This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- CMV: One should be allowed to apply to both Oxford and Camrbdige for undergrad
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- Worth applying to Trinity as a state comprehensive student
- Cambridge course fails 55 of 77 standards
- do admission statistics matter?
- Would a good college at Cambridge be better or a bad one at Oxford?
- Deciding between Oxford or Cambridge Law?
- Why is the entrance rate for maths at Oxford so low?
- Cambridge or Oxford?
- Can i get into Cambridge with low gsces ?
- Classics at Oxbridge?
- Material science at oxford or natsci at Cambridge
- Can I get into oxbrdige with pefect A-levels but no GCSEs?
- The Russell Group hurt/heal game (Part 5)
- Which Oxbridge is better contextually?
- PAT and ESAT
- If I hated Oxford will I also hate Cambridge?
- Does Oxford mind if your supercurriculars are to do with Cambridge?
- Cambridge or Oxford
- Is Cambridge LLM not worth it anymore?
Are cambridge and oxford elitist?
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
----------------------
In this sense the class would be one defined either by archaic British social classes, being born into an environment where such traditions are maintained, or perhaps just wealth.
The question is based both on the statistics and anecdotal life-experience. Although I started off in the position of the belief that such elitism ought not to exist and probably does not, I am now slowly considering the possibility that it does and in some senses, it must.
The statistics are the overrepresentation of persons of private educational background at the institutions even when academic grade differences between 'state' and private education have been accounted for. Although the possible causes of this discrepancy are multiple, overt discrimination against state school applicants is unlikely to be signifiacnt. Covert discrimination is possible, but is similarly unlikely
Non-intentional discrimination may result from simple factors such as: the background of the interviewer may bias them into selecting applicants on the basis of having a similar upbringing and similar interests, independently of their academic merit. If Oxbridge graduates are more likely than others to be oxbridge interviewers, then this incidental discrimination may be a basis for the trend.
A common point, independent of the cause of the discrimination is that for whatever reason, non-academic details are having a disproportionate value in the selection process for these universities. The academic system is often blamed for being insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the universities - however, the solution for this latter part is simple, but I doubt it would make much difference. A more common argument is that non-academic skills and traits are even more important at such universities, to ensure the university is creative in all dimensions. This latter argument is a little weak, for universities are not institutes of entertainment or other non-academic end-points, they exist to provide higher education within an academic realm. To belittle the role of academic achievement for admission to an academic institution, I find illogical a best.
It is a shame that there exist more qualified students than spaces at both universities. What I fail to understand however, is how the best students (i.e. the students with highest academic achievement within whole counties, the ones you read about in the newspapers) can fail to enter an institution whose very basis is academia.
I do not entirely understand why such discrepancies exist, but it seems highly plausible that elitism may be one of its roots.
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
----------------------
In this sense the class would be one defined either by archaic British social classes, being born into an environment where such traditions are maintained, or perhaps just wealth.
The question is based both on the statistics and anecdotal life-experience. Although I started off in the position of the belief that such elitism ought not to exist and probably does not, I am now slowly considering the possibility that it does and in some senses, it must.
The statistics are the overrepresentation of persons of private educational background at the institutions even when academic grade differences between 'state' and private education have been accounted for. Although the possible causes of this discrepancy are multiple, overt discrimination against state school applicants is unlikely to be signifiacnt. Covert discrimination is possible, but is similarly unlikely
Non-intentional discrimination may result from simple factors such as: the background of the interviewer may bias them into selecting applicants on the basis of having a similar upbringing and similar interests, independently of their academic merit. If Oxbridge graduates are more likely than others to be oxbridge interviewers, then this incidental discrimination may be a basis for the trend.
