This girl got an interview for oxford but got ABBC for As levels?! Watch

Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 years ago
#41
(Original post by mishieru07)
You don't get "guaranteed an interview". It's just something they will take into account when evaluating your academic performance to date. I don't recall Oxford ever stating that students who get flagged definitely get an interview. If you have sources, I would be interested in seeing them.
Au contraire, they have some set aside spots for candidates who are flagged on at least 3 different criteria. If you do some snooping, you can find their access/contextual information presentation.

My source is from an admissions tutor at Hertford, don't know about yours.
1
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 years ago
#42
Not that difficult to work out.

Oxford use GCSEs and admissions test scores to shortlist. Presumably, the other students didn't do well on the admissions tests and this girl did.

Open and shut case.
2
reply
Pars12
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#43
Report 3 years ago
#43
(Original post by ckfeister)
Cambridge is less biased.
?

So why are they in trouble with the Office For Fair Access?
0
reply
Shotte
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#44
Report 3 years ago
#44
(Original post by eternaforest)
female privilegde smh
Eterna, not sure if joking but if so, what a load of gobshate.

I got ABBE AS-Levels and got an interview also, for Eng. Lit. (it's been and gone, I went and I'm back... mostly the same aside from some cheeky food poisoning I got from Mansfield's grub, and a whole lot of fun had!). Last time I checked, I did have a **** - just to clarify in full.


My two cents? Having a successful or at least intriguing, unique piece(s) of written work and ELAT/respective entrance exam seems to be the foremost factor they use when determining their distribution of interview places; that said, other aspects such as GCSE results and personal statement are most certainly considered. The most telling thing is - from what I've sniffed out - once you do make it to interview, your performance and character there seems to be the sole way they whittle down the strong pack to the stronger still(?) core - those that they want for keeps, so to speak.
2
reply
shoshin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 years ago
#45
Contextually flagged candidates will be strongly recommended for interview if they are predicted to achieve the grades, and perform to an appropriate standard in any required pre-interview admissions test.

'Note that this use of contextual information does not result in either an automatic offer of a place or a lower offer to a candidate. The candidates flagged through use of contextual information are interviewed in addition to students who are shortlisted for interview using the usual departmental interview shortlisting criteria, so they do not displace students who have already demonstrated the expected academic ability and potential'

See the 'Action to be taken' section in the link below

http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/under...ontextual-data
0
reply
Tessie25
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 years ago
#46
I got an interview with AABC at AS for english, while someone else with AAAA got rejected for english. ELAT and the other tests play a big factor - I know for a fact that the other person didn't try in their ELAT, so no wonder they got rejected. I was initially put off applying after my AS results, but I contacted the uni and they said they don't care about AS levels as much as GCSE and admission test performance.

Congrats to that girl! She must have done well in admissions and submitted a good application. Oxford wants passionate students over those with astronomical grades, imo.
0
reply
ckfeister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 years ago
#47
(Original post by Pars12)
?

So why are they in trouble with the Office For Fair Access?
I said less biased, didn't say they are a lot better than Oxford.
0
reply
markovchain17
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 years ago
#48
(Original post by Shotte)
Eterna, not sure if joking but if so, what a load of gobshate.

I got ABBE AS-Levels and got an interview also, for Eng. Lit. (it's been and gone, I went and I'm back... mostly the same aside from some cheeky food poisoning I got from Mansfield's grub, and a whole lot of fun had!). Last time I checked, I did have a **** - just to clarify in full.


My two cents? Having a successful or at least intriguing, unique piece(s) of written work and ELAT/respective entrance exam seems to be the foremost factor they use when determining their distribution of interview places; that said, other aspects such as GCSE results and personal statement are most certainly considered. The most telling thing is - from what I've sniffed out - once you do make it to interview, your performance and character there seems to be the sole way they whittle down the strong pack to the stronger still(?) core - those that they want for keeps, so to speak.
Twas a joke I misspelt privilege on purpose to try make it more obvious lol
0
reply
Shotte
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#49
Report 3 years ago
#49
(Original post by eternaforest)
Twas a joke I misspelt privilege on purpose to try make it more obvious lol
Heh, yeah lad. I thought it'd be pretty strange, coming from you most certainly! But on the other hand, the salt factor of a tiny, unremarkable, yet abrasive and odious in volumes beyond their proportion, of the TSR men can scarce be underestimated.
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 years ago
#50
(Original post by ckfeister)
I said less biased, didn't say they are a lot better than Oxford.
Evidence pls
0
reply
markovchain17
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 3 years ago
#51
(Original post by Shotte)
Heh, yeah lad. I thought it'd be pretty strange, coming from you most certainly! But on the other hand, the salt factor of a tiny, unremarkable, yet abrasive and odious in volumes beyond their proportion, of the TSR men can scarce be underestimated.
I'm going to be honest and say that you use such big words and complicated ssentences that I haven't got a clue what you're talking about :laugh:
0
reply
ckfeister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 3 years ago
#52
(Original post by JohnGreek)
Evidence pls
http://www.theguardian.com/education...ity-applicants
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#53
Report 3 years ago
#53
(Original post by JohnGreek)
Evidence pls
Coincidently from this weekend's Guardian/Observer:
http://www.theguardian.com/education...ssions-failure

"To meet their benchmarks for disadvantaged pupils, Oxford would need to increase the percentage of state school pupils by a quarter (24%) and Cambridge by a fifth (18%)."

