Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd of thought oxbridge no
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by universal_set)
    Is it because of the Krazy Prince on TSR? (A rich Pakistani coming to join KCL) LOL

    OP: There are always mixed students in every university but I think LSE has the highest proportion of rich students.
    Hahaha no he's just weird. But there are loads of students I've met from there that appear to be posh.
    • Offline

      15
      (Original post by DiddyDec)
      You have all missed the top candidate.

      Royal Agricultural University (Cirencester). It is the sort of place you will see men in salmon coloured trousers doing for a weekend shoot on Daddy's estate. It is the sort of place that will not allow you entry unless you own at least 2000 acres and many horses.
      Top candidate? :lol: More like King

      Oh you can get entry without owning 2,000 acres and many horses as for a start its rather hard to own 2,000 acres in the UK unless you come from a true dynasty RAU is actually a nice place and is on my list for my Masters although I most likely won't go due to commuting distance from London
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      Top candidate? :lol: More like King

      Oh you can get entry without owning 2,000 acres and many horses as for a start its rather hard to own 2,000 acres in the UK unless you come from a true dynasty RAU is actually a nice place and is on my list for my Masters although I most likely won't go due to commuting distance from London
      Out of interest, where did you do your undergrad? Would you recommend it to those of us trying to flee the chavs? :teehee:
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Melon girl)
      Hahaha no he's just weird. But there are loads of students I've met from there that appear to be posh.
      OK
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      Top candidate? :lol: More like King

      Oh you can get entry without owning 2,000 acres and many horses as for a start its rather hard to own 2,000 acres in the UK unless you come from a true dynasty RAU is actually a nice place and is on my list for my Masters although I most likely won't go due to commuting distance from London
      Can one park one's yacht there though? I heard Cirencester was inland.
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
        Can one park one's yacht there though? I heard Cirencester was inland.
        Don't be stupid FoS, why would one want to moor one's yacht in the UK when one has Monaco?
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        Posh students annoy me. I went to a private school myself and the elitism that was encouraged was disgusting. It was just arrogant. It just makes you look down on others. I'm doing my masters now and luckily at Uni it isn't like that. And just to say I'm at a Russell group Uni and my long term partner is state educated and is at a former polytechnic. It doesn't make a difference to me if he was an Oxbridge guy.
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by tehFrance)
        Don't be stupid FoS, why would one want to moor one's yacht in the UK when one has Monaco?
        You 'have Monaco' Francie. We have to make do with Newquay. :cool:
        • Offline

          15
          (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
          You 'have Monaco' Francie. We have to make do with Newquay. :cool:
          I would have thought that you'd say Mylor or perhaps Falmouth rather than Newquay. Maybe it's me but Newquay is only good for an ungentlemanly piss up
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by conorm11)
          I would agree with all of that. What i think is more important is looking at why Oxbridge takes in more private-school kids than state compared to how many kids are privately/state educated. That's the problem, and it sure isn't down to better education...
          Of course it is down to education. If you're privately educated you've got a much better chance of getting top GCSE and A-Level grades than if you were in an average state school - hence a significantly higher proportion of privately educated students are eligible to apply to Oxford and Cambridge, so it's hardly surprising there's a much higher proportion of privately educated students at Oxford/Cambridge compared to the proportion of all students that are privately educated. It shouldn't really come as a shock that if someone has potentially spent 13/14 years receiving a superior education with one-on-one tailored support, being pushed and challenged to a much higher level than you'd get at an average state-school, and has been significantly more informed about their options, as well as having a much higher degree of "academic freedom", that they're much more likely to turn out to be "Oxbridge material".

          I find it quite frustrating when people seem to think that it's the problem of Oxford and Cambridge that they take a significantly higher proportion of privately educated students compared to the proportion of students that actually attend a private school; it isn't. Both Oxford and Cambridge take the best students possible, it just so happens that a significant proportion of these come from private schools for the reasons mentioned above. Oxford, and I'm sure Cambridge as well, spend a ridiculous amount of money on widening-participation and trying to get involved with state students at an early age in an attempt to close the gap between state and privately educated students at the admissions stage. The real 'issue' at play here is the vast differences in quality of education available in the UK.
          Offline

          20
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by tehFrance)
          I would have thought that you'd say Mylor or perhaps Falmouth rather than Newquay. Maybe it's me but Newquay is only good for an ungentlemanly piss up
          I was trying to avoid saying 'Rock'. :rolleyes: Personally I prefer Abersoch and Mousehole, but each to their own.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
          I don't think a simple state/private ratio is enough to define 'posh', there are plenty of wealthy kids in state schools and people from average backgrounds in private schools.

