I think that everyone with an Oxbridge degree is elitist.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Theafricanlegend

Lol, coaching doesn't help you pass an exam?

Comparing the Internet, a place full of strangers, with an accredited tutor?
Pls go

Also by the internet I meant the official sources, not random forums and websites. There is a huge amount of pass papers for STEP, for example, with full worked solutions all over the internet. There are also 120 pages worth of booklets on how to do the questions and how to think mathematically.

Reply 21

Asexual Demigod

Original post by 7589200

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9532912/Best-universities-for-high-starting-salaries.html?frame=2334366

This is a list of the 'Best Universities For High Starting Salaries'

1. LSE
2. Imperial
3. St Georges
4. UCL
5. RVC

And everyone knows that the majority of people only get into Oxbridge due to their wealthy backgrounds. These salaries are despite them fully utilising their family connections in industry. And they still couldn't get into the top 5.

We don't all go to university for money. We're not all money-grabbing fools. And it's funny you say that, when over half of the students at Oxbridge are from state schools and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Reply 22

El Salvador

Original post by 7589200

Not only is this table very outdated (2005-2009 data), it's an invalid comparison.

Three of the five are tiny institutions with a very small number of graduates; four of them specialised institutions - St George's doesn't even have nurses, ALL doctors. The better comparisons would be the compare the LSE with only the business schools of Oxbridge, Imperial with only the sciences and stuff, St George's with medical schools, etc.

You also conveniently forgot the fact that all universities in London get high starting salaries for the simple fact that they are based in London. On this list, City University is actually No 10. That says it all. Not to mention Oxbridge are actually above UCL despite not being in London.

And of course, it's not about where you start, but where you end up at. Oxbridge dominate the millionaires' list, with more than two-third making their money through their own effort with no help from family.

Reply 23

Schrödingers Cat

Original post by james22

Most people at Oxbridge are from state schools. Being rich does not help you get through the application process anymore than a poor person with the same qualities (apart from special cases like the royal family etc but that's an insignificant number of people).

Have we actually agreed on something? :K:

Reply 24

El Salvador

Original post by 7589200

If I remember correctly the most state-school-friendly college in Oxbridge is St Johns College, Oxford which has a rate of 50%.

Being rich gets you
1. Better coaching for passing exams
2. Better interview practice
3. Better help with your personal statement
4. Increased coaching for exams like STEP and BMAT
5. Better advice and guidance from Oxbridge offer holders in the year above you
6. Better knowledge about which colleges and courses to apply for and many schools have 'track records' of getting people in at certain places year after year
7. Better access to improve your extra-ciricular activities

And on and on and on.

So the college with the most state schoolers has 50%, but miracle for the entire university it's 56.8% state?

Reply 25

7589200

Original post by james22

1. Oxbridge cannot help that.
2. That makes less difference that you would think. Everything you need is online.
3. That doesn't matter at all.
4. Use the internet, they make the resources for these exams very accessible. Coaching helps, but it won't make you pass the exam.
5. That is all on the internet, the Oxford and Cambridge websites give you tons of information about all of this.
6. You should pick the coruse before teh universty really. Picking a different college doesn't make much difference due to the pooling systems.
7. They don't matter.

1. Yes it can... if you have a better teachers, your scores improve at least marginally. Especially with a focus on raising the standard rather than aiming for 100% A* - C or something silly like that.

2,4,5 - Stop talking about the internet. Having someone going through the STEP problems in front of you when you can ask them things you don't understand is the same as looking it up on that STEP solutions website?! Actually going through a mock interview is the same as reading about it online?!?!? Don't be ridiculous.

6. Cambridge's pooling system is incredibly bad.

7. Extracurriculars do matter to some extent even at Oxbridge; especially for Medicine/Vet Med.

Reply 26

7589200

Original post by clh_hilary

So the college with the most state schoolers has 50%, but miracle for the entire university it's 56.8% state?

Sorry maybe my information is outdated.

On your earlier statement, looking at Oxbridge millionaires is like looking at extreme examples.

Reply 27

Mrkingpenguin

Original post by 7589200

Those statistics are definitely wrong. From what you're saying it seems you think the admissions system is elitist, not the university.

If this is not a troll, then you need to go and meet some people who actually go to these universities instead of stereotyping.

Reply 28

Mrkingpenguin

Original post by 7589200

How on earth are you in any position to say that when there is only a limited information about it in the public domain? Cambridge only want the smartest, and they dont care where they are from. They have conducted extensive research on how students perform in their degrees against their various stats (uma, as, gcse etc,) and have extensive empirical data showing that high ums significantly increases likelihood of getting a first.

