Oxford University applicants fall out rate
Hey folks!
I’ve been looking into the Oxford admissions process, and I noticed that around 29% of applicants who pass the PAT make it to the interview stage, but only about 10-15% ultimately receive offers. Does anyone have insights on why there’s such a high fallout rate after the interview stage?
I’ve been looking into the Oxford admissions process, and I noticed that around 29% of applicants who pass the PAT make it to the interview stage, but only about 10-15% ultimately receive offers. Does anyone have insights on why there’s such a high fallout rate after the interview stage?
Scroll to see replies
The number of places available is limited by the academic and other resources of the colleges and of the university. The interviews are used to select from those who look good on paper those candidates who, in the professional judgment of the academics conducting the interviews, are the most likely to thrive within the tutorial system.
That is exactly I am finding it strange. A lot with an excellent background in GCSEs, A-Levels, personal statements and then PAT making it into the interview stage, how is such large percentage of them not making it.
Original post by Adiscoverer
That is exactly I am finding it strange. A lot with an excellent background in GCSEs, A-Levels, personal statements and then PAT making it into the interview stage, how is such large percentage of them not making it.
There are a limited number of places. The interview is the final attritional process.
The process is not "Score N and win the prize".
The process is "Be assessed to be in that top portion of the applicant group which is numerically equivalent to the places available across all colleges which accept undergraduates to study X subject."
The process is like applying for a job. The employer rejects some applicants at the outset, and shortlists others for interview. Only one person is hired (or X number if there are X number of jobs), and not every person who might be qualified to be hired.
Oxford is selective. The process involves human judgments. The academics select which of the applicants the academics think will be best adapted to the Oxford academic system.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by Stiffy Byng
There are a limited number of places. The interview is the final attritional process.
The process is not "Score N and win the prize".
The process is "Be assessed to be in that percentage of the applicant group which is numerically equivalent to the places available across all colleges which accept undergraduates to study X subject."
The process is not "Score N and win the prize".
The process is "Be assessed to be in that percentage of the applicant group which is numerically equivalent to the places available across all colleges which accept undergraduates to study X subject."
The process is not "Score N and win the prize". True, which is why my query was not "Why did each one of them not make it?". It was "how is such large percentage of them not making it."? Meaning, I am questioning the first three steps of selection.
Original post by Adiscoverer
The process is not "Score N and win the prize". True, which is why my query was not "Why did each one of them not make it?". It was "how is such large percentage of them not making it."? Meaning, I am questioning the first three steps of selection.
If the interviewers feel an applicant would benefit from the tutorial system at Oxford (its selling point among other things) they will give them an offer.
This is why the interview is the way it is - to simulate a tutorial. It’s also why you’re encouraged to think out loud.
This also explains why others with equally or even more impressive qualifications are not given admission.
Hope this answers your question. Feel free to ask anything else.
Original post by Adiscoverer
The process is not "Score N and win the prize". True, which is why my query was not "Why did each one of them not make it?". It was "how is such large percentage of them not making it."? Meaning, I am questioning the first three steps of selection.
It's a competition. People get knocked out early, or later, or they win. Have you never applied for a job?
The academics try to give each applicant a fair appraisal. Most of the applicants have good academic records. The academics start with many and reduce the number to few, by exercising their professional judgment.
Original post by Stiffy Byng
It's a competition. People get knocked out early, or later, or they win. Have you never applied for a job?
The academics try to give each applicant a fair appraisal. Most of the applicants have good academic records. The academics start with many and reduce the number to few, by exercising their professional judgment.
The academics try to give each applicant a fair appraisal. Most of the applicants have good academic records. The academics start with many and reduce the number to few, by exercising their professional judgment.
I think, you need to hold your horses before firing out responses. It is not equivalent to employment applications. There is a massive difference. Not sure about your background. If such is the fallout in the final stages, it is absolutely unfair that the children are not allowed to apply for Cambridge at the same time.
Original post by Anonymous
If the interviewers feel an applicant would benefit from the tutorial system at Oxford (its selling point among other things) they will give them an offer.
This is why the interview is the way it is - to simulate a tutorial. It’s also why you’re encouraged to think out loud.
