Epsom College Failing at Oxbridge?

[HedgehogFan]

I have a young DS at EC and have seen a considerable decline of Oxbridge offers compared to other similar Independent Schools. Does anyone know why?

Some of theses replies are so cutting 😂😂

If Oxford and Cambridge genuinely want to improve diversity and social mobility they still have a long, long way to go. The whole application process must put off so many excellent students. It should be simplified and bought into line with other universities.

Both universities are ridiculously wealthy and should use some of it to ensure children from all sectors or our society can benefit from an Oxbridge education.
Oxbridge should be a spending a lot more money on Initiatives such as Oxfords Lady Margaret Hall foundation year.
One very easy way to make Oxford and Cambridge more accessible to more students is to significantly increase its student population - (just like every other university in the UK has had to! ). Oxford admitted less than 3000 undergraduate students in 2020. That's pathetic. Why should those few students be benefiting from a top class university experience while so many others at less wealthy and less prestigious Universities struggle with too many students.

Oxford and Cambridge University are simply amazing organisations but they need to change and stop being so elitist.

(Full disclosure - none of my kids applied so I've no skin in the game)

@FunnyGoingsOn where are all these "increased numbers of students" going to live? O & C provide accommodation in college for 1st years and in many cases for all undergraduates. They had a massive problem in 2020 when the Williamson grades fiasco meant that they had to honour the school-assessed grades.

I agree that having more state school educated students there is good. My own DD has been involved in mentoring students from Glasgow on a project and also helping run camps for y10/11 in school holidays. Her old school had an increase in offers this year, which is welcome, but nobody in her subject.

According to the statistics quoted by the OP, 60% of Oxbridge applicants at her DS's school made it to interview. To my untrained eye, that doesn't look like a terrible "hit rate". However, having made it to interview, only one third of the Cambridge applicants and none of the Oxford applicants got an offer. Without having been a fly on the wall at the interviews, impossible to know why that was!

[quote Malbecfan]@FunnyGoingsOn where are all these "increased numbers of students" going to live? O & C provide accommodation in college for 1st years and in many cases for all undergraduates. They had a massive problem in 2020 when the Williamson grades fiasco meant that they had to honour the school-assessed grades.

I agree that having more state school educated students there is good. My own DD has been involved in mentoring students from Glasgow on a project and also helping run camps for y10/11 in school holidays. Her old school had an increase in offers this year, which is welcome, but nobody in her subject.[/quote]
Where do you think the "increased numbers of students" at all the other UK Universities live 🤷🏻‍♀️ Oxford and Cambridge are very wealthy and have plenty of highly intelligent people working for them. I'm sure, if they wanted, they could find a way of increasing student numbers.

Colleges that offer accommodation throughout a UG degree could easily just provide it for the first year.

I'm not suggesting you open Oxford and Cambridge up to everyone but surely there is a point where they could substantial increase numbers without impacting on the quality of the education too much. As it is both Universities seem to want to increase the numbers of (paying) overseas students and keep the numbers of UK students the same.

surely there is a point where they could substantial increase numbers without impacting on the quality of the education too much.

The system of tutorials / supervisions may be significantly impacted if there are a large number more students - and as these are at the core of Oxbridge's 'difference', it is unlikely that the university would want to do this.

What is the benefit, for Oxbridge, of expanding? It's a bit like the expanding numbers getting A* grades - by increasing the numbers, the currency is devalued.

@TizerorFizz and @WombatChocolate both have very good and valid points that they have made so I am unsure why the former's comment warrantee such wrath?

A lot has been done to increase the diversity and the numbers applying from state schools and with disadvantaged markers and to increase widening participation with specific staff working for the colleges and in specific areas.

The OP seems to suggest for indie candidates (at EC in particular) students should switch for 6th Form which suggests she may not have appreciated that gcses are contextualised on the basis of where they were sat and not based on which 6th Form they are in. The reality is some schools still have a very out of date idea as to how Oxbridge selects as to do parents who went on the basis of their 2 E offers etc.

Most of the students who apply are indeed all A* students or if not are exceptional in their field. Many kids have been at schools where they are the high flier in a small pond scenario but have never had the competition in the big pond and thus are shocked when they aren't selected with their full set of gcse perfect marks and perfect predictions. It is the competition you face on the day that counts and one year you may have got in and another you may not. Those who apply with A level grades in hand do tend to fare better percentage wise (in circumstances where normal exams have been sat).

I work with young people in deprived area in the North. A local college got 24 offers this year. The Unis are doing much better at wading through the assisted personal statements etc and looking for more diversity. I am so proud of them all :)

@lucillelarusso

I work with young people in deprived area in the North. A local college got 24 offers this year. The Unis are doing much better at wading through the assisted personal statements etc and looking for more diversity. I am so proud of them all :)

Many congratulations. It must have been great to see such results.

It is amazing, even more so that of the 24, 18 were comprehensive and only 6 from selective state secondary schools. :)

Boosterquery there's not much dividend from an interview which doesn't translate into an offer. The applicant is still rejected.

Also, OP hasn't said where the twelve interviewees interviewed. Since Cambridge interviews the vast majority of applicants, an interview there is neither here nor there tbh.

Quite right can'tkeepaway.

I wonder how many of the 'straight A*' pupils at EC would have achieved those grades if they'd been at a school which didn't have such good teaching?

As to the notion that Oxford and Cambridge should increase their numbers - why should they? There are plenty of other excellent universities in the U.K. and it wouldn't actually be a good thing if they got a lower share of (shudder) 'oxbridge material' type students. And as has been noted, the staff/PhDs to undergrad ratio is important for the tutorial/supo style to work. Finally, where the heck would increased numbers of undergrads live in Cambridge... accommodation outside of the colleges is horribly expensive and in short supply. You can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot.

