Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Oxford lets in more women than men - unlike Cambridge

Well done Oxford! :clap2:

You admitted more women undergraduates than men last year for the first time. :colondollar:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/25/oxford-admits-more-women-than-men-for-first-time-ucas

Unlike Cambridge, who admitted slightly more men. I suppose that makes a change from hugely more men, as used to be the case for both institutions.

Still, this is good news and shows that Oxbridge is capable of learning and is shifting towards a more genuinely meritocratic system of entry, at least in gender.

They also made progress on admitting black students:

"After being heavily criticised over its track record on attracting and admitting black British students, Oxford’s admissions showed a slight improvement. Out of a record 435 applicants of all ages, 65 were offered places, compared with 55 the year before and 30 in 2012. Cambridge made offers to 75 black British applicants last year, compared with 55 in 2016 and 40 in 2012. "

That's still not all that good, but it is progress.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

LRxS

They should just make offers, adjusted where necessary of course for students from disadvantaged areas or with extenuating circumstances, to the best candidates. That’s equality.

Reply 2

Fullofsurprises

Original post by LRxS

They should just make offers, adjusted where necessary of course for students from disadvantaged areas or with extenuating circumstances, to the best candidates. That’s equality.

They both do versions of that, there is a corrective bias implicit in the admissions system to considering candidates from deprived areas, backgrounds, schools, etc with a wider set of criteria than just quals and test scores. However, I agree the net result of this is not as good as it could be. The report I linked to shows that overall the top universities did slightly better this year at admitting people from disadvantaged backgrounds, but overall, the children of the upper middle class remain overwhelmingly dominant in the upper universities, as in most countries.

Reply 3

chazwomaq

Beware Simpson's paradox with these kind of data. The raw numbers or percentages admitted really tell you nothing about potential fairness or bias because applicants and courses are not all the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#UC_Berkeley_gender_bias

Reply 4

Fullofsurprises

Original post by chazwomaq

Yes of course, but they suggest direction of travel and a milestone is a milestone and worth celebrating.

Reply 5

Anna1029

I guess it’s a start :smile:

Reply 6

Elcano

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You admitted more women undergraduates than men last year for the first time. :colondollar:

And that is inherently good because... ?

Reply 7

gr8wizard10

why is this a well done

Reply 8

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Elcano

And that is inherently good because... ?

You don't think it's plausibly the case that there are roughly equal numbers of women and men with the necessary talent and that in the past, men have been wholly over-represented in admissions?

Reply 9

Elcano

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You don't think it's plausibly the case that there are roughly equal numbers of women and men with the necessary talent and that in the past, men have been wholly over-represented in admissions?

Uh... yes?

So why is the tiny margin in favour of women such a huge achievement vs the tiny margin in favour of men at Cambridge?

Reply 10

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Elcano

Uh... yes?

So why is the tiny margin in favour of women such a huge achievement vs the tiny margin in favour of men at Cambridge?

A milestone is a milestone, even when it's only a marginal one.

Reply 11

Fullofsurprises

It isn't a year-to-year fluctuation. Quite recently, there were significantly more male than female admissions, if you look at the data as recently as 2013 you will see a distinct gap in favour of men.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/admissionsstatistics/Admissions_Statistics_2013.pdf

Go back to 1990 and it was 1,828 males to 1,282 females.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/admissions-1990.pdf

I am congratulating Oxford for sorting this out.

Reply 12

Good bloke

Original post by Fullofsurprises

A milestone is a milestone, even when it's only a marginal one.

Why do I get the impression you will castigate the university next year if the pendulum swings back the other way, or if the numbers don't inexoraby move in favour if the distaff side?

Reply 13

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Good bloke

Why do I get the impression you will castigate the university next year if the pendulum swings back the other way, or if the numbers don't inexoraby move in favour if the distaff side?

Why would I not? It should be pretty near equal numbers to reflect a genuinely meritocratic situation.

Reply 14

Good bloke

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Why would I not? It should be pretty near equal numbers to reflect a genuinely meritocratic situation.

I suspect you have not studied statistics, or you would know the answer to that question.

Reply 15

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Good bloke

I suspect you have not studied statistics, or you would know the answer to that question.

You have a point if it was a minor fluctuation, I wouldn't kick up about that, but if there's a suggestion of a resumption of the trend back to male-dominated entry, then it wouldn't be out of order. Admittedly that might take a few years to evolve.

Reply 16

Good bloke

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You have a point.

That is often true.

Reply 17

gapyearlads

Why is it that when anything in this topic is against women, the women start crying and protesting and making a huge fuss. But when it happens to the men (such that in this case there are less men than women) you don't see men caring...

My diagnosis: Women want everything and attention at the same time :biggrin:

Reply 18

Nichrome

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Why would I not? It should be pretty near equal numbers to reflect a genuinely meritocratic situation.

How can you know the admissions system is now more meritocratic without having a breakdown of the applicants by gender? Unless I missed it, the 1990 stats only show acceptances breakdown by gender, not applicants. The 2013 stats show the percentage of acceptances by gender is essentially the same as those that applied (51% men, 49% women applied, 51.5% men, 48.5% womenaccepted).

I agree it's very good that more women are accepted, but it's more likely to be down to other factors - changes in how A levels and GCSEs are examined, more women are now encouraged to apply and thus their application rates are more equal between genders etc...as far as I can see there is no evidence that the admissions system is now more meritocratic.

Oxford were always going to be the first to admit more women than men, Cambridge admits more science students than Oxford, where (for Physics and CompSci) there is still a fairly big gender imbalance towards men.