Oxbridge applications 2023 mutual support thread

[Riverpebble]

A new, friendly thread.

DS has a comp sci interview on 15 December.

Congrats to all the other interview holders 🎉

Has anyone found the stats for percentage chances (by subject and college) of an offer after interview stage ie once some candidates have been rejected without interview?

babysteps22 for Oxford the almost universal rule of thumb is three applicants interviewed for every place.

But you may be asking about Cambridge.

I don't think I've ever seen that for Cambridge, the interactive graph thingy has applicants/offers/acceptances plus pool info but not numbers interviewed. Maybe it's too variable between years to be considered meaningful.

I've said it before but for Biochemistry the college is irrelevant as they select at faculty level. Stats from the open day were last year they had c800 applications, interviewed c300 and offered to 100.

Could I ask why people think applicants for Classics have been pre-filtered? I can understand if you were at a school that doesn't offer Latin or Greek or Classical Civilisation - that student would have has to put a lot of effort in themselves. But wouldn't they be applying for the four-year course anyway (with foundation year)? I would have thought for the three-year degree, most applicants are from independent schools or grammars or schools that do offer Latin, etc. In those schools, no more 'filtering' goes on with those who do Latin or Classical Civilisation or Latin A-levels. They just sign up for the course and do it, like any other course. In fact, Classical Civilisation is seen as one of the 'easier' A-levels, certainly compared to A-level History.

A quick google tells me the requirement for Oxford Course I is 'Candidates should normally have Latin and/or Greek to A-level, Advanced Higher, Higher Level in the IB or equivalent.' , not Classical Civilization. And they need A grades.

Thank you 😀

But why would those doing Latin be considered 'filtered' as opposed to those doing French or Spanish etc or any other subject? If you liked Latin GCSE, you may well do it at A-level. And surely all courses need at least an A grade at Oxford - in fact most need an A star?

My Dd received an interview for E&M last night. Having looked at a FOI with last years stats it seems that the college she has applied to interview 3 for every place.

Would rather not say on here which college but we have the same issue with wanting to do it at home and me being terrified it'll be the day the broadband goes down - I do a lot of work on Zoom and it can be an issue. Mine is doing one mock with school, I can't see overpreparing actually being a good thing here and as others say imagine the pressure it puts you under! Massive luck to your dd

palis the Classics course at Oxford is four years regardless of whether a student has done Latin and or Greek or neither, even to GCSE. Those with no prior knowledge compete equally - there is no foundation year (unlike the Cambridge course). Classical Civilisation may well be an 'easy' A level (no idea, our school didn't offer it) but it's a red herring as far as the Classics course goes. Latin and Greek are the relevant A levels and are much more on the Further Maths end of the scale/ not for the faint hearted.

Incidentally, Politics at our school was retained as part of the curriculum when cuts were being considered specifically because it offered a softer option for the less able students. And yet PPE is widely seen as the opposite of Classics on the Oxford ease-of-entry scale. (I know I know, Politics is not a pre-requisite for PPE. I'm simply using palis's logic).

I hate to say it but using languages as a comparison is a bad pick. MFL applicants are also filtered to smaller numbers than desirable for various reasons (not least the shocking state of languages in so many state schools over recent years).

Start with that 'liked Latin at gcse' - you've already applied a filter, because it's much more likely to be offered at private and grammar schools than at unselective state schools. And even at the ones that do it, Latin may only be available as an extra subject - dds GS had Latin and gcse FM as 'twilight' classes, only the more able and particularly keen girls would do them.

dds GS had Latin and gcse FM as 'twilight' classes, only the more able and particularly keen girls would do them

DD's (comprehensive) school only offered Latin as an extracurricular that clashed with choir and orchestra. That seemed an odd choice to me; I suspect the overlap between classically minded and musically minded kids is quite high.

Errol our grammar, despite being superselective, offered no Latin or Greek at GCSE, no Classical Civilisation either, and nothing again at A level, even as a twilight thing. Absolutely correct: the numbers taking A level languages (modern or classical) is tiny compared to other subjects and heavily weighted towards the independent sector. You've already stripped out huge numbers being able to apply.

At Oxford there is of course the option for state school applicants to learn Latin/ Greek at very high speed in the first year of the course, with 9am classes five days a week, alongside the other stuff like history, literature, art etc. Big old filter there too :)

I don't want to do down the three DC of mine who read History at Oxford but having been able to compare their interviews with DD4 (Classics II), there really is no comparison. The bar for language skills was exceptionally high, whereas for History you merely have to be capable of analysis and making links and show a relatively interesting mind.

@goodbyestranger so you are now saying that different courses are easier/harder to get in for?

Anyhow, my point really is that on these threads, even when people are intending to be kind to those disappointed in the more applied to subjects, they are by the same token being unkind to anyone not invited for the less popular subjects, which isn't great. 89% interviewed for Chemistry doesn't make Oxford Chemistry an easy option!

13572user no I'm not saying that they're easier to get an offer for. I'm saying that the subjects which appear less competitive are not less competitive once you hit the coal face at interview. There's no doubt that some subjects are more accessible. Far more students might think of having at go at an application for English or History or PPE or E&M purely because there is no specific language or mathematical or other high bar entry requirement. I think it's fair to say that a number of those not called to interview will have been 'having a go' whereas far fewer will be in a position to 'have a go' for certain subjects, that's all.

I do know that E&M asks for an A grade in Maths but by high bar I'm comparing the mandatory requirements for Chemistry, which in effect filter to a much greater extent.

I don't think people just 'have a go' at applying to e and m. There are FOI requests right left and centre across courses. So in 2021 out of the 175 people who applied with maths, further maths, economics AND one other A level (so these are the applicants with 4 levels) only 21 got offers. Offer rates are lower for those with three. It's brutal.

Hi everyone - positive thoughts to all receiving invites and rejections at this time. It is a tough time for supporting DC.Having been through it twice in the last 3 years I empathise. Stay strong and positive while also investing in other choices which will all have there on strengthens and benefits.

Those looking for information on stats and background information on the selection process for specific subjects may be interested in reading the Admissions feedback that O produces. Not all colleges publish these but Merton, Somerville, Mansfield and Keble tend to make an effort. Individual departments do but you sort have to know to look for them.

Here are some links:

www.merton.ox.ac.uk/undergraduate/admissions-feedback
www.some.ox.ac.uk/ug-admissions-feedback/
www.keble.ox.ac.uk/admissions/feedback/
www.mansfield.ox.ac.uk/feedback

I'm not clear how you can know that applicants aren't 'having a go' on that info. The offer statistics are completely besides the point. What you need to have is not info about those who got an offer but info about those who didn't get shortlisted.

Also, on a more general note, and possibly I'm very cynical, doesn't one have to treat the responses to FOI requests with quite a bit of circumspection?

apologies for the dreadful spelling... "...all have their own strengths..."