Arguably a better idea would be for more other unis to move closer to that model. And perhaps to also do more interviewing etc, not for oxbridge to do less.

Sorry... I broke my own train of thought, the final para is meant to be that other unis should do more tutorials/supos/problem classes. And if they're already doing it, publicise it better.

@cantkeepawayforever

surely there is a point where they could substantial increase numbers without impacting on the quality of the education too much.

The system of tutorials / supervisions may be significantly impacted if there are a large number more students - and as these are at the core of Oxbridge's 'difference', it is unlikely that the university would want to do this.

What is the benefit, for Oxbridge, of expanding? It's a bit like the expanding numbers getting A* grades - by increasing the numbers, the currency is devalued.

I understand increased numbers could potentially water down the quality of the Oxbridge experience but most (all?) other Universities in the UK are having to do it. At least Oxford and Cambridge could afford to takes steps to minimize any ill effects of increasing student numbers.

I don't know what the benefits of increasing student numbers would be but surely it would help make the University more accessible to many more students. If increasing numbers of home students is too much for them then why not reduce the number of overseas students. This would raise less money but would make more space available to UK students. Why would these universities be prioritizing revenue when they don't need to.

All private schools are having to use their game since Oxford and Cambridge have started trying in earnest to encourage state school applications. It's obvious - there aren't more places, so the competition is far fiercer.

It used to be fairly common for rather average private school pupils to get in because they'd been coached/crammed to within an inch of their lives. Now there are more state school applications, the universities can look for those genuinely super-bright kids who didn't need (or get!) coaching to excel at interview.

*up not use

@goodbyestranger

Boosterquery there's not much dividend from an interview which doesn't translate into an offer. The applicant is still rejected.

Also, OP hasn't said where the twelve interviewees interviewed. Since Cambridge interviews the vast majority of applicants, an interview there is neither here nor there tbh.

The OP has said that six interviewed at Oxford and six at Cambridge. Assuming the OP has got the figures right, eight out of twenty Oxbridge applicants didn't get to interview, so it's quite clearly not the case that "an interview is neither here nor there". Therefore I think there clearly is value in analysing at what stage in the process candidates are getting rejected. For example, for candidates who get to interview, the issue clearly isn't that they haven't done loads of essay competitions or MOOCs etc, as those things can be picked up by reading the personal statement. And the fact that they've been called to interview clearly shows that the issue isn't entrance exam performance either. A lack of success at interview is not necessarily the school's fault. For example, if the issue is a lack of passion for the subject, that comes down to the individual student. Passion for a subject is not something that can be taught, though I do take the point that a really good teacher may provide the spark that leads to a student developing a passionate interest in something.

@ErrolTheDragon

Sorry... I broke my own train of thought, the final para is meant to be that other unis should do more tutorials/supos/problem classes. And if they're already doing it, publicise it better.

That would be amazing. If only it were that easy. 💸💸💸

Have a look at a variety of Universities financial statements and then look at Oxford and Cambridge's. Then have a look at how student numbers have increased on some courses.

It can still be entrance exam issues because some colleges set a ratio interview requirement so interview say 5 to each 1 place and thus the cut off point is reduced, the same way that unis change their BMAT/UCAT score cut offs. Some with lower scores may shine at interview and some with higher may not so it is not as simplistic as assessment scores. Oxford has better data than Cambridge as they have carried out assessments for a longer period and have stats to show how their assessment scores relate to degree classification.

Oh did she say six at each? I'll go back and read that post.

Oh yes I see that now. We still don't know how many applicants there were for Oxford. Clearly at least six to Cambridge, where interviews are pretty much taken as read. But if fourteen were for Oxford then six out of fourteen is still pretty rubbish, given the percentages usually called for interview. We're shooting in the dark tbh. What we do know is that six interviewed and none got in, which is terrible, and in 2020 only 1% of the cohort got into Oxford and the same to Cambridge. Also terrible. I haven't looked at 2021, I'll look now.

2021 isn't on the website.

If increasing numbers of home students is too much for them then why not reduce the number of overseas students.

Like it or not, Oxford and Cambridge are internationally-renowned universities, attracting candidates from around the world. You imply that the reason for accepting them is their money, but is this the case? Or is it that a proportion of their best candidates happen to be from overseas? Why should the universities choose to exclude these candidates purely to admit more UK students?

And would you do the same for all UK universities? This table suggests that there are other universities - particularly in London, with some institutions such as UCL and LSE having over 50% - with much higher overseas student percentages.

I don't know what the benefits of increasing student numbers would be but surely it would help make the University more accessible to many more students.

I repeat, why would they want to? And why should we want them to?

I think what we should want is that highly-selective universities should have admissions that are fair and equitable - so they strive to reduce barriers to potential students applying, and then have selection procedures that as far as humanly possible select those who will be the best 'fit', in terms of displayed and potential ability, reducing as far as possible the advantages conveyed simply by the ability to buy education, influence and other opportunities.

They battle against the factors that beset some students well before the age of 18 - I don't imagine that they have a high representation of care-leavers, young carers, those from the most deprived wards and certain ethnic backgrounds such as working class white boys or those from the Gypsy / Roma / Traveller community. However, from those who apply, they should be seeking to select those who will perform the best at the end of their 3+ years there, not those who are best prepared by expensive schools.

Sorry, forgot the last paragraph -

What we don't want them to do, necessarily, is simply admit more students, as long as those who they do admit are selected as fairly as possible. Would the RSC be a better theatre company if they had twice as many actors? Would it be better if there were more Nobel prize winners? Would we want there to be, say, 5 young musicians of the year, because it is such a shame there is only 1?