This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- medicine Cambridge application
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- Could some mark/give criticism please
- What kind of summer school subjects would suit best to Oxford PPE?
- does it really matter what uni you graduate from?
- What kind of summer school subjects would suit best to Oxford PPE?
- ucat 3130 b2 + 3A*1A
- Applying for Maths at Oxford, Imperial and Warwick
- COMPOS 2024-25 free physics&maths tutoring for Y10-12
- Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.
- What do you think about the Ryanair as an airline?
- LNAT
- Personal Statement from Oxford Student for Year Abroad at Yale - Review
- Picking courses
- Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
- 80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford
- How opportunistic is Durham University?
- Pros and cons of second year credit university transfer
- I wanna study law but know literally nothing
- Brampton Manor vs NCS
NEWS!!!--Oxbridge faces fresh criticism over selections
Hey everyone, this morning I arrived at school to find my teacher lying this newspaper infront of me with the following heading "Oxbridge faces fresh criticism over selections", and I was just wondering how you saw this news... whether it be true or not for you...
The report says that "The Institute for Public Policy Research said the two universities were unlikely to reach their targets for admitting more sixth-formers from state schools and poor backgrounds until 2016"... and it also emphasizes that " a third of Oxbridge places were being monopolised by pupils from just 100 elite schools".
Well after reading all this, what I would make out is that, unless you are a posh little cutie coming from some posh little cutie school and your daddy has got a pretty much heavy pocketful of bills, then you probably aren't going to get to cambridge... don't know.... this is only just the impression I got.. don't know what you think about it
The report says that "The Institute for Public Policy Research said the two universities were unlikely to reach their targets for admitting more sixth-formers from state schools and poor backgrounds until 2016"... and it also emphasizes that " a third of Oxbridge places were being monopolised by pupils from just 100 elite schools".
Well after reading all this, what I would make out is that, unless you are a posh little cutie coming from some posh little cutie school and your daddy has got a pretty much heavy pocketful of bills, then you probably aren't going to get to cambridge... don't know.... this is only just the impression I got.. don't know what you think about it
Scroll to see replies
Well... you're right... but how come it be not suspicious a guy who literally works their butts off to try to get into cambridge is SOMETIMES prejudiced only just because he/she comes from a state school? Or are you telling me that only private school have good students?? But anyways... you're saying stuff here... what IS a GOOD student???
Of course it's not fair that he was prejudiced against simply because he comes from a state school, but nor is fair that just to satisfy the government's targets a student who is equally as good is rejected from a private school. And no, I don't mean that only private schools have good students, I go to a state school, and there are some amazing students in it. In my opinion, a good student is one who works damn hard, not always someone who's gifted, but someone who works for their grades.
xinolisss
" a third of Oxbridge places were being monopolised by pupils from just 100 elite schools".
Well after reading all this, what I would make out is that, unless you are a posh little cutie coming from some posh little cutie school and your daddy has got a pretty much heavy pocketful of bills, then you probably aren't going to get to cambridge... don't know.... this is only just the impression I got.. don't know what you think about it
Well after reading all this, what I would make out is that, unless you are a posh little cutie coming from some posh little cutie school and your daddy has got a pretty much heavy pocketful of bills, then you probably aren't going to get to cambridge... don't know.... this is only just the impression I got.. don't know what you think about it
How exactly did you get that impression? A THIRD of places - that means two thirds of students don't come from these "elite schools". You're completely exaggerating - the fact that half of Oxbridge students don't come from private schools shows that you don't have to be a "posh little cutie" to get in.
And even though a lot of private schoolers go to Oxbridge, I don't think it's a case of the universities discriminating against state schoolers, I think it's simply that private schoolers know how to "play the game" better. Let's be honest - a student at Eton is probably going to know more about their subject than a student at an ordinary comp, simply because it's pushed down their throat. In terms of raw intelligence they might be the same but by the time Oxford sees them the Etonian has been pushed so far, done some great work experience and knows so much about their subject and what Oxford's looking for that the other student will find it hard to match up.
hey people... all I was saying is that the DAILY TELEGRAPH made those reports.. I didn't invent those... I simply copied and pasted what was in there to your disposal to comment on... now I haven't got personal with anybody.. and I don't wish to... I've only said that was the IMPRESSION it made not what I actually THINK... alright... sorry if what I wrote in the first post annoyed anyone..
