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

Poorest pupils '55 times less likely to go to Oxbridge' Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The whole argument is silly. It is full of paradoxes, people say extra exam tuition = a place at cambridge but on the other hand will except that most applicants go on to get AAA!

    At the end of the day you are interviewed by an ACADEMIC who cares little about you and who ADORES there subject, they dont want rich idiots, they dont want poor idiots.

    Now, the real question is weather the divide in asperations of the different pay scales is 1) Anyones fault and 2) Solveable.

    P.S. Dont be bitter about rejection
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RupertTheBear)
    Cringe, I really don't think tuition helps. I'm sure you will get into a really good uni though
    Thanks, I hope so, Happy New Year

    Peace and Love to all xD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=anttooking;29131750]The whole argument is silly. It is full of paradoxes, people say extra exam tuition = a place at cambridge but on the other hand will except that most applicants go on to get AAA!

    At the end of the day you are interviewed by an ACADEMIC who cares little about you and who ADORES there subject, they dont want rich idiots, they dont want poor idiots.

    Now, the real question is weather the divide in asperations of the different pay scales is 1) Anyones fault and 2) Solveable.

    P.S. Dont be bitter about rejection[/QUOTE

    Do I sound bitter? it's all an act I'm not really bothered just wanted to strike up some debate
    Happy New Year
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xRosieMx)
    Well done you.

    Obviously you can't lump EVERYBODY into that category, but it does seem to be a general trend. Plus don't you think you might be viewing through rose-tinted spectacles seeing as you have been offered a place? And yeah u need more than tuition to get in, but BOY does it help! A

    And FYI i really mean it... the beds were nasty so I'm kinda glad i got rejected tbh cos i know i would have found it hard to resist had i got in.

    Happy New Year peace and love xD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bobbycrisp)
    logically - and not trying to sound arrogant or big headed or anything - but isn't it likely that richer people ARE richer because they are smarter, and so they've earned more money, and so they pass on their intelligence to their children, who can go to Oxbridge becuase they're smart enough?
    Well, top marks for doing what you set out not to.

    More focused tuition, learning how to pass the exams and being groomed for the application progress are all the benefits of a rich education.
    People who play the system are not necessarily 'the best and brightest'.
    I agree it's not the Universities fault, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned about tackling the problem.
    A problem which most certainly does exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_Parker)
    Well, top marks for doing what you set out not to.

    More focused tuition, learning how to pass the exams and being groomed for the application progress are all the benefits of a rich education.
    People who play the system are not necessarily 'the best and brightest'.
    I agree it's not the Universities fault, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned about tackling the problem.
    A problem which most certainly does exist.
    Actually, what I said wasn't big headed; I never mentioned myself, so therefore I'm not being big-headed. It's logic that smarter people have better paying jobs [generalisation] so therefore are more likely to have intelligent offspring who can use their parents' money for education... I'm well aware that this isn't always the case, but it is more often than not
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anttooking)
    At the end of the day you are interviewed by an ACADEMIC who cares little about you and who ADORES there subject, they dont want rich idiots, they dont want poor idiots.
    Who is likely to be a white, privately-educated man more than not who has a short period of time to assess whether you are 'the right stuff'. People who have been exposed to a wider cultural education and have knowledge of intellectual language (for example those that have been privately educated) and have a similar cultural upbringing to the interviewer are more likely, in a short period of time in interview to appear to be more capable than those who do not regardless of the actual potential of the candidate. It's clear that neither Oxford or Cambridge use the techniques practised in business to reduce the effect of interviewer prejudice, both institutions are famed for their wide range of (sometimes bizzare) interview techniques.

    The world is so full of examples of people being able to talk the talk but not the walk and getting places that people who are actually better don't manage, that I am constantly surprised that people seem to think that this won't happen in university selection procedures.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Who is likely to be a white, privately-educated man more than not who has a short period of time to assess whether you are 'the right stuff'. People who have been exposed to a wider cultural education and have knowledge of intellectual language (for example those that have been privately educated) and have a similar cultural upbringing to the interviewer are more likely, in a short period of time in interview to appear to be more capable than those who do not regardless of the actual potential of the candidate. It's clear that neither Oxford or Cambridge use the techniques practised in business to reduce the effect of interviewer prejudice, both institutions are famed for their wide range of (sometimes bizzare) interview techniques.

    The world is so full of examples of people being able to talk the talk but not the walk and getting places that people who are actually better don't manage, that I am constantly surprised that people seem to think that this won't happen in university selection procedures.
    I recognise that there can be a "like me" effect in interviews. However, there are plenty of other reasons, discussed at length elsewhere, why certain groups of people might be under-represented when it comes to getting a place at Oxford\Cambridge. How can you be sure that the bias of interviewers is so much more important than all of these?