Reply 29

tatt0barbie

Original post by `Jts

I take it you got rejected by Oxbridge.

My thoughts exactly

Reply 30

Manitude

I do know someone who went to Oxford and is a bit like this, admittedly quite deservedly - he's an academic that's pretty high up in the ATLAS experiment at CERN. When he talks about physics he is something of an authority on it.

On the other hand, I know another academic who did maths at Cambridge and is one of the most approachable and friendly academics I've had the pleasure of associating with.

I can't say I know many Oxbridge graduates that are around my age, though. Only one person from my sixth form got in, I didn't really speak to her much but she struck me as the kind of person who worked very hard rather than being especially intelligent.

Reply 31

7589200

Original post by Mrkingpenguin

lol because I know how bad it is.

Oxford's is excellent. Each candidate has two interviews, each candidate is assessed on the basis of 'are they good enough for Oxford?' and then so many people get in through the pool.

Cambridge's philosophy is terrible. One college interviews you. Each college has devised their own ranking system. Then they take your case to the pool meetings and then if a college can suffer the indignity of taking another named college's reject they will take them. Its a very poor system and when they used to publish per college, per course statistics you could see how bad it was!

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 32

Chlorophile

Original post by 7589200

Even if you say that everyone who goes to a private school comes from a wealthy background then it's still not the majority. And regardless, none of those universities are Oxbridge... which is what your thread title is talking about.

Reply 33

El Salvador

Original post by 7589200

Sorry maybe my information is outdated.

On your earlier statement, looking at Oxbridge millionaires is like looking at extreme examples.

So comparing an institute that only trains doctors to an actual comprehensive university is valid?

Reply 34

El Salvador

Original post by Asexual Demigod

Most are from state schools but not necessarily economically disadvantaged.

In the last three years, Oxford has accepted three times more students just from Eton compared to all applicants on free school meals.

Reply 35

Blitzkrieg15

Should Eton be abolished?

Reply 36

RichE

Original post by 7589200

Cambridge's philosophy is terrible. One college interviews you. Each college has devised their own ranking system. Then they take your case to the pool meetings and then if a college can suffer the indignity of taking another named college's reject they will take them. Its a very poor system and when they used to publish per college, per course statistics you could see how bad it was!

Your slant make it sound a highly unlikely event and yet somehow over 20% of offers are made through the winter pool.

PS And don't they still "publish per college, per course statistics" - http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/apply/statistics/

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 37

danhirons

Original post by Theafricanlegend

That's also bullcrap, what social class you end up in life (especially in the UK) LARGELY depends on where ( not geographical location) you were born. UK is not a meritocracy, and neither are Oxbridge. Of course you will get extremely hard working poorish people who will get in, but poor people have the odds stacked up against them. How can they compete with the rich kid who has 5 tutors and a personal UCAS advisor?

Everyone there would have had to work to get in of course, but the discrepancy in support between rich candidates and less wealthy candidates have is astonishing.

Also check the number of candidates admitted from independent schools.

Whilst I agree, having personal tutors etc and being able to fund them will help, but oxbridge wise, the universities and colleges are doing absolutely everything they can to make sure they are admitting a fair number of state school students - by basing it purely on academic merits, and by providing a huge number of financial help to those who need it. I got grants from both the uni and my college since my parents wage was so low, and it really helped :smile:

I think you'll find (as stated earlier) colleges like st john's are really really high in terms of state pupil percentages too... :smile:

Reply 38

MrJAKEE

Yawn.. Oxbridge accept the best students and these tend to be from private schools. The education in state schools is appalling, whilst I was doing simultaneous equations in year 7 most people don't start it until year 9 / year 10. So what happens in those 2 lost years? Can anyone from a state school tell me so? Private schools are much more rigorous than state schools and hence they get a disproportionate amount of people in Oxbridge.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 39

7589200

Original post by RichE

Hmm may be it has improved since my day.

It really isn't my main argument anyway. I was just pointing out how if you go to a private school, careful college choice helps so much. A head of physics who has sent 50 students to, say, Trinity College Cambridge over the last 20 years is much more valuable than a head of physics who has no clue. Think about it, each year, all the students that come back tell him exactly what happened, which tutor asks what, etc etc. Its all about information!

Well you can't look at how many offers were through the pool and how many were outright. Or can you? I couldn't see a way...