A common point, independent of the cause of the discrimination is that for whatever reason, non-academic details are having a disproportionate value in the selection process for these universities. The academic system is often blamed for being insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the universities - however, the solution for this latter part is simple, but I doubt it would make much difference. A more common argument is that non-academic skills and traits are even more important at such universities, to ensure the university is creative in all dimensions. This latter argument is a little weak, for universities are not institutes of entertainment or other non-academic end-points, they exist to provide higher education within an academic realm. To belittle the role of academic achievement for admission to an academic institution, I find illogical a best.
It is a shame that there exist more qualified students than spaces at both universities. What I fail to understand however, is how the best students (i.e. the students with highest academic achievement within whole counties, the ones you read about in the newspapers) can fail to enter an institution whose very basis is academia.
I do not entirely understand why such discrepancies exist, but it seems highly plausible that elitism may be one of its roots.
Scroll to see replies
Is this thread for real?
No. Of course they are egalitarian
No. Of course they are egalitarian
ok that was a beast, I wont reply to everything but just make a few points....
1. The Interview is very important, if private school people do better at interview they should get in...
2. A disproportionate number of private school apllicants apply, so you would expect a disproportionate number to get in. I do not know however, the respective *chances* of getting in for state/private school applicants.
3. Private school aplicants are often better prepared for interview
4. If these top scholars dont do well enough at interview, they wont get in - maybe this isnt how it should be, maybe if theve prooved themselves otherwise they shouldnt need to proove themselves at interview but hey, thats the system I guess
1. The Interview is very important, if private school people do better at interview they should get in...
2. A disproportionate number of private school apllicants apply, so you would expect a disproportionate number to get in. I do not know however, the respective *chances* of getting in for state/private school applicants.
3. Private school aplicants are often better prepared for interview
4. If these top scholars dont do well enough at interview, they wont get in - maybe this isnt how it should be, maybe if theve prooved themselves otherwise they shouldnt need to proove themselves at interview but hey, thats the system I guess
Academic achievement at GCSE and A level (and other pre-uni academic qualifications) isn't necessarily the best indicator of aptitude for Oxford or Cambridge. Elitism by intellect is a necessity. After all, going to the top universities (which can be called "favoured treatment") is largely down to people's "perceived superiority" by "intellect". That form of elitism is constructive, because it genuinely reflects the suitability of a candidate for that institution.
If elitism were completely removed - read Rob Grant's "Incompetence" to get an idea of what society would be like. That, and it's a cracking read!
I suggest you refine your definition of "the best students", and be more specific with just what form of "elitism" you are referring to.
Edit: I'd also like to add that no system is perfect, nothing is infallible. It is inevitable that some will slip the net, some people who could have done very well at Oxford are rejected; to err is human. I'm not saying that I am one of those people, though - I'm perfectly happy with the decision!
If elitism were completely removed - read Rob Grant's "Incompetence" to get an idea of what society would be like. That, and it's a cracking read!
I suggest you refine your definition of "the best students", and be more specific with just what form of "elitism" you are referring to.
Edit: I'd also like to add that no system is perfect, nothing is infallible. It is inevitable that some will slip the net, some people who could have done very well at Oxford are rejected; to err is human. I'm not saying that I am one of those people, though - I'm perfectly happy with the decision!
Is being a top scholar not proof enough? The fact the student had the highest of academic achievement should have more weight than the opinion of a number of interviewers. What purpose are school examinations if they do not represent proof of aptitude?
The interview is itself thus a measure of non-academic performance, something which should have minimal weight in an academic institution.
The interview is itself thus a measure of non-academic performance, something which should have minimal weight in an academic institution.
Do Chickens Fly
Is being a top scholar not proof enough? The fact the student had the highest of academic achievement should have more weight than the opinion of a number of interviewers. What purpose are school examinations if they do not represent proof of aptitude?
The interview is itself thus a measure of non-academic performance, something which should have minimal weight in an academic institution.
The interview is itself thus a measure of non-academic performance, something which should have minimal weight in an academic institution.
The interview is there to assess who reasons and who regurgitates. That is, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Do Chickens Fly
Is being a top scholar not proof enough? The fact the student had the highest of academic achievement should have more weight than the opinion of a number of interviewers. What purpose are school examinations if they do not represent proof of aptitude?