          My sis went to Cambridge and did a doctorate at UCL and her anecdotal evidence is that UCL was posher, she reported lots of European wealthy and aristocratic types there.
          yeah i agree with your sis - I went to what you'd call a "posh" school and although we had plenty of students at Cambridge & Durham, the super-super rich types (and the international wealthy students and the aristocracy types) normally went to London universities, esp. UCL, KCL, and LSE. (I guess it's because London is what attracts foreign students, and there's already so much expat money flooding into London now?)
          Offline

          9
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Noble.)
          Of course it is down to education. If you're privately educated you've got a much better chance of getting top GCSE and A-Level grades than if you were in an average state school - hence a significantly higher proportion of privately educated students are eligible to apply to Oxford and Cambridge, so it's hardly surprising there's a much higher proportion of privately educated students at Oxford/Cambridge compared to the proportion of all students that are privately educated. It shouldn't really come as a shock that if someone has potentially spent 13/14 years receiving a superior education with one-on-one tailored support, being pushed and challenged to a much higher level than you'd get at an average state-school, and has been significantly more informed about their options, as well as having a much higher degree of "academic freedom", that they're much more likely to turn out to be "Oxbridge material".

          I find it quite frustrating when people seem to think that it's the problem of Oxford and Cambridge that they take a significantly higher proportion of privately educated students compared to the proportion of students that actually attend a private school; it isn't. Both Oxford and Cambridge take the best students possible, it just so happens that a significant proportion of these come from private schools for the reasons mentioned above. Oxford, and I'm sure Cambridge as well, spend a ridiculous amount of money on widening-participation and trying to get involved with state students at an early age in an attempt to close the gap between state and privately educated students at the admissions stage. The real 'issue' at play here is the vast differences in quality of education available in the UK.
          You can spend as much money and resources on widening participation schemes as you like, but when students with 4 A*'s at my state academy still don't get offered a place at Oxbridge (It's happened every year for the past eight) then why do we state school students bother?
          My best friend is now studying physics at imperial with his A*'s in pHysics, chemistry, Maths and Further maths. He was rejected by cambridge, along with the 5 others that applied from my school. Not one student as ever got in in my schools 10 year history, despite getting students into ICL, UCL, Durham, Warwick, numerous russell group uni's and even a Yale.
          it seems to me that Oxbridge just pays lip service to widening participation. They really have no intention of making any changes when it just isn't in their interests to. The only reason they play along is so that they can carry on charging £9000.
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cobbler)
          You can spend as much money and resources on widening participation schemes as you like, but when students with 4 A*'s at my state academy still don't get offered a place at Oxbridge (It's happened every year for the past eight) then why do we state school students bother?
          My best friend is now studying physics at imperial with his A*'s in pHysics, chemistry, Maths and Further maths. He was rejected by cambridge, along with the 5 others that applied from my school. Not one student as ever got in in my schools 10 year history, despite getting students into ICL, UCL, Durham, Warwick, numerous russell group uni's and even a Yale.
          it seems to me that Oxbridge just pays lip service to widening participation. They really have no intention of making any changes when it just isn't in their interests to. The only reason they play along is so that they can carry on charging £9000.
          I went to a state secondary school in the bottom 5% of the country. Practically everyone applying for science subjects will have 2-4 A* predictions at A-Level, it's hardly a differentiator. You say "Why do we state school students bother?" - you do realise the majority of places at both Oxford and Cambridge go to state school students? :lol:
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cobbler)
          You can spend as much money and resources on widening participation schemes as you like, but when students with 4 A*'s at my state academy still don't get offered a place at Oxbridge (It's happened every year for the past eight) then why do we state school students bother?
          My best friend is now studying physics at imperial with his A*'s in pHysics, chemistry, Maths and Further maths. He was rejected by cambridge, along with the 5 others that applied from my school. Not one student as ever got in in my schools 10 year history, despite getting students into ICL, UCL, Durham, Warwick, numerous russell group uni's and even a Yale.
          it seems to me that Oxbridge just pays lip service to widening participation. They really have no intention of making any changes when it just isn't in their interests to. The only reason they play along is so that they can carry on charging £9000.
          Also I forgot to mention: Statistically, state school students are more likely to get an offer than privately educated students (controlling for A-Level/IB/GCSE grades).
          Offline