This also explains why others with equally or even more impressive qualifications are not given admission.
Hope this answers your question. Feel free to ask anything else.
This is why the interview is the way it is - to simulate a tutorial. It’s also why you’re encouraged to think out loud.
This also explains why others with equally or even more impressive qualifications are not given admission.
Hope this answers your question. Feel free to ask anything else.
That definitely is logical. I think that cuts way deep.
Original post by Adiscoverer
That definitely is logical. I think that cuts way deep.
Yes, although I have no clue how exactly they compare other students in this lol. Surely many more people than spaces available would be a good fit for Oxford. I seriously wanna know now how they manage this. Imagine someone with the exact same qualifications and score on entrance exam, if any, with equally good PS. Both applicants would thrive at Oxford but there is only space for one. Maybe in this case Open offer? And now similar situation but one student would be a better fit. How do they know or notice one student would be better than the other? I imagine the answer is that they’ve been doing admissions/interviews for years so have the required knowledge/skills.
Regardless, they take time considering each application and look at other aspects too so definitely do not be too stressed (although nerves are good lol, shows u care).
Right now u should be happy that u applied to Oxford and for a course with an exam too, PAT especially. Must be hard with all the maths and fm students.
Original post by Adiscoverer
I think, you need to hold your horses before firing out responses. It is not equivalent to employment applications. There is a massive difference. Not sure about your background. If such is the fallout in the final stages, it is absolutely unfair that the children are not allowed to apply for Cambridge at the same time.
My background is irrelevant. I and another have explained to you a relatively simple concept, but you seem unhappy with the admissions process for some reason. There is already a thread explaining why it would be a daft idea for people to apply to Oxford and Cambridge at the same time.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by Anonymous
Yes, although I have no clue how exactly they compare other students in this lol. Surely many more people than spaces available would be a good fit for Oxford. I seriously wanna know now how they manage this. Imagine someone with the exact same qualifications and score on entrance exam, if any, with equally good PS. Both applicants would thrive at Oxford but there is only space for one. Maybe in this case Open offer? And now similar situation but one student would be a better fit. How do they know or notice one student would be better than the other? I imagine the answer is that they’ve been doing admissions/interviews for years so have the required knowledge/skills.
Regardless, they take time considering each application and look at other aspects too so definitely do not be too stressed (although nerves are good lol, shows u care).
Right now u should be happy that u applied to Oxford and for a course with an exam too, PAT especially. Must be hard with all the maths and fm students.
Regardless, they take time considering each application and look at other aspects too so definitely do not be too stressed (although nerves are good lol, shows u care).
Right now u should be happy that u applied to Oxford and for a course with an exam too, PAT especially. Must be hard with all the maths and fm students.
The OP is not applying to Oxford. He or she is, it appears, the parent of a young person who may or may not wish to apply to Oxford, or be applying to Oxford. For some reason that is not readily apparent, the OP appears to have some sort of beef about the admissions process.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by Adiscoverer
The process is not "Score N and win the prize". True, which is why my query was not "Why did each one of them not make it?". It was "how is such large percentage of them not making it."? Meaning, I am questioning the first three steps of selection.
Think of it like a funnel - ultimately you've got a very limited capacity, but to start off with, you want the broadest possible entry point, to make sure you capture the best talent. If the funnel was very narrow, chances are that only independent, highly tutored, and international applicants would get in. By having a broader opening, you give people more chances to be evaluated in different circumstances and a better chance of natural talent coming to the fore. But that does mean the 'chop rate' is high as the funnel finally closes on its output.
It's a pity that the UK only has one Oxford and one Cambridge, but that's how it is. Neither university can admit every candidate who might do well there. There are, however, several other good universities, and not obtaining a place at Oxford or Cambridge doesn't make a person a failure, save in the weird world view of those who write for the Telegraph.
Original post by Adiscoverer
The process is not "Score N and win the prize". True, which is why my query was not "Why did each one of them not make it?". It was "how is such large percentage of them not making it."? Meaning, I am questioning the first three steps of selection.
If that was your query, you should have made that query in your opening post, which you didn't. In any event, your query as originally framed, and as reframed, has been answered.
