The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Oxbridge = Inaccessible to most students?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Doonesbury
You had to have a foreign language O-level?!


up to 1919 you needed Greek for Cambridge ( 1920 for Oxford )

up to 1960 you needed Latin for both places :afraid:
Original post by Doonesbury
/goes off to check POLAR


Does POLAR data look at the area where an applicant’s school is located or where the applicant lives?
Original post by karmacrunch
Does POLAR data look at the area where an applicant’s school is located or where the applicant lives?


The applicant.
Original post by Doonesbury
The applicant.


And it only takes into account where you currently live right? Used to live in a polar 2 area but now it's a 4. I mean it's not really a big deal anyway and I'm so glad I've always gone to the school in the town I currently live in rather than the town over that I used to live in. Kinda scary to think sometimes how different your life could be if different decisions were made in the past.
Original post by black1blade
And it only takes into account where you currently live right? Used to live in a polar 2 area but now it's a 4. I mean it's not really a big deal anyway and I'm so glad I've always gone to the school in the town I currently live in rather than the town over that I used to live in. Kinda scary to think sometimes how different your life could be if different decisions were made in the past.


Correct.

BUT if you felt that (for example) 16 years of living in a Q2 before moving to a Q4 disadvantaged you (which tbf it probably did) then you can mention it in the SAQ (or Reference for general UCAS applications). It won't get picked up in the official reporting but it may be noted as part of the context of your application.
Original post by Doonesbury
Correct.

BUT if you felt that (for example) 16 years of living in a Q2 before moving to a Q4 disadvantaged you (which tbf it probably did) then you can mention it in the SAQ (or Reference for general UCAS applications). It won't get picked up in the official reporting but it may be noted as part of the context of your application.


It didn't really disadvantage me really though, I just stayed inside most of the time XD. Okay maybe sharing a room with 2 brothers was inconvenient.
Original post by black1blade
It didn't really disadvantage me really though, I just stayed inside most of the time XD. Okay maybe sharing a room with 2 brothers was inconvenient.


vs Tiberious Pfeffle-Ffarflung sharing the East Wing with his owl and silk pyjamas.

:wink:
Original post by Doonesbury
vs Tiberious Pfeffle-Ffarflung sharing the East Wing with his owl and silk pyjamas.
So, how many of Rees-Moggs offspring are applying to Oxbridge anyway?

To segue slightly; one of the things I've been slightly uncomfortable about in the discussion has been the attitude that "Oxbridge is a ticket to a life of privilege; conversely if you don't go there you're relegated to the plebs". Which I think is largely nonsense. I just don't think Oxbridge is *that* important).

And then l look at the number of MPs who did PPE, or all the bullingdon club stuff, and I think "maybe I'm wrong".
Original post by DFranklin
So, how many of Rees-Moggs offspring are applying to Oxbridge anyway?

To segue slightly; one of the things I've been slightly uncomfortable about in the discussion has been the attitude that "Oxbridge is a ticket to a life of privilege; conversely if you don't go there you're relegated to the plebs". Which I think is largely nonsense. I just don't think Oxbridge is *that* important).

And then l look at the number of MPs who did PPE, or all the bullingdon club stuff, and I think "maybe I'm wrong".


I mean like I don't want to go there because of that though, wanna go because they are the best academically.
Original post by DFranklin
To segue slightly; one of the things I've been slightly uncomfortable about in the discussion has been the attitude that "Oxbridge is a ticket to a life of privilege; conversely if you don't go there you're relegated to the plebs". Which I think is largely nonsense. I just don't think Oxbridge is *that* important).

And then l look at the number of MPs who did PPE, or all the bullingdon club stuff, and I think "maybe I'm wrong".


It's both right and wrong. In some walks of life it can be helpful, but you still need some talent too... And it certainly guarantees nothing.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
It's both right and wrong. In some walks of life it can be helpful, but you still need some talent too... And it certainly guarantees nothing.

