How is a Cambridge applicant compared to the rest of their cohort?

"They definitely don't discriminate against...one small victory...more black students admitted than Etonians"

Why is it okay then to discriminate against the minority group of Etonians? Doesn't that break house-rules? Or are Etonians not protected by them?

It sort of demonstrates the points raised in this Spectator article:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/for-a-real-oxbridge-education-you-now-have-to-go-to-durham/

Extract shown below:

"These days, I fear, in order to recreate that echt Oxbridge experience, you need to apply, not to Oxford or Cambridge, but to one of those establishments such as Durham which we used to scoff at for being filled with Oxbridge rejects.
They still are filled with Oxbridge rejects, of course, but of such a high calibre that they would once have been a shoo-in. Quite a hefty portion come from the private schools against which, anecdotal evidence suggests, Oxbridge admissions tutors are becoming increasingly prejudiced."

"I think you'll find that 30% includes Internationals."

That's a revealing, albeit understandable, comment.

Actually, I was quoting from: Table 8.1 Home applicants, offers and acceptances to Cambridge by ethnic origin and gender 2016.

Yes. You are correct since around 5% have not stated their ethnicity.

Okay of those who stated their ethnicity (95%):

76.52% were White
23.47% were BME

That still represents an over-representation when compared with their 14% of the population according to the 2011 Census.
3.Ethnicity in England and Wales

Figure 1: Ethnic groups, England and Wales, 2011




Source: Census - Office for National Statistics

secondly, that the vast majority of Cambridge students are not middle-class posh kids from private school: they might be middle-class, they might be posh but they are overwhelmingly state-educated (or at least come from state sixth forms)

Just on the black British cohort, there *is* still more work to be done.

Oxford accused of 'social apartheid' as colleges admit no black students

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Whilst I share your sentiments, David Lammy is a notorious twister of statistics and is frankly dishonest on this topic all the time.

For example, that article makes a big deal out of Oxford not releasing these stats until late as if they are trying to hide something. Oxford has released extensive data on ethnicity and nationality every year for decades - the thing they are making a big deal about is specifically ethnicity by college, which are sample sizes so low they are of no statistical value and indeed risky in terms of personal identifiable data.

Its also of note that in that article states than Merton admitted no black students for a 5 year period. Aside from the obvious cherry picking of data there, its not true at all - there were at least two admitted in that time. They just (presumably) chose to not disclose their ethnicity to whatever survey collects this data.

Still wrong. Cambridge is very used to assessing applicants without UMS. There was no UMS at all a few years ago, and when UMS was in place approx 40% of applicants didn't have it (IB, Highers, etc, etc).

They have, though, introduced Admissions Assessments either pre- or at-interview for a large number of courses to add further information to applications, and partly to make up for the loss of UMS information.

GCSEs are taken into account, but primarily only within the context of your school's overall performance. And even then are by no means the most important part of an application.

So if I have 9.0, 9.0, 9.0 and 90% on the NSAA, 10, 10 and 10 in the interviews, and high raw marks in AS, but 0 A*s at GCSE, I'm "extremely likely" to get an offer am I?

But does the AT really see from this that I am a competitive candidate in the cohort?

Whilst I share your sentiments, David Lammy is a notorious twister of statistics and is frankly dishonest on this topic all the time.

Yes

But doesn't this contradict what you always say: "everything is taken into account holistically)...?

And how many people are we talking that get these sort of scores?

But doesn't this contradict what you always say: "everything is taken into account holistically)...?

And how many people are we talking that get these sort of scores?

Gah! He's all over BBC online now. Not bad for a Harvard alumnus

Not at all. It's taken into account and the AT/DoS could see the GCSEs are basically irrelevant in this case. The most recent academic performance is more important.

And very very very few people will get the marks you are proposing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But you say a single part can't make or break an application.

I guess I'll try and get 3 9.0s and 3 10/10 scores then.

Just on the black British cohort, there *is* still more work to be done.

Oxford accused of 'social apartheid' as colleges admit no black students

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Posted from TSR Mobile

I feel like Lammy and this article puts Cambridge in the same boat as Oxford a little *too* much (Oxford drag the percentages down sooo much).

Gah! He's all over BBC online now. Not bad for a Harvard alumnus