Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?

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.

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.

Cambridge (and possibly Oxford but I'm not so familiar) does accept students with Access to HE qualifications.

But yes I'd like to see foundation years expanded anyway, and be offered by other colleges - including the mature ones. (I know mature students can apply to standard age colleges but often they end up at mature colleges...)

True, but Access courses aren't available everywhere (my local college only does Access to Nursing, and the next closest college has just closed their Access course dept). The bigger problem is that Access to HE students do not have access no maintenance loans, if you're studying whilst working full-time then getting the grades necessary for Oxbridge is very difficult indeed.

OU credits? (I do agree the FY should be expanded though - assuming the results for the early cohorts merit it...)

That is technically possible (although I've never actually spoken to anyone who got into Oxford or Cambridge with just OU credits), but there are student finance issues to take into account if you take OU credits and then begin a new degree from scratch.

The gift year though?

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.

In fact, given that most schools do give Oxbridge applicants some level of special treatment, I'd suspect the picture is a lot *worse* for people applying to other universities.

When looking at a combination and thinking "what a bad choice", it's also worth remembering that subject choices are made a long time before the admissions cycle; certainly at my school there wasn't "serious" discussion about university choices etc. until it was far too late to change exam combinations.

Also sometimes course clashes (or lack of teachers) mean certain options just aren't available.

I think there's certainly room for schools to improve their advice to people choosing A-levels and subsequently applying to universities, but I think it's a huge disservice to focus exclusively on the admissions process for Oxford and Cambridge, while ignoring that similar issues are undoubtedly occuring with every other university as well.

The separate application processes must be a barrier to entry.

I understand the justifications of why they need to exist, but as that statisticians on here have pointed out, the main issue is not getting enough applications in the first place.

The earlier application deadline will exclude people. Whether it’s needing more time to decide where to apply to through lack of knowledge, or needing more time to be convinced that it is the right place to go. Even schools who are bought into the process but are lacking resource are only going to be able to help so many student to a certain level by such an early deadline, especially given the additional processes needed to be completed

And I suspect that like other universities who have no or few clearing places, this also impacts the diversity as those who exceed their predicted grades then have little opportunity to upgrade to the highest standards (not solely an Oxbridge issue).

It’s interesting to see the Brasenose rep suggest a centralised process could make their situation worse in terms of creating more bias in the selections process towards certain groups. I don’t think that is necessarily the cause of the bias, as plenty of other universities use the same system and don’t have the same problem.

Only less diverse in certain categories and measures. More diverse in others.

Indeed, it would be nice to see other Oxbridge colleges also represented on TSR as well as other “selective” universities.

Please do. If you do, please try and find the BME broken down into the varying different groups.

To all intents and purposes applying to Bristol and London Met are identical. The school is required to do no more.

I myself was a special case (took 4 A-levels before entering the 6th form) so I may have missed out seeing some of the guidance given. Pretty sure I didn't, though).

.

[Incidentally, talking about "needing to plan ahead"; I'd more-or-less dropped out of school in my 2nd year. For most subjects this wasn't an issue, but curse you Cambridge with your requirement for a foreign language, which meant I had to choose the only language I could reasonably attempt in 2 years (at my school)].

Interesting - they are comparable to a few tenths of a percent for applicants, except specifically for BME, Cambridge over indexes for Asians.

2016 data:


Maybe their contextual offer program is indeed helping.

There's a mountain of data in that UCAS file and it's hard to digest it all... ho hum.

You had to have a foreign language O-level?!

The debate in my opinion should be expanded to other elite universities too, where a lack of transparency is equally apparent, it is unfair to single out Oxbridge.However, it is an issue that then expands into society.

The solution is complex, me thinks. In terms of applications, it is about encouraging students to apply in the first place. Here there is still some way to go in terms of breaking down stereotypes. I have many friends at university from completely different backgrounds to me and they are great individuals. We need to educate people that snobbery can go both ways.

The solution in terms of admissions. I have listened to the BBC4 debate and find myself disagreeing with the Oxford Admissions representative. A Level grades are an indication of attainment and not academic potential. That attainment is helped by "privilege" (financial, parental support, type of school etc) I suspect many of us will agree on this.

The argument that there should be lower academic offers for individuals from less privileged backgrounds should be explored more and not dismissed outright. There "appears" to be a genuine lack of understanding of how difficult it is to ensure students with potential from certain backgrounds, have access to the support required to attain AAA or A*AA etc. For some degrees where prior knowledge is required this may not be practical. However, these universities do offer courses where it may be able to consider lowering offers in some cases and where applicable.

As I say, a complex issue that is prevalent amongst many "elite" universities, not just Oxbridge.