This thread is closed

The fairness of an Oxbridge application

PsychologyJen

I was hoping she might reveal to me the secret of Oxbridge selection, but sadly she didn't :biggrin:

QUOTE]

I once heard there was some sort of points system whereby any tests you did, the grades you had, your interviews and the work you submitted were all given a score. This may just be rumour; it seems a bit simplistic.

Reply 41

Consie

OP

15

I was speaking to a tutor from Balliol college at the History open day and he said thats exacly what he does.

Reply 42

bruthead

tom391

I agree with most of what you said, but would say that this probably was the reason he was rejected. Up until 15-odd years ago, a modern foreign language (ie french or german, generally) was required for Oxbridge history. Although they had to get rid of this requirement due to the poor standard of language teaching nationwide, there are still papers in the course with resources read in their original language. Thus language skills are important for history.

Plenty of people get in for history without a language AS. But if you did offer a language, a C at AS would not impress them - it is not irrelevent.

Obviously I couldn't give all the details of the 3 guys I mentioned but to give you the context, one of those two who got in didn't have an AS or A2 language. Also, our French department was an absolute shambles. Usually the school has probably 70% A grades in subjects but French A2 was 2 out of 13 and that doesn't include people who dropped it after bad AS performances. The guy rejected had at least 280/300 in his other 3 AS levels with 290/300 in History so it wasn't that he flopped exams as a rule.Your comment was perfectly reasonable given what I'd said but probs that additional info makes my point seem more valid (even though you may still disagree. :wink:

)

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:

while i agree that not everyone at oxbridge are geniuses, judging peoples abilities on just meeting them etc etc doesn't tell you much about their academic abilities. if someone met me for the first time, they'd think i was a very, very slow dumb blonde who hasn't got a clue about anything. looks, and actions can be decieving y'know :smile:

most people don't try and flaunt the fact that they are clever :smile:

and regards the whole luck thing, in my opinion, there may be an element of it (ie sometimes i think thats why i got in :p:

) but people who do get in deserve too. sometimes the luck thing is exaggerated to make those who didn't get offers feel a bit better (if you know what i mean :redface:

...i'm not trying to sound harsh or anything btw)

but, isn't this fairness/luck thing just the same at other uni's? and maybe to an even greater extent seeing as oxbridge do have interviews, enterance exams etc?

(sorry if someone has already said this in an earlier post...i haven't read them all yet! :rolleyes:

)

Reply 45

kizer

15

chocolatecheese

and regards the whole luck thing, in my opinion, there may be an element of it (ie sometimes i think thats why i got in :p:

) but people who do get in deserve too. sometimes the luck thing is exaggerated to make those who didn't get offers feel a bit better (if you know what i mean :redface:

...i'm not trying to sound harsh or anything btw)

You do realise the bit in bold is inconsistent?

I think we've already established that the people who got into didn't necessarily deserve to, and that those who don't didn't necessarily deserve not to. The system is good but not perfect.

Maybe the luck thing is exaggerated by some (although frankly I have never seen serious sour grapes, just disappointment), but it's better to exaggerate the luck than to be convinced the system always works. The latter option is extremely unhealthy I think.

Reply 46

kizer

15

chocolatecheese

while i agree that not everyone at oxbridge are geniuses, judging peoples abilities on just meeting them etc etc doesn't tell you much about their academic abilities. if someone met me for the first time, they'd think i was a very, very slow dumb blonde who hasn't got a clue about anything. looks, and actions can be decieving y'know :smile:

most people don't try and flaunt the fact that they are clever :smile:

Who said she was just judging them on meeting them one time?

Anyway, my school gets huge numbers of people into Oxbridge every year, and I can exclusively reveal... that there are people who shouldn't have in who did, and people who should have got in but didn't. Not many - maybe 5 for each (out of about 75 who get in and 75 who don't) but certainly a significant number.

Reply 47

RichE

15

kizer

Who said she was just judging them on meeting them one time?

Anyway, my school gets huge numbers of people into Oxbridge every year, and I can exclusively reveal... that there are people who shouldn't have in who did, and people who should have got in but didn't. Not many - maybe 5 for each (out of about 75 who get in and 75 who don't) but certainly a significant number.

On what basis are you judging that?

Reply 48

LatinMachine

1

RichE

On what basis are you judging that?

I'm guessing on his/her own perceptions of who is clever and who is less so. Which is just what the tutors have to go on, as well as judging other characteristics.

But kizer, as we have no idea what they are looking for at Oxbridge, how qualified are you to say who should have got in and who shouldn't? :wink:

Reply 49

$Avatar for sTe\/o$

sTe\/o

16

kizer

Anyway, my school gets huge numbers of people into Oxbridge every year, and I can exclusively reveal... that there are people who shouldn't have in who did, and people who should have got in but didn't. Not many - maybe 5 for each (out of about 75 who get in and 75 who don't) but certainly a significant number.

Firstly, you assume that your judgement is the gold standard, which is certainly questionable. How well did you know all the people who applied? Did you read all their class work, or are you going by the way they presented themselves to you? The latter is often incredibly misleading, and I can think of people who I know well and would probably have not been particularly impressed by until I saw how well they performed in exams.

Secondly, I assume all 150 of your friends did not apply for the same subjects? If this is the case, direct comparisons are probably ill-advised.

