This thread is closed

The fairness of an Oxbridge application

Hi,

I know almost everything that can be done has been done to make applications to Oxbridge as fair as possible with entrance tests, special access schemes etc. However, how much of application still comes down to luck? How much comes down to the opinion the guy interviewing you has on the day. The sheer luck of whether your future tutor will like you or not is often said to be the deciding factor in your application.
Another oxford tutor said to me they calculate scores for every aspect of application, spreadsheet it, add it up, and let the top 20% in.

Does anyone think application success largely comes down to luck, or that it is actually as systematic and fair as it appears?

Does anyone simply think that, regardless of statistics and everything else, if your good enough, you get in?

Reply 1

forpolarbears

17

I think, up to a point, it is systematic, but once they've reached a pool of applicants, it becomes more "are they good enough?" which depends on the luck of who is determining if the person fits the bill.

For instance, UC Berkeley does follow the example to considering the top 10% of students in the state of California based on their scores(because thats what the government says they have to), and an extensive point system which makes the applicants comparable by numbers but also more than just tests, etc . However, once they've selected that range of applicants out of the entire bunch, it becomes much more about "can this person suceed at our uni? Are they what we need?"

So yes, Oxbridge/HYPS seem like a lottery and sometimes very random in their selections, but I think that they know what they want, and while they sometimes may be wrong, they rely on both the formula and the deeper side of what the person's standing actually means.

Not sure if that is reassuring, but yeah. lol

Reply 2

Peter_The_Great

4

It may seem like a lottery, but those that do deserve to get in do. I knew people who applied to Oxbridge who I'd never call 'academic' and deservedly never received an offer. Conversely, there were some who probably should have made it but didn't. However, those that make it are without a doubt the best of a very bright bunch.

Reply 3

sebbie

15

I think it's fair to say they sometimes miss the very best and a few people who are not so good (you dont have to be that bright to get the AAA required for your offer) will occasionaly slip through particularly in subjects that have nothing but an interview....

To give an example, TWO people in my school applied to oxbridge about 5 years ago for Physics, both got rejected and went to the same uni, and came number 1 and 2 in their year and one is now doing a Phd at Cambridge and the other at Oxford.... They were undoubtably good enough to get in.....

Reply 4

RosieS

I live in Cambridge and my dad does some teaching there, and I'm going to Oxford and know quite a few people there...

based on that I'd say there are a lot of fairly mediocre people at both. You know, not stupid, just hard working and a bit plodding. Not a majority I don't think, but a fair few. (I probably fall into that category, so don't get offended anyone!) I just realised when I lived in Oxford for 5 months in my gap year that the students aren't all amazingly bright, by any means.

And of course there are a few outstanding people rejected, inexplicably. :ninja:

Reply 5

yorkshirelass

14

RosieS

I live in Cambridge and my dad does some teaching there, and I'm going to Oxford and know quite a few people there...

based on that I'd say there are a lot of fairly mediocre people at both. You know, not stupid, just hard working and a bit plodding. Not a majority I don't think, but a fair few. (I probably fall into that category, so don't get offended anyone!) I just realised when I lived in Oxford for 5 months in my gap year that the students aren't all amazingly bright, by any means.

Heh, I'm positive that will be me, except mediocre is probably putting it lightly...

Reply 6

J'en ai marre

8

How far the tutor likes you matters as well I think. Do they want to tuor for the next 3/4 years?

Of course, deserving people are rejected. I couldn't believe that Cambridge rejected a friend of mine for physical sciences who got 99% in her Advanced Higher Physics prelim, as well as five band 1 As (i.e. upper As) at Higher.

Reply 7

MatthewH

3

My teacher who's done interviews in the past said - and these are her words not mine so dont shoot me down - that for a course with ten spaces and 50 applicants, the top 5 would usually be definitely worthwhile candidates, the bottom 10 or so would no-hopers and the remaining 5 places would be drawn relatively carefully from the 35 in the middle. Which means that in any year there will be some brilliant people and some relatively mediocre. To be honest, saying it's all a bit of a lottery is what people at Bristol and Durham say - the interview process is so scrupulous if you deserve a place you get one and if you don't it's because you're not good enough. Which is all you can ask for really.

Reply 8

Derek_The_Hamster

3

MatthewH

My teacher who's done interviews in the past said - and these are her words not mine so dont shoot me down - that for a course with ten spaces and 50 applicants, the top 5 would usually be definitely worthwhile candidates, the bottom 10 or so would no-hopers and the remaining 5 places would be drawn relatively carefully from the 35 in the middle. .

Indeed, she probably got those stats from an article a few years ago by the Warden of New, saying pretty much the same thing. I shall try and find it again on the intarweb, it was a few years ago I read it.

edit: can't find it easily, but I'm sure it exists so hopefully someone else can dredge it up with the appropriate voodoo incantations to a relevant search engine.

Reply 9

HannahZ

4

Every year there are more good applicants than there are places. That means that every year, very large numbers of extremely bright students are rejected.