Original post by threeportdrift
Think of it like a funnel - ultimately you've got a very limited capacity, but to start off with, you want the broadest possible entry point, to make sure you capture the best talent. If the funnel was very narrow, chances are that only independent, highly tutored, and international applicants would get in. By having a broader opening, you give people more chances to be evaluated in different circumstances and a better chance of natural talent coming to the fore. But that does mean the 'chop rate' is high as the funnel finally closes on its output.
Agree, the idea should be "you give people more chances to be evaluated in different circumstances and a better chance of natural talent coming to the fore.". However, I am just wondering about the delta between the top 10-15% and the remaining 10-14%.
Original post by Adiscoverer
Agree, the idea should be "you give people more chances to be evaluated in different circumstances and a better chance of natural talent coming to the fore.". However, I am just wondering about the delta between the top 10-15% and the remaining 10-14%.
What part of 'That's how much it needs to narrow" don't you understand? They take twice as many to the final stage as they have places, so the cut at that final stage in about half. What is the other option? There isn't space to allow more through the end of the funnel, so the only option would be to take fewer to that last stage. The reality of that is that it gives applicants fewer opportunities to shine, because some will get cut earlier.
Original post by threeportdrift
What part of 'That's how much it needs to narrow" don't you understand? They take twice as many to the final stage as they have places, so the cut at that final stage in about half. What is the other option? There isn't space to allow more through the end of the funnel, so the only option would be to take fewer to that last stage. The reality of that is that it gives applicants fewer opportunities to shine, because some will get cut earlier.
Is there some issue with this sub-forum? People seem to use quite an abrasive tone. The issue arises due to the fact that candidates are refrained from applying to both Cambridge and Oxford at the same time. And I am trying to understand a few bits here, starting from the high fall out rate to the delta between the finals. If you are absolutely clear about the rationale, good for you. I may still probe until I get a satisfactory view.
Original post by threeportdrift
What part of 'That's how much it needs to narrow" don't you understand? They take twice as many to the final stage as they have places, so the cut at that final stage in about half. What is the other option? There isn't space to allow more through the end of the funnel, so the only option would be to take fewer to that last stage. The reality of that is that it gives applicants fewer opportunities to shine, because some will get cut earlier.
I think once they get to interview it might still be around one in three who will be successful. They just don’t have the space and this is a well-known fact! I am also struggling to understand what bit the OP doesn’t understand about this. Cambridge might be even worse, as they interview a lot more applicants than Oxford so more get cut further down the line.
Original post by Adiscoverer
Is there some issue with this sub-forum? People seem to use quite an abrasive tone. The issue arises due to the fact that candidates are refrained from applying to both Cambridge and Oxford at the same time. And I am trying to understand a few bits here, starting from the high fall out rate to the delta between the finals. If you are absolutely clear about the rationale, good for you. I may still probe until I get a satisfactory view.
Can I please ask what you mean by “fall out rate” as, to me, this implies the candidates/applicants are themselves withdrawing from the application process rather than being ‘deselected’ or their application ‘going no further’.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Reapplying to uni while doing first year, with achieved grades.
- How Realistic Are My UCAS Choices?
- Why are Uni Of Bath entry requirements so high?
- Joint honours history and english at oxford
- GCSE V A-Level
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- N/a
- Which universities are best for physiotherapy
- Cambridge MPhil Criminological Research 2022
- Have an offer but want to apply to oxford
- oxford or cambridge geography?
- Oxford Brookes vs. Anglia Ruskin Uni
- Housing in UK Universities
- Cambridge Natsci Admissions
- Does Oxford physics accept resits if I broke my back last year and was bedridden?
- Cambridge Interviews
- is common law at Glasgow competitive?
- A-Levels, Relationships, and applying to Oxford - help?
- Can't Find Oxford Undergraduate Scholarships
- Plan to get to Oxford
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadOxford Undergraduate
558
1960
Last reply 1 week ago
Which majors are Christ Church and Magdalen actually best at/are known for?Last reply 1 month ago
Different Physics Degree Programmes and College Rankings at OxfordLast reply 2 months ago
Oxbridge History and Economics. Which option should I choose?
