The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ElAshtonio
......Given that 5% of the population is black.....

Original post by Dazza happy
Exactly!


3% according to the 2011 census. And offer rates vary depending on the specific courses. BB tend to be applying to the more competitive courses.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Dazza happy
Yeah...but everyone has a chance to apply and then the Uni chooses who they think is best...It’s OXBRIDGE and they should be allowed to choose whoever they want!? By the way, I’m definitely not upper class or anything I just really don’t get why this is a problem - we should be working hard and striving to get into the best places rather than complaining about quotas. If you’re worthy, you’ll get there!


The question is, are the restrictions to access such that no matter how hard they strive or how good they are, some students simply won't have the chance to apply?

Or if not quite that drastic, at least, the encouragement to think they might have a chance sufficient to make it worth applying and that the culture they meet there, or think they will meet, won't be so hostile to their norms that they reject the notion before they even start.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
the culture they meet there, or think they will meet, won't be so hostile to their norms that they reject the notion before they even start.


Are you serious? You are saying that we should be concerned that a gangster drug-dealer will be seriously disadvantaged if they do not apply to Oxford on the basis that their gang culture and dealing would not be tolerated, and that nobody should be put off for that reason. The same applies to extreme Moslem women who, you believe, should not be forced to move, unsegregated, in an environment in which non-family males also move.

Regressive liberalism has gone too far when it complains that normal, safe British society should make such allowances.
Original post by ElAshtonio
"1.5% of the offers made by Oxbridge were to black British students"

......Given that 5% of the population is black.....


What percentage of the men’s 100m Olympic final are white?
Original post by D3LLI5
What percentage of the men’s 100m Olympic final are white?


Breaststroke or butterfly?
Original post by Good bloke
Are you serious? You are saying that we should be concerned that a gangster drug-dealer will be seriously disadvantaged if they do not apply to Oxford on the basis that their gang culture and dealing would not be tolerated, and that nobody should be put off for that reason. The same applies to extreme Moslem women who, you believe, should not be forced to move, unsegregated, in an environment in which non-family males also move.

Regressive liberalism has gone too far when it complains that normal, safe British society should make such allowances.


Nothing like arguing from extreme examples!

I was thinking of scenarios where working class students at schools with little or no knowledge of, or past success at, Oxbridge entry, are profoundly disadvantaged in terms of access for particularly promising/bright students than the elite schools that send the bulk of students to Oxbridge year in and year out.

I wasn't advocating that major cultural shifts would have to happen at Oxbridge to facilitate them, but efforts at extending outreach to such schools can only really be classed as a failure to date. Given that, the idea of establishing quotas for disadvantaged schools seems a promising one.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Nothing like arguing from extreme examples!

I was thinking of scenarios where working class students at schools with little or no knowledge of, or past success at, Oxbridge entry, are profoundly disadvantaged in terms of access for particularly promising/bright students than the elite schools that send the bulk of students to Oxbridge year in and year out.

I wasn't advocating that major cultural shifts would have to happen at Oxbridge to facilitate them, but efforts at extending outreach to such schools can only really be classed as a failure to date. Given that, the idea of establishing quotas for disadvantaged schools seems a promising one.


Yes, very promising, if what you want to do is completely undermine, and further separate socially, the disadvantaged kids who made it in on merit. I don't know about anyone else but I don't think I could have coped with three years of everyone assuming I made it in other than by open competition, and I would have deeply resented being put in that situation.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I don't think I could have coped with three years of everyone assuming I made it in other than by open competition,


Quite!
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Yes, very promising, if what you want to do is completely undermine, and further separate socially, the disadvantaged kids who made it in on merit. I don't know about anyone else but I don't think I could have coped with three years of everyone assuming I made it in other than by open competition, and I would have deeply resented being put in that situation.


This is the most common argument against quotas and I accept that some people might have ruffled feelings, not just from previous 'got their under their own steam' graduates, but also from people who got their 'under the quota' and therefore fear they are not good enough, etc.