So Cambridge has a lower target to hit because it's doing "better" already...
0
reply
Gnomes&Knights
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 3 years ago
#54
I know a girl that had BDE for AS levels and got offer from UCL without interview.
0
reply
Shotte
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#55
Report 3 years ago
#55
(Original post by eternaforest)
I'm going to be honest and say that you use such big words and complicated ssentences that I haven't got a clue what you're talking about :laugh:
They probably wouldn't either, which is why I delighted in phrasing it in such a circuitous, clothy ol' manner!

But boiling down to braised flesh and bone, I just used my posh words in a way so as to slate the guys who are constantly posting threads and comments putting down women and self-aggrandising and glorifying their own so-called 'plight'... of sitting behind a computer keyboard hammering out vitriol!

And I knew very well you're not one of 'em, buddy boy. :P
0
reply
markovchain17
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 years ago
#56
(Original post by Shotte)
They probably wouldn't either, which is why I delighted in phrasing it in such a circuitous, clothy ol' manner!

But boiling down to braised flesh and bone, I just used my posh words in a way so as to slate the guys who are constantly posting threads and comments putting down women and self-aggrandising and glorifying their own so-called 'plight'... of sitting behind a computer keyboard hammering out vitriol!

And I knew very well you're not one of 'em, buddy boy. :P
I understand kind of lol
0
reply
Shotte
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#57
Report 3 years ago
#57
(Original post by eternaforest)
I understand kind of lol
A few people, just a few, on TSR can be bigger jerks than even Levi Roots' excellent Jerk Chicken sauce. c:<
1
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report 3 years ago
#58
(Original post by jneill)
Coincidently from this weekend's Guardian/Observer:
http://www.theguardian.com/education...ssions-failure

"To meet their benchmarks for disadvantaged pupils, Oxford would need to increase the percentage of state school pupils by a quarter (24%) and Cambridge by a fifth (18%)."

So Cambridge has a lower target to hit because it's doing "better" already...
Indeed:
"Of UK students attending state or independent schools or colleges in the UK, 56.3% of places went to applicants from the state sector and 43.7% to applicants from the independent sector." - Oxford
"For applications from Home students attending UK schools/colleges the proportions of acceptances by school/college type are:Maintained 62.2% (61.4% in the previous cycle)Independent 37.8% (38.6% in the previous cycle)" - Cambridge

Unless you can prove that Cambridge and Oxford have the exact same courses, numbers of applicants, ratios of applicants to places, calibre of applicants, and indeed the same percentage of applications from the same schools (whether private or state), then the "bias" argument falls flat on its face. That's not even to start discussing whether all private and state schools are the same in achievement and access to further networking and opportunities.

You're not controlling for a plethora of other reasons that may explain why Oxford admits more privately educated pupils than Cambridge (a difference of about 6%), or indeed proving that this disparity even comes down to some malicious bias or prejudice against disadvantaged candidates at all. That's not even to start talking about the disparity between the way that Oxford and Cambridge judge their candidates, that may additionally impact the outcome.

To be clear - I'm not denying that we need to increase the number of disadvantaged pupils applying and getting into Oxbridge, but rather do away with silly stereotypes like "Oxford is for politicians and is full of rich kids, while Cambridge is less biased".

Also, a definition of bias, for those who appear to have forgotten what it means:
an inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#59
Report 3 years ago
#59
(Original post by JohnGreek)
Indeed:
"Of UK students attending state or independent schools or colleges in the UK, 56.3% of places went to applicants from the state sector and 43.7% to applicants from the independent sector." - Oxford
"For applications from Home students attending UK schools/colleges the proportions of acceptances by school/college type are:Maintained 62.2% (61.4% in the previous cycle)Independent 37.8% (38.6% in the previous cycle)" - Cambridge
So those headline rates have Cambridge doing "better"...

Anyway, Cambridge publishes stats for maintained v independent success rates per course. Does Oxford? (Genuine question.)

http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.a...2014_cycle.pdf

Point me at the Oxford stats, pick some courses and then we can compare.

Eitherway we are straying far from the original contention that you need to be privileged (or a child of a Doctor and not a single parent) to get a place at Oxbridge - I think we can agree that's rubbish...
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 3 years ago
#60
We can certainly agree that that assertion is false
And, certainly, if we look at the headline figure, Cambridge is doing "better", if we define better as being a higher ratio of state school or disadvantaged offer holders.

But my point is that we can't compensate for what Cambridge and Oxford get in the first place in terms of the "quality" of their applicants, and that is something that can't be boiled down to a simple "state vs. private" school dichotomy - both types of school can vary hugely in terms of their performance and the extent to which the encourage and prepare their students for any top uni.

It's obvious, for example, that a poor, inner city state comprehensive in East London that's on special measures by Ofsted can hardly compete with top comprehensives (such as St Bart's in Newbury, or The Downs in Compton) that were ranked as "Excellent" or "Outstanding"... The same applies to public.. sorry, private schools.

I couldn't find any stats on school type per course, even though, to go back on topic, I think that this page was an interesting contextualiser with regard to the wider question of overt discrimination against poorer applicants: http://prntscr.com/9eh854

The closest I could find to answer your question was this: http://public.tableau.com/views/UoO_...owVizHome=no#2 I couldn't find anything more detailed than that.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Oxford
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 1 Jul '20
  • University of Oxford
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Thu, 2 Jul '20
  • University of Oxford
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 18 Sep '20

What offers have you received from universities?

Unconditional (50)
21.19%
Unconditional if firmed (18)
7.63%
Unconditional if insurance (2)
0.85%
Both unconditional and unconditional if firm/insurance (5)
2.12%
No unconditional offers (161)
68.22%

Watched Threads

View All