College Private:State School Ratios

Scroll to see replies

Bekaboo

Have to agree here. He can't have been in an interview since he was at university, and he can't have gone through the application for every subject. Bearing in mind how WILDLY different it is for different subjects (e.g. even the science / arts divide) I think anybody who claims to know everything, especially if they're not currently or recently from the university is a little full of themselves, and hence I'd be wary...

Are you sure that's what you meant to say? :wink:

Reply 41

Cirsium

I was agreeing with you :wink:

Reply 42

hobnob

Bekaboo

I was agreeing with you :wink:

Oh, right. :smile:

I was just a bit confused because you quoted the OP's post.

Reply 43

Cirsium

That was just so they'd know I was responding :wink:

Reply 44

Solid_Snake_100

hobnob

Meaning what exactly?

Well around 40 people from my school go to oxbridge each year so I think he knows what he is talking about, he manages the applications personally.

Reply 45

madscot

Solid_Snake_100

Well around 40 people from my school go to oxbridge each year so I think he knows what he is talking about, he manages the applications personally.

Hmm, or maybe he's incredibly good at interview coaching, making sure you right a decent PS, making sure you read beyond syllabus in your chosen subject. These all have an effect.

Plus if you send 40 people a year to Oxbridge, I bet a lot of 'em would have got in anyway.

There might be some truth in it, but it certainly won't influence my decision of college - if I ever have to make it.

Reply 46

Solid_Snake_100

ok, after some research, I am convinced that my tactic does give me an advantage. Let me explain...

At each college, out of the places that they offer, on average, they take 75% of their applicants from the people who applied directly to their college, and around 25% from pooled applicants who didnt quite make it into their college of choice (I rang them to verify this as well as my teacher telling me so you cant argue). Now, if I apply to a less competitive college, I am obviously going to be up against applicants who are at the lower end of the oxford intake, whereas applying to somewhere like Balliol, there would be many more candidates to choose from so not as many would get pooled and a less proportion of the applicants would get accepted. Now, say if there are 12 places at a worse college, and around 9 will go to direct applicants. If there are only 36 applicants there then statistically I would have a much higher chance than somewhere like christ church or balliol where maybe 12 places would go to direct applicants but there were over 150-200 people applying. This also gives me a higher chance of getting pooled (though Im not really concerned about that)

So yes...you may like to believe that the pool system is flawless, however dont be arrogant.

Reply 47

hobnob

Look, if you're so determined to take your teacher's word as gospel, why don't you just apply to a "worse" college and have done with it? :rolleyes:

You got the statistics you originally asked for in the very first replies in this thread, so I don't really see why you keep harping on about this. Just take those figures and make of them what you will.

Reply 48

Turdburger

I would argue it is easier to get into Oxford generally if you apply to a "better" college myself. As you often have more chances to prove yourself -- more interviews. An academic isnt going to pick x percentage of those of who apply to one college as a strict rule. He/She will pick the best of those that are interviewed....

To summarise: Pick where you like the most, playing the numbers game is a risky place to go, you wont be the only one to have those cunning ideas

Reply 49

Huw Davies

Solid_Snake_100

How many colleges? Representative sample? What is your raw data?

Reply 50

Good bloke

Solid_Snake_100

So yes...you may like to believe that the pool system is flawless, however dont be arrogant.

I don't think anyone has said that any system is flawless. And just what consitutes arrogance - listening to advice and acting on it or dogmatically sticking to the views you held before you asked for help?

You seem to be missing one important point. Only people good enough to get into Oxford will get in to anywhere. If you aren't good enough you will not get in - even to these mythical worse colleges you keep banging on about. The pooling sytem is a means of making sure that those good enough aren't missed wherever possible.

Yours is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you apply to a "good" college and don't get in it will be purely because you applied to the wrong college. Conversely, if you apply to an "easy" college and get in it will vindicate your strategy (in your eyes). I wonder how you will think of yourself if you apply to an "easy" college and don't get an offer.

Reply 51

Solid_Snake_100

hobnob

Look, if you're so determined to take your teacher's word as gospel, why don't you just apply to a "worse" college and have done with it? :rolleyes:

No..i just get irritated when people dont understand that there IS a range of talent that gets into oxford...not all successful candidates will have the same skill level.

Reply 52

Good bloke

Solid_Snake_100

No..i just get irritated when people dont understand that there IS a range of talent that gets into oxford...not all successful candidates will have the same skill level.

I don't think anyone has said that; of course it is obvious that there is a spread of abilities, though this spread is probably much less wide than you seem to think. It certainly doesn't go much (if any) below the level anticipated by the admissions tutors to be that needed to thrive (not just survive) within the system.

