The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

I think that everyone with an Oxbridge degree is elitist.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Avatar for RichE
RichE
15
Original post by 7589200


Well you can't look at how many offers were through the pool and how many were outright. Or can you? I couldn't see a way...


From the pdf at that link

http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/publications/docs/admissionsstatistics2013.pdf

you'll see for 2013 entry that 21% of offers were through the pool
Reply 41
Avatar for MrJAKEE
MrJAKEE
5
Original post by clh_hilary
Most are from state schools but not necessarily economically disadvantaged.

In the last three years, Oxford has accepted three times more students just from Eton compared to all applicants on free school meals.


People who go to Eton are generally some of the cleverest in the country.. Eton is harsh and tough and a hell of a lot more rigorous than the majority of state schools. At the end of the day they will select the students who are the best.. Those that are passionate about their subject and can handle the workload (with exemplary academic qualifications)... Just because you come from a poor background doesn't mean you are capable of going to Oxbridge. If you want to blame anything blame the shabby education in the majority of state schools.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 42
Avatar for 7589200
7589200
OP
18
Original post by RichE
From the pdf at that link

http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/publications/docs/admissionsstatistics2013.pdf

you'll see for 2013 entry that 21% of offers were through the pool


Yeah on the last page.

They used to publish word documents for every subject with the number of offers through the pool and outright per college.

What that did is it exposed some of the most competitive subjects and how badly the pool was working for them.

Take Medicine as an example, it used to be absolutely awful for getting people in through the pool.
Original post by MrJAKEE
Yawn.. Oxbridge accept the best students and these tend to be from private schools. The education in state schools is appalling, whilst I was doing simultaneous equations in year 7 most people don't start it until year 9 / year 10. So what happens in those 2 lost years? Can anyone from a state school tell me so? Private schools are much more rigorous than state schools and hence they get a disproportionate amount of people in Oxbridge.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Agreed. People from state schools have to work a lot harder to get into Oxbridge than their private school counterparts given their inferior resources.
Original post by RichE
From the pdf at that link

http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/publications/docs/admissionsstatistics2013.pdf

you'll see for 2013 entry that 21% of offers were through the pool


From what I've read, those who are pooled tend to perform worse in their first year than those who got into their chosen college, but both groups tend to perform similarly over the whole degree.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MrJAKEE
People who go to Eton are generally some of the cleverest in the country.. Eton is harsh and tough and a hell of a lot more rigorous than the majority of state schools. At the end of the day they will select the students who are the best.. Those that are passionate about their subject and can handle the workload (with exemplary academic qualifications)... Just because you come from a poor background doesn't mean you are capable of going to Oxbridge. If you want to blame anything blame the shabby education in the majority of state schools.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm not saying they don't deserve it. I was responding to a post that has the majority come from state schools and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The former is true but the latter is not. Oxford only accepts 50-60 students on free school meals in the past three years.
Reply 46
Avatar for MrJAKEE
MrJAKEE
5
Original post by clh_hilary
I'm not saying they don't deserve it. I was responding to a post that has the majority come from state schools and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The former is true but the latter is not. Oxford only accepts 50-60 students on free school meals in the past three years.


My point still stands... You must prove your worth before stating it. Just because you are on free-school meals doesn't entitle you to a place at Oxbridge.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MrJAKEE
My point still stands... You must prove your worth before stating it. Just because you are on free-school meals doesn't entitle you to a place at Oxbridge.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Your point is irrelevant to my post. I was merely stating that the amount of really poor people is tiny, contrary to the claim I quoted.

If you want to make a general point about the topic, don't quote me.
Original post by clh_hilary
Your point is irrelevant to my post. I was merely stating that the amount of really poor people is tiny, contrary to the claim I quoted.

If you want to make a general point about the topic, don't quote me.


