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??

Or maybe they want to work with a particular academic or in a particular department.

Your description of a turn of the century interview must be made up surely? I had an eighties interview and whilst the academics had fun with some of the entrance exam the interview was entirely typical of any academic interview and we certainly were not assessed on our ability to each lunch. Jacob Rees. Mogg was at Trinity in my day which maybe explains how he got in if that is really what happened.

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.

I disagree. Plenty of courses at Oxford only shortlist 20-30% of applicants. Plenty of "serious" applicants (i.e., applicants who have the required grades and could reasonably be expected to get a good degree if admitted) will not be selected for interview for those courses. And in my experience Oxford admissions tutors are only making very cursory checks that there are no crazy looking decisions that stand out. That was not the case 20 years ago - then I had to make a specific case to the admissions tutor if I wanted to de-select someone who satisfied the basic entrance requirements (and, tbh, it was often more trouble that it was worth) - but it is now. There is one Oxford College that I am aware of that has historically admitted more state school applicants and where the admissions tutor has been more pro-active.

That really isn’t at all typical of any colleges I’ve interviewed for in Oxford within recent years, where the threshold for desummons or interview was based very much on the pre-interview test score, as well as other factors. How are you using the test data in your subject/college? Who is overseeing the OfS contextual data targets?

Yes, in the sense that I think the system of closed scholarships at some colleges no longer exists - that is, a number of places allocated to specific schools (often with an historic link to the college) which could be filled each year regardless of the candidate's attainment, or with a lower bar.

There has been a drive to make Oxbridge more accessible to state-educated candidates, which is great. I really don't think this means standards have been lowered - at least, I hope not. Just that the universities do active outreach to state schools to encourage them to apply and courses are run to support them in doing so.

My son (state comp) went to Trinity, Cambridge and loved it. Before anyone jumps in (which has happened!!) to say that he was given favoured entry because of coming from a comp - he got a really good First and several academic prizes.

I think that independent schools are able to give their students so much more support, smaller classes, one-to-ones, enrichment etc etc, that when they get to university and these privileges are removed - so the playing field is levelled - state-educated children, who haven't been used to all the extra support, tend to steam ahead rather like the fable of the tortoise and the hare!

(I'm not having a dig at public school children. I've worked in both state and independent schools and I wish them all well, but I think the above tends to be true.)

I'm really in favour of state-school children going to the elite universities, but I'm not in favour of the universities lowering the bar to admit them. Able children need to be identified much, much earlier - at admission to secondary school - and nurtured to give them the best chance of getting into Oxbridge. It wouldn't help anyone for these universities to lower their standards.

That really isn’t at all typical of any colleges I’ve interviewed for in Oxford within recent years, where the threshold for desummons or interview was based very much on the pre-interview test score, as well as other factors. How are you using the test data in your subject/college? Who is overseeing the OfS contextual data targets?

I think the process and outcomes will vary more with the subject than with the College. As it should do, for fairness across colleges within the same subject. I interview for one of the larger and more over subscribed courses. The department informs us how many applicants we should shortlist in order to maintain the right number of interviews per place across the whole university (2.5 I think). We are also one of the more over subscribed Colleges, so some of our shortlisted candidates will be re-allocated elsewhere. Again, the numbers are determined centrally, not by the College. As you say, the main element is the pre-interview test, but contextual data is also used. I know that it works essentially the same way for my subject across all colleges as I conducted a process review. But given that University shortlisting rates vary across courses from less than 20% to more than 90% you are bound to get different perspectives if you only have experience of one subject.

public.tableau.com/views/UniversityofOxford-AdmissionsStatistics2021ByCourse/Shortlisting?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=yes&%3AshowTabs=y&%3AshowVizHome=no

I should add however that any serious candidate with appropriate widening participation flags will be interviewed. Again following the course/department guidelines, which in turn follows the University guidelines. I'm not sure whether the candidate that was mentioned above and who triggered this discussion was a WP candidate. But serious candidates from other backgrounds cannot all be interviewed in subjects with large numbers of applicants.

