Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AllonsEnfants!
Yes, but he argues they don't spend enough.
I argue that they're spending it in the wrong way.
I argue that they're spending it in the wrong way.
Training teachers to be Oxbridge tutors would be a complete waste of money, and of their time.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by J-SP
I meant you.
I’ve been critical of some of the things Oxbridge do/don’t do. But not consistently critical of them as a whole.
I’ve been critical of some of the things Oxbridge do/don’t do. But not consistently critical of them as a whole.
Yes fair.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
Training teachers to be Oxbridge tutors would be a complete waste of money, and of their time.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Eh? When have I ever suggested teachers could be trained to be Oxbridge tutors.
However, they can be trained in Oxbridge Admissions process which is a lot more complicated than submitting a UCAS form. Whilst GovernmentEarner is struggling along with a teacher who's as much in the dark as them; a small minority are attending Summer Schools etc. Having trained teachers in all schools to both identify Oxbridge candidates and take them through the process is far more important than these privileged schemes they run.
Original post by AllonsEnfants!
Eh? When have I ever suggested teachers could be trained to be Oxbridge tutors.
However, they can be trained in Oxbridge Admissions process which is a lot more complicated than submitting a UCAS form. Whilst GovernmentEarner is struggling along with a teacher who's as much in the dark as them; a small minority are attending Summer Schools etc. Having trained teachers in all schools to both identify Oxbridge candidates and take them through the process is far more important than these privileged schemes they run.
However, they can be trained in Oxbridge Admissions process which is a lot more complicated than submitting a UCAS form. Whilst GovernmentEarner is struggling along with a teacher who's as much in the dark as them; a small minority are attending Summer Schools etc. Having trained teachers in all schools to both identify Oxbridge candidates and take them through the process is far more important than these privileged schemes they run.
The process is not *that* complicated, especially if applicants ignore all the myths. All an applicant needs to do is read the info provided, apply and fill in some forms. No teacher training is needed.
The PS for Oxbridge is no different to your other choices. Oxford doesn't have an SAQ, and the one for Cambridge asks nothing that an applicant can't answer for themselves without a teacher's support.
The real difference is with admissions assessments and the interview(s). And they are designed so that no preparation is required. Indeed overpreparation can end up disadvantaging an applicant.
The process might *appear* daunting but that's because of the endless myths about it. And the role of outreach is to dispel those myths.
The outreach activities are, indeed, training those teachers that go. And that's a good investment by Oxbridge.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
The process is not *that* complicated, especially if applicants ignore all the myths. All an applicant needs to do is read the info provided, apply and fill in some forms. No teacher training is needed.
The PS for Oxbridge is no different to your other choices. Oxford doesn't have an SAQ, and the one for Cambridge asks nothing that an applicant can't answer for themselves without a teacher's support.
The real difference is with admissions assessments and the interview(s). And they are designed so that no preparation is required. Indeed overpreparation can end up disadvantaging an applicant.
The process might *appear* daunting but that's because of the endless myths about it. And the role of outreach is to dispel those myths.
The outreach activities are, indeed, training those teachers that go. And that's a good investment by Oxbridge.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The PS for Oxbridge is no different to your other choices. Oxford doesn't have an SAQ, and the one for Cambridge asks nothing that an applicant can't answer for themselves without a teacher's support.
The real difference is with admissions assessments and the interview(s). And they are designed so that no preparation is required. Indeed overpreparation can end up disadvantaging an applicant.
The process might *appear* daunting but that's because of the endless myths about it. And the role of outreach is to dispel those myths.
The outreach activities are, indeed, training those teachers that go. And that's a good investment by Oxbridge.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree that you can't properly prepare for interview but you can definitely and should prepare for the admissions tests. Well the new batch of cambridge tests you can't properly prepare for because there's only 1 past paper but yeah.
Original post by black1blade
I agree that you can't properly prepare for interview but you can definitely and should prepare for the admissions tests. Well the new batch of cambridge tests you can't properly prepare for because there's only 1 past paper but yeah.
Yup, and that sort of limited prep is perfect. Cambridge don't want to divert applicants from the more important stuff, i.e. your A-levels etc.
