Does Anyone Know Why This Is about Oxford University?

[kmo0416]

Oxford University is famous for only interviewing a small percentage of applicants compared to Cambridge which interviews most applicants. Usually, this means that anyone with grades or admissions test scores that are not really good will not be shortlisted at Oxford. However, I did a FOI request about their shortlisting procedures for specific subjects, and they said that for many subjects they 'automatically shortlist' anyone from a disadvantaged background i.e. those in care, free school meals etc.

Does this explain why on social media a lot of people who applied to Oxford that I know got interviews when they did not have extremely strong profiles but they came from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Furthermore, do you think they apply this form of contextualisation to mature students or not? I don't know if Oxford gives preference to those fresh out of Sixth Form vs those 21 and older.

Is it possible to link the FOI result? I assume it’s on the website where they publish the outcomes?

Many universities do this (and guaranteed interview schemes exist for some jobs, too). They get an automatic interview not an automatic place, though in some circumstances disadvantaged students may also get lower grade requirements if made an offer (that's called a contextual offer). In every case the aim is to make sure students from disadvantaged backgrounds with the potential to succeed at Oxford are given a chance to do so - they're not admitting candidates they think are weaker because they have contextual flags. This is part of Oxford's efforts to diversify its intake. All universities are required to have an Access and Participation plan (you can't charge full tuition fees if you don't) - if you look Oxford's is here: https://academic.admin.ox.ac.uk/app. It says that mature students are not one of their target groups to increase participation, but they certainly shouldn't be discriminating against mature students by preferring those straight from sixth form and they should be considering any grounds for reduced interview requirements just as they would for a non-mature student.

Another post about this?

Just search FOI Report Oxford University Law Admissions Shortlisting Process on Google.

It talks about how they separate candidates into different categories based on socioeconomic data and that 'Category A and B candidates' i.e. the most deprived are to be 'automatically shortlisted provided they perform to a reasonable standard in admissions tests and meet the entry requirements'. This means someone from a very deprived background would be automatically interviewed if they were predicted to achieve AAA and if they did slightly below average on the admissions test but it is likely someone from a more privileged background would not.

That's a good thing, surely? Kids from a disadvantaged background who are getting high grades are likely MUCH more intelligent and hard working than privileged kids who have been hot-housed and spoon-fed every step of the way. I know who I would rather take!

This. It makes perfect sense for them to take the students who have had to battle adversity to get where they are.

It's a bit like having sprinters starting at different points on a race track. The rich/tutored/privately educated kids are starting the race halfway down the track, so if any of the kids on the actual starting line get anywhere near winning then they're definitely far superior runners!

automatically shortlisted provided they perform to a reasonable standard in admissions tests and meet the entry requirements'.

This is not really “below average” - the mark at which an admission test qualifies for entry is one of the weightings, along with gcse performance, predicted grades, personal statement etc, context of the student. The students will still be very very good, not a bit below average, and they will still have to pass the interview.

This is brilliant news. I get the impression you feel this is unfair?

Good on them!

No, I think it's great but I was just wondering why they never explicitly mention this to prospective students i.e. they never say, 'if you're from a disadvantaged background you will automatically be shortlisted for interview'. Instead they just say things like 'we contextualise applications'. Why can't they be more direct?

The fact that Oxford is stereotyped as being much harder to get in than Cambridge as they only interview 40% of applicants leads those from under-privileged background who may have performed less well for whatever reason to think that they will be automatically rejected so they either apply to Cambridge instead or don't apply at all to Oxbridge.

Evidence of this is many social media posts which say things like 'getting an interview at Oxford is such an achievement compared to Cambridge which interviews almost everyone'. /

What point are you trying to make? What is it you think Admissions should be telling students?

I think a lot of people know what 'contextualise' means.

I also suspect that people who are bright enough to be curious about Oxford will do their homework and assess their chances.

'if you're from a disadvantaged background you will automatically be shortlisted for interview'.

They don’t say this because it isn’t the case! If you get 20% on the test and are predicted BBB, say, you won’t get an interview whatever your background.

I’m not sure the stereotype you claim really exists - cambridge otoh has higher grade requirements. And what people say on SM posts is often just people being kind and encouraging wherever the person applied and whichever stage they do or don’t get through.
I think you’re overanalysing details which aren’t really directly comparable or important.

An interview is just one part of the Oxbridge admissions process and Oxford generally interview 3 per place available whereas Cambridge interviews more like 75%. So in a subject with a lot of applications like say Economics and Management you only have a 18% chance of getting an interview at Oxford whereas Economics for Cambridge you might have a 75% chance. So you stand more chance of being offered a place if you have an interview at Oxford but its not easier to get into Cambridge. Most people would regard them as similar to get into. Historically it used to be Cambridge was stronger on the sciences and Oxford on the arts subjects but they have always been broadly similar to get into. Some people might find the admissions system is better for them at one or the other depending on their strengths like if you are good at a certain admission test.

Quite. They probably have a far lower grade, but they're still going to not interview someone who clearly isn't going to get in, or if they do are going to struggle.
Probably though almost everyone who applies are getting predicted grades of the right level, otherwise they wouldn't bother applying - so there is a method of self selection among applicants. I'd suspect that those from disadvantaged backgrounds are even less likely to apply with "dodgy grades" than otherwise too.

Op, I'd suspect that you're hoping if you (your dc?) apply as a mature student then that means they are entitled to an interview.
Firstly, it isn't a guarantee of an interview, but moreover, the interview is still there to assess. They may be more tolerant for the interview, but they're still going to do a robust one to see if you're going to be okay doing the course. It's not in their interest to have to tutor someone who's struggling (and because the colleges do the interviews and the tutoring - so will be the same person, they have an invested interest in not giving themselves too much work!)

If otoh you're feeling indignant because you think you/your dc should have got in if it wasn't for those pesky disadvantaged students, then forget it. If they've been interviewed then generally they've shown themselves to be more than up to it. There are very few drop outs at Oxford (0.9% compared to 5.3% average), one of the lowest rates, so they clearly get it right most of the time.

@MargaretThursday from prior threads, I believe OP applied previously to oxbridge and didn’t get in, but is now considering applying as a mature student (and possibly resitting some or all exams)

Apparently.
If you put this amount of effort into actually applying, op, you’d find out for yourself??
You’re like a broken record.

Keble, in general, publishes good information on the process

www.keble.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Law-Feedback-2023-Department.pdf

Oh no, not this again. OP, you have posted about Oxbridge several times now.
Get out of your room and go and enjoy life a bit…

This is an excellent post. I don’t know anyone who feels Cambridge is the “easy option”. And the fact that you don’t seem to grasp what contextualised offers means, is a bit worrying.

It seems obsessive to say the least…

I can assure you that given the work that goes into an application & the fact that applicants tend to be bright, they are aware that their application will be given more scrutiny. They still have to achieve exactly the same offer as everyone else if they are fortunate enough to receive one.

Are you also aware that their outcomes are equally as good as for those who have been given every educational advantage at school?

To be eligible for Opportunity Oxford, students will be on track to meet the academic requirements of their chosen Oxford course and will come from either an area with low progression to higher education or an area of socio-economic disadvantage, or both.

From Keble’s report (which covers the whole intake, not just Keble) - 123 out of 399 candidates eligible for Opportunity Oxford got an interview

There’s information on the last page about the contextual nature of gcse results and shortlisting etc.