I suspect that people are getting frustrated with you because you seem to be approaching this with the false premise that a borderline candidate will maximise his or her chances of acceptance by applying to some college on the basis that it is, somehow, of lower quality than others and will, therefore, attract lower ability candidates. The Oxbridge selection systems, though, are designed to counter exactly this strategy, and also to obviate the need for it.

Reply 53

Mayfly

Jesus Christ, this is insane. I am actually glad Balliol has a reputation for being oversubscribed, because it means we avoid 'statistical chances of getting in here over christchurch and how i spent 5 weeks calculating them' talk during interview...I hope.

If we're getting even more fanatical, Balliol History doesn't send those it is planning on accepting to second interviews, only those who it won't but who it feels should get in somewhere else. (confirmed by tutors, and by people I interviewed with who ended up here/elsewhere) So if you're good enough, you'll get a second shot at somewhere else anyway, and those people who applied to less-subscribed colleges purely for statistical reasons will be up against you anyway.

Life is just too short.

Reply 54

allymcb2

Solid_Snake_100

No..i just get irritated when people dont understand that there IS a range of talent that gets into oxford...not all successful candidates will have the same skill level.

Well duh. All we are saying is that that talent is more evenly spread through the colleges than you might think. They are not separate institutions who have know idea of the quality of others' applicants. They communicate in a way that eventually means Oxford University or Cambridge University, take what they consider to be the best of the candidates. It isn't a totally separate procedure.

Reply 55

sherunsaway

Athena

Merton is top of the Norrington table; there is pooling pre-interview; there are open applicants and open offer students who can end up at any college. Public school ratios do not correlate to the Norrington table position of a college (which might attract the 'better' candidates, although your idea of what makes a 'better' candidate is totally wooly - pretty much every applicant now gets interviewe at at least two colleges, so if you're not good enough, you're highly unlikely to get in regardless of where you apply).

Also, a lot of departments (who assess the applications of every applicant, regardless of college) contextualise the GCSE reults of candidates - in other words, they'll know what type of school you went to, they'll know the school average results, and they'll know how you measure up.

Yup that's pretty true. I came from a non-selective comp yet my head teacher spread the myth that the colleges at the top of of the Norrington table were harder to get into and not to bother applying to the top 6/7 of them. So I applied to St.Annes just because I had a friend there and couldn't be bothered to spend ages choosing. I ended up getting into Merton and my tutor has said that she went through all the applicants records posted in the faculty to look for suitable pool candidates to interview. The tutors also talk to each other about good candidates and aim to make sure that those that deserve a place get in somewhere which might explain while even had a 4th interview at somerville.

I know someone doing the same course who made an open application and got assigned to Merton and then ended up at Pembroke. Tbh, while it's not a perfect system, I'd say that you're more likely to get screwed yourself if you try to play the system. Head teachers often like to spread myths about the application system but the only people who really know how it works are the tutors themselves. Being fair, I haven't met many other people who got pooled to Merton, but that's more likely to do with it being more oversubscribed compared to some other colleges.

Reply 56

springer

There seems to be a degree of naivety and arrogance amongst current and former Oxbridge students who believe that just because they thought they were good enough to apply and get in, the same must be true of everyone else who applied (and conversely that those who were rejected were not good enough). This simply is not true. The application system isn’t perfect (nor, indeed, does it claim to be). I can think of several examples in various Oxford and Cambridge colleges where applicants who shouldn’t have been let in ended up getting a place and many more examples of applicants who ought to have got in but didn’t. I don’t think anyone can deny this is the case.

In terms of choosing a college, I have to concur with Solid_Snake on this one. Again, there seems to be a certain degree of naivety amongst current Oxbridge students, many of whom believe that all colleges are equal as far as admissions and academic performance are concerned. This just isn’t the case. Why do you think Merton consistently achieve such good results in the Norrington table? The answer is that it has very little to do with the college’s ability to teach. The primary factor in determining a student’s performance in an exam is the student’s own academic ability independent of the teaching they receive. Bright students do well in exams and some colleges (notably the older richer ones) are better than others. Merton, an old and rich college, has a larger proportion of bright students than many of the other colleges and so the college performs well in the Norrington table – I would defy anyone to come up with an alternative explanation for why Merton does so well (and believe me, it has little to do with tutors putting students under greater pressure to get good results – this is a complete myth).

