Turn on thread page Beta

How come Tarquin can get into Oxford but Jimmy can't? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Egan1)
    We don't have the grammar/comprehensive system where I am- so basically it's either comprehensive (everyone just says 'public' school but stupidly that's actually a word for 'public' schools *grumbles*) or private...*egan forgets the following point she was going to make ?!?*-blah!
    Do you not have state schools who have an enterance exam? Becasue that's all grammar school are, 'grammar' is a very old fashioned name for them, a more correct name would be 'state selected'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Do you not have state schools who have an enterance exam? Becasue that's all grammar school are, 'grammar' is a very old fashioned name for them, a more correct name would be 'state selected'.
    I'm aware what a grammar school is- we don't have them in my area...I think the county may have abolished that system...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Egan1)
    I'm aware what a grammar school is- we don't have them in my area...I think the county may have abolished that system...
    Thre's only 164 of us left in the country
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I didnt read all the thread but here are my views:

    Firstly I am told – by two Oxford tutors – that the main thing the look for is potential i.e. the ability to do well under the oxford system. Exactly how they go about measuring this I don’t know but if everyone who applies expects 3 As, has good GCSEs and knows their subject well how do you distinguish between candidates.

    Loads of people apply to Oxford each year and are seen by loads of interviewers even though candidates are supposed to be treated equally it will never happen in real life. Some interviewers may unfortunately be raciest, sexist or elitist; but even those who try to be fair will end up discriminating accidentally.

    The problem is people are just so different you can just say two guys did the in their exams and applied to the same course but the rich guy got in. there are loads of other factors – one of the most important being luck.

    Tom

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Private school aren't just selective. They are willing to accept people with money. State selective (grammar) schools select people with potential but don't make them pay anything. Many grammar schools have better results than private schools too.

    Willing to accept people with money? *******s. If you don't have the money they will provide financial assistance. They judge solely on potential. Prince William going to Eton may have been an exception, but what school wouldn't accept royalty? People with a lot of money have been kicked out of my school for not achievig high enough grades, it is not about the cash.

    b x

    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Willing to accept people with money? *******s. If you don't have the money they will provide financial assistance. They judge solely on potential. Prince William going to Eton may have been an exception, but what school wouldn't accept royalty? People with a lot of money have been kicked out of my school for not achievig high enough grades, it is not about the cash.

    b x
    On the other hand, it's not what you say in that the uni would provide financial assistance. This happens only in truly exceptional cases, for instance when the student from a poor background is absolutely a genius in the sense that s/he has gotten perfect grades and completely gifted in the course applied to. In most cases of students with relatively good a potential but without the financial support, they are rejected in realistic sense. They may be given an offer, a temporary acceptance, but they are unable to come to the uni due to the lack of financial support for the fees.

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Thre's only 164 of us left in the country
    Hopefully, some day, there will be none.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    what school wouldn't accept royalty?
    b x
    i know its not a school but oxford doesn't. st andrews might lack the backbone required to stand up to the royal family and say "you can't have a whole floor of rooms to yourself" but oxford does. it makes me sick that william gets some "royal suite" at university...what has he done to deserve it? and what about the saudi prince whose family offered oxford 1 million pounds to give him a place and they still rejected him. not every educational insitituion in the world is prepared to bend over backwards just because someone is royalty.

    (Original post by tagzt)
    iwhat about the saudi prince whose family offered oxford 1 million pounds to give him a place and they still rejected him.
    I didn't know that. Anyway, no offence but, this also goes to show Oxford's snobbiness and elitism in addition to many other incidents already, and which is generally looked down upon. I mean it's a Saudi prince, and royalties are supposed to deserve respect on the grounds of their nobility. It's discrimination too. Other rich families of other nationalities have also offered similar sums of money for Oxford places and have gotten them, and this occurs as often as every year.