The interview is itself thus a measure of non-academic performance, something which should have minimal weight in an academic institution.
The interview is itself thus a measure of non-academic performance, something which should have minimal weight in an academic institution.
Well I think oxbridge have agreed that being a top-scholar at a-level isn't enough. Obv in other countries if they dont do a-levels this is irrelevant but if you let them in without interview you could probably say thats unfair on everybody else...
Well I dont know how you can say an interview is non-academic, when in my interview all they asked was academic stuff (well actualy I lie the asked me one queston that wasnt academic in the whole two interviews).
HCD
Academic achievement at GCSE and A level (and other pre-uni academic qualifications) isn't necessarily the best indicator of aptitude for Oxford or Cambridge. Elitism by intellect is a necessity. After all, going to the top universities (which can be called "favoured treatment") is largely down to people's "perceived superiority" by "intellect". That form of elitism is constructive, because it genuinely reflects the suitability of a candidate for that institution.
If elitism were completely removed - read Rob Grant's "Incompetence" to get an idea of what society would be like. That, and it's a cracking read!
I suggest you refine your definition of "the best students", and be more specific with just what form of "elitism" you are referring to.
If elitism were completely removed - read Rob Grant's "Incompetence" to get an idea of what society would be like. That, and it's a cracking read!
I suggest you refine your definition of "the best students", and be more specific with just what form of "elitism" you are referring to.
Unfortunatly, I think you're right, but probably not for the reasons you expected.
I think it is a shame that GCSEs and A-levels are probably not sensitive measures of intellect. This would explain the need to extend to other sources of information about aptitude.
Elitism by intellect is justified for that, in my perspective, is equivalent to elitism by academia. My argument was (if you looked at my clarification on elitism) that elitism in this case is on class/wealth and NOT intellect.
I will have a look for Incompetence next time I visit a book store.
I shall use an anecdotal example to describe what could be an elitist trend (or one case of bad luck):
Mary Jane's Uncle went to Cambridge in the late 60s. She has been in private education all her life and currently pays £25,000 pa. Her school is ranked no. 5 in her area and the headteachers have a long tradition of securing 20 places at Oxbridge for student population of 150, each year. She does 3 A-levels, attaining good As (79-85% module marks) at AS and being predicted 3 As. She plays polo to a high standard and her team won the national championships last year. She applies for interview at St. Johns' and receives an offer. She achieves her grades and gets in.
Jim has a less remarkable tale. He lives in a small town in the north and besides some football with friends in the evening, he has no definitive hobbies (none that are exclusive or particularly costly to partake in). He has good GCSE grades (6A*s, 4As) by a national standard, but remarkable ones given his schooling background. He's motivated and attains 4ASs by the time of interview (99-100%). He is a little intimidated by the interview process. He's particularly perplexed when asked by one of the interviewers where he will get his financial support from during his time at university - he soon realises the 'LEA' is not the answer being sought! He doesn't get in.
From my (very limited and anecdotal) understanding, Jim is probably more academically capable than Mary Jane, or more correctly, he has proven this better than MJ. Yet I have the quaint feeling Jim's probability of entry into Oxbridge is far lower than MJs. This, I think, is unfortunate. There seem, in my experience an excess of people of Mary Jane's background and academic achievement in Oxbridge relative the the Jims of the world, whereas if academia is selected for, almost all Jims would make it.
P.S. Though the characters may be based on real persons, they're not real individuals :P.
timeceremony
The interview is there to assess who reasons and who regurgitates. That is, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
A-levels should have done that weeding! But it appears they don't.
I don't know about your anecdote, but I know that my experience was completely different. The interviews were purely academic, and I mean purely. Of course, I can only speak for Somerville and Christchurch, and for Physics, but I don't feel my state-school background harmed my application. I can't speak for any other colleges, for Cambridge, or for other subjects, however.