If Merton admits a large number of brighter students, it must follow that the college actively chooses these students in preference over other applicants. Since the majority of students admitted are accepted by their first choice college, this suggests that the population of students who apply to Merton are brighter than others. Many factors are involved in this process: advice from teachers, past applicants, discussion with admissions tutors, decisions based on application statistics etc. Ultimately, prospective students look at current students and try to work out what population they would fit into well. I know as you read this, many will think that this hypothesis is oversimplified (or perhaps you will think it is plainly incorrect) but I’d like to hear from anyone who has a better explanation for these findings.

The application pooling system isn’t perfect – how can it be with the sheer number of applicants involved? This means that if you are able to fit yourself into a population of applicants in which your chances of admission are optimised, it can improve your chances of getting in. Be honest – I’m sure you can think of examples where some students would not have got in had they applied to a different college. I can certainly think of a few.

On the other hand, I do accept that using application statistics (and private/public school ratios in particular) is not a very effective method for optimising college choice. These statistics provide no qualitative information on the successful applicants (e.g. their academic ability/proficiency in admissions tests and interviews/future success in undergraduate studies etc) and so using just these is unlikely to be of any use in determining the best college to choose. However, as long as the current admissions process is in place (i.e. it is run by the colleges rather than the faculty) if you want to improve your chances of getting into Oxbridge, you really do need to think beyond “oh, I thought this college was nice at the open day” when preparing the application.

Reply 57

Huw Davies

springer

In terms of choosing a college, I have to concur with Solid_Snake on this one. Again, there seems to be a certain degree of naivety amongst current Oxbridge students, many of whom believe that all colleges are equal as far as admissions and academic performance are concerned. This just isn’t the case. Why do you think Merton consistently achieve such good results in the Norrington table? The answer is that it has very little to do with the college’s ability to teach. The primary factor in determining a student’s performance in an exam is the student’s own academic ability independent of the teaching they receive. Bright students do well in exams and some colleges (notably the older richer ones) are better than others. Merton, an old and rich college, has a larger proportion of bright students than many of the other colleges and so the college performs well in the Norrington table – I would defy anyone to come up with an alternative explanation for why Merton does so well (and believe me, it has little to do with tutors putting students under greater pressure to get good results – this is a complete myth).

From what I've heard from various Mertonites, their collections and general academic performance are taken much more seriously than most, and they do tend to spend more time working than most.

If it is as you state then Norrington table position would correspond well with applicants per place. Why then is Oriel at the bottom, below St. Hilda's which gets the fewest applicants; why is St. Anne's consistently mid-table despite being is the next least popular choice; why isn't Worcester higher up? Why isn't Finals performance by subject related to competitiveness at entry. Where does the "finals gap" (men are more likely to get a first) fit in? Is Merton definitely the most competitive at entry?

Reply 58

springer

Huw Davies

No-one is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to work harder to achieve better grades. The feeling is almost entirely driven by the students themselves who generate the culture of academic pressure. Peer pressure is a remarkable force in the context of an collegiate university.

As I mentioned in my original post, the most important factor in determining academic performance is the candidate themselves. I'm sorry if I didn't make my previous post clearer - I'm not saying that Norrington table positions have anything to do with applicants :tongue:

laces at admissions. Rather, it is the characteristics of the population of students which apply to the different colleges (which depends on things like advice from teachers and parents/tutors/previous successful applicants etc) which subsequently determines the nature of the pool of students at each college. As I said, relying purely on application :tongue:

laces statistics is unlikely to effectively optimise an Oxbridge application. However, careful thought as to which college to apply to in respect of competition from other applicants is worth considering as it will improve your chances of getting in than if you blindly choose a college because it has pretty buildings and the porters were a bit friendly. I know of a few (not many, but quite a few) students who would not have made it in had they applied to a different college. Conversely, I know of quite a few rejected applicants who I think would have had a better chance had they applied to a different college.

The Oxbridge application system is far from perfect (and nobody denies that) because it is run by the colleges rather than centrally by the faculties. As the process of interviewing is necessarily subjective and comparative (i.e. as an interviewer, it is much easier to make comparative assessment between candidates than trying to establish some sort of absolute benchmark) and the intercollegiate pooling system at both universities isn't watertight, if an applicant is on the borderline, it makes sense to try to optimise your application by choosing the right college. Whether this is a wise thing to do in practice is a different matter and I am not certain whether it is a good idea to try to "play the system" as there are so many unmeasurable factors involved.

However, one point I do want to get across is to dispell this myth which seems to perpetuate amongst current students and alumni that just because they were successful in achieving a place, the admissions process is completely fair and always chooses the best students and that the colleges are all equal as far as admissions, teaching quality and resource provision are concerned. This is simply not the case.