That it used to be easier to get to Cambridge or Oxford than it is now??

[countingdownagain]

I know a few people that went to Oxbridge in the 70/80s that I struggle to imagine they'd have a hope of getting in today.

It strikes me that it if you were male, fairly well spoken, it was much easier to get in than it would be now??

Amazing @user29. Hardly a 'shit' degree though (and it's A star A A at Cambridge. AAB at Oxford, plus three essays).

Today’s grades cannot be compared to past grades. The calibration is different.

As a previous poster pointed out there are simply more students chasing the same number of places.

It’s not clear to me that Oxbridge can discern the top 2% of university applicants from the mere top 4% of applicants. At the very top, it’s a bit of a lottery and somewhat subjective, particularly for humanities subjects that have no entrance tests.

Many very capable DC, both state and private, will go to other excellent UK universities. The old idea that Oxbridge contains the best and the brightest is true, but not exclusively true. Oxbridge also will no longer have a lock on influence, as competent, well connected private school students, many with parents who went to Oxbridge themselves, are dispersed across other universities.

This helps everyone. Without being able to expand undergraduate provision, Oxbridge can longer hold onto an academically elitist duopoly.

I also got unconditional offers for all Russel group universities (UCL, Bristol, etc), even though I had only 5 initial O-level passes (three more later) and of those only two or three were As. Definitely wouldn't happen now!!!! One university didn't give me an offer (Exeter) but I'd put them down as fifth choice, which I think may be why.

In my subject (History), we ask for up to 4 essays per student before interview, and these have to be ones the school have marked up (ie. the original handwritten comments and marks from the teacher). The school has to certify these are authentic. We also are v familiar with the A-level mark schemes and with the mark schemes for our own pre-interview tests.

If you read somewhere between 120 and 200 A-level essays each year for ten or twenty years, you get a pretty good sense of how they measure up, how much input (some) schools have, and what an essay by a really good candidate looks like compared to one who has been taught to hit the mark scheme. (Some of the most academic schools in the country can churn out some of the dullest essays which are nevertheless designed to get good marks at A-level.)

We also have the scores from pre-interview tests, GCSEs, A-level predictions, and the two interviews, in which there’ll normally be at least one unseen material test during the interview where candidates will be asked to read a piece just beforehand under exam conditions and then discuss it. There’s a huge amount of spreadsheet data on contextual and school background, comparisons to national and LEA exam scores, etc.

You quickly get a sense for the really impressive candidates, and the ones who would struggle with the degree. There is a band in the middle where you do have to carefully weigh up the pros and cons of different applicants and their backgrounds, and luckily the second college interview (Ox) or winter pool systems (Cam) really come into play here in terms of moderating applicants across the whole subject. Even so, there will still be applicants who could do all who don’t quite get in just because there aren’t enough places available. There’s traditionally quite a high rate of success on second applications the following year.

It’s definitely a bit of an art as well as a science and requires a judicious and knowledgeable eye; but everyone takes it super seriously, and there are normally several academics interviewing and assessing each subject across a range of criteria. In my experience, it’s heavily professionalised these days; and the decision making is very detailed as everyone involved is accountable for the student if they do get admitted! There are no trick questions or rogue decisions. Every applicant you offer to will have been scrutinised several times over by Admissions and several other tutors.

@nightwakingmoon

what about postgrad?

And btw, I didn’t mean wildcards as In students who should not be there - rather ones at first may not seem academic but surprise you once you get to know them.

Yes Dds University is full of people interviewed but turned down for Oxbridge.

Postgrad admissions are done completely differently — by the department, not by the college. Typically for postgrad admissions, which is done by a subject area committee, you would have the applicant’s full transcript from previous universities, plus academic references and a long piece of work like an undergraduate thesis (depending on the course / degree being applied for). The postgrad applicant would be scored by a number of subject readers in the field, and then ranked on a list of candidates. There are only interviews in some cases, usually only for the funding awards.

On undergraduate admissions and the idea of non-academic applicants — well, even candidates with less advantaged backgrounds but potential in interview usually need to meet pretty high admissions standards. So eg. when looking on that borderline on who to admit, if you have two candidates who are very similar in grades, but from different backgrounds, you might give the candidate who’s been less privileged the preference for an offer. But what you can’t generally do is decide you like someone in interview, and then admit them with exam grades and scores that fall well below the average student who gets admitted, or A-levels below the “standard offer”.

I have sometimes seen someone interview really well who has a natural flair for the subject, but really really low exam grades. There are some admissions projects afoot like the extra foundation year trials, that will in the future potentially provide a route in for someone in those circumstances.

But generally, every candidate you admit must meet the standard offer and also tends to have a spread of GCSE marks that don’t fall too far below the expected range. There are plenty of kids who have that, though, so the job is to evaluate who has the ability and potential to do well in the course. Typically, whether state or private school, this will be someone who has a natural feel for the subject and is able to show this and potential for working well beyond A-level in the interview. They wouldn’t look like a good prospect for admission if they couldn’t demonstrate that upfront, and enough that probably 3/4 subject colleagues and the Admissions tutors are all happy that there’s robust evidence of this.

Assuming from that comment they are currently in an independent or selective grammar?
In which case that won't work. Admissions tutors aren't stupid. They will be aware where GCSEs were sat.
It is still a very high % that are taken from independent schools.