Also, you say that the exams ought to be a test of aptitude. Aptitude is utterly relative - you have an aptitude for a course. A levels, GCSEs, et al, are supposed to be a measure of aptitude for a subject. For example, if someone gets an A in subject X, they are apt for that subject. However, A levels can be somewhat of a memory test, so Oxford and Cambridge have to look for additional information as well. They're not designed to assess a student's aptitude for subject X at university Y - whilst they are a good enough indicator for most universities, Oxford and Cambridge have to differentiate between many very strong candidates, so need additional source material. Oxford have their own aptitude tests, which do test aptitude for their particular courses (in some subjects, at least), and interviews do the rest. Naturally, it's not perfect, but they (Oxford and Cambridge) seem to do alright, as their academic records show.
A-levels simply can't do the weeding required. If Oxford and Cambridge gave places to everyone who met their entry requirements, they'd run out of space. They simply have to do the weeding themselves, because there are too many AAA candidates out there.
It's a shame that A levels and GCSEs aren't the best predictors of higher-level academic success, but that's just the way it is. For that reason, certain institutions (such as Oxford and Cambridge) deem it necessary to interview candidates, and set their own tests to sort the people who they believe will do well from the people who they don't believe would do so well.
It is my personal belief that the only reason wealthier private school students might have an advantage is that their schools will give them better preparation, both in the long and short term, for applying to Oxford and Cambridge. They might be more thoroughly educated, so that the interview questions won't be such bolts from the blue to them as to other candidates, or taught how to appear cleverer than they are. Either way, I don't think Oxford and Cambridge care about financial background. The discrimination you speak of, whereby they might favour the "rich kids" out of some sort of empathy is plausible, but I really think it's "academic potential" they're looking for. They want someone who will do well on the course, make them look good, and perpetuate their strong academic reputations. Like I say, that's just my take on things - I could well be wrong.
Also, you say that the exams ought to be a test of aptitude. Aptitude is utterly relative - you have an aptitude for a course. A levels, GCSEs, et al, are supposed to be a measure of aptitude for a subject. For example, if someone gets an A in subject X, they are apt for that subject. However, A levels can be somewhat of a memory test, so Oxford and Cambridge have to look for additional information as well. They're not designed to assess a student's aptitude for subject X at university Y - whilst they are a good enough indicator for most universities, Oxford and Cambridge have to differentiate between many very strong candidates, so need additional source material. Oxford have their own aptitude tests, which do test aptitude for their particular courses (in some subjects, at least), and interviews do the rest. Naturally, it's not perfect, but they (Oxford and Cambridge) seem to do alright, as their academic records show.
A-levels simply can't do the weeding required. If Oxford and Cambridge gave places to everyone who met their entry requirements, they'd run out of space. They simply have to do the weeding themselves, because there are too many AAA candidates out there.
It's a shame that A levels and GCSEs aren't the best predictors of higher-level academic success, but that's just the way it is. For that reason, certain institutions (such as Oxford and Cambridge) deem it necessary to interview candidates, and set their own tests to sort the people who they believe will do well from the people who they don't believe would do so well.
It is my personal belief that the only reason wealthier private school students might have an advantage is that their schools will give them better preparation, both in the long and short term, for applying to Oxford and Cambridge. They might be more thoroughly educated, so that the interview questions won't be such bolts from the blue to them as to other candidates, or taught how to appear cleverer than they are. Either way, I don't think Oxford and Cambridge care about financial background. The discrimination you speak of, whereby they might favour the "rich kids" out of some sort of empathy is plausible, but I really think it's "academic potential" they're looking for. They want someone who will do well on the course, make them look good, and perpetuate their strong academic reputations. Like I say, that's just my take on things - I could well be wrong.
