Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    9
    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
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    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?
    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

    9
    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
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    13
    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
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    From The Times, 21 Oct.

    When education specialists, not a politician with a fixed agenda, talk ......

    A transformation of secondary school teaching in the north of England is needed to reduce the widening north-south divide among Oxbridge students, leading education officials have said.

    Schemes to attract the best and brightest teachers and head teachers to the north should emulate the success story in London schools, the children’s commissioner for England told The Times. Anne Longfield called for the change after figures were released showing that half the offers from Cambridge and Oxford went to applicants from London and the southeast.

    Statistics for applicants between 2010 and 2015 show that the west London borough of Richmond sent eight times as many students to Oxford (333) as Salford, Middlesbrough, Stoke, Hartlepool and Blackpool combined.

    Ms Longfield, who lives in Leeds and has a son, said that many bright pupils were being failed by secondary school teaching in the north. Research by the children’s commissioner found that a young person leaving school or college in London was 57 per cent more likely to go to a top university than a school leaver in the north. However, at primary school, children in the north have been shown to do as well as in the south. Ms Longfield said: “There has been a huge economic boost in the southeast and that comes at the same time as schools in the past five years have improved beyond recognition. This means kids growing up in the south are in a very different environment. The speed London turned around its schools leads me to believe that it is perfectly possible in all areas.”

    Nationally about 31 per cent of people are in the top two social income groups, which include doctors, lawyers and senior managers. However, the data reveals children from these background had their share of Oxbridge offers increase from 79 per cent to 81 per cent between 2010 and 2015. This was despite both universities spending £5m each a year on efforts to cast the net wider for students, according to official figures. David Lammy MP, who obtained the Oxbridge application data, said: “We have gone backwards on social class, we have made no progress at all on the north-south divide and we have made very little progress on race.” The data also shows that only one in four Cambridge colleges made offers to black British students in every year between 2010 and 2015. And each year over that period, a quarter of colleges failed to make any offers at all to black British applicants. During this period, an average of 378 black students per year got AAA grades or better at A-levels.

    Sir Anthony Seldon, vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, said that without the outreach work Oxford and Cambridge do in disadvantaged areas the picture would be even worse. He told The Times that there was “not a critical mass of great teachers” in the north and students’ talents were “not being as well cultivated away from the southeast”.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kenneye_j)
    What specifically is used to determine who is more competitive than other candidates? How do Cambridge justify that one applicant is a stronger applicant than another, if they don't have the same measures of strengths. What if one applicant doesn't have AS where as another one does (with strong raw marks), how do they decide who is stronger then? Are applicants simply compared by their GCSEs?

    The reason I'm asking is because Cambridge states you are compared with the the rest of the cohort, but what does this mean exactly...
    I hear living in the south east of England helps...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Oxford has a 2.7% applicant rate for Black British - not that hugely different.
    Aren't black British people about 3% of the total population so Oxford isn't doing too bad by that measure (although considering that Oxbridge draw a lot more applicants from the south east and London which have a higher % of ethnic minority people you would expect that to show in their admissions...)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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