Why didn't your child apply to Oxford or Cambridge?

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/27/oxbridge-state-school-numbers-falling

Given that most people who apply will not get in - there's no shame in an unsuccessful application. So what are the real reasons for this apparent reluctance?

Sorry, the idea of applying to a university that offers places by lottery does not appeal... as for "dead certs" for Oxbridge, since when did anyone claim to be capable of divining that?

As for introducing the sorts of tests that some big corporates use to divine the "right sort of person" to work for them, it seems to me that such tests haven't prevented corruption, greed and poor working practices - unless, of course, the idea actually is to screen out the people who would stop that happening. You do need universal agreement on what it is you are looking for before you set out your "objective" (ha, ha...) tests.

rabbitstew "The pendulum has swung in business, as it always does back to valuing subjective criteria, on the basis it ensures candidates fit in with the team and organisation ." Your answer right there. And that attitude was always the prevailing one in the city.

He wanted to be in the North of England and nearer mountains. He could mountain bike and rock climb in the summer evenings.

My answer is not right there. All tests are flawed and introduce and element of subjectivity - you can fiddle with the style of examinations all you like in order to benefit different groups of people (eg more coursework, less coursework, more frequent exams, less frequent exams, more emphasis on memory, less emphasis on memory); you can create all the personality tests you like, and all the IQ tests you like. At the beginning and end of it all are the subjective human beings designing and marking the whole bl**dy lot.

First, in my post I was saying that an article published by an tutor can't be taken as evidence of the process, because no one would ever be as stupid to say publicly that they treated people unfairly.

Second, there is a whole weight of evidence that discrimination happens in all selection processes. A good proportion of this is when people do not think they are discriminating. A certain amount of this can be trained out of people, but if it was possible to eliminate it all, we would not have the inequality on the basis of gender, ethnicity and class in organizations that actually try to operate equal opportunities policies.

Whilst I am sure that many of the Oxbridge tutors try to be fair, that does not mean that discrimination doesn't happen. I am also equally sure that it would be possible for prejudiced tutors to disguise their discrimination in academic reasons.

In other words, Oxbridge interviews will be subject to exactly the same issues as any other form of selection process (eg employment).

As an admissions tutor, we work solely on AS grades and predictions. We largely ignore personal statements and references which are much more likely to be related to the social background of the applicant rather than their aptitude. I always try to be fair, but I also fully accept that our selection process is not perfect, and some applicants will not be offered a place through indirect discriminatory practices.

I am very suspicious of any admissions tutor that claims that this would never happen, as this suggest to me that they actually have no idea how indirect discrimination operates.

Do Oxbridge do any online self-assessments for pupils to help them understand whether the universities are a good fit for them? I would find this really useful for DD2, who academically is in the right range, and I think would really benefit from the tutorial system. However my reservations are that she puts quite a lot of pressure on herself, and works almost too hard, and I worry that the environment might be too pressured and intense for her, and that she would be happier and then consequently do better in a less pressured environment (how pressured is it anyway? - some posts imply it is very much so, others not so much!).

Properly written a self-assessment would help set expectations early for those that are not a good fit that they may not be successful if they decide to apply, and encourage others that are hesitating, but are a good fit, to go for it. It could also be quite a fun thing to do, and it would provide an opportunity to dispel some of the myths.

There's a very simple example on IKEA's website of what I mean - www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/rooms_ideas/fitquiz09/#

I am closely involved in the recruitment of graduates for a large corporate, and we're starting to use this type of technology. We also reject huge numbers of applicants, and want to make our process as fair and as open as possible, so if you want to know more about the survey solutions (which includes the analysis of the culture, and creation of appropriate questions), then send me a PM.

rabbitstew we can argue about test design and eliminating subjectivity until the cows come home but at least there is a scientific method attempting to minimise subjectivity, bit different to a process proven to introduce bias within 7 secs of the candidate walking into the room......