If your yardstick for economically disadvantaged is free school meals then no wonder you hold that position. Lots of state schools are situated in areas of poverty, and many aren't, but the point still stands that compared to most private school students, those from state schools are economically disadvantaged and have inferior teachers & resources. A lot of state school students have parents who never attended university and the salary you can earn without a degree is usually minimal.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 49
Avatar for RichE
RichE
15
Original post by 7589200

Take Medicine as an example, it used to be absolutely awful for getting people in through the pool.


For Medicine 2014 entry, 43 offers through pool, 238 direct.

You can still get all that information from that page.
Reply 50
Avatar for MrJAKEE
MrJAKEE
5
Original post by clh_hilary
Your point is irrelevant to my post. I was merely stating that the amount of really poor people is tiny, contrary to the claim I quoted.

If you want to make a general point about the topic, don't quote me.


Sorry, but I can quote whoever I like.

You made a statement of fact on something and I simply responded to it with my thoughts as to why it occurs.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Asexual Demigod
If your yardstick for economically disadvantaged is free school meals then no wonder you hold that position. Lots of state schools are situated in areas of poverty, and many aren't, but the point still stands that compared to most private school students, those from state schools are economically disadvantaged and have inferior teachers & resources.


Who else would be considered actually economically disadvantaged? Just because they might be less rich compared to the richest doesn't mean they're economically disadvantaged.

This is not to mention not all rich people send their children to private schools. His Excellency The Prime Minister The Rt Hon David Cameron, MP sends his offspring to state school, and I'm personally a state schoolers but grew up in mansions.
Original post by clh_hilary
Who else would be considered actually economically disadvantaged? Just because they might be less rich compared to the richest doesn't mean they're economically disadvantaged.

This is not to mention not all rich people send their children to private schools. His Excellency The Prime Minister The Rt Hon David Cameron, MP sends his offspring to state school, and I'm personally a state schoolers but grew up in mansions.


Those are anomalies and you know it.
Original post by MrJAKEE
Sorry, but I can quote whoever I like.

You made a statement of fact on something and I simply responded to it with my thoughts as to why it occurs.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Original post by Asexual Demigod
Those are anomalies and you know it.


That was only an additional comment. The direct response was just because you are not in the richest group of people don't mean you're 'disadvantaged'.
Reply 55
Avatar for 7589200
7589200
OP
18
Original post by RichE
For Medicine 2014 entry, 43 offers through pool, 238 direct.

You can still get all that information from that page.


Im sorry I'm being thick but I couldn't work out how! Thanks for that though.

Oxford, same subject, 43%. (as opposed to 15%)

http://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/a100statistics

I have always felt the Oxford system is much better. Well it is for Medicine anyway.
Reply 56
Avatar for MrJAKEE
MrJAKEE
5
Original post by clh_hilary


Lmao I feel sorry for you.. Remind anyone never to quote you ever again.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by clh_hilary
That was only an additional comment. The direct response was just because you are not in the richest group of people don't mean you're 'disadvantaged'.


Disadvantaged by comparison is what I was obviously implying. As already stated, a good portion of state schoolers come from families where they are the first to go to university. This is often the case with state schoolers who go to either Oxford or Cambridge. If you don't possess a degree then your salary is very likely low. So, if their parents earn very little and they go to a state school in an area that is cheap to live in, I'd say they're economically disadvantaged even though they're not eligible for free school meals.
I'm done here. I have nothing to say to people who are obvious trolls.
Original post by Asexual Demigod
Disadvantaged by comparison is what I was obviously implying. As already stated, a good portion of state schoolers come from families where they are the first to go to university. This is often the case with state schoolers who go to either Oxford or Cambridge. If you don't possess a degree then your salary is very likely low. So, if their parents earn very little and they go to a state school in an area that is cheap to live in, I'd say they're economically disadvantaged even though they're not eligible for free school meals.


'By comparison' makes no sense in this context. You can then say Eton College has 100% economically disadvantaged students because Charles didn't go there; or The Queen is economically disadvantaged because she's not Bill Gates.

Even now, only 18% of the working population holds a degree. It is a lot more common for today's applicants' parents to not have a degree. With hardly anyone having a degree, their salaries can't have the significant difference you think there is.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you