Oxbridge 'favours' students from London and South-East

[jeanne16]

Apparently 48% of students come from London and the South-East with Richmond being a particular hotspot. Should we be surprised by this and accuse the universities of bias? The way I see it is Richmond is full of extremely intelligent people who presumably have intelligent children. They then have the money and resources to support them in all sorts of ways, such as buying books, reading to them, private schooling and/or tutors when needed, sport and other activities.

I really don't see how this is the fault of the universities.

This seems to have lots of stats and there a few percentage points difference between LSE and Cambridge / Oxford though I'm not an expert in these stats and there's a lot of them but on a quick look looks like LSE may have three times as many not completing first year.

www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/non-continuation

I think much of the discussion about increasing drop-out rates has been specifically about 'young' starters so the HESA statistics, for e.g., do not refer to mature students.

LSE are just one University : and one that has shed loads of foreign students so is not representative of the UK University body at large.

The bigger picture is that the Oxbridge admission system is not noticably more effective than the universities who give algorithm offers after 12 hours

The bigger picture is that the Oxbridge admission system is not noticably more effective than the universities who give algorithm offers after 12 hours

By what criteria? Degrees, success and impact of graduates, life-time earnings, drop out rates...or just in your opinion?

LSE are just one University : and one that has shed loads of foreign students so is not representative of the UK University body at large.

I thought that table said it only covered 'UK domiciled full-time first degree entrants' so that wouldn't matter?

The bigger picture is that the Oxbridge admission system is not noticeably more effective than the universities who give algorithm offers after 12 hours

But do we know whether those universities make offers to 80-90% of their applicants? If the same applicant is applying to Oxbridge, Bristol, Durham, Exeter and Manchester - how many offers does each university have to send out to secure 120 or 200 acceptances/firms, let alone allow for missed offers on results day? How many students would turn down an Oxbridge offer?

drop out rates are lower in those with higher grades. I'm not going to find the research on this, you can google it. So nothing unusual about lower drop rates for universities that demand high grades.

It is actually self interest for the ruling class to recruit into Oxbridge the most ambitious and driven of the disadvantaged. Keep them out and you provide leaders for potential revolution, let them in and indoctrinate them and you deprive the disadvantaged of leadership. It's why Britain has had a more stable society than most other countries.

Talkin
Re -
Still waiting to hear the reason why Oxbridge cannot take applications by course first and then by bedroom second - I think you are being a little cheeky here given what people have said

1. You have the option to apply for a particular college which does your course ( not all colleges do all courses. )
2. You have the option to put in an open application - i.e. - don't care which college but I want to study x - you will then ( if successful be assigned to a college for interview if you get that far)
3. You may have chosen a college ( or in your words "bedroom ) and that college may be oversubscribed and you may be allocated to a different college for interview if you application is strong enough
4. You may be interviewed at your chosen college and if they have too many strong candidates you may be sent for an interview at a different college who has ended up with fewer good candidates.

A fair few applicants end up at a different college than the one they applied to & to reiterate there is no need to specify a college - just a subject.

Also - the tests ( at Oxford as far as I know ( I exclude STEP) ) but the aptitude tests - certainly in DS's case not a revisable for test) are done prior to interview and make up part of the sifting process for invitation to interview.
I'm not an Oxford Tutor so happy to be disproven & you may not like the Oxford entry process , but I think you are over egging the choosing a bedroom / hall as well as a course thing a bit

Industry level less good on flexible working but never come across sexism.

OK. Basic question. Is there is no sexism, explain to me why it is that in econometrics/financial maths jobs (requiring PhDs) there are

Basilisk
I can see how it works (parent, sibling and friends at Oxbridge)
but I can also see that the multiple extra layers of detail are part of the reason that kids from "non Oxbridge" schools are scared off
and that maybe some simplification of that system - with no change in the grade requirements - might increase applications from more schools

Basilisk,

I appreciate what you say, but is the outcome of the admissions process completely independent of the college chosen?

What I mean is that if you were to rank all applicants at a univeristy level, would the places be assigned to the correct top x, regardless of whether each candidate applied to a popular college, an unpopular college, or made an open application? Or are there routes by which a marginal candidate might get a better result through applying via one route than another?

Does the university as a whole 'standardise' the applicants post interview but before offer, to check that no weaker candidates have offers from particular colleges without very good reason, if stronger candidates are in the 'not offered' pool?

The thing is, a university-wide application process by subject allows 'all applicant' ranking, and does seem to me to be intrinsically fairer than a fragmented collegiate system, where each college only sees part of the total pool of candidates. It would also reduce the influence of particular interviewers or DoS's, who might be tempted to recruit 'in their own image'.

If the university wants to continue to interview, it could do so using a panel of interviewers drawn from across the university, who have only 2 options: not to give an offer of a place at the university, or to offer a place.

The college preference list of those given an offer would then be used to assign them colleges, just like school admissions - each candidate puts 3 or 4 colleges in preference order, and they get sifted through so that everyone gets assigned to one of their choices, or to a college with spare places if no places available on their preference list.