Do Chickens Fly
Jim has a less remarkable tale. He lives in a small town in the north and besides some football with friends in the evening, he has no definitive hobbies (none that are exclusive or particularly costly to partake in). He has good GCSE grades (6A*s, 4As) by a national standard, but remarkable ones given his schooling background. He's motivated and attains 4ASs by the time of interview (99-100%). He is a little intimidated by the interview process. He's particularly perplexed when asked by one of the interviewers where he will get his financial support from during his time at university - he soon realises the 'LEA' is not the answer being sought! He doesn't get in.
Jim has a less remarkable tale. He lives in a small town in the north and besides some football with friends in the evening, he has no definitive hobbies (none that are exclusive or particularly costly to partake in). He has good GCSE grades (6A*s, 4As) by a national standard, but remarkable ones given his schooling background. He's motivated and attains 4ASs by the time of interview (99-100%). He is a little intimidated by the interview process. He's particularly perplexed when asked by one of the interviewers where he will get his financial support from during his time at university - he soon realises the 'LEA' is not the answer being sought! He doesn't get in.
I think you'd be VERY hard-pressed to find somebody who was asked that in the last few years. The university as a whole prides itself on being somewhere where people don't have to drop out for financial reasons, and I really think the interviewers have better things to judge you on.
I can see where you're coming from with the idea of social elitism at Oxbridge. However, I think the main reason there are more Mary Janes than Jims going is because the Jims just don't apply. Also, I don't understand what exactly you're suggesting with GCSEs and A-levels- surely making it so only the people who get the very highest marks is going to disadvantage people at low-achieving comprehensives just as much as putting them in an unfamiliar interiew situation might do? At least at interview, the tutors have first-hand experience of the candidate and have more chance of figuring out whether the candidate is underperforming because of nerves and unfamiliarity or just because of inability. If they went on GCSEs and AS scores alone, I think you'd end up with an even worse private school bias than there already is.
HCD
I back up your claim - my interviews at Emmanuel (just last month) were maths maths maths all the way from beginning to end. (I admit there were some personal questions after the interview had formally ended, but the interviewer quickly stopped himself.)
Aj_deity
I can see where you're coming from with the idea of social elitism at Oxbridge. However, I think the main reason there are more Mary Janes than Jims going is because the Jims just don't apply.
And one of the reasons why they don't apply is probably that they keep being told the admissions system is biassed against them when actually it isn't. The Jims who do apply have a success rate that's very similar to that of the Mary Janes.
I'd say the real problem lies with the school system: as it is, Mary Janes are far more likely to go to schools where their talents (whatever they may be) will be recognised and fostered, to achieve the sort of grades that are necessary to be able to apply to Oxford or Cambridge in the first place, and to be encouraged - and in some cases expected - to apply there, either by their family or by their schools.
hobnob
I'd say the real problem lies with the school system: as it is, Mary Janes are far more likely to go to schools where their talents (whatever they may be) will be recognised and fostered, to achieve the sort of grades that are necessary to be able to apply to Oxford or Cambridge in the first place, and to be encouraged - and in some cases expected - to apply there, either by their family or by their schools.
I'd say the real problem lies with the school system: as it is, Mary Janes are far more likely to go to schools where their talents (whatever they may be) will be recognised and fostered, to achieve the sort of grades that are necessary to be able to apply to Oxford or Cambridge in the first place, and to be encouraged - and in some cases expected - to apply there, either by their family or by their schools.
Talent? What talent?
Rather, I would replace the word with Daddy's money:
I'd say the real problem lies with the school system: as it is, Mary Janes are far more likely to go to schools where their daddy's money (whatever they may be) will be recognised and fostered, to achieve the sort of grades that are necessary to be able to apply to Oxford or Cambridge in the first place, and to be encouraged - and in some cases expected - to apply there, either by their family or by their schools.
One will agree that its a disturbing fact that lots of Jims don't apply.
Schools and teachers should take a more active effort in persuading Jims to apply, after all if the Jims are good, why should they fear not being accepted into the other universities? Having offers from 5 or 6 is no different given ultimately they only have to commit to 2.
