Long thread, can't be bothered to read it all. Is there a problem with diversity (geographic, economic, ethnic etc) at Oxbridge? Yes, absolutely. Is that Oxbridge's fault? Mmm, probably not.
I was dismayed to hear politicians say on Any Questions that they think Oxbridge admissions should be school-blind, that would surely only result in even less state school students getting offers.
x
Turn on thread page Beta
-
Snufkin
- Follow
- 94 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Snufkin
- TSR Support Team
Offline21ReputationRep:TSR Support Team- Follow
- 321
- 22-10-2017 03:17
-
Chief Wiggum
- Follow
- 42 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to Chief Wiggum
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 322
- 22-10-2017 03:30
David Lammy is very consistent at talking complete crap.
-
nexttime
- Follow
- 63 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to nexttime
- Community Assistant
Offline21ReputationRep:Community Assistant- Follow
- 323
- 22-10-2017 06:59
(Original post by Snufkin)
Long thread, can't be bothered to read it all. Is there a problem with diversity (geographic, economic, ethnic etc) at Oxbridge? Yes, absolutely. Is that Oxbridge's fault? Mmm, probably not.
I was dismayed to hear politicians say on Any Questions that they think Oxbridge admissions should be school-blind, that would surely only result in even less state school students getting offers.Last edited by nexttime; 22-10-2017 at 13:26. -
black1blade
- Follow
- 23 followers
- 17 badges
- Send a private message to black1blade
Offline17ReputationRep:- Follow
- 324
- 22-10-2017 08:55
(Original post by Snufkin)
Long thread, can't be bothered to read it all. Is there a problem with diversity (geographic, economic, ethnic etc) at Oxbridge? Yes, absolutely. Is that Oxbridge's fault? Mmm, probably not.
I was dismayed to hear politicians say on Any Questions that they think Oxbridge admissions should be school-blind, that would surely only result in even less state school students getting offers. -
NamesAreEffort
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 9 badges
- Send a private message to NamesAreEffort
Offline9ReputationRep:- Follow
- 325
- 22-10-2017 09:18
Does anyone know if this data can be accessed anywhere? I'm interested in reading some of the detail.
-
Doonesbury
- Follow
- 286 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Doonesbury
- Section Leader
Offline21ReputationRep:Section Leader- Follow
- 326
- 22-10-2017 09:27
(Original post by NamesAreEffort)
Does anyone know if this data can be accessed anywhere? I'm interested in reading some of the detail.
Cambridge (note the PDFs on the side)
https://www.undergraduate.study.cam....ply/statistics
Oxford (this is a summary page - there's more available)
https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO...showVizHome=noLast edited by Doonesbury; 22-10-2017 at 09:29. -
NamesAreEffort
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 9 badges
- Send a private message to NamesAreEffort
Offline9ReputationRep:- Follow
- 327
- 22-10-2017 09:39
(Original post by Doonesbury)
Which data? Oxbridge already published a lot of data which didn't require an FOI from Lammy.
Cambridge (note the PDFs on the side)
https://www.undergraduate.study.cam....ply/statistics
Oxford (this is a summary page - there's more available)
https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO...showVizHome=no -
Doonesbury
- Follow
- 286 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Doonesbury
- Section Leader
Offline21ReputationRep:Section Leader- Follow
- 328
- 22-10-2017 09:44
(Original post by NamesAreEffort)
Ethnicity data, more specifically ethnicity data by college.
For one, there's a roughly 20-25% chance any offer will be from a different college anyway.Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play -
NamesAreEffort
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 9 badges
- Send a private message to NamesAreEffort
Offline9ReputationRep:- Follow
- 329
- 22-10-2017 09:55
(Original post by Doonesbury)
If you are using it to select a college don't bother
For one, there's a roughly 20-25% chance any offer will be from a different college anyway. -
username3580250
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 7 badges
- Send a private message to username3580250
Offline7ReputationRep:- Follow
- 330
- 22-10-2017 11:58
(Original post by Doonesbury)
Sigh. That wasn't what I said. The "arrogant bluster" candidate was in reference to the prior example from J-SP.
So for your benefit let's say you have 3 candidates: one shy and potentially tearful but demonstrating good potential, one arrogantly blustering their way through but clearly not understanding the concepts, and one calmy and clearly conducting themselves and engaging with the process, then the first and third would be preferred over the second.