Everyone who gets in has managed to prove themselves at every hurdle of the application process. Very often there are extremely bright applicants who fail to show their worth at one of these hurdles and miss out on a place may be unfairly. It may be just chance that they didn't perform as well on the day of their exams as they are capable of or they don't come accross well in the interview for some reason. I know some very intelligent people who failed to get places, For example: gave stupid crass responses to questions in the interview or tried to blag something they clearly didn't know anything about. One girl didn't really get what the interviewer was asking for and gave a totally irrelevant answer, when someone explained what was intended by the question of course she could have answered it at length. Another guy just clammed up and couldn't say a word and another just hadn't done any reading round the subject and it showed. They were probably all worthy of a place but didn't make it through the process. Another person I know prepared a speech for his interview and as soon as he was asked the first question he launched into his prepared speech. This is definitely not what they are looking for they want people who can enter into intelligent dialogue and have a reasoned discussion. All these people ended up at other top unis.

Oxbridge do try harder than other unis to get it right but they all the tutors are human and fallible.

Reply 10

Helenia

20

sebbie

I think it's fair to say they sometimes miss the very best and a few people who are not so good (you dont have to be that bright to get the AAA required for your offer) will occasionaly slip through particularly in subjects that have nothing but an interview....

To give an example, TWO people in my school applied to oxbridge about 5 years ago for Physics, both got rejected and went to the same uni, and came number 1 and 2 in their year and one is now doing a Phd at Cambridge and the other at Oxford.... They were undoubtably good enough to get in.....

Probably they were. But for whatever reason, the interviewers thought that other people were better candidates that year. Maybe they just didn't show themselves up that well in the interview - or with Natsci, it's possible they were too focussed on one area and they didn't think that they'd do well in the more general first two years. Who knows?

As HannahZ says, there's a lot down to how well you perform in the interview and sometimes people lose out - for example trying to blag a question they didn't quite understand, rather than saying "Sorry, I didn't understand that, could you explain it again?" and then giving a brilliant answer. While tests are there to show how good you are as well, even if your social skills are somewhat lacking, they have to take the people who, at that moment in time they think will perform best on the course. Occasionally they'll pick someone who turns out to have hit their ceiling at A-Level and who struggles at Cambridge. Occasionally they'll miss someone who is great but just didn't have the edge on that day, but generally they get people who end up doing well. And if these people are that brilliant then they'll be brilliant at Durham/Imperial/LSE/wherever and the world will still be their oyster.

I actually think Cambridge/Oxford applications are much fairer than other universities - at least they interview everyone and give feedback, rather than just sifting through a million UCAS forms and picking seemingly at random, with no transparency or need to feedback to anyone.

Reply 11

tenjon

8

Yes, I think the Oxbridge admissions is far more meritocratic (and thus less luck-based) than just about any other British university. Sure the system isn't perfect, but they could never hope it to be.

Personally, I know a few people who got rejected who really shouldn't have, but I don't think I know anyone who got in who shouldn't have. (That said, maybe in a week's time I will put myself in the latter category...)

Reply 12

LatinMachine

1

You can tell someone's passion for a subject in an interview. You can fake a Personal Statement, lie about anything you like, but unless you're a very good actor/blagger, "the truth will out." Someone might be torn between several courses/paths in life, and this could come out at interview. Oxbridge will be less likely to want to take a person who is unsure about something as basic as the course.
Clamming up at interview is an unfortunate thing :frown:

But is there a correlation between how much you clam up and how articulate you are? Oxbridge seems to value articulate candidates. Maybe it's also an indication of how you cope with a stressful situation - Oxbridge is a stressful environment, maybe they want to know if you can cope with the amount of stress you will come under. It's also a test of how you communicate with people who are experts in their field, and adults. Do you have an adult conversation with them, where you are not afraid to say what you think and bring in your own ideas, or do you just defer to what they say because they are "the expert?"

Yes, it is a very subjective process, but how can it be less fair than picking you based on how you are on paper? Judging me on who I actually am when they've met me? Wow, how unfair :rolleyes:

It's only people who don't get in who think it's unfair :biggrin:

Reply 13

kizer

15

Consie

Does anyone simply think that, regardless of statistics and everything else, if your good enough, you get in?

Absolutely clearly not. No way! People who are good enough miss out every year, and people who aren't get lucky. The system isn't perfect, although it is good.

Reply 14

username68316

3

Consie

Does anyone simply think that, regardless of statistics and everything else, if your good enough, you get in?

Yeah i think that is true. There are many people on TSR who have had less than average grades etc, But managed to convey a great enough interest for their subject to get in.

Reply 15

kizer

15

MatthewH

My teacher who's done interviews in the past said - and these are her words not mine so dont shoot me down - that for a course with ten spaces and 50 applicants, the top 5 would usually be definitely worthwhile candidates, the bottom 10 or so would no-hopers and the remaining 5 places would be drawn relatively carefully from the 35 in the middle. Which means that in any year there will be some brilliant people and some relatively mediocre. To be honest, saying it's all a bit of a lottery is what people at Bristol and Durham say - the interview process is so scrupulous if you deserve a place you get one and if you don't it's because you're not good enough. Which is all you can ask for really.

