Oxford v Cambridge: how do applications balance out?

[FingernailNibbler]

Silly question. Because you can only apply to Oxford OR Cambridge, how do applications stay stable year on year, or are there sometimes swings in preference (and do they cause panics at the unis)?
Do things stay stable because of students' preferences for the city/campus/vibe/course structure and content?
Do students sometimes try to play the numbers game and apply to one despite personally preferring the other? But does that just ensure a swing the other way the following year?

I looked at stats for one subject for 2020 (not an ideal year to compare thanks to inflated final acceptance rates, but couldn't find stats for Oxford 2019 by course). The numbers are amazingly close.
*MML 2020
Cambridge *
378 applications / 193 offers / 187 acceptances
Oxford
406 applications / 177 acceptances *
*
If just 50 C applicants had chosen O instead, it would be very unbalanced:
C 328
O 456

How is the balance in other subjects?
How do sixth forms/ O and C manage this?
Do you think it will ever become possible to apply for both Oxford AND Cambridge?

@CinnamonJellyBeans

There's no point in trying to play the stats. If you're doing that then you're clearly not choosing your university/college or even subject for the right reasons.

If you are confident in your own abilities, subject knowledge and grades (achieved and predicted), you should just apply to the university, subject and college of your choice.

It's not a lottery that you take a punt on. It's a process of selecting the very best. So be the best and you will be selected.

This is true. I did find the stats interesting. For some subjects there are lessons to learn, for instance if a college only takes 1 or 2 in your subject (you may prefer a larger group in your college and it may mean increase chance of pooling/no offer). But generally, agree. Choose your favourite. Can't go through life hedging every bet and playing it too safe.

@ErrolTheDragon an overnight offer holders' event sounds wonderful. What a lovely way to reach out to their pooled candidates. I'm sure it serves the college well and sets a positive tone for the students' uni experience.

The other thing with pooling is that people on the course who applied to the college you got into tend to seek you out and say, I applied to X too but they didn't want me and you got the place. I had that happen with one person who was pooled and picked up elsewhere and one who was asked to defer a year.

Makes for some awkward conversations (and a feeling of smug superiority if you were the one who got in )

@Chilldonaldchill

DD too received an offer this year from a college she had not applied to (although it happened to have been in her top 3 when trying to decide). She still has not seen it other than on the website. I think the comment above might have been regarding the fact that students who are pooled but not pulled from the pool are informed on offer day that they were pooled. On some sites there have been reports that this upset students that "no one wanted them" effectively - I have to say that the experience of the students I know this year was the opposite in that they were pleased to be considered for the pool and glad to know it had happened even though they didn't get an offer.

Congratulations to your daughter. I really hope she can go in person soon. I read on here that offer holders can sometimes get inside and look around. And I hope the college's website has a lot of info. Can she find any vloggers from the college? Some of them show their room/view from window, which brings it all to life. Reading the article (was it in The Guardian?) about the pooling process really helped me see how eager the colleges are to nab the best fish. You can understand, when the perfect student for your college for some reason applied elsewhere and you're looking for a few more superb students. It's all got a bit of random in it, really. Some years more people apply to a college with only 9 spaces for the subject, so they have lots go to the pool. The random permutations do fascinate me. Yes, I think on balance I would appreciate knowing I had been pooled, even if not then fished. You were obviously a tempting candidate but the seats were all full. It's just maddening, but I understand why they don't just throw everyone into a central pool from the start. It's much more personalised decision-making (leaving you to the vagaries of your college's team). Again, all application processes are kind of brutal. Hats off to all the brave applicants and the determined and patient selectors!

@bitheby

The other thing with pooling is that people on the course who applied to the college you got into tend to seek you out and say, I applied to X too but they didn't want me and you got the place. I had that happen with one person who was pooled and picked up elsewhere and one who was asked to defer a year.

Makes for some awkward conversations (and a feeling of smug superiority if you were the one who got in )

Extremely awkward! I wouldn't be brave enough to tell the person, though I would probably soft-stalk them. And maybe work to get better marks than them, for spite. But I am a small, cold-hearted one!

I was looking at the admission stats linked and considering my own ds was wondering how much prospective applicants should rely on them.

He was at a state school, applied to one college (v high no applicants, high proportion state school admitted, he was interviewed at 2 college ( not so many applicants but still high state admitted) open offer made, underwritten by 2nd college, on results day ended up at college 3 ( plenty of applicants but not as many as college 1 , v low state school % admitted)
. I was wondering where he would appear in the stats? Under college 1 where he applied or college 3 where admitted? Does anyone know?

@Crumpetstoday

I was looking at the admission stats linked and considering my own ds was wondering how much prospective applicants should rely on them.

He was at a state school, applied to one college (v high no applicants, high proportion state school admitted, he was interviewed at 2 college ( not so many applicants but still high state admitted) open offer made, underwritten by 2nd college, on results day ended up at college 3 ( plenty of applicants but not as many as college 1 , v low state school % admitted)
. I was wondering where he would appear in the stats? Under college 1 where he applied or college 3 where admitted? Does anyone know?

In the Cambridge stats you can see how many applied to each college (directly or via open applications), how many offers the college gave direct applicants, how many were successfully pooled out (they got an offer elsewhere), and how many the college accepted in from the pool, plus "summer pool" – I think that's when you didn't make your offer but another college may still grab you? I'm not sure how/where Oxford shows these details (which I found fascinating). You can touch any block for exact numbers. Like this: (I chose a subject, year and a few colleges to demonstrate all the colours).

Also @Crumpetstoday I think a state school applicant might be very welcome at some indy-heavy colleges, as surely they are all trying to improve their inclusion stats? I don't like to think of "ghettoisation" and stereotypes or reputations being self-perpetuating forever.

