Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    "They definitely don't discriminate against...one small victory...more black students admitted than Etonians"

    Why is it okay then to discriminate against the minority group of Etonians? Doesn't that break house-rules? Or are Etonians not protected by them?

    It sort of demonstrates the points raised in this Spectator article:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/...-go-to-durham/

    Extract shown below:

    "These days, I fear, in order to recreate that echt Oxbridge experience, you need to apply, not to Oxford or Cambridge, but to one of those establishments such as Durham which we used to scoff at for being filled with Oxbridge rejects.
    They still are filled with Oxbridge rejects, of course, but of such a high calibre that they would once have been a shoo-in. Quite a hefty portion come from the private schools against which, anecdotal evidence suggests, Oxbridge admissions tutors are becoming increasingly prejudiced."
    "Anecdotal evidence suggests" - so, no evidence. Anecdotal evidence can suggest ghosts exist, too.

    Also, please don't try to compare discrimination against BME and students who attend one of the most prestigious and expensive secondary schools in England (if not the world). 45% of Oxford students are from private schools, so I really doubt they're becoming prejudiced against them (especially considering how many students actually attend private schools). Comparing racial discrimination, which is present in so many societal aspects, and supposed discrimination in admissions is ridiculous.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    "I think you'll find that 30% includes Internationals."

    That's a revealing, albeit understandable, comment.

    Actually, I was quoting from: Table 8.1 Home applicants, offers and acceptances to Cambridge by ethnic origin and gender 2016.
    Table 8.1 (I earlier edited the table into my reply) doesn't have 30% BME, it's 22%.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    Yes. You are correct since around 5% have not stated their ethnicity.

    Okay of those who stated their ethnicity (95%):

    76.52% were White
    23.47% were BME

    That still represents an over-representation when compared with their 14% of the population according to the 2011 Census.
    3.Ethnicity in England and Wales

    Figure 1: Ethnic groups, England and Wales, 2011




    Source: Census - Office for National Statistics
    There is an over-representation of some groups, not all. (Your image isn't visible)
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    secondly, that the vast majority of Cambridge students are not middle-class posh kids from private school: they might be middle-class, they might be posh but they are overwhelmingly state-educated (or at least come from state sixth forms)
    That I agree with. I said that at the outset.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Just on the black British cohort, there *is* still more work to be done.

    Oxford accused of 'social apartheid' as colleges admit no black students

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...y_to_clipboard

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Just on the black British cohort, there *is* still more work to be done.

    Oxford accused of 'social apartheid' as colleges admit no black students

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...y_to_clipboard
    Whilst I share your sentiments, David Lammy is a notorious twister of statistics and is frankly dishonest on this topic all the time.

    For example, that article makes a big deal out of Oxford not releasing these stats until late as if they are trying to hide something. Oxford has released extensive data on ethnicity and nationality every year for decades - the thing they are making a big deal about is specifically ethnicity by college, which are sample sizes so low they are of no statistical value and indeed risky in terms of personal identifiable data.

    Its also of note that in that article states than Merton admitted no black students for a 5 year period. Aside from the obvious cherry picking of data there, its not true at all - there were at least two admitted in that time. They just (presumably) chose to not disclose their ethnicity to whatever survey collects this data.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Whilst I share your sentiments, David Lammy is a notorious twister of statistics and is frankly dishonest on this topic all the time.

    For example, that article makes a big deal out of Oxford not releasing these stats until late as if they are trying to hide something. Oxford has released extensive data on ethnicity and nationality every year for decades - the thing they are making a big deal about is specifically ethnicity by college, which are sample sizes so low they are of no statistical value and indeed risky in terms of personal identifiable data.

    Its also of note that in that article states than Merton admitted no black students for a 5 year period. Aside from the obvious cherry picking of data there, its not true at all - there were at least two admitted in that time. They just (presumably) chose to not disclose their ethnicity to whatever survey collects this data.
    Good point, I just skimmed it and didn't pickup on Lammy.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Nice thread hijack 🙃
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Still wrong. Cambridge is very used to assessing applicants without UMS. There was no UMS at all a few years ago, and when UMS was in place approx 40% of applicants didn't have it (IB, Highers, etc, etc).