    Really, I have a bad impression of Oxford despite its impressive historical significance. If I had the privilege to be able to choose to study at either Oxford or Cambridge, I would pick Cambridge any day.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Hopefully, some day, there will be none.
    Someone failed their eleven plus and so is against more intelligent normal people having a better education
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I failed my 11 plus with boarder line and went to a comprehensive did really well and then went to the same grammar school that rejected me to do my A levels. I therefore have experienced both types of schools and to be honest I don't have a definite opinion. It is good at a grammar school because everyone is at the same level so u can cover work of a higher standard increasing ur chances of doin well (particularily at A Level). However on the other hand if the grammar schools didn't cream off the best people u could kind of have a grammar school within a comprehensive through setting according to ability which would quite possibly be better as some people may be really good at English but rubbish at maths etc. It therefore would relieve some of the pressure I know many feel attending a grammar school where everyone seems to be amazingly clever! Another prob with grammar school's are there r quite a few snobs who think they're better than those who have been to comprehensive schools which I find extremely irratating!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by La_la_la)
    I failed my 11 plus with boarder line and went to a comprehensive did really well and then went to the same grammar school that rejected me to do my A levels. I therefore have experienced both types of schools and to be honest I don't have a definite opinion. It is good at a grammar school because everyone is at the same level so u can cover work of a higher standard increasing ur chances of doin well (particularily at A Level). However on the other hand if the grammar schools didn't cream off the best people u could kind of have a grammar school within a comprehensive through setting according to ability which would quite possibly be better as some people may be really good at English but rubbish at maths etc. It therefore would relieve some of the pressure I know many feel attending a grammar school where everyone seems to be amazingly clever! Another prob with grammar school's are there r quite a few snobs who think they're better than those who have been to comprehensive schools which I find extremely irratating!
    I've never seen the 'snob' issue, but it is not any where near as bad as the private school snobs.

    At least the majority of grammar school pupils are from avaerage backgrounds who just happen to be clever over a broad scale.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vin)
    I didn't know that. Anyway, no offence but, this also goes to show Oxford's snobbiness and elitism in addition to many other incidents already, and which is generally looked down upon. I mean it's a Saudi prince, and royalties are supposed to deserve respect on the grounds of their nobility. It's discrimination too. Other rich families of other nationalities have also offered similar sums of money for Oxford places and have gotten them, and this occurs as often as every year.

    Really, I have a bad impression of Oxford despite its impressive historical significance. If I had the privilege to be able to choose to study at either Oxford or Cambridge, I would pick Cambridge any day.
    your words go to show just how poorly people understand the admissions procedure at oxford. the stuff about people buying their way into oxford every year is a load of rubbish. you have probably heard something about pembroke college but not understood it properly. last year (or the year before, im not 100% sure) two reporters went undercover to see if they could buy their "child" a place at pembroke college oxford (which is in a finacial crisis), the bribe was accepted and as a result the professors in question were sacked. after that, there would be virtually no tutors at oxford who would be prepared to accept such a bribe in case it cost them their job (and because they are good people...hopefully).

    and how on earth can you say that a saudi prince being rejected by oxford makes them elitist? surely that proves they judge applicants solely on academic merit as opposed to wealth and status? and how is this discrimination? if you are referring to them discriminating agaisnt applicant whose parents offer bribes, i hope this discrimination never ends!

    and why do royal families deserve our respect? what have they ever done that enables them to demand whatever they want whilst the rest of us have to work hard for it? surely the attitude you are displaying is the elitist one, not the one displayed by oxford in this case.

    and as for your whole cambridge is less snobby view, have you read the post on here about prince charles? cambridge admitted him with two a levels, a B and C (standard offer AAB) and he transferred after the first year of his course and got a second class degree. im not doubting that bribery has gone on at both oxford and cambridge but to try and make out that oxford is snobby and elitist whilst cambridge is completely without predjudice is wrong...particularly as you do not have the relevant facts to make such an assumption.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tagzt)
    your words go to show just how poorly people understand the admissions procedure at oxford. the stuff about people buying their way into oxford every year is a load of rubbish. you have probably heard something about pembroke college but not understood it properly. last year (or the year before, im not 100% sure) two reporters went undercover to see if they could buy their "child" a place at pembroke college oxford (which is in a finacial crisis), the bribe was accepted and as a result the professors in question were sacked. after that, there would be virtually no tutors at oxford who would be prepared to accept such a bribe in case it cost them their job (and because they are good people...hopefully).