Also, if you're looking at acceptance stats for a Cambridge course, I would add together a college's red and purple numbers, as all those students got a place at Cambridge. So go for your top choice, even if it's popular, as they tend to pool out successful candidates too. Does that make sense? Some of the less popular colleges don't pool out much, just in.

Oxford do exactly as they state on their website. You can study at Oxford with grade 6s at GCSE and even a grade D.

@Hoghgyni

Oxford do exactly as they state on their website. You can study at Oxford with grade 6s at GCSE and even a grade D.

That's good. I like the idea of slightly quirky/odd geniuses in their subject, who didn't get all As in everything, but may be the next Einstein/Hawking/Curie/Austen/Musk. Maybe Jane Austen wasn't great at maths. Maybe Einstein couldn't analyse poetry...

@FingernailNibbler
Thx I love looking at stats like these. Can lose hours. He’s at Oxford, will go and investigate if I can find similar stats.

Re. Stereotype of college ds is v happy, settled in v well, met lots people and lots of friends. No prob at all fitting in. He has noticed some things but not in a negative way. I may have given the impression he applied to college 1 because heavy state school offers, it wasn’t that at all, he chose it because it had a gym, en-suites and he knew someone a couple of years ahead who was very happy there. Maybe if we’d seen the stats in advance he wouldn’t have applied there at all, simply because it was the most heavily subscribed college. We sort of took the advice of this board to choose a college but don’t be too invested in it because you may well end up elsewhere, as proved the case. All well that ends well.

[quote Crumpetstoday]@FingernailNibbler
Thx I love looking at stats like these. Can lose hours. He’s at Oxford, will go and investigate if I can find similar stats.

Re. Stereotype of college ds is v happy, settled in v well, met lots people and lots of friends. No prob at all fitting in. He has noticed some things but not in a negative way. I may have given the impression he applied to college 1 because heavy state school offers, it wasn’t that at all, he chose it because it had a gym, en-suites and he knew someone a couple of years ahead who was very happy there. Maybe if we’d seen the stats in advance he wouldn’t have applied there at all, simply because it was the most heavily subscribed college. We sort of took the advice of this board to choose a college but don’t be too invested in it because you may well end up elsewhere, as proved the case. All well that ends well.[/quote]
I'm so glad it worked out and he's happy there. Gym and en-suites: perfectly good reasons to choose initial college. I am all about that en-suite. Really glad he loves his new college. I have had friends tell me their kids were applying to a college with high state school stats. I don't think that's a wise way to choose. Agree about stats. Fascinating, hence my original question. I like looking at "last 5 years".

I like the idea of slightly quirky/odd geniuses in their subject, who didn't get all As in everything, but may be the next Einstein/Hawking/Curie/Austen/Musk.

My PhD supervisor (an Oxbridge admissions bod) admitted that he was faintly cynical about students with perfect scores in everything and preferred to take ‘the ones who only do well in the subjects they really care about.’

Oxbridge isn't all about geniuses but I'm glad they do look favourably on that type as that's probably where they'll flourish. I was a straight A student at GCSE and A level. No genius but I did have a genuine interest in learning. The only subjects I was rubbish at, I dropped as soon as I could.

To be fair Hoghgyni, unless my memeory serves me ill, your DD got a D in a paper which wasn't strictly a GCSE (my DD did that paper too/ didn't like it either). It's pretty much discarded for admissions purposes.

Goodbye true, but she also wouldn't fit the "quirky genius" described above.

Yes I can relate to that Hoghgyni. None of mine fit the description either - not at all sure I'm sorry!

DS1 is quirky but far from a genius. He's smart, hard working and loves his subject though.

I actually find the 'genius' tag unhelpful. I hope anyone reading this who has a DC thinking of applying for Oxbridge doesn't think they need to be a genius. They don't. I've met DS1's friends and they are all pretty normal.

I think that an occasional true genius has been a friend of one or other of my DC, but overwhelmingly Oxford is peopled by smart kids, falling short of genius (but probably no less happy for that).

Although the person I'm thinking of who most closely fits the genius label is, actually, perfectly happy. But I would assume it was a bit of a burden on the whole. My Dad (who was very clever himself) used to counsel us three children not to think too much.

@sandybayley

DS1 is quirky but far from a genius. He's smart, hard working and loves his subject though.

I actually find the 'genius' tag unhelpful. I hope anyone reading this who has a DC thinking of applying for Oxbridge doesn't think they need to be a genius. They don't. I've met DS1's friends and they are all pretty normal.

I don't mean literally an Einstein. I mean kids who are extremely bright in their subjects, but not necessarily in 10 subjects (humanities students who struggled with maths or science, scientists or mathematicians who struggled with foreign language or literature or writing history essays). I am glad that more 'narrowly' talented students are welcome, as well as students who flourished across the board. And yes, some of them may go on to push the envelope in their field, and got the opportunity despite not getting all As at age 16.

I just don't get the idea of "quirky genius" with grade 9s in only a few subjects. Some of you might call it "genius", I call it "kid who is not good at much stuff".

Given that most academic GCSEs are pretty formulaic in terms of how you get to each grade, if you're smart enough to get a grade 9 in your best subjects, you should be able to get 7s in the others, just by attending school and doing your homework.

And of course the other reason why Oxford take with lower grade offers for some subjects (usually humanities/social sciences) is that they have carried out assessments tests for a longer period and therefore have a better understanding statsitically who they want based on those tests scores. Indeed Cambridge started to introduce these but then dropped some.

Yes that's sort of the same point as Oxford doing a significantly bigger sift prior to interview. A different risk from Cambridge, but hard to assess the relative difficulty of nabbing an offer.