Getting tutoring or whatever to do the AAs is a waste of time and effort.
Original post by Doonesbury
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work
Remember that article? Of course teachers need training.
"A good school" is a high-performing one. It is a school that knows what Cambridge requires, where the school reference is delivered in the terms the university is looking for – the key phrases are ones that emphasise superlative performance compared with their age group: "He [or she] is best in … he is top of …"
"The school doesn't know how to write a reference," another comments.
"There is consternation about a candidate who is applying to read natural sciences without having either maths or biology; he is taking physics and chemistry but his third A-level is an arts subject. The lack of maths rules him out for the study of physics. The absence of biology means he will struggle to be accepted as a biologist... "I feel sorry for him, but I don't think we can fix the problem."
Original post by AllonsEnfants!
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work
Remember that article? Of course teachers need training.
"A good school" is a high-performing one. It is a school that knows what Cambridge requires, where the school reference is delivered in the terms the university is looking for – the key phrases are ones that emphasise superlative performance compared with their age group: "He [or she] is best in … he is top of …"
"The school doesn't know how to write a reference," another comments.
"There is consternation about a candidate who is applying to read natural sciences without having either maths or biology; he is taking physics and chemistry but his third A-level is an arts subject. The lack of maths rules him out for the study of physics. The absence of biology means he will struggle to be accepted as a biologist... "I feel sorry for him, but I don't think we can fix the problem."
Remember that article? Of course teachers need training.
"A good school" is a high-performing one. It is a school that knows what Cambridge requires, where the school reference is delivered in the terms the university is looking for – the key phrases are ones that emphasise superlative performance compared with their age group: "He [or she] is best in … he is top of …"
"The school doesn't know how to write a reference," another comments.
"There is consternation about a candidate who is applying to read natural sciences without having either maths or biology; he is taking physics and chemistry but his third A-level is an arts subject. The lack of maths rules him out for the study of physics. The absence of biology means he will struggle to be accepted as a biologist... "I feel sorry for him, but I don't think we can fix the problem."
That would be the same for applying to many "top" universities. It's not an issue that Oxbridge should be expected to fix.
Although outreach conferences do address those points.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Most reforms at Oxbridge have been imposed from outside by government. I have a radical plan.
The first thing is both universities are constrained by a physical inability to expand. I would create a University of Chelmsford and send Anglia Ruskin packing from Cambridge. Likewise the University of Reading lacks critical mass. They can have the academics, the courses and the students but not the buildings from Brookes.
Both Oxford and Cambridge should each create two new undergraduate halls; halfway to being independent colleges. Both universities should be set a target of achieving the same number of home undergraduates of both sexes as the number of home males they had, immediately before the men's colleges went mixed. Put the new colleges and extra accommodation for the other colleges on the Ruskin and Brookes campuses.
Each university should offer degrees with an integrated foundation year so as to be eligible for student funding in the ordinary way. Run a residential selection exercise during the long vac in the middle of VIth form based solely on potential. Put geographic & racial quotas in place for spots in the selection exercise and limit the spots to pupils of target schools but do not create quotas for university places.
Where is the money coming from? Effectively from the universities and their fund-raising capabilities. The universities do not have a right to insist that somehow students are some sort of additional burden. I get rather annoyed when Oxbridge claim they subsidise undergraduate teaching. They are educational charities, It is rather like Guide Dogs for the Blind complaining it has to buy dog food.
The first thing is both universities are constrained by a physical inability to expand. I would create a University of Chelmsford and send Anglia Ruskin packing from Cambridge. Likewise the University of Reading lacks critical mass. They can have the academics, the courses and the students but not the buildings from Brookes.
Both Oxford and Cambridge should each create two new undergraduate halls; halfway to being independent colleges. Both universities should be set a target of achieving the same number of home undergraduates of both sexes as the number of home males they had, immediately before the men's colleges went mixed. Put the new colleges and extra accommodation for the other colleges on the Ruskin and Brookes campuses.
Each university should offer degrees with an integrated foundation year so as to be eligible for student funding in the ordinary way. Run a residential selection exercise during the long vac in the middle of VIth form based solely on potential. Put geographic & racial quotas in place for spots in the selection exercise and limit the spots to pupils of target schools but do not create quotas for university places.