    They have, though, introduced Admissions Assessments either pre- or at-interview for a large number of courses to add further information to applications, and partly to make up for the loss of UMS information.

    GCSEs are taken into account, but primarily only within the context of your school's overall performance. And even then are by no means the most important part of an application.
    So if I have 9.0, 9.0, 9.0 and 90% on the NSAA, 10, 10 and 10 in the interviews, and high raw marks in AS, but 0 A*s at GCSE, I'm "extremely likely" to get an offer am I?

    But does the AT really see from this that I am a competitive candidate in the cohort?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Kenneye_j)
    So if I have 9.0, 9.0, 9.0 and 90% on the NSAA, 10, 10 and 10 in the interviews, and high raw marks in AS, but 0 A*s at GCSE, I'm "extremely likely" to get an offer am I?

    But does the AT really see from this that I am a competitive candidate in the cohort?
    Yes
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Whilst I share your sentiments, David Lammy is a notorious twister of statistics and is frankly dishonest on this topic all the time.
    Gah! He's all over BBC online now. Not bad for a Harvard alumnus
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Yes
    But doesn't this contradict what you always say: "everything is taken into account holistically)...?

    And how many people are we talking that get these sort of scores?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Kenneye_j)
    But doesn't this contradict what you always say: "everything is taken into account holistically)...?

    And how many people are we talking that get these sort of scores?
    Not at all. It's taken into account and the AT/DoS could see the GCSEs are basically irrelevant in this case. The most recent academic performance is more important.

    And very very very few people will get the marks you are proposing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kenneye_j)
    But doesn't this contradict what you always say: "everything is taken into account holistically)...?

    And how many people are we talking that get these sort of scores?
    GCSE is always and only considered as a contextual data.
    so in your scenario, there's a very clear upward trajectory from GCSE to AS/A-levels, which is a big positive in their assessment.

    So if someone had brilliant GCSE, like 12+ A*, but with not top-notch A levels, the brilliant GCSE actually work against you, not compensating your (relatively) poorer A-levels, as it may show you're not coping with higher level of the subject at A-levels as you used to be able to do GCSE.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Gah! He's all over BBC online now. Not bad for a Harvard alumnus
    He was on Radio 4's Today this morning, too.
    As typical Lammy, he was determined to blame discrimination for the problem where the real issue is actually something else which happened not at Oxbridge but BEFORE those allegedly discriminated demography of society even apply to the universities.
    An admission tutor at Oxford who was also on the programme with him was explaining what really is happening with more solid facts and pointed out the weakness and biased arguments Lammy was making, but I suppose it'd be Lammy's voice most of media wants to focus on.........
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Not at all. It's taken into account and the AT/DoS could see the GCSEs are basically irrelevant in this case. The most recent academic performance is more important.

    And very very very few people will get the marks you are proposing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But you say a single part can't make or break an application.

    I guess I'll try and get 3 9.0s and 3 10/10 scores then.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Kenneye_j)
    But you say a single part can't make or break an application.

    I guess I'll try and get 3 9.0s and 3 10/10 scores then.
    Correct, so "poor" GCSEs on their own would NEVER break an application.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Just on the black British cohort, there *is* still more work to be done.

    Oxford accused of 'social apartheid' as colleges admit no black students

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...y_to_clipboard

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I feel like Lammy and this article puts Cambridge in the same boat as Oxford a little *too* much (Oxford drag the percentages down sooo much).
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by ImprobableCacti)
    I feel like Lammy and this article puts Cambridge in the same boat as Oxford a little *too* much (Oxford drag the percentages down sooo much).
    Oxford has a 2.7% applicant rate for Black British - not that hugely different.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Gah! He's all over BBC online now. Not bad for a Harvard alumnus
    I was about to say at least his use of stats isn't too flawed this time, then i got to the part where he talks about how Oxford gets £800m in taxpayer money. Well yes, they do, to do research. They actually invest a substantial amount of private funds and make a substantial loss on undergraduate education!
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

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.