    The "bizarre interview techniques" often cited have a tendency to be:
    a) old examples from a bygone era.
    b) exaggerations.
    c) misrepresentations.
    d) outright falsehoods.

    There is money to be made is maintaining that Oxford\Cambridge admissions are mysterious and secretive - look at all the expensive courses offering special insight. The universities themselves go to some length to demystify them, with substantial information on the website including a mock interview video on Oxford's. The interviews are taken very seriously and you've no proof that they haven't consulted with knowledgeable advisers other than an unsubstantiated allusion to "bizarre techniques".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Who is likely to be a white, privately-educated man more than not who has a short period of time to assess whether you are 'the right stuff'. People who have been exposed to a wider cultural education and have knowledge of intellectual language (for example those that have been privately educated) and have a similar cultural upbringing to the interviewer are more likely, in a short period of time in interview to appear to be more capable than those who do not regardless of the actual potential of the candidate. It's clear that neither Oxford or Cambridge use the techniques practised in business to reduce the effect of interviewer prejudice, both institutions are famed for their wide range of (sometimes bizzare) interview techniques.

    The world is so full of examples of people being able to talk the talk but not the walk and getting places that people who are actually better don't manage, that I am constantly surprised that people seem to think that this won't happen in university selection procedures.
    I think your wrong. I got an offer and I'm 'working' class by postcode/household income ect. I was never subject to any predjudice.

    I think your comments 'kinda' make sense on some level. In my house we all speak to each other inteligable, we try and discuss things and I think this helps but I dont know why basic stuff like that isn't in other peoples familys.

    When my little sister tells me about something she studied, we talk to her about it and make her ask questions. In my Opinion I think its this kind of attitude that really helps. I supose Private School teachers are PAID to do that so mabye your point has some merit. It is societies 'fault', you cannot just point at cambridge and **** them off!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    They take the best, if the best happens to be richer, so what, we just let them in anyway? They made their choices, are as gifted as anyone else, had as much potential as anyone else, and failed. And it's not like the only university these days to go to to actually end up with a job/career is Oxford.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Huw Davies)
    I recognise that there can be a "like me" effect in interviews. However, there are plenty of other reasons, discussed at length elsewhere, why certain groups of people might be under-represented when it comes to getting a place at Oxford\Cambridge. How can you be sure that the bias of interviewers is so much more important than all of these?
    The problem is that even when may socio-economic and application factors have been corrected for, there is still a discrepancy. It's a real wasted opportunity to have diversity within the academic elite.

    The "bizarre interview techniques" often cited have a tendency to be:
    a) old examples from a bygone era.
    b) exaggerations.
    c) misrepresentations.
    d) outright falsehoods.
    Or reality. I don't believe half the crazy ones I hear but I know people I trust who have been subjected to 'interesting' interview techniques that would be frowned upon in Russell Group universities (such as highly adversarial interviewers, for example).

    There is money to be made is maintaining that Oxford\Cambridge admissions are mysterious and secretive - look at all the expensive courses offering special insight. The universities themselves go to some length to demystify them, with substantial information on the website including a mock interview video on Oxford's. The interviews are taken very seriously and you've no proof that they haven't consulted with knowledgeable advisers other than an unsubstantiated allusion to "bizarre techniques".
    To be honest, I know quite a few admissions tutors from a range of universities including one at Oxford and one at Cambridge - these contacts I've gained during my time as a PhD student, university researcher and now as an R&D consultant managing university research in industry. These people have no reason to lie to me about admissions. It's got nothing to do with whether interviews are taken seriously or not, it's about what is considered acceptable behaviour in an interview, which differs from institution to institution. The same is true in the job market, some firms are renowned for having 'interesting' interview techniques.

    What I really don't understand is why people assume that the Oxbridge interview is infallible. So many times I hear 'well you didn't get in because you weren't good enough' as if it some permanent mark of failure. Why can't people except that interviews are about your performance on one day and sometimes it just doesn't work out and that doesn't mean that other people's successes later on are somehow inferior because they didn't pass an interview at the age of 18.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    The problem is that even when may socio-economic and application factors have been corrected for, there is still a discrepancy. It's a real wasted opportunity to have diversity within the academic elite.
    I'm not aware of any really serious data-crunching that hasn't had lots of flaws pointed out. One things that has been extremely clear is that whether or not one thinks that there are additional biases at the interview stage, it's very clear that there are enormous discrepancies in terms of the proportion of private school pupils who apply, which in turn is driven by a much bigger proportion who excel academically. Diversity is desirable in principle, but expecting university admissions to miraculously overcome that problem without compromising their standards is the tail wagging the dog when there is so much inequality already by the time the applications are in.

