Oxbridge anti-competitive?

Scroll to see replies

They can only choose one or the other.

Eh? Do you know any candidates that go to two universities? Every candidate is forced to choose only one university in the end. Your argument is only about when in the application cycle that choice is made.

Oxford and Cambridge are only in the UCAS system by virtue of an agreement that candidates can only apply to one or the other. If you forced them to open it up (and cause them huge extra time and expense) they would inevitably become private institutions and go back to the pre-UCCA days. You wouldn't like that.

Reply 81

Pars12

Original post by jneill

This isn't news - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/oxbridge-applications-rule-could-be-challenged/2006511.article

Thank you for showing this. 2013 was (slightly) before I started watching.

The main defence seems to be that the market is not being distorted. I'm not sure how a rational person could say that Oxbridge does not distort the market. Something tells me that you are about to.

The fact remains that this is an arrangement that saves Oxford and Cambridge a lot of administrative expense (their view as well). Durham ,LSE , etc are not saved that administrative expense. Therefore the other universities are trading at a competitive disadvantage because of a closed arrangement between Oxford, Cambridge and UCAS.

Reply 82

Good bloke

Original post by Pars12

The fact remains that this is an arrangement that saves Oxford and Cambridge a lot of administrative expense (their view as well). Durham ,LSE , etc are not saved that administrative expense. Therefore the other universities are trading at a competitive disadvantage because of a closed arrangement between Oxford, Cambridge and UCAS.

No. Those other universities do not operate an interview and test system on anything like the scale that Oxford and Cambridge do. They save their administrative expense by adopting a less rigorous (or at least, far cheaper) system.

Reply 83

Doones

Original post by Pars12

Durhams LSE etc don't invest anything like the time and resources on admissions (per student) that Camford do (see what I did there...). If they considered the current situation to be anti-competitive they would be complaining, and as others have said Camford could take their business elsewhere anyway.

I just don't see it as a problem as far as the other unis are concerned.

And regarding applicants, yes it does limit their choice (because they can't double their chances of getting that "illusive" Camford offer), but I don't see it as anti-competitive. Cambridge and Oxford are directly competing for that applicants choice.

Reply 84

Pars12

Original post by Good bloke

My argument is that the choice between Oxford and Cambridge is fundamentally different form the choice between Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge and to the extent that this is forced on applicants by the UCAS form this difference should be expunged because it distorts the market.

In your second paragraph you are saying that Oxford and Cambridge have in some way closed the market and if you forced them to "open it up" they would leave. They are already "private institutions" . I don't know what you mean by pre-UCCA days but I would think that both Oxford and Cambridge would be reluctant to turn their backs on Government undergraduate and postgraduate funding. It would be a very useful lesson to them about how indispensable anyone is. They don't have as much money as you think. You would need an awful lot of productive assets to go it alone.

Reply 85

Doones

Original post by Pars12

They could leave UCAS and still get the Student Funding (and all the research funding) they currently get.

Reply 86

Pars12

Original post by Good bloke

That's not the point.

Supposing there was a rule which said you could apply to (i) Oxford (ii) Cambridge or (iii) any combination of universities anywhere else.

Same interview and test systems but a massive distortion to the market. People who had the slightest doubt about whether they could get into Oxbridge would not apply to Oxbridge. Oxford and Cambridge would be up there first complaining that the system was unfair.

It seems that people don't think the market is distorted because that's the way it has always been.

Reply 87

Pars12

Original post by jneill

They could leave UCAS and still get the Student Funding (and all the research funding) they currently get.

Where does the student funding come from?

Reply 88

Pars12

Original post by jneill

If it limits choice it is anti-competitive. The argument should be revolving around whether anti-competitive behaviour is justifiable in these circumstances. For me there is a presumption that anti-competitive behaviour distorts markets. There is a presumption of consequences - consumers lose out, new suppliers are prevented from accessing the market, cartel members become inefficient.

I don't understand how you can say that choice is restricted but none of these things can be happening.

