Oxford University applicants fall out rate

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 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.

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.

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.

That definitely is logical. I think that cuts way deep.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.