Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    David Lammy is very consistent at talking complete crap.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Oh it almost definitely would what idiot suggested that.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know if this data can be accessed anywhere? I'm interested in reading some of the detail.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by NamesAreEffort)
    Does anyone know if this data can be accessed anywhere? I'm interested in reading some of the detail.
    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
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Ethnicity data, more specifically ethnicity data by college.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by NamesAreEffort)
    Ethnicity data, more specifically ethnicity data by college.
    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.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Oh no not at all, my college choice is done and dusted I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm just curious that's all.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Of course no-one could argue with the scenario you present.

    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*!
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    Of course no-one could argue with the scenario you present.
    And yet you did. Anyway let's move on.

    (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.
    It's not an anomaly. You are drawing a conclusion based on (very) incomplete information.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I wonder in practise how effective the 'coaching detector' reliably is. I suspect the people weeded out for 'over-coaching' (presumably because the view was that their ability didn't show through as much as the coaching) were the low hanging fruit. I am confident that coaching helps with getting in (it definitely did in my case) and equally confident that the filter also tunes well for genuine ability. It's kind of a combination in many cases.

    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.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (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.
    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
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (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.
    Perhaps, but it is important to know what school an applicant is coming from if only to put their grades in context. Someone from a state school in a deprived area with AAA is perhaps more deserving of an offer than someone with A*AA from Eton. :dontknow:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (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.
    #306 = the introduction of the arrogant interviewee.

    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.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    #306 = the introduction of the arrogant interviewee.
    #306

    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    As has been suggested earlier, expanding its foundation year courses and opportunities would be a good start.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I’m not putting the blame solely on Oxbridge and never said it was entirely their fault. But I do think they could do a lot better. They are part of the problem though and I truly believe their efforts so far are more for PR reasons rather than truly believing in improving the diversity of their students. For such fantastic institutions, they are shockingly behind the times compared to other highly rated universities. Considering their resources, they could do a lot more.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.