There are contrary arguments - for example, if it's clear that those of us who got there largely did because we attended certain schools, then there has to be a question mark over how much genuine nationally-calculated merit there was. Also, those who come in under quotas can at least be reasonably certain that the fact they would not have made it without the quota indicates that their merit would have been overlooked, a noxious situation and one best remedied by whatever means are appropriate.

I am sure Mr Corbyn will be open to these arguments when he shortly becomes PM.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
if it's clear that those of us who got there largely did because we attended certain schools


If. That is a big word. I think it far more likely that such people would have got there no matter what school they attended.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Yes, very promising, if what you want to do is completely undermine, and further separate socially, the disadvantaged kids who made it in on merit. I don't know about anyone else but I don't think I could have coped with three years of everyone assuming I made it in other than by open competition, and I would have deeply resented being put in that situation.


I went to Oxford when there were at least 6 application systems running simultaneously. I did the fourth term entrance exam. Although those doing the 7th term exam sat the same papers they were marked to a more rigorous standard. That isn't surprising, the 7th term candidates had a year longer schooling on the material. There was no sense of resentment over this, nor over the fact that there were candidates who didn't sit the exam some of whom had (for the time) challenging A level offers of AAB or ABB and whilst others had EE offers.
Original post by nulli tertius
I went to Oxford when there were at least 6 application systems running simultaneously. I did the fourth term entrance exam. Although those doing the 7th term exam sat the same papers they were marked to a more rigorous standard. That isn't surprising, the 7th term candidates had a year longer schooling on the material. There was no sense of resentment over this, nor over the fact that there were candidates who didn't sit the exam some of whom had (for the time) challenging A level offers of AAB or ABB and whilst others had EE offers.


if you wanted a Scholarship or Exhibition you had to do the entrance papers ?
Original post by nulli tertius
I went to Oxford when there were at least 6 application systems running simultaneously. I did the fourth term entrance exam. Although those doing the 7th term exam sat the same papers they were marked to a more rigorous standard. That isn't surprising, the 7th term candidates had a year longer schooling on the material. There was no sense of resentment over this, nor over the fact that there were candidates who didn't sit the exam some of whom had (for the time) challenging A level offers of AAB or ABB and whilst others had EE offers.


No, but there are some differences.

(1) All of the systems you are talking about were still based on an assessment of merit at the time at which the candidate presented himself. That is entirely different from a quota system which operates no matter how strong, or weak, a pool of candidates the protected class presents.

(2) You are talking about a time when there was, as you say, quite a variety of different ways to make it in. There is now one way: competition through the standard application process. This makes adding a separate means of entry now, as opposed to then, a quite different prospect, especially in terms of perception.

(3) You are talking about a time at which, I imagine, there was a much more laid back attitude to such matters. We now occupy an age in which there is a much stronger emphasis on merit and its rigorous assessment. For this reason too, adding a separate, special means of entry now is a different prospect. Indeed I doubt whether such an eclectic system as you describe could operate today.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
No, but there are some differences.

(1) All of the systems you are talking about were still based on an assessment of merit at the time at which the candidate presented himself. That is entirely different from a quota system which operates no matter how strong, or weak, a pool of candidates the protected class presents.

(2) You are talking about a time when there was, as you say, quite a variety of different ways to make it in. There is now one way: competition through the standard application process. This makes adding a separate means of entry now, as opposed to then, a quite different prospect, especially in terms of perception.

(3) You are talking about a time at which, I imagine, there was a much more laid back attitude to such matters. We now occupy an age in which there is a much stronger emphasis on merit and its rigorous assessment. For this reason too, adding a separate, special means of entry now is a different prospect. Indeed I doubt whether such an eclectic system as you describe could operate today.


I think there is some force in what you say. My own view is that quotas to take part in the assessment process would be viable but not quotas for places.

