Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?

I must be reading the data wrong (looking at it on a small screen). But I read it as some in Quintile 5 has nearly twice the success rate than someone in Quintile 1 (30.6 vs 16.9). That doesn’t seem right to me if that is correct.

Or am I reading it wrong?

I can only see that the higher the Quintile group, the higher the chances of success, leading to the highest Quintile group being over offered and the lowest being under offered (assuming everything else is equal),

I really find your posts on this subject really worrying Doonesbury.

You have argued at every opportunity that there is no unfairness even when David Lammy, Stephen Kinnock and the Universities themselves are saying there is worrying social injustice when it comes to Oxbridge applications.

You say that Oxbridge shouldn't have to fix the problem when this is an education issue and they are the two most important and prestigious educational establishments in the UK, if not the world.

Basically, you are trying to claim that if underrepresented people, black, Northern, Welsh to name a few aren't getting into Oxbridge it's because they aren't good enough. In fact, that's exactly what you said in your statement that the admissions process are mostly getting it right.

I'll say it again, that the deck is rigged. You don't accept that Doonesbury, but your views are, I believe, at odds with most right thinking people on this issue.

Are they doing better? Yes I think they are. Could they do more? Yes for sure.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Of course they are. Would you express surprise that South Africa is "incredibly" black?

Western European countries are predominantly white, indeed at the last Census in 2011, the UK was 86% white.

I don't see your point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41664459
...OK, so I've hardly come up with Fermat's Last Theorem there, but according to FOI data acquired by David Lammy (a Labour MP), Oxford and Cambridge are understood to be mostly sending offers to the more well-off regions of England (mostly southern, some northern - about half of ALL offers go to those in London and the south-east). Around 80% of applicants are also understood to be in the top two social classes.

Point of consideration: Is Oxbridge really turning more inaccessible, is this a case of same-old-same-old, or is this just a quirk in the system?

A 10% difference is still an issue and I disagree with you that it is figures are "similar". To me all I can see is a significant diffence and a downward trend.

Given these stats we also have to ask why the acceptance rate compounds the situation. I questioned this earlier in the thread and someone responded by saying it was unlikely to have an impact. This suggests otherwise.

Did you miss this?

Success rate on that table is for Acceptances not Offers.

Quintile 1
502 Applicants
126 Offers (25.1% Offer rate)
85 Acceptances (16.9% Acceptance rate)

Quintile 4
2,270 Applicants
690 Offers (30.3% Offer rate)
562 Acceptances (24.8 Acceptance Rate)

Working out the Offer rate for all quintiles:
Q5 35.8%
Q4 30.3%
Q3 27.8%
Q2 28.7%
Q1 25.1%

So yes the "better" the quintile the better the offer rate but it's not as dramatic as it might appear.

It's dramatic for the people who live in poor areas when they realise their rich Southern counterparts have a 10% better chance of being accepted into Oxbridge.

You have argued at every opportunity that there is no unfairness even when David Lammy, Stephen Kinnock and the Universities themselves are saying there is worrying social injustice when it comes to Oxbridge applications.

Nothing will ever truly be 100% equal as equality is just a social construct. To aim for 100% equality between everyone is lunacy. Strive to provide opportunities for everyone by all means. If the government tries to enforce equality is almost invariably makes things worse i.e affirmative action not only stokes resentment between economic classes and demographics but it also bad for an employer.

How is an employer supposed to distinguish between someone who went to a top university on their own merit or someone who got it with lower grades than the entry requirement but was admitted because of quotas?

Fortunately there are more opportunities for everyone now than there was in the past. But not everyone has the capacity to be a PHD. It could be because of a lack of discipline, cognitive ability etc.

With technology now the cost of education is much lower i.e I went from being a B student at maths to now working at an A* from utilising resources on the internet and learning from self-study.

Given these stats we also have to ask why the acceptance rate compounds the situation. I questioned this earlier in the thread and someone responded by saying it was unlikely to have an impact on the diversity of those who are offered vs who accepts. This suggests otherwise.

Quintile 1
502 Applicants
126 Offers (25.1% Offer rate)
85 Acceptances (16.9% Acceptance rate)

Quintile 4
2,270 Applicants
690 Offers (30.3% Offer rate)
562 Acceptances (24.8 Acceptance Rate)

I *think*, and I have no stats to back this up, that "people who live in poor areas" expect the difference to be even worse. Perhaps that's why not enough of them apply in the first place.

I agree but the universities cannot be blamed for that. Given that education is managed locally people should look to their local politicians and elect those that will try to ensure success and equality of opportunity rather than those that try to bring everything down to the level of the lowest.

The other major factors are parents who do not value education and will not support schools by improving their children's attendance and behaviour, and the kids themselves, many of whom are easy prey for peer pressure (which is ironic given how many teenagers bleat about wanting to be treated as individuals).

Change is hard but it needs to happen. Our government is killing our education system.

The main problem with Oxbridge admissions is that they are not transparent enough. Students with outstanding proven academic achievement are turned down in favour of students with mediocre achievement on the basis of, for example, interviews

And laughing as everyone starts blaming Oxford and Cambridge (where rather more people are left wing than certain stereotypes might assume) rather the systematic degradation of the education process.

Perhaps you could tell him he's got it all terribly wrong?

Your speaking to the Economist who failed their Maths module in my first year, so unfortunately you lost me at "scale of effect"

Because of my lack of maths, all I see is the issue gets worse at each stage. I completely get the point about application numbers being the biggest issue (thats pretty damn obvious), but at each stage the percentage at the top becomes higher and the percentage at the bottom becomes smaller. The result is that those in the top 20% who applied are nearly twice as likely to start a course than those in the bottom 20%.

I really hate to think what the comparative stat would be for those completing the course.

Why would they when for colleges generally say you need 6/7 A* at GCSE to be put in the so-called Oxbridge group?

I am now considering sending the stats from Christ's for History 2016 applicants to the local college to query this policy.