I’ve definitely seen a FOI request answer about how many applicants per place for different courses from international, contextual and standard UK applicants. Can’t remember if it was on MN or TSR. It was striking how almost all contextual applicants got offers and a high proportion of internationals compared to UK standard….more striking in some subjects than others.
I’d assume they are essentially running different links of applicants….people get out into the international, contextual or standard applicant piles. Perhaps they then offer X amount of places to each list….not equal numbers. It could be that the candidates are ranked, or put into broad categories of something like top standard, middle standard etc. And then they could be ranked within that or groups could be randomised for offers.
Certainly, it seemed the flurry of offers in last weeks were probably related to the numbers firming or not firming them. As people firmed other unis, I guess they could then make further offers….perhaps again looking at ratios of international, contextual etc and working down different lists as people from different categories essentially turned them down??
What is odd is when students who have absolutely top GCSEs and A Level predictions, and you know their PS will have been v relevant and chock full of super-curriculars that were well related to their course choice, who then get turned down whilst someone else from the same school with a lesser profile and no other reasons to get an offer based on different factors, does get an offer. It’s for that reason that somewhere along the line, I do think there might be an element of randomising students, even if it’s only happening within groups which have already been broadly categorised.
As for the reasons given for rejection….I think it’s pretty spurious. Several on TSR report having got Oxbridge offers and top grades and strong PS, and have then been given the feedback of PS not strong enough, or grades not good enough.
Criteria being used might even be changing as time progresses and they can become a bit more generous or less generous in offering places to certain groups.
I think it’s not 100% scientific and explainable. The cards are kept tightly to Durham’s chest, because they don’t want to be challenged on who gets offers and an element of mystery allows them to remain flexible and respond to what is essentially a demand and supply situation for various sub-sections of the market for each subject, where constraints to such as needing international funding, needing to boost contextual offers to widen access, and who knows what other constraints are at play, that mean it’s not as simple as
the GCSE grades, A Level predictions and PS.
It’s a bitter pill bough if you’re rejected when you had a top academic record and you know the PS and reference were jam-packed with relevant evidence of wider engagement with the subject.