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that but that smacks of arrogance. You are claiming that everyone there deserves to be there, and everyone who isn't, doesn't. Which is clearly wrong.

I mean, I got in, but I take that for what it is: I had interviews that suited me, and I liked the test we got a lot. That's all really. Maybe it's true that nine times out of ten I still would have got in with a different test, different interviewers, different quesions.. any number of the variables that make up the luck of the application. Maybe I would only get in one in ten times. But I would hope that if I was unlucky enough to hit a set of variables such that I didn't get in, I wouldn't have to contend with the sheer arrogance expressed above that suggests that I was clearly not good enough!

Reply 16

kizer

15

Nathan_Ley3

Yeah i think that is true. There are many people on TSR who have had less than average grades etc, But managed to convey a great enough interest for their subject to get in.

So for it worked out for you, and other people on TSR who got in and therefore enjoy talking about it (as opposed to the many people who were rejected and understandably haven't been in the Oxbridge forum since), so your conclusion is the system is perfect?

Reply 17

kizer

15

PsychologyJen

Clamming up at interview is an unfortunate thing :frown:

But is there a correlation between how much you clam up and how articulate you are? Oxbridge seems to value articulate candidates. Maybe it's also an indication of how you cope with a stressful situation - Oxbridge is a stressful environment, maybe they want to know if you can cope with the amount of stress you will come under. It's also a test of how you communicate with people who are experts in their field, and adults. Do you have an adult conversation with them, where you are not afraid to say what you think and bring in your own ideas, or do you just defer to what they say because they are "the expert?"

Yes, it is a very subjective process, but how can it be less fair than picking you based on how you are on paper? Judging me on who I actually am when they've met me? Wow, how unfair :rolleyes:

It's only people who don't get in who think it's unfair :biggrin:

No, I do too actually.

Come on PsychologyJen - you're doing psychology, yet you seem to utterly neglect the clearly nervewracking experience of living away from home for a few days in a very tense environment with people you don't know. For a lot of people, that will affect their performance for reasons nothing to do with their academic potential. Clearly there are people who would excel at Oxford once they were used to the atmosphere, but don't convey it while there.

Do you really think everyone was acting at interviews like they really are? No - it's a very artificial situation.

I really don't like the tone of a lot of the posters on here...

Reply 18

Cexy

It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's probably near as good as it can be.

There are probably more applicants every year who'd be capable of succeeding than there are places, so there are always going to be some people who are good enough, but still get rejected. Similarly, a few people are going to come across much better in interview than they really are. You've got to remember that all the interviewers have to go on is some numbers on the UCAS form, an hour's interview and maybe the results of an internal test. With that meagre information they're supposed to select the best candidates from a pool that's maybe ten times as large as the number of places that they have. Some people will obviously be a definite 'yes' and others a definite 'no', but with the people in the middle they're bound to get it wrong sometimes. They simply have to do the best they can.

I've definitely met people who were rejected by Oxbridge who, with hindsight, maybe should have got in. Quite a few of them are now doing PhDs at Oxbridge or elsewhere. By the same token, there are hundreds of people at Oxbridge who succeed by virtue of working really hard rather than by being especially bright. There's nothing wrong with that, but perhaps they might have been happier at a university where there wasn't quite so much expected of them.

kizer

I really don't like the tone of a lot of the posters on here...

Yeah, I could probably agree with that.

Reply 19

kizer

15

Cexy

It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's probably near as good as it can be.

There are probably more applicants every year who'd be capable of succeeding than there are places, so there are always going to be some people who are good enough, but still get rejected. Similarly, a few people are going to come across much better in interview than they really are. You've got to remember that all the interviewers have to go on is some numbers on the UCAS form, an hour's interview and maybe the results of an internal test. With that meagre information they're supposed to select the best candidates from a pool that's maybe ten times as large as the number of places that they have. Some people will obviously be a definite 'yes' and others a definite 'no', but with the people in the middle they're bound to get it wrong sometimes. They simply have to do the best they can.

I've definitely met people who were rejected by Oxbridge who, with hindsight, maybe should have got in. Quite a few of them are now doing PhDs at Oxbridge or elsewhere. By the same token, there are hundreds of people at Oxbridge who succeed by virtue of working really hard rather than by being especially bright. There's nothing wrong with that, but perhaps they might have been happier at a university where there wasn't quite so much expected of them.
.

I think that's all much closer to the truth. It's just that from what people are saying, many people seem to think getting in has proved 100% that they are better than other people. And that's not a healthy mentality.

If it were true that people who don't deserve to get in don't, why do a substantial amount of people (about 25% - the same ratio as get in generally) get in on reapplication? Just because they are more acquainted with the system? Clearly not.

Maybe it's just because I know many people who were rejected by Oxbridge who are cleverer than most people there, and people who were rejected and came back and got in easliy on reapplication, that I don't immediately assume that people at Oxbridge are all a cut above the rest.

The fairness of an Oxbridge application

Related discussions

Trending

Latest

Latest