Ratio of applicants to places

[stonecircle]

Is there any way of finding this out? Of the unis DS is interested in, only Kings and UCL seem to give this information. I'm wondering if that's because they are particularly oversubscribed so feel the need to point this out, or if their ratios may be typical of other popular institutions.

Or am I starting to overthink the whole process?!

The basic data were in the Times University guide recently - that is, universitywide applicants per place overall. I'm sure the data must be a matter of public record, although the ddepartmental numbers might be more elusive.

I'm never sure how useful that figure is, though. If University A has 4.3:1 and B 3.4:1, you've no way of knowing how many of those meet the entrance criteria (ie do A immediately bin half the applications for not being predicted at least BBC, so it's effectively 2.1:1 for realistic applicants, but only those serious apply to B so it genuinely is 3.4:1).

All very true Mrs Hathaway - I clearly am overthinking it!

MrsHathaway is absolutely right. Assuming you're a realistic candidate, what you would need to know is how many other realistic candidates there are. I doubt that figure is compiled, still less made available. The reasons people make unrealistic applications are difficult to guess for different institutions, so it's not at all obvious what you'd learn from the figures.

Some universities publish the per-course numbers (Oxford, for example). All they tell you (I suspect) is that popular courses attract a lot of fantasists.

There are tables of applications v offers v acceptances of offers v entrants but even these are not terribly meaningful without context.

Consider a well-respected RG (not Oxbridge or top 5) STEM course which requires AAA. Suppose that it receives 1500 offers and takes around 250 students. The applicant:place ratio looks like 6:1 but this doesn't mean much.

For subjects such as maths and physics around 80-90% of students might receive offers (outside the top few highly selective universities) - all students who look capable of AAA will receive offers. So suppose 1250 offers are made. (This is fairly typical.)

Now each such student will have applied to four other courses and will hold other offers, from which they have to choose. The very top students will get Oxbridge which they generally prefer, or another top 5 university. Students who are not confident of getting AAA might firm a place that offers AAB or ABB instead. Typically the conversion rate of offers to acceptance is around 25%, so only 250 offers are firmed, and another set of students put the course as their insurance.

Results come and some students miss grades, some do better; there are some adjustments but overall around 250 students enter.

So the 6:1 ratio is misleading: a student who looks capable of getting AAA and achieves AAA has an almost 100% chance of getting a place if they want one.

(Disclaimer: there is considerable variation over subjects and universities. The figures above definitely don't apply universally but they do illustrate the meaninglessness of application/place ratios.)

There was a thread last year with a link to the application v offers table - will post it if I find it

uilen is pretty much correct. A number of us have explained this sort of calculation several times ...

Really, I think that there's very little point in trying to "play the system" by considering this sort of thing. It may make a teeny-tiny difference if an applicant is borderline. But it should never determine choice.

My advice is that people should do their research (and it's to be hoped it's not primarily the parents doing this) about the kind of course and university they want to attend, and then make their choices accordingly. If they're seen to be a good fit, they'll get an offer. As academics, we want students to thrive and we're pretty experienced at working out who will and who won't be a good fit, from the point of view of the courses we teach.

Then it's up to the applicant to think about the kind of all-round university experience they want, so they can think about 'good fit' from their point of view.

Trying to game play about ratios etc is unlikely to make a difference, and shouldn't determine choice. There's no substitute for hard, smart work at A level.

A number of us have explained this sort of calculation several times ...

Thanks for pointing this out Upthechimney, but I have acknowledged upthread that I was overthinking it. I simply asked the question because DS was put off applying for one uni he liked the look of because he noticed their very high number of applicants to places (when HE was doing HIS research). I didn't know if this ratio was the norm or not so wanted to have a quick look to see if I could find anything out as I didn't want him to be put off somewhere he liked the look of if other places he was interested in had similar ratios.

It was never my intention to "play the system". It was going to be a quick look because, as you say, he should be doing the research, so I didn't spend hours trawling through threads to look for what you and others had said about this in the past.

It's worth mentioning that the Oxbridge colleges (certainly used to) publish the applicants-per-subject-place-per college so you could see which colleges had very dense applications. Given that you are applying for the same course it would confer more of an advantage there, because you could decide against applying for that course through a college which always has eleventy applications per place because it's got a famous bridge, and choose a concrete different, less famous/popular college instead.

Given that you are applying for the same course it would confer more of an advantage there, because you could decide against applying for that course through a college which always has eleventy applications per place

Except the pooling system, or whatever it's called at Cambridge, rather neutralises that. Only about two thirds (I think, might be slightly more) of applicants end up at the college they applied to. The rest are pooled, open offers, open applications, etc. Good applicants to popular colleges are pooled to less popular colleges, and once in the pool are given the same consideration. So a stronger candidate who applied to the dreaming spires but was pooled to concrete and glass would get a place over the weaker candidate who applied to the concrete and glass in the first place. And open offers mop up more places, again with stronger candidate who for whatever reason weren't offered a place by their original college.

On Cambridge pooling duhgli etc, thats not quite right - but the principle applies in general - pooling does distort the admissions statistics (but all colleges do show their pool activity separately in their admissions reviews)

In the winter pool, youre not actually pooled to TO another college, you're just pooled in general and the colleges can pick you out - if you are pooled, you are available to be fished by any college, not one in particular. And the pooled applicant would only get a place over a weaker candidiate at any college if the original college had already put them back in the pool - the firm offers are made to candidates before the pool is created. That said, colleges do sometimes then make offers to original candidates they have pooled if they dont find a better candidiate in the pool.

In the statistics, i think only a very small proportion of those pooled are then made an offer (i did know this number ealrier in the year as it happended to DD - i think its 8% overall - someone correct me - but the odds are not high)

And i think open offers only apply to medicine and (maybe) maths? so is not generally applicable.

And i think open offers only apply to medicine and (maybe) maths?

I know people who have had (and made) open offers in history and english. Google instantly finds physics and law do it. There are, I'm sure, others.

My daughter was interviewed by two colleges in the first, winter, phase. I know that's unusual outside her subject, which guarantees two interviews, but it's certainly not unheard of in other courses for people to have two interviews in December.

Sorry, to be clear: my experience is with Oxford. I suspect when I wrote "Except the pooling system, or whatever it's called at Cambridge," I was being confused: what I meant was "the pooling system at Oxford, and whatever it's called at Cambridge". I assume that Beck is talking about Cambridge.

Yes, sorry, my main experience is with Cambridge, where college choice matters more in the first round (I got in from the pool) so an understanding of whether the college you are applying to is particularly popular for your subject was very useful.

Like a twat, I applied to the most popular college, reasoning that it was popular for a reason and would have the best provision. Sound logic but hopelessly arrogant.

sorry Duhgl - we were talking at cross purposes - you said 'pooling' which i assumed therefore meant you were talking about Cambridge. Its not called that at oxford of course - and students can have more than one interview - my own DS for physics for example had 2. Totally different systems - oxford and Cambridge.

Even if you have historical data on the number of applicants Vs places Vs offers Vs acceptances Vs take up its not nessecerily going to be relevent for next years intake due to the removal of the ABB students numbers cap.

An admissions tutor at a recent open day told me that trying to guess what was going to happen with student numbers next year was like trying to hammer jelly to the wall.

Does this help?

Yep,that helps Thanks

I've used the which uni site lots of times but had missed the applicants to offers bit

Blimey, I don't fancy your chances if you apply for graduate entry medicine at Bristol. Only 3% of applicants get offers