          9
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Noble.)
          I went to a state secondary school in the bottom 5% of the country. Practically everyone applying for science subjects will have 2-4 A* predictions at A-Level, it's hardly a differentiator. You say "Why do we state school students bother?" - you do realise the majority of places at both Oxford and Cambridge go to state school students? :lol:
          Oh please! Only seven percent of students are educated privately in this country, yet they make up at least 45% of the intake at oxbridge. Of the state schools students that are accepted, only 16% are from comprehensive or state academies. The rest are from selective grammars.
          You can't tell me that a student from an underperforming school like yours (or mine) with 4 A*'s at A level isn't at least on a par, if not superior, than tarquin or binky that have been spoon fed their top grades in Latin or history of Art at Eton or Cheltenham ladies college. Or hot housed at Chelmsford county or king edward V1 grammar schools. These places don't want comprehensive kids, or they would take the ones like my friend. If someone from a sink school can achieve what he did, then they are something special. Even Imperial could see that.:rolleyes:
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cobbler)
          Oh please! Only seven percent of students are educated privately in this country, yet they make up at least 45% of the intake at oxbridge. Of the state schools students that are accepted, only 16% are from comprehensive or state academies. The rest are from selective grammars.
          You can't tell me that a student from an underperforming school like yours (or mine) with 4 A*'s at A level isn't at least on a par, if not superior, than tarquin or binky that have been spoon fed their top grades in Latin or history of Art at Eton or Cheltenham ladies college. Or hot housed at Chelmsford county or king edward V1 grammar schools. These places don't want comprehensive kids, or they would take the ones like my friend. If someone from a sink school can achieve what he did, then they are something special. Even Imperial could see that.:rolleyes:
          I take it you didn't read my second reply? Student from state schools are more likely to get an offer than those from private school if they have the same grades

          Just because no-one from your school has received an offer, and your friend didn't (although why you think you know who should and shouldn't have been accepted when you didn't see the competition is beyond me) is not indicative of Oxford and Cambridge not wanting "comprehensive kids" (also somewhat amusing as the vast majority of my friends here seemed to have attended pretty crap compehensive schools).

          7% being privately educated, but them making up 45% of the student population at Ox/Cam has little to do with either university - as I point out in my original post.
          Offline

          9
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Noble.)
          I take it you didn't read my second reply? Student from state schools are more likely to get an offer than those from private school if they have the same grades

          Just because no-one from your school has received an offer, and your friend didn't (although why you think you know who should and shouldn't have been accepted when you didn't see the competition is beyond me) is not indicative of Oxford and Cambridge not wanting "comprehensive kids" (also somewhat amusing as the vast majority of my friends here seemed to have attended pretty crap compehensive schools).

          7% being privately educated, but them making up 45% of the student population at Ox/Cam has little to do with either university - as I point out in my original post.
          No! It's students from State Grammar schools that are more likely to get offers. As I said, only 16% of Oxbridge students go to comprehensive schools and if there were figures i would put money on the fact they were mostly high performing ones. Only a tiny proportion go to sink schools. You must know all of them.
          When I had my interview at Oxford, I felt like an Alien. I didn't get in, as there were a lot better qualified candidates, I wasn't surprised at all, there was good reason.
          But when you see brilliant people get rejected time after time and the only common denominator seems to be the inner city comp school they go to, it kind of makes you wonder why you or anyone from that environment bothers.
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cobbler)
          No! It's students from State Grammar schools that are more likely to get offers. As I said, only 16% of Oxbridge students go to comprehensive schools and if there were figures i would put money on the fact they were mostly high performing ones. Only a tiny proportion go to sink schools. You must know all of them.
          When I had my interview at Oxford, I felt like an Alien. I didn't get in, as there were a lot better qualified candidates, I wasn't surprised at all, there was good reason.
          But when you see brilliant people get rejected time after time and the only common denominator seems to be the inner city comp school they go to, it kind of makes you wonder why you or anyone from that environment bothers.
          Just to point out, I am working on admission/undergraduate statistics for Oxford over the summer and what you've said about it only applying to grammar schools is not entirely true (although I'm not allowed to divulge anything more specific).

          Sure, it is disappointing to get rejected, and plenty of excellent people get rejected (pretty much everyone at the interview stage will be excellent candidates on paper) but people have just got to realise that the definition of "exceptional candidate" at school is not the same definition Oxford and Cambridge go by, when the entire pool of applicants is comprised of people who are exceptional candidates within their school. So it's perfectly possible for someone to be one of the most standout students at GCSE/A-Level in their school, but for them to be unexceptional in the pool of applicants at either Oxford or Cambridge.
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
        Useful resources
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.