Let me explain something here, I am generalizing, I know this but:
rich parents are often very competetive and make their kids competetive too -> rich kids working harder on average than poor kids
rich parents are often smarter than poor parents and IQ does generally come from the biological parents (you can see this with adoptions)
-> rich kids are generally smarter
private schools are full of rich kids and give better teaching than state ones
-> private school students understand the material better
Therefore, as rich kids generally work harder and are smarter, rich kids get admitted and more often get into a better school, so they understand the stuff better. Therefore, they are usually better entrants than state-school ones
rich parents are often very competetive and make their kids competetive too -> rich kids working harder on average than poor kids
rich parents are often smarter than poor parents and IQ does generally come from the biological parents (you can see this with adoptions)
-> rich kids are generally smarter
private schools are full of rich kids and give better teaching than state ones
-> private school students understand the material better
Therefore, as rich kids generally work harder and are smarter, rich kids get admitted and more often get into a better school, so they understand the stuff better. Therefore, they are usually better entrants than state-school ones
xinolisss
Now that I agree with... only the feeling now is that people who don't come from Eton & company don't get favoured in their application... that's just the feeling I got from it all hahahaha
You don't seem to understand that its this simple, stereotypical and severely unintelligent 'feeling' that is making this thread moronic.
This is not new news, and the media bring it up every year. It is much more complicated than they allow (though, in some ways, much simpler!).
This is not to say it is not a real problem. The MAIN problem, for Oxbridge, is not so much that people from state schools are not good enough (they are); but that not enough state school students apply, proportionately. What does that mean?
[Please note, the figures below are NOT accurate, though they are weighted in the correct way - I've not got the actual %s to hand. It's a mathematical example, the conclusions of which *are* accurate].
Let's say that of the schools in the country, 75% of them are state and 25% private. Then let's say that only 5% of state school students apply to Oxbridge, whereas 60% of private schoolers do. This means, in real terms, that although there are far more state school students, FAR more privately educated students apply (using the [non-accurate] figures above, this ratio is c. 4 : 15, state : private). There is, therefore, a much larger pool of people from private schools for interviewers to choose from.
It is very interesting to note that the proportion of people who get offers is actually *extremely* similar in both state & private. So if, say, 100 state people and 400 private apply, pretty much 25 & 100 get offers (that is, 1/4). So of those APPLYING, the quality is very similar: individuals are not being discriminated against because of the educational systems they have experienced. What IS happening, though, is that it looks as if the state system as a whole is being discriminated against, because of the proportionately smaller number of people getting offers (in relation to the proportion of state : private schools in the country as a whole). The fundamental problem, though, is not discrimination, but a lack of people applying from state schools. There is simply not the same proportion of applicants from state as private, so there *cannot be*, without actual discrimination (the very thing we're all so concerned about) being deliberately employed to weight admissions in favour of state schoolers!
In short, if the APPLICATIONS were 50:50 (state
rivate), so too would be the admissions (roughly). As things stand at the moment, however, the private schools dominate (proportionately-speaking) the applications, so must necessarily dominate the offers (proportionately speaking). This is why all the Access & Admissions initiatives at Oxbridge focus on getting more state schoolers to apply.
Regardless of whether you are a state schooler or a private schooler, you all stand about a 1 in 4 chance of getting an offer. The larger statistics, of state schools and private schools as a whole, obviously do not reflect this. That is to say that EVERY individual stands the same chance, whatever their education. The statistics for the *type* of schools are generalised, and do NOT apply to separate applications.
As I said, it's complicated, and I've probably not explained it in the best way! But do take note, before you panic.
This is not to say it is not a real problem. The MAIN problem, for Oxbridge, is not so much that people from state schools are not good enough (they are); but that not enough state school students apply, proportionately. What does that mean?
[Please note, the figures below are NOT accurate, though they are weighted in the correct way - I've not got the actual %s to hand. It's a mathematical example, the conclusions of which *are* accurate].