Posted from TSR Mobile


There are some situations where it can be an active negative (assumptions are often strange about 'Oxbridge educated' - snobbery, class, etc) but I would say apart from the obvious merits of a really intense educational experience with some of the best and brightest tutors in their fields, it can often open doors - at least to the stage of an interview. I know in many careers it can be hard to get across that first hurdle of talking face to face with prospective employers or contacts. An Oxbridge degree isn't a magic ticket for that, but it definitely makes you more likely to appear on the 'invited for interview' side of the page.
Original post by Doonesbury
It's both right and wrong. In some walks of life it can be helpful, but you still need some talent too... And it certainly guarantees nothing.


Original post by Fullofsurprises
it can often open doors - at least to the stage of an interview. I know in many careers it can be hard to get across that first hurdle of talking face to face with prospective employers or contacts.
Yes, but so will (for example) a 1st from Bristol, or Bath. (And lets face it, there's a significant number of people with 2:1/2:2s at Cambridge who might well have got a first elsewhere).

An Oxbridge degree isn't a magic ticket for that, but it definitely makes you more likely to appear on the 'invited for interview' side of the page.
Not everyone cares (as you know); funnily enough, what singled me out for attention when I applied for my first "career progression" job wasn't the 1st from Cambridge, but the 6 A's at A-level.

But my point is that that's all on a "nice to have" continuum, where yeah, the Oxbridge degree is nice, but is a degree from Warwick really that much worse? And people do well with an Oxbridge degree, but that's because they're bright, and Oxbridge provides a good education, and if they went somewhere else, most of that is still going to apply.

But then I look at the PPE->career in politics connection, or the Bullingdon club stuff, and it feels so much more like what in video games you'd consider a "game breaking exploit" (*). And I think it's that side of things that a lot of people have in their mind when they think about privilege, and old boys clubs, and people in power protecting the status quo.

(I'm aware that it's still a small percentage of people studying politics at Oxbridge, but that it exists at all just feels wrong. I don't think you see anything like the same concentration of ex-Oxbridge in other areas).
Original post by DFranklin
(I'm aware that it's still a small percentage of people studying politics at Oxbridge, but that it exists at all just feels wrong. I don't think you see anything like the same concentration of ex-Oxbridge in other areas).


I could be wrong but I think there's a stronger correlation with politics and Eton than with PPE at Oxford. (Or maybe that was in them thar olden days... )
Original post by Doonesbury
I could be wrong but I think there's a stronger correlation with politics and Eton than with PPE at Oxford. (Or maybe that was in them thar olden days... )


Either way not exactly representative. :frown:
Original post by J-SP
So Cambridge is not more diverse then (generally)? :wink:


Not in that comparison no :wink:. Although you could say it's *as* diverse. So if Cambridge is coming in for stick then so should Bristol...
(edited 6 years ago)
This is about grammar schools, not Oxbridge, but the discussion is on exactly the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08hpf7f
Original post by J-SP

The next thing to tackle is unpaid internships though - that is currently holding diversity in professions back.


Yup. I work in the advertising and marketing sector and I'm pleased to say most (all?) of the major players no longer have unpaid internships.
Original post by J-SP
There is a bit of a time-lag that needs to be considered though. Very few MPs are under the age of 35, and so studied and entered the profession when very few people even knew what social mobility was, let alone cared about it.As someone considerably over the age of 35, I can assure you that social mobility was a concern when I was applying to university. I think these things wax and wane somewhat (current government perhaps highlights certain issues...)
Original post by J-SP
Really?! I’d heard from all the stuff in the press this week that the creative industries were still some of the worst offenders.

Please to hear that isn’t the case though!


Let me double check that... certainly WPP (the biggest) doesn't.
Original post by J-SP
It’s probably smaller players in the market that are still guilty of it. Bigger names tend to avoid it now in case of any negative PR risk.


Looks like I was wrong, for example Publicis Groupe (Saatchi & Saatchi are part of the group) still have unpaid interships :frown:
(edited 6 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you