Anyway, I'm not saying the right people always get offers and the wrong ones don't - that's clearly a naive view to take. In my opinion, the question of who deserves to get in and who doesn't has no objective answer in many cases, since most applicants have achieved so much and do in some sense deserve a place.

Reply 50

RichE

15

PsychologyJen

I'm guessing on his/her own perceptions of who is clever and who is less so. Which is just what the tutors have to go on, as well as judging other characteristics.

But kizer, as we have no idea what they are looking for at Oxbridge, how qualified are you to say who should have got in and who shouldn't? :wink:

I think we do have an idea - they do publish admissions criteria and say what's being sought at open days - and there is plenty of experience shared on TSR of what interviews are like.

I just don't see why Kizer gets to say that of 150 applicants to Oxbridge the universities were right in all but around 5 cases, when some of them he will hardly know and almost certainly not know what teachers said about any of the applicants.

Even if his comments are second-hand from a teacher originally I don't see why teachers and college tutors should agree on who would do best at uni.

OP

What school did you go to Kizer? Eton or somthing? 75 people got to Oxbridge a year? Thats incredible.

Reply 54

RichE

15

Consie

What school did you go to Kizer? Eton or somthing? 75 people got to Oxbridge a year? Thats incredible.

Westminster

Reply 55

kizer

15

^^ Yes indeed, it's the most successful school in the country for herding people off to Oxbridge.

To those people questioning how I know who should get in - come off it. I've been at the school with many of the people for 10 years, most for 5 and some for 2. I have a pretty good idea of how intelligent everyone is, I've been in classes with the majority of the at some point. And I know that there are people who aren't that special who get in, and people who are who don't. Remember, the teachers at my school send scores of people to Oxbridge every year - they know what they're looking for, and they have a very good idea of who will get in. It's not really that hard to tell.

If you look at the numbers I actually gave, I'm saying Oxbridge gets it right in about 93% of cases, which is extremely good. BUT - it is not perfect! I don't understand why some people seem to be denying this or attacking what I'm saying... yes there will be many people who could be qualified. But there are times when the people who would do best don't. Is that really so contentious a statement? I'm not saying complete idiots regularly get in - just that Oxbridge sometimes miss excellent people in favour of good ones. Not often, but sometimes.

Reply 56

Cexy

kizer

But there are times when the people who would do best don't. Is that really so contentious a statement?

I don't think Rich was questioning that - just your assertion that the universities 'get it wrong' 5 times out of 150, or indeed, the pretty ridiculous statement that they get it right 93% of the time. How on earth can you be that specific!

In one way of looking at it, the main thing that the interviewers are looking for is for you to impress them at interview, and so they 'get it right' 100% of the time, and it's just that your teachers aren't good enough at spotting who'll get in and who won't. It could be considered pretty silly to say that your teachers know who should get in better than the admissions tutors do (...and yes, I know that the teachers have known the pupils longer etc, I was just making a far-out point).

Reply 57

bruthead

Cexy

I don't think Rich was questioning that - just your assertion that the universities 'get it wrong' 5 times out of 150, or indeed, the pretty ridiculous statement that they get it right 93% of the time. How on earth can you be that specific!

In one way of looking at it, the main thing that the interviewers are looking for is for you to impress them at interview, and so they 'get it right' 100% of the time, and it's just that your teachers aren't good enough at spotting who'll get in and who won't. It could be considered pretty silly to say that your teachers know who should get in better than the admissions tutors do (...and yes, I know that the teachers have known the pupils longer etc, I was just making a far-out point).

The suggestion that admissions tutors are infallible in their selection is ridiculous. I am sure over the years they develop a good profile of what they are looking for but there must be a few selections they regret every year. Just because they have risen to a position within an Oxbridge college does not turn them into some superhuman species. Furthermore given the short period of time in which they get to personally access candidates and the extent to which interview skills may flourish over pure intellectual capability it is safe to say there will be some error, or at least, imperfection. Also the pooling system is not exactly watertight. There will be imbalances in the quality of applicants at different colleges (not a comment on the quality of colleges but a logical deduction.) As such some would have got in had they applied to different colleges.

The figure of 93% is obviously not the exact statistic but it is based on a very healthy sample of students and seven years of experience. My school had about 45 applicants and usually gets 20-25 in but this year was a woeful 11. I would judge the oxbridge decisions to be about 85% on the money but given that kizer's judgment is based on better information I could well believe 93%. That's hardly an earthshattering revelation and indeed still suggests the process is working pretty damn well.

By comparison I can give one anecdote of LSE Economics letting in an inferior candidate who didn't even have A-level economics compared to a more intelligent person who did economics very successfully and has since scored an AEA distinction in the subject. Their % 'accuracy' would be way lower.

Reply 58

Cexy

bruthead

The suggestion that admissions tutors are infallible in their selection is ridiculous.

I think you may have completely missed what I was trying to get across.

Reply 59

tenjon

8

^^ I have zero faith in the LSE admissions process. This is slightly sour grapes, as they rejected me, but not really as by that stage I had an Oxford offer which I would have always taken over it. But they also let in some people I know who really are not that clever.

The fairness of an Oxbridge application

Related discussions

Trending

Latest

Latest