Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>

This thread is closed

Getting into Oxbridge through family connections

Scroll to see replies

Athena

"Oh, you only got in because of your connecttions/the school you went", you are trying to drag us all down, discredit Oxbridge, make our achievements in getting a place less in whatever way possible. So we defend ourselves.
.

You can't win though, I've always suspected that my acceptance was helped by applying for Classics at Trinity and having gone to a state comp- they want people like that too if they don't think you'll do really badly to boost their 'diversity.' I imagine that using the 'I went to state school' argument would only result in precisely the same accusations.

The process isn't perfect, it can be a bit of a lottery. But so is getting hit by a car so by and large people need to get a grip and shut up.

Reply 101

Tyrotoxism

vapid slut magician

I think it's possible that it happens in cases where the candidates have the required grades (hardly a difficulty, you only need 3As in half decent subjects) so there'd be no questions asked when they were accepted. I think it's unlikely Oxbridge would turn down people from massively rich philanthropic families that have given millions to the institutions over the years if they could just as easily let them in.

That said, these people are likely to be smart anyway; if your parents went to Oxbridge then you probably live in an environment that fosters achievement and were encouraged to work hard at school and actually apply there in the first place. You're also almost certainly more likely to have gone to a public school so statistically more likely to end up there. All of which means it's difficult to tell whether someone's family background directly influenced their acceptance whilst it almost certainly did indirectly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1720940.stm

just sayin'

Reply 102

vapid slut magician

Tyrotoxism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1720940.stm

just sayin'

I don't think Trinity cares about £100k

Reply 103

vapid slut magician

Oh Trinity Oxford, didn't read that properly. Probably still don't need it badly enough to let in people who they have reason to believe won't perform well.

will not happen

bodybuilder22

will not happen

Generally, in this forum like to actually give a proper answer with thoughts, evidence and advice.

Reply 106

Teebs

Tipareth

Generally, in this forum like to actually give a proper answer with thoughts, evidence and advice.

The posters in this thread could have fooled me :p:

Reply 107

Miss Prankster Pixie

cpchem

We should be able to set an entrance exam for the Oxbridge forum...

knowing my luck, i'd completely fail it...

meaning

cambridge = easier to get into than TSR oxbridge forum.

:p:

Reply 108

Andy the Anarchist

Miss Prankster Pixie

knowing my luck, i'd completely fail it...

meaning

cambridge = easier to get into than TSR oxbridge forum.

:p:

I'd fail too :five:

Reply 109

Miss Prankster Pixie

For all of us who got ino Oxbride based on years of hard work, merit, and pulling a rabbit out of a hat at interview, we can't say for certain that here aren't situations of nepotism.

But similarly, no one can say that there are situations of nepotism.

The best we can do is use our personal experiences of the interview process (I was interviewed by four tutors, and sat two anonymised exams which were independently marked), and any personal knowledge we have of other students.

I met someone who endeavoured get into Cambridge using nepotism and bribery. They failed. most spectacularly. twice as well.

So from everything I can gather, it is a meritocratic system. I don't doubt nepotism has occured historically (maybe 100+ years ago). But imo it doesn't happen now (or nowhere near as much). And to level an accusation of nepotism or th "state school card" or "the disability/gender/ethnicity card" takes something away from those of us who have worked our arses off to get here.

For those people who have said they believed they just weren't good enough to get in: whilst i admire you and appreciate what you have said, you were good enough to be interviewed. And i'm sure you were good enough to get in, just that the competition is sooo stiff. If it is still what you want, consider re-applying next year, or applying as a mature or affiliated student.

Reply 110

cpchem

Miss Prankster Pixie

knowing my luck, i'd completely fail it...

meaning

cambridge = easier to get into than TSR oxbridge forum.

:p:

Well, Cambridge is, certainly. Oxford, on the other hand...

:tongue:

Reply 111

Miss Prankster Pixie

cpchem

Well, Cambridge is, certainly. Oxford, on the other hand...

:tongue:

on a related note, me and one of my friends both applied to cambridge as mature students, and both applied to LSE. we've both got places for social and political sciences at cambridge, but only i got into LSE. we have decided LSE is actually harder to get into. lol.

Reply 112

Andy the Anarchist

Miss Prankster Pixie

I was rejected by the LSE, so I agree :biggrin:

Reply 113

soph41190

hiba alk

its likely .. but u have to show potentail and not be stone dumb !

Most people who are as you say "stone dumb" would not waste the university option.

Reply 114

Jenii

I doubt "family connections" make any difference to tutors. I know some tutors, given two candidates with identical potential, would choose the state school kid over the private/public school kid. It's possible some tutors work like this in reverse if they have a particular thing for posh kids.

If you know Oxbridge tutors/graduates you can probably get some advice and maybe even a practice interview, but nothing that will actively help you get in.

I do wonder if some colleges might favour an applicant like Benizir Bhutto's son over a regular Tarquin with similar academic potential because Benizir Bhutto's son is more likely to become a world leader and that can make Christ Church look good. I'm not even 100% sure about that really. And if Benizir Bhutto's son wasn't up to scratch academically then he wouldn't get in. And the regular Tarquin will probably just get pooled to a different college and then get in. This is a random rant.

So anyway, in colclusion: family connections don't make a difference to your tutors, but they might help improve your application by giving you confidence/advice etc.

Reply 115

Windsprite

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Great Thread -> let me rant.