Let's say that of the schools in the country, 75% of them are state and 25% private. Then let's say that only 5% of state school students apply to Oxbridge, whereas 60% of private schoolers do. This means, in real terms, that although there are far more state school students, FAR more privately educated students apply (using the [non-accurate] figures above, this ratio is c. 4 : 15, state : private). There is, therefore, a much larger pool of people from private schools for interviewers to choose from.
It is very interesting to note that the proportion of people who get offers is actually *extremely* similar in both state & private. So if, say, 100 state people and 400 private apply, pretty much 25 & 100 get offers (that is, 1/4). So of those APPLYING, the quality is very similar: individuals are not being discriminated against because of the educational systems they have experienced. What IS happening, though, is that it looks as if the state system as a whole is being discriminated against, because of the proportionately smaller number of people getting offers (in relation to the proportion of state : private schools in the country as a whole). The fundamental problem, though, is not discrimination, but a lack of people applying from state schools. There is simply not the same proportion of applicants from state as private, so there *cannot be*, without actual discrimination (the very thing we're all so concerned about) being deliberately employed to weight admissions in favour of state schoolers!
In short, if the APPLICATIONS were 50:50 (state
rivate), so too would be the admissions (roughly). As things stand at the moment, however, the private schools dominate (proportionately-speaking) the applications, so must necessarily dominate the offers (proportionately speaking). This is why all the Access & Admissions initiatives at Oxbridge focus on getting more state schoolers to apply. Regardless of whether you are a state schooler or a private schooler, you all stand about a 1 in 4 chance of getting an offer. The larger statistics, of state schools and private schools as a whole, obviously do not reflect this. That is to say that EVERY individual stands the same chance, whatever their education. The statistics for the *type* of schools are generalised, and do NOT apply to separate applications.
As I said, it's complicated, and I've probably not explained it in the best way! But do take note, before you panic.
I think the problem with Oxbridge's State:Private ratio is that they get more applicants from private schools than state schools compared to other universities. Unless they positively discriminate applicants from state schools (which would be great IMO 
) the ratio of state to private won't change that much.
And here's the link to the article
http://education.guardian.co.uk/oxbridge/article/0,,2191446,00.html
) the ratio of state to private won't change that much.And here's the link to the article
http://education.guardian.co.uk/oxbridge/article/0,,2191446,00.html
xinolisss
hey people... all I was saying is that the DAILY TELEGRAPH made those reports.. I didn't invent those... I simply copied and pasted what was in there to your disposal to comment on... now I haven't got personal with anybody.. and I don't wish to... I've only said that was the IMPRESSION it made not what I actually THINK... alright... sorry if what I wrote in the first post annoyed anyone.. but wasn't meant to be and 3323 or whatever your crappy name is... better shut your mouth and get on with your stuff if you think this is moronic, then you are even more so for actually reading it...
You didn't copy and paste anything, you simply read an article (from a questionable source), added your own bias and then spouted a silly line about 'posh little cuties'. If you can produce the internet version of the article you 'copied and pasted' and find me the words 'posh little cutie', then maybe this thread would have a little more gravitas. Until then, it's the diatribe of an uninformed moron.
say what dude... you're just making a laugh about yourself. quit trying to actually be funny and cut the crap out of me because all you are doing is humilianting yourself by reading this moronic thread don't read it if you think its moronic, that was the last word you had to say... if you keep on insisting, i'm just going to keep on thinking you're even more moronic
The article says 'monopolised by', not reserved for. Which doesn't mean that the universities will pick a person from a private school over one from a state school, just that more of the places are occupied by students from private schools (which from my experience isn't the case anyway).
Kids at private schools find it easier to get places at Oxbridge for a number of reasons. One of these is simply that they are more likely to be encouraged to apply by their families and teachers. A higher number of applicants means that you are bound to get more offers (its statistics - think about it). Once you are in the system, the university doesn't care what school you went to, just how well they think you'll do when you arrive. Of course, you might be better prepared for the interview process if you've been at a private school, but there's not much the universities can do about that.