    I'd also be interested to know whether Oxford and Cambridge are actually much worse than other comparable universities, or simply more scrutinised. A comparison with another university which doesn't interview would be a good way of testing how much of an affecting interviewing bias has.

    Or reality. I don't believe half the crazy ones I hear but I know people I trust who have been subjected to 'interesting' interview techniques that would be frowned upon in Russell Group universities (such as highly adversarial interviewers, for example).
    Interestingly, there's a thread on the Oxford board complaining about adversarial Law interviews at a different university. How much interviewing do other universities do? As I understood it most don't for courses other than Med\Vet\Dent. Evidence that other universities are a model of professional propriety in this regard, consulting all the proper authorities? If Oxford\Cambridge are interviewing many more people than other universities, it's not surprising that they account for many more bad interview experiences too.

    To be honest, I know quite a few admissions tutors from a range of universities including one at Oxford and one at Cambridge - these contacts I've gained during my time as a PhD student, university researcher and now as an R&D consultant managing university research in industry. These people have no reason to lie to me about admissions. It's got nothing to do with whether interviews are taken seriously or not, it's about what is considered acceptable behaviour in an interview, which differs from institution to institution. The same is true in the job market, some firms are renowned for having 'interesting' interview techniques.
    Accepting that Oxford\Cambridge are outliers in terms of interview approach: we actually aren't closer to knowing that their approach does favour people from certain groups more than others.

    What I really don't understand is why people assume that the Oxbridge interview is infallible. So many times I hear 'well you didn't get in because you weren't good enough' as if it some permanent mark of failure. Why can't people except that interviews are about your performance on one day and sometimes it just doesn't work out and that doesn't mean that other people's successes later on are somehow inferior because they didn't pass an interview at the age of 18.
    I don't think the interview is infallible. I think it's a decent attempt, conducted by people who do other things the rest of the year, who try to select the people they think deserve to get in most. I think there is plenty of overlap between people going to other competitive universities and people who get into Oxford\Cambridge, and a lot of it comes down to having a good day or a bad day.

    However, I do think Oxford\Cambridge are on the receiving end of horrendous spin all the time about admissions designed to make them look as crusty and old-school-tie as possible, because that's what makes a good story. Some of it, such as David Lammy's recent campaign, has been downright dishonest. He's at it again this week, complaining that Oxford colleges shouldn't pay for staff lunches. Out of their own endowments. Given that the most important factor in determining whether you get into Oxford is whether or not you apply, pinning all the blame for lack of diversity on post-application discrimination is both incorrect and counter-productive when it puts people off applying in the first place.

    Not to mention that at worst, Oxford\Cambridge are merely heading a trend replicated across the sector, most of which are rarely mentioned in headlines like these.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's them turkey twizzlers... they kill your brain cells
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    That's because the state fails to provide as good an education as private schools, not because Oxbridge hate povos.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    They take the best, if the best happens to be richer, so what, we just let them in anyway? They made their choices, are as gifted as anyone else, had as much potential as anyone else, and failed. And it's not like the only university these days to go to to actually end up with a job/career is Oxford.
    You are right. Cambridge is an alternative.

    ps on a serious note, i agree with you.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Huw Davies)

    Not to mention that at worst, Oxford\Cambridge are merely heading a trend replicated across the sector, most of which are rarely mentioned in headlines like these.
    Elite universities are backed into corner on this.

    Without an entrance exam, Oxbridge can do little else but make AAA offers. Oxbridge's target market is therefore those with actual or predicted AAA offers. That cohort is distorted towards private schools and within state schools is distorted towards a small number of grammar schools.

    Oxbridge is able to interview only because its application numbers are relatively low, they are relatively small universities with a very high number of academics who can be pressed into service. For most redbricks, interviewing is not an option due to the sheer number of candidates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bobbycrisp)
    Actually, what I said wasn't big headed; I never mentioned myself, so therefore I'm not being big-headed. It's logic that smarter people have better paying jobs [generalisation] so therefore are more likely to have intelligent offspring who can use their parents' money for education... I'm well aware that this isn't always the case, but it is more often than not
    I'm saying nothing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_Parker)
    I'm saying nothing
    so... are you saying that we should always focus on the minority of the statistics then?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.