The Student Room Logo
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>

Choosing an Oxford College

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Pars12
Evidence?


It would take a lot for every single tutor at Oxford to say it without meaning it :smile:
Original post by Lucilou101
That's what the pooling system is for -

Colleges work co-operatively to try and ensure all applicants for a particular subject, across all colleges, can be compared against one another, in order that the very best people get Oxford places. As a result, around 27% of successful candidates for 2013 entry are at a college other than the college they named as their preference.


So what does that mean? Is 27% some kind of magic number so I should say "Oh, so that's alright then"?
Original post by amol_chalis447
It would take a lot for every single tutor at Oxford to say it without meaning it :smile:


True, but it would take a lot more for one single tutor to break ranks.
Original post by Pars12
So what does that mean? Is 27% some kind of magic number so I should say "Oh, so that's alright then"?


I don't get why you're on about this so aggressively. The fact is tutors sit and discuss which candidates they feel deserve a place at Oxford regardless of college. If it so happens that there are too many deserving candidates at one college then they are accommodated by being sent to another college which has a lack of deserving candidates (or by being made open offers underwritten by some college).

The only hard and firm evidence you'll get is by sitting with the tutors as they discuss it so you can see yourself. Until then, as I said earlier, when every single tutor says it is true, one would be given to believe they're not lying. You won't find better evidence than that. You can choose (irrationally) not to accept it but don't be aggressive about it for no reason.
Original post by Pars12
True, but it would take a lot more for one single tutor to break ranks.


Didn't see this while replying earlier, sorry.

I don't think so, no. The tutors have no obligation, moral or enforced, to lie on behalf of the university. There's a very broad range of tutors. It would take a lot to compel every single one to follow like sheep in a herd. It would be rather easy to tell the truth.
Original post by amol_chalis447
I don't get why you're on about this so aggressively. The fact is tutors sit and discuss which candidates they feel deserve a place at Oxford regardless of college. If it so happens that there are too many deserving candidates at one college then they are accommodated by being sent to another college which has a lack of deserving candidates (or by being made open offers underwritten by some college).

The only hard and firm evidence you'll get is by sitting with the tutors as they discuss it so you can see yourself. Until then, as I said earlier, when every single tutor says it is true, one would be given to believe they're not lying. You won't find better evidence than that. You can choose (irrationally) not to accept it but don't be aggressive about it for no reason.


So if every single smoker says that smoking is safe they should know, shouldn't they?

I hope it's not too aggressive but I believe an important part of why you are going to Oxford is to question the facts. I have absolutely no evidence that the system is biassed. But your counter-evidence is skimpy to say the least. How many tutors is "every single tutor"?


Can you explain why only 17% of applicants to Catz get accepted but 27% of Somerville applicants. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation but until you ask the question noone is going to be hopping up and down trying to answer it.


... and if the answer is that the system isn't perfect I rest my case.
Original post by Pars12
So if every single smoker says that smoking is safe they should know, shouldn't they?

I hope it's not too aggressive but I believe an important part of why you are going to Oxford is to question the facts. I have absolutely no evidence that the system is biassed. But your counter-evidence is skimpy to say the least. How many tutors is "every single tutor"?


Can you explain why only 17% of applicants to Catz get accepted but 27% of Somerville applicants. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation but until you ask the question noone is going to be hopping up and down trying to answer it.


... and if the answer is that the system isn't perfect I rest my case.


The logical assumption would be that Somerville had a higher standard of applicants than those to Catz.
Original post by Lucilou101
The logical assumption would be that Somerville had a higher standard of applicants than those to Catz.



That's an assumption not an explanation.
Original post by Pars12
That's an assumption not an explanation.


Well then maybe you should be putting these questions to the University of Oxford and not a forum for students.
Original post by Pars12
So if every single smoker says that smoking is safe they should know, shouldn't they?

I hope it's not too aggressive but I believe an important part of why you are going to Oxford is to question the facts. I have absolutely no evidence that the system is biassed. But your counter-evidence is skimpy to say the least. How many tutors is "every single tutor"?


Can you explain why only 17% of applicants to Catz get accepted but 27% of Somerville applicants. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation but until you ask the question noone is going to be hopping up and down trying to answer it.


... and if the answer is that the system isn't perfect I rest my case.


To be fair, it's pretty obvious the system isn't perfect - it just can't be. Generally, any system which involves humans and human decisions cannot be flawless. I think, given the circumstances, the pooling system does a good job of making sure exceptional candidates who have just happened to apply to a competitive college do get in at some college - obviously this is in Oxford's interests to make sure this happens. Do I think the same thing can be said for borderline candidates, no - and I think you'd be hard pressed proving that borderline candidates who would just manage get in at a less competitive college, would've been successfully pooled to one of the less competitive colleges had they applied to one of the more competitive colleges.

In general though, there is a level of standardisation when it comes to interview scores, and obviously admissions test scores are standardised across the whole cohort, tutors trust other tutors' judgements - so borderline candidates can be compared. The real issue lies in the fact that there are a significant number of borderline candidates, all with very similar admission test and interview scores and picking the best of the bunch isn't an easy task.
Original post by Pars12
So if every single smoker says that smoking is safe they should know, shouldn't they?

Can you explain why only 17% of applicants to Catz get accepted but 27% of Somerville applicants. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation but until you ask the question noone is going to be hopping up and down trying to answer it.



Each College receives a certain number of direct applicants. There are then two success percentages: 1) the percentage getting a place at that college and 2) the percentage getting a place at any college. Measure 1) is influenced by the number direct applicants to that particular college and measure 2) is influenced by the overall number of applications Oxford receives in a particular year.