Well if Liz truss, BJ, rees-moggy and quasi kwarteng got in and they show up as pretty thick at the moment ......

It’s harder for the public school student to get in and rightfully so. A lot of universities now want a more diverse pool of people meaning it will help some and make it harder for others.

I’d suggest then that candidates in your subject should apply to Cambridge in that case, where nearly all candidates are interviewed, and not Oxford. In recent years in my experience admissions practice was pretty similar at both, and the differential between Ox and Cam desummons and deselection numbers not so marked (though Ox have always interviewed fewer candidates than Cam, the difference in recent years has not been so notable in my subject).

However it sounds that in your subject that applicants would be far better now applying to Cambridge, where current practice has gone back to interviewing nearly all candidates and cancelling the use of pre-interview testing in most subjects.

In the current OfS target environment, all candidates would probably be better served by the Cambridge admissions approach than the current Oxford one as you make it sound!

I went to a selective grammar school in the 80s, not a huge intake, we sent 13 students to Oxbridge in my year. I'm not sure what their grades were at the time, but even in a selective school it wasn't the norm to be getting 4As (we took 4 or occasionally 5). The students who were picked weren't all the super intelligent, really articulate ones. But the kids that DD's not very good state school sends (occasionally) are always the multi talented very high achieving types. Although this year's one didn't actually make his grade offer but they took him anyway.

When I went up to Cambridge there were three all female colleges. Three others had just started taking female students. The ratio was one female to seven males. The stats of applications suggest that women succeeding were at least scholarship level had they been men applying.

It was the position that men applying from certain public schools had a better chance because of old liaisons between antiquated founders and current heads of colleges and schools, and certain colleges favoured sportsmen - one even ran a beagle pack (and may still do).

On top of which there were degrees like Land Economy, History of Art and religious studies that were a fair shoo-in. Though this is not to say there weren't exceedingly bright people among them and that they've not now improved enormously as degrees.

Universities as a whole were public school male dominated, with a large proportion of grammar school pupils there on merit.

So yes indeed, there were thousands of people at Oxbridge in the Sixties/Seventies who wouldn't qualify now. Overwhelmingly white men.

On the other hand, the interview system allowed promising people with fewer qualifications access to university because they showed the ability to think.

Funnily enough, one of the twins in our family had infact applied to study History. Both twins are now thriving at Bristol (the predictable second choice option!).

They never met any of the diversity criteria unlike most of the students offered places from their school. It is surely unfair that if your academic record is unblemished and you are bright enough to score full marks in the relevant subject (and do not have the makings of an axe murderer) then it is not entitled to expect an initial interview?

At my college, there were many posh, white students with powerful and influential parents whom it would have been difficult to reject due to the power of their names (and ability to donate generously). They never hoped to be interviewed, they fully expected it. Assuming that is still the case, I can see why there is no room left for other posh, white students with unknown parents. I can see how the formula generates a diverse student population but not the brightest one. I am sure the incoming/outgoing average attainment is lower than before.

It is surely unfair that if your academic record is unblemished and you are bright enough to score full marks in the relevant subject (and do not have the makings of an axe murderer) then it is not entitled to expect an initial interview?

It's telling that there are still people who feel entitled to an Oxbridge interview..

When there are vastly greater numbers of applicants with perfect GCSEs than there are places, they use other methods, PS and test scores and essays, to help them pick the ones they want to interview. It's not unfair for the universities to choose who they want, is it? There would be no point in testing or reading the PS if they were able to or wanted to interview everyone based on their GCSE results 🤷‍♀️

Plus don't forget that GCSE results are contextualised, so your family members' grades may not be as impressive as they think if they are unremarkable in their cohort. They will be up against people who have shown something that they have not - the ability to get excellent grades in a much less advantageous environment.

I can see how the formula generates a diverse student population but not the brightest one.