I also think that given the clear differences between schools in exam performance Oxbridge should move away from any idea of a single conditional offer at A level for all candidates. If you think that A levels adequate evaluate the merit of candidates, why all the interviews and tests and if you don't think that the logic behind a single conditional offer disappears. The only reason for conditional offer at all is to keep each candidate working at his or her school work.
Original post by the bear
if you wanted a Scholarship or Exhibition you had to do the entrance papers ?


Yes, but I can't say £40 a year (I received an exhibition in my second year) made a great deal of difference to my life, particularly at the cost of £20 for the gown.
Original post by nulli tertius
Yes, but I can't say £40 a year (I received an exhibition in my second year) made a great deal of difference to my life, particularly at the cost of £20 for the gown.


you have risen in my estimation Sir !

:congrats:
Original post by nulli tertius
I think there is some force in what you say. My own view is that quotas to take part in the assessment process would be viable but not quotas for places.

I also think that given the clear differences between schools in exam performance Oxbridge should move away from any idea of a single conditional offer at A level for all candidates. If you think that A levels adequate evaluate the merit of candidates, why all the interviews and tests and if you don't think that the logic behind a single conditional offer disappears. The only reason for conditional offer at all is to keep each candidate working at his or her school work.


I'd be less strongly opposed to that, although I can't imagine it making much difference at Cambridge given only very weak candidates are rejected without interview anyway, and doesn't Oxford use admissions tests to select for interview?

Re conditional offers, yeah, I agree with that. It's worth noting that conditional offers at present aren't applied strictly uniformly. I remember someone who applied in my cycle got a maths offer of A*A*A*, with some unusually high requirement in STEP too. I've also seen quite substantial clemency exercised with missed offers from candidates from weaker state schools. So your proposal here isn't particularly radical.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I'd be less strongly opposed to that, although I can't imagine it making much difference at Cambridge given only very weak candidates are rejected without interview anyway, and doesn't Oxford use admissions tests to select for interview?

Re conditional offers, yeah, I agree with that. It's worth noting that conditional offers at present aren't applied strictly uniformly. I remember someone who applied in my cycle got a maths offer of A*A*A*, with some unusually high requirement in STEP too. I've also seen quite substantial clemency exercised with missed offers from candidates from weaker state schools. So your proposal here isn't particularly radical.


The key problem, which I think everyone identifies, is getting people to apply. If the comp kid believes all the places go to clones of BoJo, he may well not apply. If he believes there is an interview quota essentially reserved for people like him, he may do so.

Variable offers have almost entirely been eliminated with the increased involvement of the academic departments in selecting candidates. The relative power of the colleges to the university over admissions has been waning for many years. I always think that silly money offers of the type you describe were the result of personality politics within the university. X insists that a candidate Y doesn't want is given an offer, so the offer is pitched at a level Y doesn't think the candidate will meet.

The problem with leniency is that it doesn't help with applications. It merely addresses the fact that the colleges have very little margin for error over their finances. If the sums work on 110 undergraduates, they cannot take 105 or 115.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I remember someone who applied in my cycle got a maths offer of A*A*A*, with some unusually high requirement in STEP too.
For maths at Cambridge, A*A* in M/FM is essentially a formality (it's extremely rare that anyone with a realistic chance of getting 11 in STEP is going to have issues getting these grades). So it's really only one A* that "you have to work hard for".

Not saying it's not a high offer, but it's not as crazy high as it sounds.

Worst case the STEP offer was SS, which is certainly harsh (but not unheard of), however:

I've also seen quite substantial clemency exercised with missed offers from candidates from weaker state schools. So your proposal here isn't particularly radical.
It's reasonably common to get in having missed your STEP grades (I think about 30% do so). From a college's point of view, it's nice to set the offer high and be able to do a bit of final 'pick-and-choose' once the dust settles on the STEP results. So a harsh STEP offer may not be as bad as it sounds either.
The problem (bad schools) should be treated, rather than the symptom (socioeconomic imbalance at top unis)

Latest