No lack of transparency. It's pretty straightforward.
It's simply the point there would be apparently no record of the interview in your scenario and no independent scrutiny of the decision according to that FOI request which I now wish I'd never come across tbh.
And, out of interest, I searched other FOI requests for other subjects and colleges and none seemed to show the same apparent anomaly.
And, btw I have now read the entire article on the 'burst into tears' interview and it would seem the interviewers did get it right as the girl did well with an incredible 5 A levels and 2 at A*! -
Doonesbury
- Follow
- 286 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Doonesbury
- Section Leader
Offline21ReputationRep:Section Leader- Follow
- 331
- 22-10-2017 13:17
(Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
Of course no-one could argue with the scenario you present.
(Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
And, out of interest, I searched other FOI requests for other subjects and colleges and none seemed to show the same apparent anomaly. -
username3580250
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 7 badges
- Send a private message to username3580250
Offline7ReputationRep:- Follow
- 332
- 22-10-2017 13:43
(Original post by Doonesbury)
And yet you did. Anyway let's move on.
It's not an anomaly. You are drawing a conclusion based on (very) incomplete information.
"And yet you did "
You only presented that scenario once and I said no-one can argue with it: I don't follow your logic.
"It's not an anomaly."
I said it was an apparent anomaly.
"Anyway let's move on."
Agreed. -
Fullofsurprises
- Follow
- 162 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to Fullofsurprises
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 333
- 22-10-2017 13:44
(Original post by nexttime)
When my other half was an interviewer, she said they were school-blind on a practical lever (lots of interviewees, more important things to focus on in limited time). However, its extremely obvious who has been extensively coached to do an oxbridge interview and who isn't, and that they had to adjust for that a lot to make it fair. She thinks they did a good job.
What we can't get round is the clear and undisputed fact that a number of leading schools reliably gain significant percentages of Oxbridge undergrad intake. Unless there is some kind of hidden corruption going on, then the most plausible explanation is that they offer a splendid and encouraging education, push students to aim high and obtain success and (here goes!) *coach* their pupils to victory. -
Doonesbury
- Follow
- 286 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Doonesbury
- Section Leader
Offline21ReputationRep:Section Leader- Follow
- 334
- 22-10-2017 13:51
(Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
You only presented that scenario once and I said no-one can argue with it: I don't follow your logic.
Good -
Snufkin
- Follow
- 94 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Snufkin
- TSR Support Team
Offline21ReputationRep:TSR Support Team- Follow
- 335
- 22-10-2017 14:47
(Original post by nexttime)
When my other half was an interviewer, she said they were school-blind on a practical lever (lots of interviewees, more important things to focus on in limited time). However, its extremely obvious who has been extensively coached to do an oxbridge interview and who isn't, and that they had to adjust for that a lot to make it fair. She thinks they did a good job. -
username3580250
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 7 badges
- Send a private message to username3580250
Offline7ReputationRep:- Follow
- 336
- 22-10-2017 15:24
(Original post by Doonesbury)
You argued when I first compared a knowledgeable shy person with an ignorant blusterer. (Because you didn't pay attention to the earlier introduction of the blusterer by J-SP.)
Good
"(Because you didn't pay attention to the earlier introduction of the blusterer by J-SP.)"
I believe you were the first person to introduce the term 'arrogant bluster' in your post #311. So I did not miss it in J-SP's post. And now I see you refer to 'ignorant blusterer' which is an entirely different thing anyway. (I have met many people in my time who could be described as arrogant who were far from ignorant: hospital consultants sometimes fall into this category, for example).
"You argued when I first compared a knowledgeable shy person with an ignorant blusterer."
I'm sorry but you did not make this comparison. In response to someone who said the interview was all-important, I had given an example of a successful candidate who had burst into tears and whose mind had gone blank in the interview when quizzed about their PS.
You said in #311:
"The fairness is in finding the potential in the "emotional" candidate and seeing through the arrogant bluster in the other candidate to find they didn't have the same potential. "
You did not describe the emotional candidate as knowledgeable nor the arrogant candidate as ignorant. You restricted yourself to two types of candidate implying that if a candidate is not emotional (as the candidate we had been discussing up to that point) then they fall into the category of arrogant.
