of the Iliad lying around their neo-Georgian apartment in Kensington.

Again; picky but tends to make a difference. Greatleysted and you are talking about different things. You mean, that statistically due to the types of applicants that make open applications they are on average weak (true). He means (again I hope) that you think that the fact that they are open makes them weaker i.e. A good applicant's application is wrecked by making it open - or he just disagrees with your 'profiles'/'reasons' of people that would make open applications.

A good applicant's application is made much more likely to succeed by making an open application; the reasoning in my post made it fairly clear that I was convinced of this. I hoped it was evident that I was claiming open applicants are weaker in general and are not suddenly, inexplicably weakened at the point of submitting their entry with the 'open' box ticked.

Reply 79

TheEnergizerRabbit

t.w.

I have mentioned the importance of the school in terms of preparing the candidate for an application, but by far the most important influence is the household and the parents (numerous studies show this). Coming from a household with a barrister or stockbroker as a parent makes a significant difference. I don't think there can be any objections to the claim that in general the parents of pupils at schools like Eton and Westminster are far more educated than those at a randomly selected state school. The wealth of the parents is very often related to their level of education - I really wish I had the statistics for % of private school children whose parents have a degree and the comparative statistics for state schoolers.
So this inherent difference you speak of between state schoolers and public schoolers certainly exists in the form of the intellectual environment in which they are brought up.

Oh man. This issue has to get very fundamental, very quickly. I had and inkling that those were your underlying assumptions and unfortunately we may have to agree to disagree on this. Yes, of course there is a correlation between wealth of parents and education. This shapes the priorities of said parents; and they are more likely to have high expectations (put more pressure) on their children. Now here is where we part ways. You would argue that this home environment would cause higher attainment on average. This is a more than reasonable conclusion to draw, and is the basis for many a psychological theory. However, other factors do affect attainment (Genes; Uptown/Downtown, Local Crime, Type of school etc etc) unfortunately when these are controlled for, most of the studies of which you speak show little, negative or no correlation for Home Environment (Parents being educated, wealth etc). Look, I cannot expect to change your mind on a fundamental issue just because I say it is so. "No Two Alike" by Judith Rich Harris is a proper book, with a good few hundred pages of solid refutation (regarding the studies you talk about) which is more than I wish to do.

I will however present my view on what you have said. I hate to delve into stereotypes and anecdotal data, but me not being a scientist and hence not having data on hand, means that it is all I have to go on. Firstly, my home is not my intellectual hub; my school is. My thirst for debates such as this one developed by talking to friends, teachers, reading; whoever and whatever. I don't have many "intellectual" debates with my parents, but even if i did, they would just be another point of reference, another set of ideas - they would not out-do the effects of everybody else in my life. Hence they would not be the most important influence on my academic development. That said, of course I have to be thankful for their support, but largely for sending me to a good school and not forcing me to stay at home looking after siblings / working part time etc (i.e. Providing me with a good non-home environment).

The effect you think you see is actually rather a phantom one. Possibly because people are individualistic and the urge to "follow in daddy's footsteps" is arguably just as common as to "get away from the family business/trade/thing". Those copies of Iliad are of little help without someone/something to explain the ins and outs of it, as it were. Its easier to use a friend or the internet than to hassle (almost by definition) busy parents. Unfortunately(from your point of view), these are (nearly) freely available to both the rich and the poor with the only criterion being; interest. My point being, that on the whole, interested parties will put the legwork in, rich (see wealthy) or not. If books need to be lying around for you to read them; its likely you won't get through them, or get anything worthwhile out of them (without putting the effort in to understand them). Let us hypothesize for a moment that your assertion is in fact true. That academic achievement is more to do with the home environment than all other factors;

Would we not expect to see that where this is removed (e.g. at University ) that those previously devoid of said advantages would shoot past those public schoolers onces they find themselves in a level playing field and with vast multitudes of stimulating educational material? They do not.

May I even counter argue that home environments being the 'be all' those that grow up in comfortable environments may feel a lesser incentive to apply themselves fully (See Bill Gates and his take on this) with respect to those in harsher class climates? A 'wealthy' background maybe just as disadvantageous.

Anyhow, I haven't presented my view overly well. I don't expect to prove you wrong (there is I believe at least a nugget of truth in your assertion) but to cast doubt over your view as it being 'undeniable'. Honestly, read the book if you change your mind it great: if not it'd like to hear your reasons...*

*PS its not a Bible or anything, and in a few years some of it will be refuted - its just very, very interesting.