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.

user1464118261
user918 has already made the point how Durham differs from Oxbridge as an important part of the Oxbridge teaching is through the colleges. That means a candidate may potentially be interested in the speciality of particular tutors or attracted by the academic reputation of a college.

Talkin Oxbridge have a different deadline for similar reasons to medical applications except that for Oxbridge shortlisting, marking prétests and interviews all have to be competed by December.

sendsummer
Oxbridge have a different deadline for similar reasons to medical applications except that for Oxbridge shortlisting, marking prétests and interviews all have to be competed by December
But why ?

Why do they get more time than other Universities trying to fill standard courses ?

And why can one not apply to both of them?

It has always been thus, but the past is not necessarily the best guide to the future.

Talkin they get less time on average to process applications. For example all Oxbridge medical students are given a decision by the start of January not by April.

What about English and Maths and History.
Lets compare like with like.
Why is the closing date for English different at two universities than all the others?
And why can an applicant for English not apply to both?

English heard back in January from Oxford.

Abra
So they took three months.

My questions still stand
Why do Oxford and Cambridge have a different closing date?
Why can a student not apply to both?

When I read the headline about Oxbridge favouring the South East I wondered if it was corrected for population density? Some northern counties would have far fewer applicants simply because there are fewer children.

I wondered the same thing!

What about English and Maths and History.
Other universities do not set, administer, mark and interview for those subjects, nor provide decisions to all candidates by January.
In that framework allowing candidates to apply to both universities the same year would deplete resources best used for teaching. Candidates do get a chance to apply to both, just not the same year.

do not set pretests

sendsummer
Other universities do not set, administer, mark and interview for those subjects
Do you have a link for that ?

allowing candidates to apply to both universities the same year would deplete resources best used for teaching
On that basis, every university that interviews should get the same rights

Why should Oxford and Cambridge still get special rules ?

If you don't mind Talkin I'll leave you to find a link to another humanity course that does the same as Oxbridge or more than a handful of STEM courses apart from medicine that pretest and interview. I am sure that you will come up trumps.

If you force Oxbridge to (a) drop pretests and (b) drop interviewing so many candidates, then access will probably come worse. In reality Oxbridge is by a long way the fairest of world top 10 universities in terms of access - compare it to top US universities that don't use interviews.

Oxbridge have special rules because UK society regards them as special and threads like this/the media reinforce people's misconceptions and belief that Oxbridge is special, relative to other top UK universities.

I am very open to changes in Oxbridge admissions (although I have no power to implement them!) but I am very much unconvinced that the changes proposed here would actually address the access issues. As many posters upthread have written, Oxbridge cannot by itself redress the inequalities of society and education.

A number of UK maths courses are using TMUA and MAT now (pretests) as well as STEP (taken with A levels), so for maths there isn't actually the argument that Oxbridge are the only ones using pretests.

Oxbridge are the only maths courses that interview a large fraction of applicants. Imperial interview some, but a much smaller fraction. Most other maths courses don't interview at all - but offer based on grades/STEP. On the other hand, Cambridge Maths doesn't trust its own interviews enough to make definitive offers - the offers are conditional on STEP and up to half of students miss their offers. So is all the time Cambridge Maths spends interviewing really worthwhile....? Or would it be better to use tests taken in the Autumn to make more definitive offers, as Oxford does? I really don't know - Cambridge claims that tests taken in the summer are more accurate predictors and fairer to state school students than Autumn tests.

The other possibility would be to leave it to a lottery, all A* A level predicted candidates get pooled for a set number of offers to be drawn from a hat. That would n't adjust for inequalities in education though.

Talkin - I do not know every admissions procedure for every university but it is pretty well known that Oxbridge require early submission of PS because - pre test ( not all subjects but many ) & a pretest which btw cannot be taught , and interview. Those take time.

It's what they do - I actually think the pretests are a good thing.

Other universities which DS applied to required him to send in a piece of written work in response to something they had sent.
My son is at Oxford - he loves it - the course suits him - & I am frankly proud of him - but so would I have been at other places.