    and how on earth can you say that a saudi prince being rejected by oxford makes them elitist? surely that proves they judge applicants solely on academic merit as opposed to wealth and status? and how is this discrimination? if you are referring to them discriminating agaisnt applicant whose parents offer bribes, i hope this discrimination never ends!

    and why do royal families deserve our respect? what have they ever done that enables them to demand whatever they want whilst the rest of us have to work hard for it? surely the attitude you are displaying is the elitist one, not the one displayed by oxford in this case.

    and as for your whole cambridge is less snobby view, have you read the post on here about prince charles? cambridge admitted him with two a levels, a B and C (standard offer AAB) and he transferred after the first year of his course and got a second class degree. im not doubting that bribery has gone on at both oxford and cambridge but to try and make out that oxford is snobby and elitist whilst cambridge is completely without predjudice is wrong...particularly as you do not have the relevant facts to make such an assumption.
    Well said.

    (Original post by tagzt)
    your words go to show just how poorly people understand the admissions procedure at oxford. the stuff about people buying their way into oxford every year is a load of rubbish. you have probably heard something about pembroke college but not understood it properly. last year (or the year before, im not 100% sure) two reporters went undercover to see if they could buy their "child" a place at pembroke college oxford (which is in a finacial crisis), the bribe was accepted and as a result the professors in question were sacked. after that, there would be virtually no tutors at oxford who would be prepared to accept such a bribe in case it cost them their job (and because they are good people...hopefully).

    and how on earth can you say that a saudi prince being rejected by oxford makes them elitist? surely that proves they judge applicants solely on academic merit as opposed to wealth and status? and how is this discrimination? if you are referring to them discriminating agaisnt applicant whose parents offer bribes, i hope this discrimination never ends!

    and why do royal families deserve our respect? what have they ever done that enables them to demand whatever they want whilst the rest of us have to work hard for it? surely the attitude you are displaying is the elitist one, not the one displayed by oxford in this case.

    and as for your whole cambridge is less snobby view, have you read the post on here about prince charles? cambridge admitted him with two a levels, a B and C (standard offer AAB) and he transferred after the first year of his course and got a second class degree. im not doubting that bribery has gone on at both oxford and cambridge but to try and make out that oxford is snobby and elitist whilst cambridge is completely without predjudice is wrong...particularly as you do not have the relevant facts to make such an assumption.
    Well first of all, I don't hear much about bribery cases for places every occurring in Cambridge as often as Oxford do I? Admission in this case and other similar cases to the one you mentioned of Prince Charles as an example with a B and a C offer at Cambridge isn't so bad as to give a place, i.e. an unconditional offer with exchange of money at Oxford is it? Besides, bribery continues in Oxford and it would be very juvenile to think that after the Pembroke issue that there would be no tutors at Oxford accepting bribes anymore in risk of their jobs. We're talking about astronomical sums being given to colleges for these places, and that is enough to tempt most tutors, for your information.

    Secondly, I do have facts to back up such statements. Pembroke happens to be one of many local examples. There are also countless cases from all over the world. Firstly, I know of tycoons in Hong Kong have been continually "buying" 1 or 2 places each year at Oxford university. (I don't see this happen in Cambridge often.) I'm not surprised that you will not have heard about this. It is cleverly guised as a something far different from bribery in literal sense. Tycoons provide a very generous sum of money as a donation. However, it is unknown that behind the donations, there exists mutual favours in return, hence the supplying of places by Oxford in exchange.

    Another thing, which relates to part of my bad impression of Oxford is that I have learnt that the admissions process is somewhat dominated in the Oxford procedure by local graduates of the university a particular countries through many international friends, where places are allocated by those counterparts and so it seems that each year their relatives get in. Coincidence every year? Unlikely. To further reinforce this, interviews are conducted through those graduates locally. That should ring many bells. However, Cambridge usually requests applicants to fly over to Cambridge for interviews instead, making the process relatively more fair and causes less domination by local counterparts in different areas of the world.