About 1 in 4 applicants will be successful at current application levels. So measure 2 tends to be close to 25% and does not vary much between colleges owing to reallocation (more on this below). Measure 1 will lie below measure 2 - how far below depends on the number of direct applicants and whether this sample resembles the parent sample (the total universe of applicants).

OK - on to reallocation. There are three main ways in which a candidate may be reallocated corresponding to different stages of selection.

A) Pre-interview, applicants will be banded (usually based on GCSE, A-level predictions, aptitude test scores). The Departments will work with colleges to make sure that the batch each college interviews consists of a range of bands. This is very much in the interest of applicants who don't have to worry about all the other interviewees being highest band while all the other interviewees at another college are lowest band.

B) Post-interview reallocation occurs if more of the candidates retained for interview achieved the standard needed for a place in a particular year than there are quota places.

C) Finally post-A-level reallocation occurs if a student holds an Open Offer that is underwritten by the college they applied to direct. If another student applying for the same course withdraws or misses his/her offer, the Open Offer candidate us taken; if not, he or she may be reallocated to another college where a withdrawal or miss has occurred.

A + B + C adds up to around 1 in 4 students ending up at a college other than the one they applied to direct.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Noble.
x
Would be interesting to see some stats.... *cough*
Original post by Pars12
x


Reasons to think the system is fair:

•

Colleges want the best students. If they can have a choice between two students, they will accept the better one (the college they applied to will not affect their decision).

•

There are very many mechanisms to allow the above to happen.

•

Interviews at multiple colleges

•

Sharing of interview scores (and other information) between colleges

•

Face to face meetings between tutors of a subject

•

Pre-interview reallocation between colleges to ensure everyone with a chance of getting a place gets an interview

•

Probably other things I've forgotten....

•

The statistics show lots of individuals get offers from colleges they didn't apply to.


Original post by Lucilou101
The logical assumption would be that Somerville had a higher standard of applicants than those to Catz.
Original post by Pars12
That's an assumption not an explanation.
I'm not saying that any of the above show anything beyond all reasonable doubt, but I think they're enough to conclude with a decent probability, that the difference is primarily standard of applicants rather than unfairness in the system.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by fluteflute
Would be interesting to see some stats.... *cough*


So would I :tongue:

I just very much doubt the system works so well that people who just scrape an offer at a less competitive college would've uncategorically been successfully pooled had they applied to one of the most competitive colleges.
Original post by Noble.
So would I :tongue:

I just very much doubt the system works so well that people who just scrape an offer at a less competitive college would've uncategorically been successfully pooled had they applied to one of the most competitive colleges.
I have some plans...
To everyone coming to Friday's Open Day - I hope the weather stays fine and you have a great day. A large proportion of students gaining places say that the experience helped convince them that getting to Oxford was a demanding but achievable aim - something worth a shot. I think that familiarity with the colleges is a definite help if you get to interview - you'll meet the same sort of people who guided you round as an admissions host and that helps you stay relaxed in December. Remember to visit your Department as well - you'll find Faculty and more current students there.
Original post by Pars12
That's an assumption not an explanation.


Those numbers hardly count as evidence against the assertion either though. You'd expect a good degree of variance, both due to random factors and systematic factors like, for example, unqualified people thinking catz is a soft touch and worth'giving it a shot' - to be honest I'm surprised that's the biggest difference you can come up with.

Do you have evidence that it isn't equal? Because in light of Oxford's very clear statements that it makes no difference is definitely consider the burden of proof to lie with you.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Noble.
To be fair, it's pretty obvious the system isn't perfect



Original post by admissionshost
...


Original post by fluteflute
I have some plans...


Original post by nexttime
Those numbers hardly count as evidence against the assertion either though.


One does have to say that there is a touch of the Article of Faith about Oxford's position. It is fair because the University wishes it to be fair.

Oxford hasn't gone out of its way to conduct any research. You could take a small school; say, history and English or theology and one year video the interviews. You would have to tell the candidates, but video can be pretty unobtrusive these days.

Then when the admission decisions have been made, assemble a panel who hadn't taken part in the admissions process and get them to review all the interviews and rank the candidates. Then compare the actual out-turn with what a single interviewing panel would have done. If you end up with a few debatable choices in the borderland, well that is fine. If the list differ significantly, then you have a problem.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Pars12
So if every single smoker says that smoking is safe they should know, shouldn't they?

I hope it's not too aggressive but I believe an important part of why you are going to Oxford is to question the facts. I have absolutely no evidence that the system is biassed. But your counter-evidence is skimpy to say the least. How many tutors is "every single tutor"?


Can you explain why only 17% of applicants to Catz get accepted but 27% of Somerville applicants. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation but until you ask the question noone is going to be hopping up and down trying to answer it.


... and if the answer is that the system isn't perfect I rest my case.


From what I can tell, you are absolutely determined to believe that your choice of college determines your chance of getting in. Plenty of absolutely convincing evidence has been presented to you, yet you are dismissing all of it. Why are you so desperate to believe your version of reality?
Original post by nexttime
Those numbers hardly count as evidence against the assertion either though. You'd expect a good degree of variance, both due to random factors and systematic factors like, for example, unqualified people thinking catz is a soft touch and worth'giving it a shot' - to be honest I'm surprised that's the biggest difference you can come up with.

Do you have evidence that it isn't equal? Because in light of Oxford's very clear statements that it makes no difference is definitely consider the burden of proof to lie with you.


Yes. I agree with you. I told you I had no evidence. I'm not even trying to prove it.

The statement under consideration is: "Not at all true, your choice of college has no affect on your chances of getting in." This of course is true because of "Oxford's very clear statements"

You seem to have gone very anecdotal all of a sudden.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Trending

Latest

Latest