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.

Different aspects, different issues, LadyCement.

I think all our education opportunities should beopen to all based on merit, on a level playing field as possible.

I think there are aspects of the institution that are off putting and uphold existing inequalities.

Some of those factors are the snobbery of the whole thing - perpetrated by some alumni.

I picked Geography because a PP suggested that disadvantaged students should apply for Geography, simply because the competition was less fierce. I think this demonstrates both the snobbery of people wanting to say they have been to Oxbridge, simply for the kudos, rather than the subject. Which is part of the problem, and doesn't solve any part of the inequality, except for genuine wannabe Geography students.

Nothing wrong with Geography - great subject for those who want to study it.

I believe overseas applicants are interviewed at Cambridge, I remember being asked to look after a German girl before her interview. This says sometimes the interviews are in the home country rather than Cambridge.

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/international-students/overseas-interviews

The college thing is a bit odd and I found it did make a difference but its very unique so I was a female comp girl in an 80% male, 80% public school college but my professor had a bias towards girls. When I saw the German girl and she was attractive I knew he would offer he a place and make an offer of 19/20. Exactly what he did. Another college about 5 out of 8 in the male dominated subject had long blonde hair and were thin and beautiful females. They've probably tightened up on this now but it was wide open to a professor preferences in my day though obviously you needed the grades.

Talkin overseas are always interviewed but may be by Skype or equivalent.
I am not sure how you can omit the interview without the end result of disadvantaging the students who would be less well prepared for entrance tests.

Lulu - the STEP results come out at the same time as A levels. Normally the exams are done just after A levels. It's designed to see how good a student is at the kind of problem they need to be good at as an undergraduate. Students can sit these exams earlier if they like but are generally advised not to by Cambridge. The exams are notoriously difficult. 50% of Cambridge maths offer holders fail to get the STEP results they need to get in (including many who have managed 100% at GCSE and in several of their A level papers). They don't do it to be mean they do it so that the students they take are good at doing the kind of work they are going to need to do once they get there. A level maths gives a lot more scaffolding and the STEP is designed in part to see how a student does when they have to work out how to solve a difficult multi-step problem without that scaffolding being provided for them. It might seem unfair, but I think it is less unfair than the alternative. Basically if they think you stand a chance for maths they will make you an offer - the STEP is then used to select the most able to pass really difficult maths exams from among the offer holders. This information is freely available and is the reason many students, who don't want the extra pressure, decide not to apply to Cambridge for maths.

sendsummer
Do all degrees require extra tests?
And what impact does the interview have on test results?

I suspect mediocre children from Richmond have the hot housing and nurturing environment to do really well academically.

cantkeepaway I think they do make different STEP offers at Cambridge. Some students need an S (practically impossible!) rather than a 1 I'm pretty sure and there are 2 papers that the offer can be based on. You can also get (free) coaching if your school aren't able to help you prepare, or you can find (free) online support materials from schools that start preparing their students in y11. Some of this support comes out of Cambridge (Oxford use a different test to select the candidates for interview) but lots of support is available from the UK Maths Trust which tries really hard to stretch the best mathematicians in schools. That includes free online teaching and revision. But none of this is worth anything if the schools dismiss it as elitist and don't pass it on! And sadly many of them do just that. But it's far harder to do that in a grammar or independent school.

Different STEP offers for maths are occasionally made, but the standard offer is 1 in STEP 2 and 1 in STEP 3.

They are funded from public money so are not self-sufficient little ivory towers and do, to some extent, also have to work in the public interest.

But it is not in the public interest for researchers to be pushed out of the UK (particularly in the current period) by asking them to use a lot of their time to try without success to solve social mobility problems caused in part by austerity, low taxation, low public spending. It is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

How come Oxbridge would be trying without success to solve social mobility problems where LSE have succeeded? I thought Oxbridge people were supposed to be clever.

user918
So start by getting rid of all the interviews - that according to a poster up thread take an enormous amount of time and resources to arrange

and at the same time do applications by course not college
so that kids can apply to all universities in the same way

Oxbridge are Excellent but not by a huge amount above other Universities who manage to fit into the normal UCAS system.
Its time for them to adjust to the real world for a change

LSE haven't succeeded. They have gotten better, but they do not have the broadest intake of even RG universities.

