Oxbridge anti-competitive?

I don't think that's true. For example STEP in absolute terms is harder than MAT but also relatively, so those who make the grade in MAT won't necessarily make the grade in STEP.

In the US, you can apply to as many unis as you like, including HYSPM, so they seem to be able to cope somehow.

Regardless, for engineering, you could argue Imperial and Cambridge ar similar in standards, likewise LSE and Cambridge for Econmics and COWI for math, so by that argument, you shouldn't be able to apply to both Imperial and Cambridg for engineering, LSE and Cambrudg for economics and you shouldn't be able to apply to more than one out of COWI for math.

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 Oxbridge is deliberately kept different.

Because, like many other university courses and A Levels, the grading is done on a relative basis.

Yes, but this did not start out as an average, run-of-the-mill cohort. What reduced it to that state?

Well that it is apparently true. I achieved the best A Level results in the history of my college (16 100UMS), and knew of no one irl or in the media (except one girl) who achieved greater results, the admission test was a walk in the park for me (85+) but I just flopped the interview. And so I am an Oxford reject. The interviews play a much greater rule along with your extra-curricular stuff (along with your command of English) at Oxford, that I can safely say...

I don't understand what you mean. It doesn't finish as an average, run-of-the-mill cohort either.

Take up the organ. Then you can apply to both.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Indeed

(Just quoting you to congratulate you on your purple-y-ness )

But it does seem to finish in worse shape than it started.

The national average for first class honours degree is around 15%. For Oxford it is around 30%. But if Oxford has creamed off the best candidates from the start it should really be a lot higher. Not sure about the maths but let us be contentious and say somewhere around 100%. That is not an improvement. Oxford has reduced value not added it.

If you are going for a first at Oxford and you get a 2.1 you have failed. Ask the people that have experienced this.

I agree that it does seem unfair, but I guess that it is up to Oxford and Cambridge. If they want that system, then I do think it would be difficult to enforce change on them. I think I remember threads about this before, where someone made the valid point that if UCAS tried to ban this, then Oxbridge could just withdraw from UCAS and people would have to make a separate application.

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. Not to mention that universities with large intakes for certain subjects (such as KCL, which takes 320 people a year for Law, or Manchester, with an intake of 270), would probably have to go on a drastic hiring spree to get more people to actually be able to host these 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 teaching sessions. I have no idea how these positions would be funded.

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. Besides, I imagine that alumni donors who have been used to the lecture system would rather invest their money in very visible, "flagship" investments (like a new building) than trying to radically push for a change in the underlying teaching system.

It's just one of those cases where you see how people's conservative inertia makes them ok with leaving things as they are, even if the status quo isn't perfect. If they think that the current lecture system is decent enough as it is, then they presumably can't be arsed to waste their time, money, or effort, into setting up a (I'd agreed superior) alternative from scratch.

You must be trolling.

There's a university in the US that copied the Oxbridge tutorial system and is considered one of the best liberal "colleges" (universities) in the US. It's known as William's College. However, they are private with an endowment of over $2 billion dollars. The endowments in the UK are as followed:

Cambridge: £5.89 billion
Oxford: £4.25 billion
Edinburgh: £0.32 billion
Manchester: £0.19 billion

See the big drop? The fact is, there's not enough funding for many universities in the UK, except Cambridge and Oxford who get it from their multi-billion pounds coffers, to copy the Oxbridge tutorial system throughout the country. The University of Surrey, one of the best in the UK, has dropped some staff in the past couple years due to funding issues and it has and endowment of £69 million, not billion, million, lower.

You cannot apply to Oxford and Cambridge in the same UCAS cycle. This amounts to an agreement by Oxford and Cambridge not to compete over applicants. What are the consequences of this?

Well, this is a cartel arrangement whereby two or more parties collude to fix the market. There are obvious advantages. But there are also losers. Who would the losers be in this arrangement?

Firstly the consumers i.e. applicants who will be offered a less attractive product by the parties who have agreed not to compete.

Secondly, by saving on the administrative overheads of not having to compete they create a barrier to entry to the market. Therefore 'second division' universities who have to compete with anybody and everybody for applicants are at a competitive disadvantage.

I don't see how having to choose either Oxford or Cambridge is not competitive. They are directly competing against each other for applicants as well as all other universities. I don't see where you are getting a 'second division' of universities.

It must be less competitive if Oxford and Cambridge are not competing against each other. Clearly, the Laura Spence embarrassment and other major failures of the system would have been less likely.

So, if it's Oxbridge versus the rest it is definitely a two-tier system. Google the term "Oxbridge reject". The effect it has on higher education is profound if not scandalous.

You cannot even be rejected from Oxbridge and slink quietly away. You are marked for life.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jackrivlin/100194490/oxbridge-types-are-smug-but-not-as-bad-as-the-bitter-rejects-who-mimic-brideshead-at-st-andrews-and-durham/

It must be less competitive if Oxford and Cambridge are not competing against each other.

They are competing directly against each other, any potential Oxbridge applicants have to choose between them.

xxx

It must be less competitive if Oxford and Cambridge are not competing against each other. Clearly, the Laura Spence embarrassment and other major failures of the system would have been less likely.

So, if it's Oxbridge versus the rest it is definitely a two-tier system. Google the term "Oxbridge reject". The effect it has on higher education is profound if not scandalous.

You cannot even be rejected from Oxbridge and slink quietly away. You are marked for life.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jackrivlin/100194490/oxbridge-types-are-smug-but-not-as-bad-as-the-bitter-rejects-who-mimic-brideshead-at-st-andrews-and-durham/