Laura Spence: why was it a big deal?

Not sure how relevant it is, but there's attempts made at the typical outrage even when the opposite, someone gaining a place at Oxford and not at Durham, happens. I remember someone wrote a pretty stubborn letter to The Times fairly recently which basically said "Oxford accepted me, so how dare Durham reject me?" - or something along those lines.

She didn't have the minimum of 3 sciences, and she was from a state school.
Who cares?

She didn't have the minimum of 3 sciences, and she was from a state school.
Who cares?

What the hell has being from a state school got to do with it?

Because it suggested that despite flawless grades, her humble background resulted in her being denied a place; this raised questions regarding social predjudices and snobbery being inherent in academic institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge which is a serious matter.

But plenty of people with flawless grades get rejected every year - that was my point. If politicians were to take it on themselves to question whether a black person with flawless grades was rejected really because of their race, or a mentally ill person because of their disability, or a girl because of her gender... well, you could claim anyone was discriminated against for one reason or another. The fact remains that every year there are lots of Laura Spences from a variety of backgrounds, classes and ethnicities and they don't all become contentious national issues.

But that is the point about Oxbridge; not enough students do come from a variety of backgrounds and classes. I'm sure plenty of applicants just like Spence also were rejected, but the Press cannot run stories on them all can it?

Because it suggested that despite flawless grades, her humble background resulted in her being denied a place; this raised questions regarding social predjudices and snobbery being inherent in academic institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge which is a serious matter.

It's particularly distressing when people harp on about her Harvard "scholarship".
.

This is largely because not enough applicants come from a variety of backgrounds and classes. Sure, private school students might be better prepared for interview, but the fact remains that Oxbridge have no chance in hell of hitting the absurd targets set for them until they receive significantly more high-quality, state-educated applicants. The problem is not the universities but our secondary education system.

Not sure how relevant it is, but there's attempts made at the typical outrage even when the opposite, someone gaining a place at Oxford and not at Durham, happens. I remember someone wrote a pretty stubborn letter to The Times fairly recently which basically said "Oxford accepted me, so how dare Durham reject me?" - or something along those lines.

Why?

Sure, they would have been monitored & they were actually published in the prospectus back then too! The College she chose was the most numerically competitive for Medicine & I think had the highest ratio of direct applicants for any subject at any college (or perhaps second to E&M somewhere) on a 3 year average.
(I was looking as prospectuses 2001/2002 time. )

I seem to remember some people bringing up the issue of whether things would have been different if she'd applied to a different college with fewer applicants - although as I said Magdalen seemed to have a good reputation for successfully informally pooling applicants anyway.

Then Medicine switched to the automatic 2nd college interview system (04/05?) & I wonder if high profile cases like that (there were some other Medicine ones elsewhere too... Bristol?) might have provided more impetus to actually make an official & visible change to attempt to standardize across the university/increase numbers of interviews. Although there's now BMAT controversy instead.



Edit - this makes sense in my head but perhaps not on TSR.
I have just finished & am on holiday as opposed to vacation - why am I on TSR? :

my bro applied in the year they introduced the 2nd college system i think. he had exactly the same academic credentials (10A*s, 4As), plenty of extra curriculars (eg captaining wales u16s at cricket, playing for wales at badminton etc) and is a pretty friendly, hardworking guy and went to a welsh state school. he didn't get in, but we certainly did not make a media frenzy out of it. i applied and got in. as it happens, there are more good candidates than there are places and oxford make it pretty clear that they put more weight than anywhere else on the interview. stellar grades you may have but your grades and bmat get you the interview, the interview gets you the place.

it was a big deal because people relish any opportunity to bash oxford and make it out to be some stuck up backwards institution. i personally think it's just sour grapes. at least oxford gave her an interview. my bro got rejected from nottingham without an interview which really baffles given his grades and whatnot. one of my friends in oxford got rejected from southampton whilst two others got rejected from all their other choices, but who cares if anywhere else is unfair right?
oxford medicine has the most transparent applications procedure, and it's a pity that people can't appreciate it.

Edit: terribly sorry I have got the dates wrong! somebody said it was in the same year as my bro but having looked at the wikipedia article it was not! my bro was '03 application but laura spence applied in '99