This is correct. They are taking more international students now because they don't get paid enough for UK students to cover the cost of teaching them. So fewer UK students are getting in, certainly compared to the 00s. Not sure about earlier. Its a result of under funding, and Oxford and Cambridge not being willing to drop teaching standards to cut costs.

I would certainly discourage my DC from applying for MPhils if they were not accepted as undergraduates. I think they are aimed at large egos who are still chasing the kudos of Oxbridge three or four years later. It sends the wrong message to potential employers. Luckily, my DC will probably study overseas.

@Croque don't be daft. I know of an equal flow of PhDs towards Oxbridge and away from those places. Both sets have done equally well in their subsequent careers academic or otherwise.

I never said Phds. I said M Phils.

It would be a very weird conclusion for employers to draw, given that postgrad students at Oxbridge didn't necessarily apply as undergraduates. I find it hard to believe that an Oxbridge MPhil is looked at in this way by employers. Your posts seem to have quite a personal anti-Oxbridge edge to them. This one is as PP says, daft.

Same applies. Quite an odd conclusion. Look at some of the undergrad degrees offered at the likes of Imperial. Many of those undergrads won't even have applied to Oxbridge.

They are taking more international students now because they don't get paid enough for UK students to cover the cost of teaching them. I teach at Oxford and admit undergraduate students. This is not why there are more international students now. There are more international applicants now compared to 30 years ago due to easier travel, communication and also higher incomes and higher standard of English in many countries eg China. There is absolutely no quota of UK v International (apart from medicine). We simply assess the applicants and take the best regardless of where they come from. The only difference is that we make more explict use of "contextual" information for UK students as we don't have the data for international students and don't have widening participation targets for them. The Colleges make admissions decisions and don't receive more money for international students.

Well, that is a misinterpretation if ever there was one. I can hardly be called anti Oxbridge if I have concerns about the direction in which admissions is being taken. I would like to see the criteria returned back to what existed in my day.

It is true that masters may be useful for scientists. I was focused on arts and social sciences. I should have qualified that.

@Croque I don't say you were anti Oxbridge. If anything I am, and my son and husband went there!

It does seem at least a bit anti-Oxbridge to discourage your DC from studying there for such an illogical reason. I can't believe any employer would conclude that an Oxbridge MPhil = rejection as an undergraduate, it's a bizarre thing to say, whatever the subject.

And even if they did apply as an undergrad, so what? There are many good reasons to do an Oxbridge MPhil that are unrelated to large egos or desperately chasing kudos.

I am sure that I would no longer recognize it as the university I knew and loved.

My admissions interview at Trinity around the turn of the century (for what would be considered a social science degree) consisted of being asked to compare three different operas followed by a lunch during which interviewees were served impossible-to-fillet, unrecognizable whole fish accompanied by implements which would not look out of place at a hospital. The subsequent interview unexpectedly took place in French and Latin.

I would only be disappointed at how these great colleges have been ruined.

😂😂
I can't believe I fell for your earlier posts!

Early 80's - it was only the brightest and best at my school that ever sat the Oxbridge exam and they didn't all succeed, so sounds about the same as now to me

@Bovrilly You see, you even think I am joking now.

@nightwakingmoon

I've been making admissions decisions at Oxford for 20 years. A few years ago I spent my sabbatical at the University Admissions Office and carried out admissions process reviews of two major courses, interviewing colleagues across all colleges. I agree with some of what you say but not all. I agree that the focus is more on meeting widening participation targets (NOTthe ratio of state to private) than on international fee income. But I maintain that there has been much faster growth of international applicants than UK applicants and (to a slightly lesser extent) faster growth of international offers than UK offers. See data since 2007. I can't quickly find data from a generation ago I'm afraid, but even this shorter time series supports my point. The total number of offers to UK students has gone down. There is also a marked Brexit effect on EU students.

It is true that international students are less likely to take up places. But so far the colleagues I speak to are trying to cover this through making more "open offers" rather than making fewer offers to international students. And I have never heard a whisper of any pressure to admit more international students for the higher fees.

I find it interesting that you refer to "subject interviewers" and "admissions tutors". There is no such distinction at Oxford, which makes me think you only have Cambridge experience. Unless you are referring to the single person in charge of admissions at each college? Though these days that is normally rolled into the Senior Tutor role.

public.tableau.com/views/UniversityofOxford-AdmissionsStatistics2021NationalityandDomicile/Trends?:embed=y&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y&:showVizHome=no

Correction = data goes back to 20006

I’ve interviewed and been responsible for admissions at various colleges at both Ox or Cam for long periods of time (have moved between the two over a period of 25 years, a short stint in the US notwithstanding); so am giving a bit of a joint perspective here, with bits of both as relevant.

Depending on whether Ox or Cam (and on college), the AT and ST/Dean may both be involved to various degrees in admissions; and some colleges I’ve interviewed with at Cambridge have a joint AT team (eg. AT for arts; AT for STEM). So the subject decisions will be cleared by at least one and sometimes more than one combination of ATs and/or ST. (It isn’t true at all, either, that all Oxford colleges have rolled Tutor for Admissions into the ST role — it very much depends on the college.)

The key point is that it isn’t just the interviewers who are scrutinising applicants — there are several levels of oversight, and even an applicant that subject interviewers want to take can be ruled out by an admissions or senior tutor (or both). Conversely, it would be seriously unlikely if not impossible for any serious applicant to be deselected/desummoned (not interviewed) as a pp claimed she knew of — as several people are overseeing that decision and doing it according to department and university admissions policy.