I do wonder if Oxbridge has more cachet nowadays amongst parents than some of the candidates themselves. And breathe

sendsummer that also wouldn't adjust for schools who fail to predict accurately. My school predicted me some as and some as. I actually got 6as. Often candidates from worse schools have trouble getting teachers to predict a*s because they have seen so few kids get them.

Richmond is one of the most expensive boroughs in London. If people can afford property there they can most likely afford private schools

That's why Richmond is a hot spot
They are biased towards private schools too.

It’s a bit like being selected for a top sports team.

If your parents are top sports people - think Andy Murray- you may have a genetic advantage (no short tennis players), and will have been coached from a young age - physically and mentally- to reach a particular goal. Even if you do not make it (think Brooklyn Beckham and football) you will still have had the chance.

If we really want to widen access to elite universities we need to do what the FA do and talent spot from the age of 4 upwards in schools and clubs. You spot those with potential age 4 and put them on a pathway where they are trained and supported. And that should be needs blind. That is why football in the UK is so diverse unlike sports like tennis and hockey which require money to get good at them.

Those with the family advantage will perhaps still have an edge but the opportunities will be there for almost all. Interventions at 18 are way too late.

I find the suggestion that being prepared for particular university entrance should start at 4 horrific.

Firstly that kind of training is littered with abuse scandals. Secondly those who are rejected at various points during the process - made to drop out of the elite programme - bear heavy scars. Thirdly, the way in which children mature is quite complicated and particular talents and interests may only emerge when children are well on into their teens.

Fourthly, it really doesn't matter that much. As the more sane contributors have pointed out, there are a wide range of excellent universities in the UK and the best one to go to depends a very great deal on your particular interests - which again are only likely to emerge in the course of secondary education.

(Oh an fifthly, if Brexit goes ahead all UK universities are likely to be less well-regarded internationally and we're all doomed...)

But if you look at MN threads - nay, the general ethos of education - picking out academic talent at a young age and directing resources at those pupils is considered horrendous . On a recent thread a couple of posters were banging on about Equality of Outcome. There are some who completely deny that intelligence is heritable. Also, you'd have to send enforcers into people's houses to confiscate any books - actually, remove children from their families full stop in case it conferred any advantage.

TalkinPeece, rather than complain about perceived injustices, I would encourage your dc - if you have one about the right age - to knuckle down, work like a galley slave and give Oxbridge a shot. You have to be in it to win it. From ds's experience they are not out to get (or not get) state-educated pupils with silly rules and traps. And I should think 99% of students (of whatever background) love the traditions and style of teaching when they get there. No need for dumbing down for state-school oiks, thank you very much.

The idea is not only horrific Anna but also absolutely unnecessary. There is no way that kids need to be 'in training'!!!! That way lies sheer bloody madness and misery.

"Fourthly, it really doesn't matter that much. As the more sane contributors have pointed out, there are a wide range of excellent universities in the UK and the best one to go to depends a very great deal on your particular interests."

It is a strange 'binary' system we seem to have - O and C regarded as 'at the top' (though in the know scientists/mathematicians often seem to think Imperial more so) and absolutely nowhere else quite as 'good' or aspirational. Do employment outcomes still reflect this - I don't know? I can see that it would matter if you are statistically significantly still more likely to be v successful in a particular career (law? politics?) if you went to O and C than literally any other university - but I just don't know if this is still the case.

Anyone know what the justification is for only being allowed to apply to one of O or C? This seems to me a very good question.

Presumably it's the simple reason that the time it takes for academics at Oxford and Cambridge to complete the process is very significantly higher than in non pre-testing/interviewing unis and if applicants could opt for both most would which would double the time taken out of teaching existing studetns/ research etc. It's that straightforward isn't it?

Yes, it may well be goodbyestranger - I don't think I've ever seen an explanation, though on the other hand I haven't looked! It just seems to be accepted as 'that's the way it is'.

I agree that anyone applying for one would probably apply for both - now that the cap has been lifted the concept of the 'wasted choice' in UCAS does not matter so much, because presumably anyone in that position can be reasonably confident of getting an offer from a 'high ranking' university? In that sense the position is different from 10 yrs ago when you used to hear of amazing applicants for English getting no offers at all because they had applied only to RG universities and the cap meant you couldn't be certain of getting an offer from anywhere.