Are top private schools getting fewer oxbridge offers?

[Ijustwanttoask]

Just read in the papers about the drop in Oxbridge offers to Eton in the last few years. Is there a same trend for other big name public schools and top London day schools too?

In the past years, these schools generally happily announce the numbers of Oxbridge offers they get around this time of the year but I haven't seen much for 2021.

* Title edited by MNHQ by request* **

@sandybayley

If interview performance was the only criteria in which selection was based it would not be a sensible or rounded approach *@rattusrattus20* but we know that it's not. It's one element of the process - and Oxbridge is transparent about that.

So yes I do disagree with you and particularly your characterisation of my view as 'shameful nonsense'.

Although my DS (see story down thread) requested feedback after his non offer and was told the interview was at fault. So they thought he could achieve the grades (which he did), thought his HAT paper was good enough to warrant an interview, and yet binned him because of the interview in which they (or one man) made it clear DS wasn't from the right background for Oxford. The interview may as well have been the only selection process. It sounds like I'm bitter. I know it does. I'm not. He loved Cambridge and did brilliantly. And met his future wife who is lovely ☺️ I just get cross at the thought of future disadvantage for future students. And the wasted potential. And the inability for some people to see the inequality

But @scentedgeranium you're talking about a DS that's now married and presumably graduated a while ago. I'm taking about the current interview process.

How long ago as this interview?

He married straight out of uni. Bless. The interview was 5 years ago. Do you think it's changed that much in that time? I hope so!

If you look at the stats around 21% of state school applicants get offers and 23% of independent school applicants get offers. Seems pretty fair to me - 2 % is not a huge amount of difference is it?

Have you bothered to read the rest of the thread?

I do @scentedgeranium - things have changed a lot in recent years for the better. The process and decision-making is much more transparent. I'll find the Chemistry Department as an example if I can.

I've just read the PDF from when DS got his offer last year and it says that any candidate flagged as 'disadvantaged' is guaranteed interviews at two separate colleges. This is intended (I think) to ensure a candidate nervous at interview gets another chance and couldn't be written off by a single interviewer as your DS was.

Here it is from Somerville. Not DS1's college but the report is the same

www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Chemistry-Summary-of-Admissions-Process-2019-20.pdf

@ifailed yes I have...the whole thing...hence the link. In this thread lots of people are saying that Oxbridge let’s in too many kids from independent schools and it’s not fair as they aren’t as clever as state school kids etc etc. Studies show that the attainment of these kids is statistically the same (from the study further up the thread)...and the numbers show that candidates have a pretty much equal chance regardless of where they come from....it’s just that more private school kids apply.

Looks like the balance has been addressed from oxbridge’s end at least. State school kids need to apply in greater numbers if they want overall proportions to change.

@sandybayley

If interview performance was the only criteria in which selection was based it would not be a sensible or rounded approach *@rattusrattus20* but we know that it's not. It's one element of the process - and Oxbridge is transparent about that.

So yes I do disagree with you and particularly your characterisation of my view as 'shameful nonsense'.

the argument against the interview is twofold, firstly that it's a vastly poorer predictor of final exam performance than plain old A level results (quite likely in a direction that discriminates in favour of the rich) and secondly that just the existence of it creates a deterrent to potential applicants.

what kind of response to that is, "oh, well, they don't put that much weight on interview performance"?

@rattusrattus20

Obviously, the interview should not be the whole story. BUT one of the reasons for it is that it helps to work out who might best be suited to the tutorial system - this is not always the same as who is best at the subject, although oxbridge would (of course!), claim a good correlation. Simply put, the tutorial system is intense and puts people on the spot - some people hate and fear this and it makes them perform worse than they would otherwise, in which case they might be suited to a different approach - lower numbers of seminars, more seminars, fewer essays, more time to think around a topic.