•

To think Oxbridge actually have any good moral fibre in their body. :rolleyes:

•

They run the university too much as a business.

•

They have quotas for underprivileged children which they have to meet in order to “appear" fair to the outside world.!

•

They will accept celebrities to boost their status (regardless of aptitude).

•

A lot of corrupt politicians once studied at Oxbridge (think expenses).

•

Status means everything! (Upper middle class feel free to enter).

•

Basically the majority of acceptances are not based on what you know but who you know

•

They claim to be racially diverse, i.e. they splatter different ethnic groups all over their prospecti(?), when you get there the only foreign people you see is the Chinese/ Asians who pay extortionate amounts.

Couldn't care less if you agree on me with any of these points or not.

Having said that, a lot of great, revolutionary and good people have come out of Oxbridge, so for that they must be credited (a little bit).

Reply 116

Tipareth

Windsprite

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Great Thread -> let me rant.

•

To think Oxbridge actually have any good moral fibre in their body. :rolleyes:

•

They run the university too much as a business.

•

They have quotas for underprivileged children which they have to meet in order to “appear" fair to the outside world.!

•

They will accept celebrities to boost their status (regardless of aptitude).

•

A lot of corrupt politicians once studied at Oxbridge (think expenses).

•

Status means everything! (Upper middle class feel free to enter).

•

Basically the majority of acceptances are not based on what you know but who you know

•

Do you have any basis for this polemic?

Unless you do, I will be forced to treat this post as evidence of a lesser mind :smile:

Reply 117

hobnob

Windsprite

To think Oxbridge actually have any good moral fibre in their body. :rolleyes:

Indeed. They don't even have bodies to put good moral fibre in...

They run the university too much as a business.

Leaving aside the point that when talking about Oxbridge there is no such thing as "the university", universities aren't charities. All universities have to be run as businesses to some extent, otherwise they'd go bankrupt, and that wouldn't be in anybody's interest.

They have quotas for underprivileged children which they have to meet in order to “appear" fair to the outside world.!

Where did you get that information from? :s-smilie:

Anyway, it's completely wrong. What they do have are goverment-imposed benchmarks for state-school students (which are basically meant as guidelines and don't *have* to be met at all costs), but all universities have them. Cambridge and Oxford routinely "fail" to meet them because they've been set unrealistically high.

They will accept celebrities to boost their status (regardless of aptitude).

Do you seriously believe that two universities with such a long academic history depend on a few celebrities to "boost their status"? It's just that every time a celebrity does get accepted, it tends to be over-reported by the media, so people wrongly get the impression that the universities are unusually keen on admitting teen actors or models.
As for the "regardless of aptitude" bit - don't be silly. Admitting someone who wouldn't cope and who'd fail the anonymised exams wouldn't help anybody.

A lot of corrupt politicians once studied at Oxbridge (think expenses).

... as did a whole bunch of non-corrupt people. And even with the corrupt ones, you can't exactly argue that it was Oxford and Cambridge which made them corrupt, can you?

Status means everything!

Erm, no.

(Upper middle class feel free to enter).

Obviously a lot of applicants (and consequently a lot of successful applicants) are from middle-class backgrounds, but that's largely because the school system favours them for various reasons. So they're far more likely to have the academic requirements for being able to apply in the first place. But a lot of the applicants who are rejected every year are middle-class too.

Basically the majority of acceptances are not based on what you know but who you know

I'm intrigued. How come you know so much about the reasons behind several thousand offers? Are you responsible for admissions in a few dozen subjects?

All universities are guilty of that to some extent. But what would you have them do, advertise themselves as "universities for the white middle class (plus a handful of Asians)", which is how you seem to think about them? Surely not. :s-smilie:

Couldn't care less if you agree on me with any of these points or not.

I'm not trying to argue with you (if you seriously think those things, it'll be pointless anyway), I only replied to your post in the interest of the poor fools who might actually believe you.

Having said that, a lot of great, revolutionary and good people have come out of Oxbridge, so for that they must be credited (a little bit).

Now that's just as silly. Oxbridge didn't make those "great, revolutionary and good people" any more than they made the corrupt politicians you were ranting about earlier. They only happened to go there and then went on to do great, good revolutionary things (or corrupt things) afterwards.

Reply 118

Teebs

fumblewomble

Cambridge accepted Lily Cole last year. She has just got a first in her first year exams - she was clearly admitted on academic ability.

Clearly they also award degrees based on celebrity status to boost their own image. :rolleyes:

Reply 119

cpchem

Teebs

Clearly they also award degrees based on celebrity status to boost their own image. :rolleyes:

Yep - one in five firsts (this is the number as laid down in the Examination Regulations, and is, therefore, strictly adhered to) is awarded based on fame... you did know that, right?

M_T=M_R\frac{f_{BB}\sqrt{t_{TV}^3t_R^2}}{(I_{S}/I_{T})^2}

M_T is the true exam mark;
M_R is the raw exam mark;
f_BB is the Big Brother factor (a complex term, based upon when you were voted out of the house, amongst other things);
t_TV and t_R are obviously the time spent on TV and radio, respectively;

I_{S}/I_{T}

is the 'Print Media Class Factor' - the quotient of column inches in the Sun and Telegraph (or Star and Times, if you prefer).

Getting into Oxbridge through family connections

Related discussions

Trending

Latest