Choosing an Oxford College

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?

Actually I would prefer to believe the opposite. I asked for evidence and all people are saying is it must be true because Oxford says so. Can you list out the "absolutely convincing evidence"?

Ultimately this has to rest on the experiences of those academics who participate in the process.

It is well known that the standard of applicants applying to each college varies. Therefore all quantitative data is useless until one is able accurately to correct for this differential.

Yes.

These people are just not twisted and cynical enough.

You have a website written largely by the admissions department that finds that admissions are pretty damn efficient and everybody is quoting it like it's an extract from the bible.

The famous "27%" is written in bold on the admissions webpage but nobody explains what it proves. It's just a meaningless percentage until somebody explains it.

OK, chaps, I give in. These are really good numbers. Can someone please explain to me why?

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.

Yes but the question is whether on the balance of probabilities these academics are right or whether they are dishonest or deluded. Whilst I accept the limitations of the evidence, I think that it is more likely than not, that the university picks the best candidates regardless of college selected.

It looks to me as though colleges like Brasenose and Worcester can make up balanced interview pools for many subjects mainly from their direct applicants. They have a large number of candidates in each band and so reallocation 'exports' some of these to balance the other pools. In the case of Brasenose, the result is that 244 of their direct applicants secured places at other colleges - almost as many as secured places at Brasenose itself (294). Worcester is a similar story: 319 versus 269.

Also, someone commented that tutors are not aware which applicants are open. However, the college admissions office must know so are we saying there is a chinese wall within the college?

Also, someone commented that tutors are not aware which applicants are open. However, the college admissions office must know so are we saying there is a chinese wall within the college?

There is a central university admissions department and then the colleges. It is indeed true that the former doesn't let the latter know which candidates are open (or second interviewfor science subjects). They also do things like withhold admissions test scores until after interview to try to make them less biased - there is a well established 'Chinese wall', as you put it.

Yes, that makes sense - except that the colleges must be letting some of the better candidates go to get the balance. Good for the candidates, not so good for the college. Is the reallocation negotiated or imposed?

Imposed under the Non-Aggression Pact.

The colleges agreed many years ago that no college would introduce any new admissions arrangements without the support of a majority of the colleges and each college would implement any agreed changes to the admissions system

.A scheme of pre-interview re-allocation was agreed and so each college had to implement it.

However look at St Hugh's. Again it has a very high proportion of applying students admitted at 23%. That would suggest that it has a very high standard of applicant. However it only exports 16 students which prima facie would suggest a very low standard of applicant.

In reality St Hugh's is only applicable on three bases. Firstly, it has a very high standard of applicant but has upset the other colleges for some reason that other colleges don't want St Hugh's cast-offs. Secondly, it has a low standard of applicant and St Hugh's takes applicants who wouldn't be of the appropriate standard elsewhere. Thirdly, St Hugh's has two constituencies; there is a high proportion of qualified applicants but apart from 16 hand-ons. the rest of the applicants were very poor.

It varies by course. e.g. in Law the colleges only get to hold onto two strong candidates, the rest are liable to be reallocated pre- interview. But I believe that in Maths, the colleges say who they want to be reallocated (i.e. who they don't have enough rooms to accommodate)

Or the Open Application scheme is very efficient, providing St Hugh's with an almost perfect number of suitable students...

(Those statistics include open applications in the college X figures)

Each subject differs. I believe in maths every candidate has a second "choice" college (although the applicant doesn't get to make that choice!), so in a sense everyone is pooled. This of course prevents a college from only letting the no-hopers go, and keeping back all the viable candidates until they have filled all their places and only crumbs are available for those candidates who do not ultimately get in to their first choice. Effectively the first choice college's only right is the right to pre-empt the second choice college.

Open applicants are not pre-sorted. Although the open applicants allocated to St Hugh's may be different in calibre to St Hugh's own applicants, they should, within normal variation, be the same calibre as the open applicants to all other colleges.

The only variation between colleges is the significance of the proportion of open applicants in the total applicant pool to that college.

A college either has a lot of cuckoos or few cuckoos but every cuckoo is the same colour.

Therefore it should not affect what I am saying.

Actually I would prefer to believe the opposite. I asked for evidence and all people are saying is it must be true because Oxford says so. Can you list out the "absolutely convincing evidence"?