However if private schools are better at showcasing and develop students' potentials such that they have higher chances of success, then no one is at fault right. It's what private schools exist for anyway.
I guess if Jims show that they are hardworking and have make effort to study outside curriculum/school they will be given a chance (thats what the personal statement is for).
Schools and teachers should take a more active effort in persuading Jims to apply, after all if the Jims are good, why should they fear not being accepted into the other universities? Having offers from 5 or 6 is no different given ultimately they only have to commit to 2.
However if private schools are better at showcasing and develop students' potentials such that they have higher chances of success, then no one is at fault right. It's what private schools exist for anyway.
I guess if Jims show that they are hardworking and have make effort to study outside curriculum/school they will be given a chance (thats what the personal statement is for).
timeceremony
Talent? What talent?
Rather, I would replace the word with Daddy's money:
I'd say the real problem lies with the school system: as it is, Mary Janes are far more likely to go to schools where their daddy's money (whatever they may be) will be recognised and fostered, to achieve the sort of grades that are necessary to be able to apply to Oxford or Cambridge in the first place, and to be encouraged - and in some cases expected - to apply there, either by their family or by their schools.
Rather, I would replace the word with Daddy's money:
I'd say the real problem lies with the school system: as it is, Mary Janes are far more likely to go to schools where their daddy's money (whatever they may be) will be recognised and fostered, to achieve the sort of grades that are necessary to be able to apply to Oxford or Cambridge in the first place, and to be encouraged - and in some cases expected - to apply there, either by their family or by their schools.
The sad thing, is that it is a vicious cycle that is extremely hard for the working class to break. Unless they are academically gifted (where someone like Jane 'talent' was nurtured) they will stay poor.
timeceremony
Talent? What talent?
Rather, I would replace the word with Daddy's money:
Rather, I would replace the word with Daddy's money:
Erm, you realise you copied a large chunk of my post without quoting it, don't you?^o)
Edit: no, wait, you changed a single word. How terribly clever and witty.
Anyway, talent and privilege aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't think it's fair to assume all Mary Janes are talentless by default just because of Daddy's money, just as it wouldn't be fair to assume Jims will always make the better students just because they lack the privileges of Mary Janes.
hobnob
Erm, you realise you copied a large chunk of my post without quoting it, don't you?^o)
Anyway, talent and privilege aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't think it's fair to assume all Mary Janes are talentless by default just because of Daddy's money, just as it wouldn't be fair to assume Jims will always make the better students just because they lack the privileges of Mary Janes.
Anyway, talent and privilege aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't think it's fair to assume all Mary Janes are talentless by default just because of Daddy's money, just as it wouldn't be fair to assume Jims will always make the better students just because they lack the privileges of Mary Janes.
Yes but since everyone else is quoting and relying on personal experience and anecdotes I thought I would give my opinion based on that too. The Mary Janes I know have been brought up with five helping hands, and have been spoonfed since young. (Over-)nurtured talent is not what Oxford needs, and admissions tutors should look beyond the interview to see that these people are not the sharpest tools in the box.
Here's a statistical point.
It's well known that private schools achieve better A Level results than state schools. It's also well known that A Levels do a poor job of measuring achievement among the best students, because the top grade attainable is essentially capped at three, four or five As, and there are many students who could achieve more than this given the opportunity. The leading tail of the distribution is essentially cut off.
Given both of these pieces of information, it's not surprising that a higher proportion of private school students with AAA grades get in than state school students with AAA grades - they will simply be better students at the time that they were examined [we have to assume an ideal world where a student's academic achievement is the only factor which determines whether they get in - clearly this isn't true, but it's not such a bad approximation].
I'll illustrate it with an example. Say there is a company who prefers to employ tall people, and that tallness is the only criterion on which they assess applicants. In fact they have a minimum height limit - they won't employ anybody who's shorter than 5'10". Now, say that 100 women and 100 men apply for 50 jobs, and they're all taller than 5'10". Would you expect an equal number of men and women to be employed? Of course you wouldn't! You'd expect far more men than women to get the job, because there will be many more very tall men than there are very tall women.