And actually I am wrong about the city, because recruitment methods to the front office at least, have shifted. Now they are taking on only people with fearsome Maths and STEM qualifications, and a language, and relying on the corporate culture to instill the other values

In my experience of university admissions, I find Oxford and Cambridge decisions to be at the very least no more random than a good number of other top universities. I'd go so far as to say that they are a lot less random, in my view precisely because of the additional info they have through aptitude tests and interviewing. Those who claim the process is random are almost overwhelmingly those with little experience of the system, or those disappointed, either for themselves or on behalf of their children.

BlueStringPudding it is very intense but pressure is defined by how you handle it. Some can manage the workload with seeming effortlessness, others get ill through self imposed rather than imposed pressure. That said, the support system is excellent.

I would also point out that in terms of sheer numbers, more applicants get rejected from, say, Durham, Bristol and UCL for History, Law and Medicine each year than they do from either Oxford or Cambridge. If you're looking at numbers alone, then Oxford and Cambridge will be amongst the least competitive.

Of course the argument isn't valid ..........................

"In other words, Oxbridge interviews will be subject to exactly the same issues as any other form of selection process (eg employment)." Of course this is true given that it is a face-to-face process, and I am well aware (via our interview training) of indirect discrimination and unconscious bias. As a mum who is also a tutor, this is something that interests me in terms of my own career too. I would be interested to see what evidence of discrimination (and of what type) there is in the admissions process, from the statistics I have linked to.

How would one separate expertise and experience from 'subjectivity'? Why would groups of tutors discriminate consciously (given that their decisions are scrutinized by colleagues and compared to the on-paper data both in terms of prior and future performance)? Why would we select 'unpredictably' in those same conditions? Shouldn't schools be challenged when they put applicants off by giving subjective and biased anecdotes rather than showing applicants the statistics?

We cannot evaluate on the basis of AS grades and predictions alone: we have too many applicants with equally high grades. If we did this, we could not balance potential with achievement, and take due account of differences in education and opportunity (we are given quite a large amount of contextual data via UCAS). We cannot run a lottery, so we set a subject-specific aptitude test and run subject-specific interviews.

We cannot run a lottery

Why not? Obviously, you would need a threshold to get into the lottery, but I think it would be brilliant. Not just for Oxbridge, but for all over-subscribed courses.

As far as I am aware, no university does this publicly yet. But unofficially picking applications at random if there are too many applicants who are equally qualified is quite common in my experience.

Shooting - not all international firms in the City require a foreign language. Not even for international roles. Or, indeed, STEM qualifications (fearsome or otherwise). Some city jobs may require this but many (most, probably) don't.

My experience of cambridge interviews (from long ago, obviously, but the process hasn't changed and in my day the proportion of working class girls accepted was somewhat lower than it is now) is that they bent over backwards to try and mitigate their own biases.

For the person who said she felt scruffy when she turned up for interview and thus out of place - not only was I scruffy (I always am. It's the dyspraxia) but I had a head that was mainly shaved, the only bit of hair that I retained was bright blue (you'd have only been able to tell I'm a ginge from my ghostly pallor and ridiculous superfluity of freckles). I did not feel, and was not made to feel, out of place. I suspect that the secret to my getting in was equal parts me genuinely not caring, my performance in exams (including the entrance exam) and, yes, a shared interest with one go my interviewers. But it wasn't exactly a niche elitist interest.

Sorry, but I don't see how using a lottery system for people "equally qualified" is even the tiniest bit more fair or sensible... What IS "equally qualified?" Isn't that just giving up on any notion of potential and telling anyone with good reasons not to have the exam results others have that they can't even buy a lottery ticket, end of discussion, they might as well just bugger off and get a job cleaning cars outside the supermarket, or find an employment opening from one of those awful, subjective organisations that might be stupid enough to take them on, despite their objective failings?

What IS "equally qualified?

Well in the context of this discussion, that is easy. Eg all applicants with 3xAs could be entered into, and places awarded at random.

Clearly unsuccessful candidates would be free to apply to other universities, just like they are now.

It is just saying that there are not places for everyone qualified, and of that group, this is the fairest system. How does that devalue education?