    I was referring to discrimination in the racial sense of the word. The Saudi prince got rejected but some rich tycoon's Chinese son in Hong Kong doesn't? Isn't that discrimination or what? Do you even expand to evidence from the rest of the world or just dwelling on local issues in Britain, like the Pembroke case (I understood it perfectly well just as you did and I was not referring to this specific case in my earlier post)?

    I did not say Cambridge is completely without prejudice in my views, it's just that I personally happen to find Cambridge to be more appealing as a result of my knowledge of admissions and various issues in regard to it, and happen to favour Cambridge over Oxford.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tagzt)
    1) at my interview i walked into the room and said "hello", the interviewer replied with "i have somewhere to be so lets rush through this quickly" and every single time i tried giving an answer to a question i was met with "no you are wrong" even before i had finished (or even started) a sentence!

    2) at one of my friends interviews he went to shake the hand of the interviewer, who decided to laugh and turn the other way.

    there are loads of different techinques they use to see how you respond under pressure and usually, this is all they care about (extra curricular activites don't come it the picture as much as they used to). at harvard things are different, they have a picture of admitting "well-rounded" students and laura spence was definetely well rounded (she had excellent grades and had done lots of musical activites and other things). so whereas at oxford she could not cope with the interview pressure and her "well roundness" did not help her, at harvard it got her a place.

    i think private schooled applicants have a certain "arrogance" that helps them at oxbridge...and i mean that as a compliment. they seem to be far more confident than state school pupils (maybe because they have received the best education or are wealthy or the whole prestige of oxbridge does not intimidate them) and this would help them cope with the pressure at interview. im not an interviewer so i don't know exactly how it works but from my experience i think this is true.


    It's all to do with preventing the lower classes from getting Oxbridge places! These are the types of under-hand techniques they use to lower the number of 'commoners' coming into Oxbridge uni's by scaring them off! They know that they have to accept lower-class applicants because the government tells them to, so they have to revert to these sinister under-hand techniques. I bet they don't do this sort of thing when intervieing public/private school applicants.

    Fuk 'em! Go to a more modern university, it would probably make you a better adjusted person anyway than if you went to Oxbridge. I'm going to be applying 2004, so I've got time to decide which Uni is best for me (and i'm sure it won't be Oxbridge).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dude)
    It's all to do with preventing the lower classes from getting Oxbridge places! These are the types of under-hand techniques they use to lower the number of 'commoners' coming into Oxbridge uni's by scaring them off! They know that they have to accept lower-class applicants because the government tells them to, so they have to revert to these sinister under-hand techniques. I bet they don't do this sort of thing when intervieing public/private school applicants.

    Fuk 'em! Go to a more modern university, it would probably make you a better adjusted person anyway than if you went to Oxbridge. I'm going to be applying 2004, so I've got time to decide which Uni is best for me (and i'm sure it won't be Oxbridge).
    i think there may be a certain degree of truth in what you say..but i think that everyone at interview, private or state felt that the interviews were hard and that they had a rough time (except for a few eton boys who said "i know i have an offer, im more worried about whether its AAB or AAA".

    i do have my doubts about going to Oxford but i have been working class for my whole life and if going to Oxford gives me a chance of being able to live more comfortably then i really have to take it!

    as for Vin, if your facts are correct then your statements are well founded and you have a valid point. do you have any sources or links for these bribes, i would be interested to read them first hand.

    (Original post by Unregistered)
    You know nothing about me or my life!!

    That's what i'm trying to point out.

    We sent my bro to Eton, but we lived on nothing for those 5 years. He had a bursary and my parents struggled. They sent him there cos his eyes lit up when he went for an interview and they couldn't say no to him...cos he was so excited.

    I really wish you wouldn't assume things about private school pupils. I have never been given extra tuition and neither have any of my friends, it's not offered. Teachers are always teachers, they have a life and a low salary, we don't get special treatment.