Obviously, there are hideous examples of tutors who have clearly been unfair or biased, but I don't think that is the majority. I think most tutors are looking for a "good fit". Btw, I am an oxbridge grad from a state school - my college was noticeably posh and the private school kids were a bit cliquey in some cases, but it was fine and I mostly enjoyed my time there - I might have been happier elsewhere where I had a bit more time to catch my breath and collect my thoughts though!

my impression of Oxford interviews is that they seek to catch you out and trip you up. That's not particularly helpful because frankly it doesnt show you who is smart - just who is cocky not the same thing and a very bad interview technique. Plus a lot of Oxbridge academics are just not very good at teaching (humanities/social sciences here) - so yes, they might want to replicate a tutorial environment because thats all they've ever known but whether that in itself is a good learning/teaching environment is never questioned.

plus the idea that it's all about a love of the subject is rubbish. it's not...most BA students do not end up doing their subject after uni (esp. humanities/social sciences) - to succeed in an Oxbridge environment you need to be reasonably smart, very hard-working, good at finding ways to do things quicker etc, a love of the subject is not a requirement.

actually, it's really only when kids apply to do an MA/Phil that they are more likely to be really into their subject - but curiously enough Oxbrige doesn't interview then and just admit by application

@rattusrattus20

the argument against the interview is twofold, firstly that it's a vastly poorer predictor of final exam performance than plain old A level results

Do you have any evidence for that?

Also, your previous statements have made clear that you have a poor understanding of statistics but it is very possible for a variable with poor predictive power on its own to improve on the predictive power of other variables. As other posters have noted (and you have chosen to ignore), interviews are used in conjunction with other predictors such as (context adjusted) GCSEs, predicted A Levels and, for many Oxbridge courses, the university's own exams. As such, even if interviews are poor predictors in themselves (which you have not demonstrated), they certainly have the possibility to improve admission decisions.

But, if nothing else, an interview might:

• eliminate a candidate who isn't really interested in a subject but applied because they or their parents think it would lead to a more lucrative job
• eliminate a candidate who isn't really interested in a subject but applied because they or their parents think it's the easiest course to gain an Oxbridge admission
• eliminate a candidate who scored 3A* through heavy tutoring but can't follow the admissions tutor through an unfamiliar problem
• promote a candidate who "only" scored AAA because they went to a school with relatively poor teaching but who can follow the admissions tutor through an unfamiliar problem

But @cupcake222 when you say 'my impression of Oxford interviews is that they seek to catch you out and trip you up' what are you basing that on? Is that direct experience or an idea you've picked up elsewhere? I'm interested because I can only base my experience on what DS1 has told me and your 'catch you out' impression doesn't match what he described at all.

And as I said earlier things have changed in recent years so I'm interested to hear what your impression is based on.

@sandybayley - my experience of Oxbridge interviews is mainly from talking to colleagues who work there and honestly being both appaled and mocking how crap some of the old guard still are. It's obviously not everyone but part of the problem is that a lot of people teaching at Oxbridge have been through the system themselves - and honestly, havent adjusted. The other issues - and thats true for a lot of academics but especially those who have been to/teach in top unis is that they look at their students as though they are future academics, even though 99.99% of them have no interest and wont be. As a result things like knowledge of the topic becomes very important rather than trying to figure out whether a particular student is smart, interesting etc. and whether or not you can actually teach them skills they will need from a degree going forth

Plus I myself have 'done' Oxford as a student but that was quite a while back

I don't think it's particularly helpful to draw conclusions based on our own experience as students when the admissions process has evolved so much since then. I certainly wouldn't claim insight from my own unsuccessful interview at Cambridge 30 years ago.

@user149799568 - might be an unpopular opinion but a love/interest in a subject is really not all that important for a degree. do you think that most people taking PPE at Oxford love philosophy or do they take it because if you cant do numbers/medicin/lawe etc then it's the most lucrative degree.

Plus for most social science/humanities subjects - kids have no idea whether they love them or not because most are not taught at school so at best one hopes they are smart, motivated with a passing interest in whatever it is they've picked. however, one doesn't get kids to engage with a new question by putting them on the defensive, asking them to justify their answers etc - you do it by engaging them and being approachable and nice - not a thing that Oxbridge interviews are known for

The other issues - and thats true for a lot of academics but especially those who have been to/teach in top unis is that they look at their students as though they are future academics, even though 99.99% of them have no interest and wont be.

At last! We get to the crux of the problem. What should Oxbridge be looking for? Which students should Oxbridge admit? What is Oxbridge's purpose?

