Should A Levels play a larger part in Oxbridge admissions?

On merit
The wider implications of a study of Oxbridge examination results

...It has long been asserted that Dons should make slightly lower A-level offers to those from state schools because they have untapped potential that will only be truly realised once they enter these hallowed institutions. There has been a widespread assumption that if admitted, students from comprehensives ultimately do better than their contemporaries from more privileged backgrounds. A study of all graduates studying all courses published in 2003 appeared to reinforce this notion.

These findings do not, though, seem to apply to Oxford and Cambridge. With the exception of men reading sciences at Oxford, the factor that best predicts success in final examinations is the scores achieved at A levels. This is true for both genders and irrespective of schooling. The popular idea that an AAB at A level from one type of school is worth the same as an AAA outcome from another has not been vindicated. If the purpose of Oxford and Cambridge is to have the brightest possible students by the time that they reach the end of their education, the rational stance is to admit those with stellar A levels, not be obsessed about where they were educated.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. There are certainly schools in Britain where, unfortunately, AAB at A level rarely occurs and will reflect extremely well on any young man or woman who could obtain them. The quality of teaching plainly has an influence on A-level outcomes. But if that influence was as powerful as has been claimed, then fee-paying pupils would perform poorly at Oxford and Cambridge once they were no longer being (silver) spoon-fed knowledge. This is obviously not happening to them.

There are also wider implications. The first is that it would be better if all universities — but especially the most academically prestigious — selected students on the basis of their actual A levels and not on predictions that might either exaggerate or underestimate their abilities. The second is that with so many students now recording AAA at A level, the demand for something like an A* grade to distinguish between the excellent and the good is even more compelling. Without such an innovation, the admissions exercise for elite universities will continue to risk becoming a form of high-class lottery. That cannot benefit students, irrespective of background, or their tutors.

I'd say no. I don't think people who get 570 are necessarily better than people who get 500 at A level. Certainly I've not seen this happen when it comes to grades. A levels at that level are about jumping through hoops, and I think an A* grade would just reflect that, not any inate benefit.

I'm also against post-A level applications, as I think Oxbridge are right in looking for potential and motivation above all. Someone who's amazing at the interviews, who can form a logical argument about a problem they've never studied, is likely to do far better than someone who can memorise facts easily and has been taught to jump through hoops.

IMHO, the interview process works, and as in any competitive situation, with universities competing for the best students, Oxbridge has all the incentive to try new things to better choose the best students. Oxbridge admission isn't anywhere near as much a lottery as LSE, UCL or Warwicks for many courses, who have more applicants per place and don't interview.

I'd say no. I don't think people who get 570 are necessarily better than people who get 500 at A level. Certainly I've not seen this happen when it comes to grades. A levels at that level are about jumping through hoops, and I think an A* grade would just reflect that, not any inate benefit.

I'm also against post-A level applications, as I think Oxbridge are right in looking for potential and motivation above all. Someone who's amazing at the interviews, who can form a logical argument about a problem they've never studied, is likely to do far better than someone who can memorise facts easily and has been taught to jump through hoops.

IMHO, the interview process works, and as in any competitive situation, with universities competing for the best students, Oxbridge has all the incentive to try new things to better choose the best students. Oxbridge admission isn't anywhere near as much a lottery as LSE, UCL or Warwicks for many courses, who have more applicants per place and don't interview.

I'm also against post-A level applications, as I think Oxbridge are right in looking for potential and motivation above all.

Didn't you apply the second time post A-level?

I think the interview process is quite paternalistic though. Although one could argue that Oxbridge Dons are clearly qualified in recognising real potential, it's almost as if they see themselves as alomst divine, and that their word on who is Oxbridge potential is always necessarily true.

I just think it can be demoralising for those who do not get in, who are blatantly as good, if not better, than some who are admitted e.g. international students who will be paying high fees.