    My parents moved to this country 23 years ago, with only 20 pounds in their pocket. Their first purchase was a plate and a spoon. My dad used to carry potatoes from door to door trying to sell them.

    Don't assume things about people, it isn't fair. I would never dream of turning around and saying comprehensive school pupils aren't as intelligent as private school pupils, that's just a stereotype that we do that.

    We have worked hard to get here. We're happy and comfortable now, but I have worked very hard at school to get into Oxford. Give us some credit!

    Dad now drives an E-Class Mercedes, we live in a large 5 bedroom house in Berkshire, and my parents are successful business people.

    Hope you understand now.

    b x
    Maybe your parents did work really hard to get where they are now, so what? It doesnt mean youve had a hard life!

    The point is though going to private school gives people a heave up the ladder. If it didnt your business minded parents wouldnt have spent thousands of their hard earned shekels on your and your bros education, now would they?

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Someone failed their eleven plus and so is against more intelligent normal people having a better education
    Because I don't agree with the selective system you assume I failed my 11+. What arrogance!! I passed my 11+ coming top in the county (Kent) for Maths and passing the English paper very comfortably (although not coming top in the county for it). I applied for, and was accepted, at a grammar school but my parents decided to send me to a comprehensive as they preferred the ethos as the school treated the students holistically and did not concentrate just on the academic development. 13 of my peers at my primary school went onto grammars and I settled into the grammar stream of my comprehensive. At key stage 4 I achieved more highly than those former classmates and am now awaiting confirmation on 14th that I am able to start at Cambridge in October. None of my former friends at grammars who applied to Oxbrige have been accepted.
    I am normally a fairly modest person and believe that all people have a gift of some sort or another and it infuriates me when I hear people who go to grammars assume that those at comprehensives are somehow inferior. If you have been given the gift of all-round ability accept it gratefully (and quitely) and use it for the betterment of others and not to their detriment. Remember there are lots of more intelligent people than us in comprehensives whose LEA's have the good sense not to segregate friends at the age of 11 on the gounds of ability. Finally, reputable research proves that children of high ability do better in comprehensives (borne out by league tables in Kent where only 2 grammars last year managed to have 100% pass rate at A*-C gsce out of 33 grammars and yet true comps have half of their students at that level despite only 25% being in top range ability)
    I could go on for hours about selection but stop now. Let's concentrate on encouraging everybody on this forum and not belittling them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Because I don't agree with the selective system you assume I failed my 11+. What arrogance!! I passed my 11+ coming top in the county (Kent) for Maths and passing the English paper very comfortably (although not coming top in the county for it). I applied for, and was accepted, at a grammar school but my parents decided to send me to a comprehensive as they preferred the ethos as the school treated the students holistically and did not concentrate just on the academic development. 13 of my peers at my primary school went onto grammars and I settled into the grammar stream of my comprehensive. At key stage 4 I achieved more highly than those former classmates and am now awaiting confirmation on 14th that I am able to start at Cambridge in October. None of my former friends at grammars who applied to Oxbrige have been accepted.
    I am normally a fairly modest person and believe that all people have a gift of some sort or another and it infuriates me when I hear people who go to grammars assume that those at comprehensives are somehow inferior. If you have been given the gift of all-round ability accept it gratefully (and quitely) and use it for the betterment of others and not to their detriment. Remember there are lots of more intelligent people than us in comprehensives whose LEA's have the good sense not to segregate friends at the age of 11 on the gounds of ability. Finally, reputable research proves that children of high ability do better in comprehensives (borne out by league tables in Kent where only 2 grammars last year managed to have 100% pass rate at A*-C gsce out of 33 grammars and yet true comps have half of their students at that level despite only 25% being in top range ability)
    I could go on for hours about selection but stop now. Let's concentrate on encouraging everybody on this forum and not belittling them.
    I know there is a big problem with the Kent grammars but this is not the situation all over the country. Some grammars, particulalry in areas where there are not good comps give normal kids a chance of a better education.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
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

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.