My own impression is that Mumsnet mystifies the Oxbridge applications process - as if there's a great deal of arcane knowledge and if this is shared online - then chances will magically be increased by a tablespoonful or so.

I think it does help if somebody - a school, a parent - offers a young person encouragement, and says 'This is something you can try, if you're interested.'

But what it boils down to is doing an additional personal statement -
which adds to what's on the UCAS statement - and choosing a college.

I think my daughter did a bit of Googling and I did a bit of Googling when she asked my advice. I said 'What about College X? And she said, 'Yes I was thinking about that one.'

As an applicant she is sort of in the middle. State educated and not disadvantaged but not a privately educated southerner!

Talkin - I am sorry if my post came over as pointed, ( & I know you largely know about stuff like this ) - I did not mean it to - & I do get your point that some may be put off by it. All I was trying to say is that if you delve into it - apart from the fact you have an interview ( & I deliberately left that question out of my post) it isn't really quite as hard as it looks - BUT BUT BUT - I do get it might put some off who either do not have it explained to them or indeed look it up & talk to admissions - who in DS's case were incredibly nice and helpful - but then maybe doing the investigation and picking up the phone requires an amount of "capital" - where's BoboChic when you need her .

Can't I am sure no admissions process can be faultless. However, in all the things DS heard ( & I , whirly bird parent me? at an open day ) - they ( I speak of Oxford) genuinely seem to try to standardise entry and for colleges - they are committed to students not being able to game the system by applying to a certain college. How it worked with DS is that he had a friend who was immediately given an interview to a different college because the one he applied to had more stronger candidates than the other one did. Also - DS & everyone was asked to prepare to stay for an extra day in case post the first two interviews they checked amongst the colleges and some may have had better candidates they themselves didn't have room for and so sent them to another college to see if some they may have to reject might be better than another college would have given a place to.

I am not sure I am best placed to explain all this , can only go on DS & friends' experience & info from the university , but I don't honestly think I am being naive in thinking Oxford do their best to make sure that anyone they think they should give a place to at the University as a whole is disadvantaged by having applied to a particular college ( if they did - & didn't do an open application ) .

Funder,

The thing is, I have gained from 'the system as it is', as have my parents and siblings. All of us went to Oxbridge, from state grammar, from state comprehensive, from private secondary, from private sixth form.

What I am trying to explore is 'what can be done to make the system fairer', because I don't think it is right that while some people - including my immediate family - are statistically more likely to be 'winners', others, at least as academically able and as capable of benefiting from the education these universities offer, are 'losers'.

NOT disadvantaged

All the jobs I've had in Economics there's been more women than men bar one. PhD level no idea, are there as many women doing PhDs? Don't know, I know I didn't as I wanted a family.

're the flexible working I've often been the first one to request it but always got it.

We may also be talking about completely different salary levels here, I'm talking about jobs paying £40k to £80k full time rather than £200k.

Can't - I suppose one question is - they interview - is that fairer or less fair & why do they do it. I do believe we are no longer in the Brideshead era of X school has a relationship with Y college so you just bung your application in there.

I also do agree with a PP in that I think that "Oxbridge" is less of a thing amongst DS's friends and some will positively choose US universities or the likes of Imperial / LSE - other examples available) ( Now I do understand these are also elite - & often expensive universities ) and does not answer all of the questions - just that the OP framed the question in terms of Oxbridge.

I think the question of how to make Oxbridge applications fairer can't be separated from the question of how to make the UK educational system and UK society fairer.

There would be howls of indignation from a great many Mumsnetters if a) private/independent education and b) selective, grammar school education were to be abolished in the UK.

On the other hand doing these things, along with resourcing state education better so that children could be taught in smaller classe/reinvesting in Sure Start etc would make it a great deal more possible for currently disadvantaged children to enjoy greater opportunities.

Still waiting to hear the reason why Oxbridge cannot take applications by course first and then by bedroom second
That is a different question to your original one of why interview.
IMO interviews help create a more level playing field than the inverse. College interviews theoretically help match up the best fit tutors and tutees. Colleges are paid for the tutorial teaching. Students list preferences for halls of residence at other universities so why can't they have the same choice at Oxbridge?

Due to the teaching and living going hand in hand it does make some sense for the system to continue. Otherwise you couid end up having a second round iof selection or nterviews in order to rank candidates for awarding first choice collleges and tutors.

College interviews theoretically help match up the best fit tutors and tutees.

Dodgy.

Does this one's face fit? Are they our sort of chap? Will they frighten the horses?

Departments have a much bigger role in admissions than they used to. There is far more pooling and reallocation between colleges too. Can't speak for Cambridge but six years ago my son applied to Oxford college X, had two interviews there and one interview at college Y. Y made him an offer and he had three very happy years there.

It could equally have happened that he applied to X and got allocated to Z for interview, with the result being then one of three options - offer from Z, offer from X or Y (or A. N. Other college) or no offer.

Guardian article describing in great detail how one Cambridge college makes admissions decisions post-interview.