This makes no sense. From what I gathered from the article, the study has shown the exact opposite - that those who get better grades at A-level are "better" students. Whatever you have seen is irrelevant to be honest, anecdotal evidence does not an argument make. The article doesn't say whether UMS was considered however, so it isn't clear whether someone with high As generally does better than someone with low As. But from the flow of the article I would suggest that they do.

Now I may be wrong here but are you interpreting the article as saying that it would be best for Oxbridge if they waited for A-levels to come out and then just creamed off the top 1% (or whatever) of results? I don't think the Times is suggesting that, and I can't see that happening anyway, but if it can be shown that this method produces the best students overall, then what exactly is wrong with it?

Interviews may be good for finding something in people which might not be reflected in exam results, but they aren't the be-all and end-all.

Remember that the very concept of an interview is threatening to many and that it may put off a good few from applying, and a good number more screw up their interview through nerves. I suspect that interviews do favour a certain type a personality, even though the tutors are supposed to look beyond all that.

I was speaking to a Trinity fellow (for Bio NatSci) who appears to play a fairly big role in the admissions process and he told me two interesting things: Firstly, that he hates interviews and thinks that they are a terrible way to discriminate between people, and secondly that last year, regardless of how well applicants interviewed, most of them had average UMS of 95+% and no one given an offer had less than 90% UMS. (He also had a good rant about the crap quality of state schools then informed me that only 2 out of ~45 offers for the year were comprehensive-schooled).

I'm not going to comment on the reasons behind your opinion, but I don't think this is feasible, at least for international applicants. Let us not forget that there may be vastly differing methodologies for the predicting of grades and the standards of preliminary/mock examinations in varying countries. Some of us were never even granted the opportunity of applying before we did our 'A' levels.

Sorry, as said, I have nothing against post-Q applicants in the normal proceedure. What I have an issue with is the rushed application after exam results come out to get a place that October, ie. a few weeks later. If Oxbridge want to enter clearing, they can, however the talk of being forced to leave some places open until after results day isn't the way to do it at all, IMHO. I don't see what needs to change about the admissions proceedure for Oxbridge.

I'd say no. I don't think people who get 570 are necessarily better than people who get 500 at A level. Certainly I've not seen this happen when it comes to grades. A levels at that level are about jumping through hoops, and I think an A* grade would just reflect that, not any inate benefit.

Without meaning to contradict my last post saying that interviews are more important than grades, could you just explain to me why you think that? It's something I've never understood because in a lot of cases, there's more difference between a high A and a low A than there is between an A and a B, so if everyone automatically assumes an A is better than a B, why doesn't that also make a high A better than a low A?

an article released a couple of years ago showing that those with high As did not, on average, score significantly better at degree level than those with low As. As I said, I don't think, though this hasn't been proven either way, that getting a high A makes you a better student than those who get a low A.

As posted above:

From a theoretical point of view, A levels require knowledge. You need more knowledge to get an A than a B, generally. But do you need more knowledge to get a high A than a low A? I would argue no. To get an A grade on a marking scheme you have to show knowledge of all the required materials. The difference between an A and a B is partly knowledge and partly the ability to jump through hoops. The difference between a high A and a low A is, IMHO, almost entirely the latter of those...

...The ridiculously short time examiners have per script gives me little hope in the quality of A levels grades as an indicator of anything.

With the exception of men reading sciences at Oxford, the factor that best predicts success in final examinations is the scores achieved at A levels. This is true for both genders and irrespective of schooling. The popular idea that an AAB at A level from one type of school is worth the same as an AAA outcome from another has not been vindicated.

From a theoretical point of view, A levels require knowledge. You need more knowledge to get an A than a B, generally. But do you need more knowledge to get a high A than a low A? I would argue no. To get an A grade on a marking scheme you have to show knowledge of all the required materials. The difference between an A and a B is partly knowledge and partly the ability to jump through hoops. The difference between a high A and a low A is, IMHO, almost entirely the latter of those.

There is evidence to show people with As do better at uni than people with Bs, but there's no evidence to show this distinction between high and low As.

I like the Cambridge TSA. It is only revisable up to a certain level and a good indicator of natural logical intuition in mathematical, .