Again I understand that it's hard to take for high-achieving children, but they really are looking for the best people, the ones they want to teach who are committed to the course and will suit the teaching methods. Contextualisation and WP are tools to help them find all the super bright students whom they used to miss out on, either because they didn't apply at all, or because the admissions process was unfairly stacked against them. It's not surprising that they might prefer someone with very good GCSEs from a school where the average is 5 x A-C passes to someone with 9 x 9 from a school where the average is 8 x 9. Especially when they score higher in the entry test. And then of course they still have to get the standard A level offer in those less privileged circumstances. So I do find it hard to understand how you conclude that these people are not the brightest.

"PS and test scores and essays"
I find it hard to imagine that these would not have been perfected to death with the additional help of Oxbridge-educated parents and teachers. The passion may have been missing, they may have expected to demonstrate this at an initial interview (which is some way off from an offer). There are some state school pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds with 11 A * but not that many. There were a number of students who deliberately moved to state at the sixth form stage to improve their chances of getting in. Where they also met other criteria, this worked in their favour. The twins could have done this (infact, I even suggested it to their parents) but they liked their school and believed that they could still do it. Arguably, it was not a choice they should have had to make.

A fairer system would be to start applying the tools after the first interview stage rather than before.

I find it hard to imagine that these would not have been perfected to death with the additional help of Oxbridge-educated parents and teachers.

I imagine that admissions tutors can smell this kind of parent / teacher input a mile off and don't much like it.

The passion may have been missing,

Another reason not to interview someone. Why would they bother with someone who couldn't demonstrate this when there are hundreds who can?

they may have expected to demonstrate this at an initial interview

More fool them if they were so sure of getting an interview that they didn't bother to show a commitment to the subject in the PS.

There are some state school pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds with 11 A but not that many.*

There are enough, I reckon.

There were a number of students who deliberately moved to state at the sixth form stage to improve their chances of getting in.

This wouldn't help, as their GCSE results are contextualised. So they look at the school where GCSEs were taken. Admissions tutors have a lot of information and they are not idiots. The only way to be treated as if your GCSE grades were achieved in difficult circumstances is to actually achieve them in difficult circumstances.

Unfortunately, this can create room for corruption which can go undetected.
I am sure that you are not unfamiliar with the tales of seriously ill parents (who turned out to not be that ill) and divorcing parents (who mysteriously get back together again as soon as the offer came in).

Infact, the young man who wrote the strange Horrible Histories style PS (and moved from private to state in the lower sixth) cited both of these reasons and was given a low offer. The system is open to exploitation. He never met the offer but he was not denied the chance. What if he had though? Your system is not foolproof.

It's not my system, I am just trying to explain how it works to you.
As far as I know, things like bereavement and divorce would be mentioned in the school reference and I don't think there are many schools which would be prepared to lie. I suppose with a lot of careful preparation a student and their parents / siblings / friends could lie to the school.. but even so the student would still have to impress at interview. I don't think you need to worry about this kind of fraud.

I’m not convinced that many students would declare home problems and the school
may not know.

I missed so much school time due to health issues and the school were very unsympathetic. I never thought to mention this at interview or the fact that I had other things going on.

I am sure the incoming/outgoing average attainment is lower than before.

Speaking as someone who has taught at Oxbridge for many years, the reverse seems to me to be true. While most students have always been very good, there was much more of a 'tail' in the past of relatively weak or lazy students and those who were mainly there for 'the Oxbridge experience' rather than out of an enthusiasm for their subject,

Young adults can easily feign enthusiasm in some (obviously not all) cases. They can't possibly all be desperately interested in absolutely everything to do with their degree all of the time. I was extremely passionate about my subject but I doubt this would have been detectible to others.

They can't possibly all be desperately interested in absolutely everything to do with their degree all of the time.

No but showing a bit of that in the PS is pretty basic stuff. I guess people could feign an interest but it's not as if saying "I love geography" is enough. They are looking for evidence of your interest, in the application and at interview. It's a lot of work to provide that evidence if you're actually interested, I can't imagine anyone going to all that trouble if they weren't.