London Universities have particular problems and are alway likely to attract a higher proportion of London based students. They do however (observation only) seem to be able to attract British ethnic minorities, perhaps because London is perceived as ethnic minority friendly.

I am not convinced though that ditching interviews is helpful. The PS then becomes a more important part of the selection process, benefiting those with access to good advice.

I think a lot of this has to do with where the best private schools are and the fact that the push kids hard and prepare them better for top universities. Unfortunately that’s the way it is in this country 😔

Also a lot of people want to be near-ish home at that age (but far enough away for some independence) x

Talkin I am not sure how you propose to select for such oversubscribed courses. Perfect scores in A levels? Not always indicative of the best thinkers or those who read widely. Highest s cores in harder exams such as STEP or pretests? Perfectly crafted personal statements?

All that is possible but interviews do give a chance to candidates who have less likely to have been accelerated and extended at school or at home but can show potential by how they think by interview questions.

oversubscribed courses
Define.
The Lammy data shows that around half of applicants are given offers
That is a lot lower than many other universities manage

(I was just looking up a course that wants AAA and had 1200 applicants for 270 places last year - they do not ask for extra tests, nor do they do 100 interviews)

There have been a number of Freedom of Information requests regarding Step results/acceptances at Cambridge for Maths - scoring 2s in Step appear to greatly reduce your chance of acceptance:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/step_results_of_offer_holders_2

"oversubscribed courses
Define."

I would start by suggesting that these are courses where strong applicants who meet entry requirements might still be rejected.

Our experience was that with paper only applications, the process felt pretty random. DD who either knew she did not gain sufficient points to achieve the interview cut off, or that she had bombed in one of her interviews, had a far better idea of why she was rejected.

"The Lammy data shows that around half of applicants are given offers
That is a lot lower than many other universities manage"

What does this mean?

2 applicants per offer is no great shakes
or is that because there are some courses with 10 per place and some with less than one ?

For LSE geography they had 314 applicants for 33 places in 2016 ie 9 applicants per place wheras Oxbridge is 3 applicants per place but LSE do not interview to give offers- how?

DD got 5 offers without interviews
and none of the Universities can have read her personal statement
and she's enjoying the choice she opted for ....

Algorithmic methods with bedrooms chosen after courses clearly work
but Oxbridge do not want to try

I'm not sure what you mean by "The Lammy data shows that around half of applicants are given offers" Ta1kin. It is roughly 6 per place but that varies considerably across subjects with the most popular being around 1 in 11. All of the data for the last admissions round on subject acceptance rates is here so you can see the detail.

Oh and there is also a very useful table on admission by region here

There are a couple of interesting things about the table that confirms a lot that has been said above. One is that the offer rates are broadly similar across the regions (though N Ireland is a tad low but a relatively small number of individuals) with candidates from the North East having the highest success rate at 28.2%.

The other is that if you look at the % of students with AAA+ applying to Oxford it is much higher in the South than the North. So 45.3% of Greater London students with AAA+ apply whereas it is about half that for the North East. So that results in a situation in which a lower percentage of AAA+ candidates go to Oxford from those regions. So broadly speaking the regional issue looks to be one of qualified candidates not applying rather than bias in selection.

NB the success rates look better than 1 in 6 for all regions and that might appear to conflict with the data above but that is because there are many non-UK applicants and they tend to have a lower success rate.

Courses that don't have tests or interviews are always going to have more applications, as it's perceived as easier to get in. It's also very easy to find that when you get there you don't like it, which does happen, as not everybody goes to open days or offerholder days, or checks thoroughly what the course is going to involve, how it's going to be taught/assessed, what the campus is like, and so on and so forth. The dropout rate at Oxford and Cambridge is lower than in most universities, I believe, and I'm sure that has quite a lot to do with their selection procedures.

I think personally that it's a pity there isn't more interviewing. It's a two way process. When I applied to university I had three interviews and I felt a lot more invested in those three universities than the two that just sent the offer through UCCA, as it was then. I got a much better feel for the place. I admit that I could have got some of that through Open Days, which were not usual at the time at all.