Reply 89

username457532

Original post by Good bloke

If they couldn't afford to deal with the actual number of students who would apply to their uni (rather than an artificially reduced number) then I would argue their admissions system is too expensive to be viable.

Reply 90

Good bloke

Original post by SmallTownGirl

The institutution is entitled to preserve its elite status by selecting students it deems capable of studying there in whatever way it chooses. It has used the system for a very long time indeed so knows what works quite well.

Reply 91

Good bloke

Original post by Pars12

If it limits choice it is anti-competitive.

The truth is that you really think entry to Oxford and Cambridge is too competitive and you want a second cherry to bite on.

Reply 92

Doones

Original post by Good bloke

The truth is that you really think entry to Oxford and Cambridge is too competitive and you want a second cherry to bite on.

^yep, this is the essence of it. (PRSOM)

Reply 93

username457532

Original post by Good bloke

Except that clearly the admissions system is clearly not affordable for the large number of students who would apply.

And both unis are only 'elite' because large amounts of people with power and influence have attended one of them and then want to hire other people who have attended one and create a system where the prestige is maintained. It's a self-perpetuating system based on privilege, history and power rather than academics.

Reply 94

Good bloke

Original post by SmallTownGirl

And both unis are only 'elite' because large amounts of people with power and influence have attended one of them.

No. They are elite because they are highly selective in who they take (which is what you are complaining about, remember) and because of the extremely high quality research and education they have achieved, consistently, over centuries.

Reply 95

username457532

Original post by Good bloke

I'm not complaining about how 'selective' the unis are. I'm saying it's clear that a admissions system that is only affordable when the number of applicants is significantly artificially decreased is not affordable and that both unis need to rethink their admissions systems to cope with the true number of people who would want to apply.

Ever other uni has an admissions system that copes with the number of applicants. Oxford and Cambridge are not special. They're not different. It's just arrogance and the false belief that 'tradition' and 'history' need to be maintained.

Reply 96

TimmonaPortella

Original post by SmallTownGirl

both unis need to rethink their admissions systems to cope with the true number of people who would want to apply.

Interesting use of the word 'need' here given that, of course, there is absolutely no prospect of anyone challenging their present arrangement.

Reply 97

Good bloke

Original post by SmallTownGirl

it's clear that a admissions system that is only affordable when the number of applicants is significantly artificially decreased.

Artificially decreased? Oxford alone gets about 18,000 (out of about 600,000 all told) applicants for 3,000 places. That means that about 6% of applicants think they are capable of getting into Oxford or Cambridge, and actually apply. Are there really 36,000 people capable of studying successfully at one of them every year?

The problem is actually in the A-level, which encourages people to apply based on the inflated grades achieved nowadays.

Reply 98

Pars12

Original post by Good bloke

The truth is that you really think entry to Oxford and Cambridge is too competitive and you want a second cherry to bite on.

Since you know what I really think, what do you think I mean by 'too competitive'. If you mean they don't have enough places I think we might all be in agreement.

They must choose the people they want. That is fair enough. But they should not compete unfairly and the UCAS rule is clearly a strategy to reduce choice and lower their administrative overheads. That is what jneill's article is saying. It is anti-competitive but it was felt by the universities that this was the only way to make it workable after they merged UCCA with the polytechnic admissions system.

I am suggesting that perhaps Oxbridge has failed to supply an adequate number of places to the market. It also makes it difficult for other players to fill the gap.

Reply 99

Pars12

Original post by Good bloke

Artificially decreased? Oxford alone gets about 18,000 (out of about 600,000 all told) applicants for 3,000 places. That means that about 6% of applicants think they are capable of getting into Oxford or Cambridge, and actually apply. Are there really 36,000 people capable of studying successfully at one of them every year?

Of the 18,000 they interview 9,000 for the 3,000 places. My guess is that MOST of those 9,000 are capable of studying there. Otherwise there would be no point in inviting them. That is an under-supply of places.