I argued that just because someone was not an emotional candidate did not automatically make them an arrogant candidate.
You then said in #324: "Sigh. That wasn't what I said. The "arrogant bluster" candidate was in reference to the prior example from J-SP. " (As stated above, there was no prior reference to the term 'arrogant bluster' other than your own, but I just let it go).
I joined the TSR this week to find out about Oxbridge and other university admissions. I am now more confused than ever. -
Doonesbury
- Follow
- 286 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Doonesbury
- Section Leader
Offline21ReputationRep:Section Leader- Follow
- 337
- 22-10-2017 15:34
(Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
Sorry, you cannot just accuse me of saying things I have not done or said without expecting a reply.
"(Because you didn't pay attention to the earlier introduction of the blusterer by J-SP.)"
I believe you were the first person to introduce the term 'arrogant bluster' in your post #311. So I did not miss it in J-SP's post. And now I see you refer to 'ignorant blusterer' which is an entirely different thing anyway. (I have met many people in my time who could be described as arrogant who were far from ignorant: hospital consultants sometimes fall into this category, for example).
"You argued when I first compared a knowledgeable shy person with an ignorant blusterer."
I'm sorry but you did not make this comparison. In response to someone who said the interview was all-important, I had given an example of a successful candidate who had burst into tears and whose mind had gone blank in the interview when quizzed about their PS.
You said in #311:
"The fairness is in finding the potential in the "emotional" candidate and seeing through the arrogant bluster in the other candidate to find they didn't have the same potential. "
You did not describe the emotional candidate as knowledgeable nor the arrogant candidate as ignorant. You restricted yourself to two types of candidate implying that if a candidate is not emotional (as the candidate we had been discussing up to that point) then they fall into the category of arrogant.
I argued that just because someone was not an emotional candidate did not automatically make them an arrogant candidate.
You then said in #324: "Sigh. That wasn't what I said. The "arrogant bluster" candidate was in reference to the prior example from J-SP. " (As stated above, there was no prior reference to the term 'arrogant bluster' other than your own, but I just let it go).
I joined the TSR this week to find out about Oxbridge and other university admissions. I am now more confused than ever.
Apologies if you are getting confused - that is definitely not my intention. The 100% most important thing in all this is: if you consider that Oxbridge has the right course for you, and you are realistically on target to achieve their typical offer, then you should apply.
All the rest of this discussion is to some extent noise and distraction, and shouldn't worry a potential applicant. Of course Oxbridge can and should do more to make itself more accessible but that doesn't affect you, today (or next year) as a good potential applicant. Don't try to put barriers in your way that may or may not exist. It is what it is, and 1,000s of applicants apply and surprise themselves by being successfully accepted every year.
If you want to go, then apply. -
username3580250
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 7 badges
- Send a private message to username3580250
Offline7ReputationRep:- Follow
- 338
- 22-10-2017 16:06
No reference to the term 'arrogant blusterer' or 'ignorant blusterer' you say I missed. (And the poster at #306 had previously been talking about his experiences interviewing people for job vacancies not Oxbridge interviews).
Thank you for the other bit of your post though: that was appreciated. -
- Follow
- 339
- 22-10-2017 16:23
(Original post by J-SP)
As has been suggested earlier, expanding its foundation year courses and opportunities would be a good start. -
- Follow
- 340
- 22-10-2017 17:09
(Original post by Etoile)
Perhaps, but I think it's unfair to blame that on Oxbridge when the fault lies with the government for not investing enough in state education so that students aren't at the required level.Last edited by J-SP; 22-10-2017 at 17:10.
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Related discussions:
- Wtf is New College of the Humanities? Is it an Oxbridge V2?
- Will Cambridge and Oxford go private?
- Oxbridge misses out on top spots in new uni ranking
- Can't stop thinking about Jan 10th - Oxbridge decisions 2018
- Christ's College (Cambridge) Students and Applicants
- Christ's College (Cambridge) Students and Applicants
- Trinity College (Oxford) Students and Applicants
- Trinity College (Oxford) Students and Applicants
- Why does Oxford get 19% more applicants than Cambridge?
- Trinity College (Cambridge) Students and Applicants
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: October 26, 2017
Share this discussion:
Tweet