By leaving the admissions decisions so much in the hands of the tutors, Oxbridge is essentially simply propagating itself, kind of like a virus. They started as institutions to train churchmen and government officials and have mutated into... what?

@sandybayley - exactly that's why I said most of my current knowledge is talking to my colleagues at Oxbridge and comparing notes regarding application processes etc. Ways in which our admission differs from theirs etc

@cupcake222

might be an unpopular opinion but a love/interest in a subject is really not all that important for a degree.

I never claimed that interest in a subject was necessary to do a degree. I merely claimed that interest in a subject was beneficial to gain admission - because of the role of the admissions tutors (see my previous post).

@user149799568 - that's definitely something to think about. but most academics for some reason judge a lot of students as though they are future academics. NO idea why seeing as there are literally no jobs for them in academia and thank god 99.99% end up getting normal jobs. I guess a lot of academics really love their jobs and are a bit obsessive about them. Hence, esp. in social sciences/humanities they are often pretty bad at teaching transferable skills, etc and most focus is on the subject even though most kids really won't use it the minute they leave uni.

This thread is starting to get interesting.

One question I have: how are the number of places for each subject determined at Oxbridge? Does it relate primarily to the demand from the applicant pool? Or is it determined by the number of professors and tutors available? Who's directing things there? Are the inmates running the asylum?

@user149799568

This thread is starting to get interesting.

One question I have: how are the number of places for each subject determined at Oxbridge? Does it relate primarily to the demand from the applicant pool? Or is it determined by the number of professors and tutors available? Who's directing things there? Are the inmates running the asylum?

I only know about the department DD applied to, which said that although applications had risen significantly over the last few years, they had been unable to make a proportionate increase in the number of places offered.

Yet we hear demand for private schools continues to rise (reflected in ever rising fees).
Fees for private education have risen a lot over the last 20 years or so, but it doesn't seem to be because of rising demand. On the contrary, some private schools are folding or merging right now.

Fees have probably risen because of changes in the way national insurance contributions for teachers are paid, the expenses of which have largely been passed on to parents. There was also a period where some private schools in the SE and boarding schools were vying to attract wealthy foreign pupils; this may have encouraged some schools to invest more money on building lovely facilities while also reducing the need to keep fees affordable (since there were plenty of wealthy overseas families who could fill up the schools).

Just my point of view but if Oxbridge isn’t all about finding students who are the future thought leaders in their subject area then what are they all about? A glorified leg-up in the corporate world? Surely Oxbridge hopes that some of these kids (although not all) will actually go on to use their degrees, in research or within the workplace. As an academic myself I know this to be true. It should be all about the academics - it’s crucial for the kid to show an interest and a passion for the subject and to have read around it of their own accord in their free time. I’m appalled at the suggestion that this is not important. It sounds to me that some of you see Oxbridge as the ultimate “leg up” to a lucrative job in the city so your kids can turn into the very people you purport to despise (I.e. rich folk who send their kids to private school). And for those who think the interview should be “banned”....how on earth are your kids going to find jobs in the future? You do know that interviews are the key selection technique used....your degree will get you through the door but if you can’t hold up through the interview then you won’t get the job. This holds especially true for the Oxbridge graduate as lots of employees sometimes stereotype them as possibly being “too academic” with no people skills!

@Tselliotsunderpants

www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

If you look at the stats around 21% of state school applicants get offers and 23% of independent school applicants get offers. Seems pretty fair to me - 2 % is not a huge amount of difference is it? A higher proportion of independent school kids actually meet the grades they are offered.

I don’t think we should be upping state school numbers just to reach a quota should we? The odds are roughly the same for all candidates and this is how it should be. These are all exceptional kids and each should be judged on their own merits. If more state school kids apply the proportions will change - but not everyone sees Oxbridge as the be all and end all of education.

The issue is in the number of state students getting top grades which is 75% versus acceptances which is circa 62% at Oxford. More independent students apply as do more people from the South East but that's not a true reflection of the dispersion of top grades in the country.

Oxbridge is addressing this via outreach to encourage more capable state students to apply. As this continues you will eventually see private schools' share of places continue to fall to at most 25% at which point it will be a proportional share of the top grades private schools students earn @Tselliotsunderpants

That will be fair.