I'm not saying that its right that things are disproportionate - but remember, you can't jump to conclusions without actually thinking things through (which, I hate to say it, is what your reaction appears to have been).
Kids at private schools find it easier to get places at Oxbridge for a number of reasons. One of these is simply that they are more likely to be encouraged to apply by their families and teachers. A higher number of applicants means that you are bound to get more offers (its statistics - think about it). Once you are in the system, the university doesn't care what school you went to, just how well they think you'll do when you arrive. Of course, you might be better prepared for the interview process if you've been at a private school, but there's not much the universities can do about that.
I'm not saying that its right that things are disproportionate - but remember, you can't jump to conclusions without actually thinking things through (which, I hate to say it, is what your reaction appears to have been).
i'm quite intended to think you're some sort of ****** who got into cambridge through back doors... do you actually think that the daily telegraph would actually put posh little cuties on an article??? I wouldn't... that was my impression... only an IMPRESSION nothing else. the rest that is between "" are what I copied and pasted from their websites... I was referring to the FACTS not my IMPRESSION
MaryMoo is quite right.
3232: just stop posting on the thread if it's so moronic as to offend your sensibilities. The OP brought up an important (in that it's in the media at the moment) issue, albeit not expressed inthe best way. No good comes from taking the thread entirely offtopic, nor from insulting anyone. So enough already!
xinolisss: stop responding to 3232 and go back to the original issue at hand. AFTER reading my long explanation above.
Thank you!
3232: just stop posting on the thread if it's so moronic as to offend your sensibilities. The OP brought up an important (in that it's in the media at the moment) issue, albeit not expressed inthe best way. No good comes from taking the thread entirely offtopic, nor from insulting anyone. So enough already!
xinolisss: stop responding to 3232 and go back to the original issue at hand. AFTER reading my long explanation above.
Thank you!
The statistic that really destroys these sensationalist articles every time is that of those that apply from a state background, a roughly equal proportion get in as from those applying from a private school background, like epitome said.
I.e. ultimately the problem with the system is either the quality of teaching in state schools or the lack of opportunities that people are presented with. In both cases a significant proportion of blame must be placed with the government and not with Oxbridge universities.
Anyway, we've had this debate a million times, we don't need it again.
I.e. ultimately the problem with the system is either the quality of teaching in state schools or the lack of opportunities that people are presented with. In both cases a significant proportion of blame must be placed with the government and not with Oxbridge universities.
Anyway, we've had this debate a million times, we don't need it again.
xinolisss
say what dude... you're just making a laugh about yourself. quit trying to actually be funny and cut the crap out of me because all you are doing is humilianting yourself by reading this moronic thread don't read it if you think its moronic, that was the last word you had to say... if you keep on insisting, i'm just going to keep on thinking you're even more moronic
wait man... jeje... it's just a bit too long but let me say something first... have any1 thought WHY aren't there as many applications from public schools? this is not an easily answered question... because they don't have the grades or because they are simply afraid of doing so... I know of a girl who said that more than half her friends had the grades to apply but who didn't do so because they thought they knew that they were not going to be accepted... it's the influence that lead them the other way... into other unis
Related discussions
- medicine Cambridge application
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- Could some mark/give criticism please
- What kind of summer school subjects would suit best to Oxford PPE?
- does it really matter what uni you graduate from?
- What kind of summer school subjects would suit best to Oxford PPE?
- ucat 3130 b2 + 3A*1A
- Applying for Maths at Oxford, Imperial and Warwick
- COMPOS 2024-25 free physics&maths tutoring for Y10-12
- Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.
- What do you think about the Ryanair as an airline?
- LNAT
- Personal Statement from Oxford Student for Year Abroad at Yale - Review
- Picking courses
- Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
- 80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford
- How opportunistic is Durham University?
- Pros and cons of second year credit university transfer
- I wanna study law but know literally nothing
- Brampton Manor vs NCS
Latest
Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 2 weeks ago
The fate of my Oxford applications is in the hands of my teacherLast reply 2 weeks ago
CMV: One should be allowed to apply to both Oxford and Camrbdige for undergrad