Where is the money coming from? Effectively from the universities and their fund-raising capabilities. The universities do not have a right to insist that somehow students are some sort of additional burden. I get rather annoyed when Oxbridge claim they subsidise undergraduate teaching. They are educational charities, It is rather like Guide Dogs for the Blind complaining it has to buy dog food.
The real fallacy here is that there is an assumption by the media that all qualified applicants would actually *want* go to Oxbridge, or that they *should*. The idea of being surrounded by tribes of okay-yahs all air-kissing and asking each other 'where did you Prep' holds no appeal at all for many UCAS applicants. This fact doesnt seem to occur to Education journalists.
Original post by Doonesbury
Well I was excluding the Scottish ones because they have early years generally anyway.
And yes many of those schemes (ie. London unis) are more for internationals
And yes many of those schemes (ie. London unis) are more for internationals
And there is more than a suspicion that they are a money making racket taking students who are obviously intellectually unfitted for the full degree course.
Original post by nulli tertius
Most reforms at Oxbridge have been imposed from outside by government. I have a radical plan.
The first thing is both universities are constrained by a physical inability to expand. I would create a University of Chelmsford and send Anglia Ruskin packing from Cambridge. Likewise the University of Reading lacks critical mass. They can have the academics, the courses and the students but not the buildings from Brookes.
Both Oxford and Cambridge should each create two new undergraduate halls; halfway to being independent colleges. Both universities should be set a target of achieving the same number of home undergraduates of both sexes as the number of home males they had, immediately before the men's colleges went mixed. Put the new colleges and extra accommodation for the other colleges on the Ruskin and Brookes campuses.
Each university should offer degrees with an integrated foundation year so as to be eligible for student funding in the ordinary way. Run a residential selection exercise during the long vac in the middle of VIth form based solely on potential. Put geographic & racial quotas in place for spots in the selection exercise and limit the spots to pupils of target schools but do not create quotas for university places.
Where is the money coming from? Effectively from the universities and their fund-raising capabilities. The universities do not have a right to insist that somehow students are some sort of additional burden. I get rather annoyed when Oxbridge claim they subsidise undergraduate teaching. They are educational charities, It is rather like Guide Dogs for the Blind complaining it has to buy dog food.
The first thing is both universities are constrained by a physical inability to expand. I would create a University of Chelmsford and send Anglia Ruskin packing from Cambridge. Likewise the University of Reading lacks critical mass. They can have the academics, the courses and the students but not the buildings from Brookes.
Both Oxford and Cambridge should each create two new undergraduate halls; halfway to being independent colleges. Both universities should be set a target of achieving the same number of home undergraduates of both sexes as the number of home males they had, immediately before the men's colleges went mixed. Put the new colleges and extra accommodation for the other colleges on the Ruskin and Brookes campuses.
Each university should offer degrees with an integrated foundation year so as to be eligible for student funding in the ordinary way. Run a residential selection exercise during the long vac in the middle of VIth form based solely on potential. Put geographic & racial quotas in place for spots in the selection exercise and limit the spots to pupils of target schools but do not create quotas for university places.
Where is the money coming from? Effectively from the universities and their fund-raising capabilities. The universities do not have a right to insist that somehow students are some sort of additional burden. I get rather annoyed when Oxbridge claim they subsidise undergraduate teaching. They are educational charities, It is rather like Guide Dogs for the Blind complaining it has to buy dog food.
Cambridge did have plans for new colleges in the early 2000s and to grow total student (UG & PG) numbers by 5k or so. Not sure why that didn't happen.
Original post by AllonsEnfants!
Of course teachers need training.
"There is consternation about a candidate who is applying to read natural sciences without having either maths or biology; he is taking physics and chemistry but his third A-level is an arts subject. The lack of maths rules him out for the study of physics. The absence of biology means he will struggle to be accepted as a biologist... "I feel sorry for him, but I don't think we can fix the problem."