The same applies to Oxbridge applications. The average AAA student from a private school will be better [on paper] than the average AAA student from a state school. Now, you can argue that because of their backgrounds, the state school student has performed better [but that is very hard to quantify]. From a purely grade-based standpoint though, Oxford and Cambridge would be biased if they didn't admit a higher proportion of private school applicants than they did state school applicants.
It's well known that private schools achieve better A Level results than state schools. It's also well known that A Levels do a poor job of measuring achievement among the best students, because the top grade attainable is essentially capped at three, four or five As, and there are many students who could achieve more than this given the opportunity. The leading tail of the distribution is essentially cut off.
Given both of these pieces of information, it's not surprising that a higher proportion of private school students with AAA grades get in than state school students with AAA grades - they will simply be better students at the time that they were examined [we have to assume an ideal world where a student's academic achievement is the only factor which determines whether they get in - clearly this isn't true, but it's not such a bad approximation].
I'll illustrate it with an example. Say there is a company who prefers to employ tall people, and that tallness is the only criterion on which they assess applicants. In fact they have a minimum height limit - they won't employ anybody who's shorter than 5'10". Now, say that 100 women and 100 men apply for 50 jobs, and they're all taller than 5'10". Would you expect an equal number of men and women to be employed? Of course you wouldn't! You'd expect far more men than women to get the job, because there will be many more very tall men than there are very tall women.
The same applies to Oxbridge applications. The average AAA student from a private school will be better [on paper] than the average AAA student from a state school. Now, you can argue that because of their backgrounds, the state school student has performed better [but that is very hard to quantify]. From a purely grade-based standpoint though, Oxford and Cambridge would be biased if they didn't admit a higher proportion of private school applicants than they did state school applicants.
fat_hobbit
The sad thing, is that it is a vicious cycle that is extremely hard for the working class to break. Unless they are academically gifted (where someone like Jane 'talent' was nurtured) they will stay poor.
Ah, but this is where you are wrong. I have very poor, working-class origins. I went to university - the first in my family - and have had a successful career. My two sons have been educated at a private grammar school and both applied to Oxbridge. The older one did not get into Cambridge and is in his final year at Warwick. The other has been offered a place at Oxford.
Most private (day) school pupils these days come from similar circumstances and I believe that it is self-perpetuating in that my grandchildren will have a good chance of being privately educated if my sons earn sifficient money.
The state should, in my view, continue to provide grammar schools to provide a route for bright working class children to follow the same path.
Do Chickens Fly clearly does not understand the Oxbridge admissions process fully. There are no questions about money (or any hint of them) involved. They are only interested in whether you will do well in their environment.
Related discussions
- CMV: One should be allowed to apply to both Oxford and Camrbdige for undergrad
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- Worth applying to Trinity as a state comprehensive student
- Cambridge course fails 55 of 77 standards
- do admission statistics matter?
- Would a good college at Cambridge be better or a bad one at Oxford?
- Deciding between Oxford or Cambridge Law?
- Why is the entrance rate for maths at Oxford so low?
- Cambridge or Oxford?
- Can i get into Cambridge with low gsces ?
- Classics at Oxbridge?
- Material science at oxford or natsci at Cambridge
- Can I get into oxbrdige with pefect A-levels but no GCSEs?
- The Russell Group hurt/heal game (Part 5)
- Which Oxbridge is better contextually?
- PAT and ESAT
- If I hated Oxford will I also hate Cambridge?
- Does Oxford mind if your supercurriculars are to do with Cambridge?
- Cambridge or Oxford
- Is Cambridge LLM not worth it anymore?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 10 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)University of Oxford
60
145
Last reply 1 week ago
Any Oxford Phil & Theo applicants heard back about interviews?