If the exams on which you are basing your decisions have been discredited, as the current DfE has been intent on doing, then why on earth are you basing your decisions on them? Surely only because you haven't got anything better to base them on?

As for not paying attention to peoples' personal statements, etc, are we saying that all life experiences are equally valid and contribute equally to the growth of a person's intellect? That no experiences can be particularly damaging, or particularly beneficial? Or are we just saying that because we can't be confident we can measure those objectively, we have to ignore them altogether, despite their obvious importance in the development of the human being in front of you?

Seems to me, "objective measurement" is deliberately ignoring a big chunk of what makes you human and unique. You are not being viewed as an individual, you are just viewed as a statistic with likely attributes, some of which can be measured and tested and the rest of which can be ignored as unverifiable and subject to bias.

all life experiences are equally valid and contribute equally to the growth of a person's intellect?

Obviously not, but the experiences written about on PS usually vary depending on the social-economic background of the applicant, and it is unfair to select on that basis.

We do read the PS and if something is mentioned that has negatively on exam results, we will consider this. Likewise, we read references to verify information about specific circumstances. If the PS indicates that the applicant doesn't actually seem to know what they are applying for, it would concern me.

But some of our applicants have extremely limited opportunities. I was at a school not long ago, and most of the Year 12 children mentioned that they rarely travelled out of their home area, not even going into the town centre which was only 2/3 miles away. Many were on track for As at A level, yet getting them to think about university education is still a struggle.

If they make an application, it would be unfair to judge them against applicants that have had extensive work-experience, DofE or been the leading light of the drama company, when these add nothing to being able to study the subject they have applied for.

creamteas your suggestion that places at Oxford and Cambridge should be allocated by lottery is based on the very false premise that places are currently awarded on some basis which is less than fair. But that seems to be the rather sour grapes line peddled by those who don't get in, or whose children don't get in. There are plenty of things in life which are extremely unfair, but I would say that the system of allocating places at Oxford and Cambridge isn't high on the list. Much higher should be the random nature of educational opportunities emblazoned within our current secondary school set up.

As for dress code at interviews, there is probably as wide a range as there are individuals, although I do have personal knowledge of a very clever student who opted for a tee shirt emblazoned with the words 'FUCK OFF' who failed to make the cut - though he did a year later when he had had a chance to change his shirt and slightly grow up.

"unofficially picking applications at random if there are too many applicants who are equally qualified is quite common in my experience."

I would just like to reiterate that this is precisely NOT what is done in my subject at Oxbridge, even if it is done elsewhere at other universities. Please encourage anyone who thinks what we offer in terms of resources and teaching is worth the gruelling application process to apply if anything I have said here has persuaded you that we are reasonable and fair in our approach. In many walks of life, people apply for selection processes where there are long odds.

It's enlightening and frustrating to see how strongly subjective and biased myths about Oxbridge are held to, in the face of objective evidence and rational questions? What would persuade you to consider a different view based on more up to date realities?

I have a large stack of Finals papers to mark, so I must bow out...

cream teas I would say Oxford and Cambridge tutors are smart enough to read between the lines of flash opportunities laboured on a ps. The ps counts for far more at other universities than it does for either Oxford or Cambridge. Very generally, the only use made of a ps at either of those places, if at all, is to use something in it as a soft starter for one of the interviews. There will be plenty of series of interviews where the ps isn't even mentioned, or taken into account.

Or rather......random nature of educational opportunities emblazoned within our current secondary school set up.

The problem, is that not all A grades are equal. My DS took History A level the year before the introduction of A*s. He was at a highly selective independent school. In his History set all the boys would get A grades but he reckoned there were at least 3 subsets within his set of 12 boys.

Very bright boys with an academic mindset who read around the subject for fun.
Very bright boys who did the minimum to get an A.
Able boys who needed to graft to get an A.

not all A grades are equal

No exam system in the world will distinguish the people who work to get a result from the people who don't need to.

It is always possible that the person with an E is actually brighter and better suited to a particular degree course that the A* student.

No system will ever be perfect, but we need to try and eliminate as much unfairness as possible.