"There is consternation about a candidate who is applying to read natural sciences without having either maths or biology; he is taking physics and chemistry but his third A-level is an arts subject. The lack of maths rules him out for the study of physics. The absence of biology means he will struggle to be accepted as a biologist... "I feel sorry for him, but I don't think we can fix the problem."
Frankly, it is nothing to do with Oxbridge or its admission process when a school allows a bright pupil who wishes to study natural sciences anywhere to take A-levels that exclude both maths and biology. That is simply (and obviously) inadequate preparation for a science course, as well as uncompetitive.
Original post by returnmigrant
The real fallacy here is that there is an assumption by the media that all qualified applicants would actually *want* go to Oxbridge, or that they *should*. The idea of being surrounded by tribes of okay-yahs all air-kissing and asking each other 'where did you Prep' holds no appeal at all for many UCAS applicants. This fact doesnt seem to occur to Education journalists.
Spot on, until you perpetutated the myth.
Original post by Good bloke
Frankly, it is nothing to do with Oxbridge or its admission process when a school allows a bright pupil who wishes to study natural sciences anywhere to take A-levels that exclude both maths and biology. That is simply (and obviously) inadequate preparation for a science course, as well as uncompetitive.
With respect, the candidate probably and his teachers possibly didn't know Cambridge only runs an odd mixed science course.
Assuming the candidate is good at history are you going to tell the school head of history, he wasn't having him for A level?
To be fair both Oxford and Cambridge have eliminated a huge number of admissions traps like this over the last 30 years.
Am I right in thinking the Oxford (LMH) foundation year is only for people under 19? Not sure how useful that is if you're targeting poor, disadvantaged prospective students.
Original post by Snufkin
Am I right in thinking the Oxford (LMH) foundation year is only for people under 19? Not sure how useful that is if you're targeting poor, disadvantaged prospective students.
Yes, but aren't there any poor, disadvantaged prospective students under the age of 19?
Original post by Doonesbury
Spot on, until you perpetutated the myth.
Yeah, is it necessarily the right thing for everyone anyway? Everything should be done to give people who would benefit equal access and opportunity but it's easy to forget that it is a high-pressure, academically-focused environment - something which does not suit everyone.
Being at a so-called "lesser" university doesn't mean you're not as "bright", and being "bright"/academic (nevermind the fact that human intelligence is far broader than academic capability) isn't the ultimate goal for everyone in life. I have a friend who studies at the Open University and the support for her disability has been completely fantastic and utterly flexible - and it suits her because at this point in her life she can't attend a brick-and-mortar uni.
Applying to Oxford or Cambridge or any top university is a choice, it has to be one that people can reasonably consider and decide if it's for them or not on the basis of personal reasons (eg course structure/content), not false ideas about what the universities are like. Everyone should be given the *opportunity* and resources to make this choice (through improving state schools, extra funding, outreach work etc) but it is ultimately an individual choice about what you want to study (if at all) and where for three (not insignificant) years of your life.
Original post by Doonesbury
Yes, but aren't there any poor, disadvantaged prospective students under the age of 19?
Well yes, of course, but an arbitrary age limit seems quite unfair. What about all those 20 and 30 somethings who grew up (and in many cases, still are) equally disadvantaged? I know Oxford's DfCE does Foundation Certificates in History and English, but more could be done. I think Durham is the only top university in the UK that has legitimate foundation routes for mature students.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What makes an economics personal statement look good?
- Freshers 2023 events (under 18)
- Sunak to force English universities to cap numbers of students on ‘low-value’ degrees
- Anyone else had a similar experience at Plumpton college
- Your Disability Experiences
- Uni Mythbusters: Professors and Academics are unapproachable.
- Will I lose marks for using difficult to access article?
- Do some unis say no if they think you’ll get in somewhere else?
- Does Uni matter if you go to a top 20 uni?
- Obsessed with Oxbridge?
- Really great state sixth form or a good grammar school?
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Hi I just want to ask, do my IGCSEs matter if I am applying from a school in the UK
- Is UCL the best after Oxbridge?
- Is the University of Manchester good?
- Oxbridge Admissions
- A levels
- Oxford or Cambridge? - interests in theatre
- Oxford and Cambridge Past Papers
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
