Redirected from Oxford and Cambridge 2024

[MirandaWest]

Thought I’d start this thread in case anyone else with a DC who didn’t get an offer from Oxford (or Cambridge in a couple of weeks time) wants to say anything - I feel a bit out of place in the Oxbridge thread now but could be good to have somewhere to talk about how they are and what their plans are now.

Lower GCSE grades for interview. Not lower A level offers.

For the hard-of-Googling: https://www.ox.ac.uk/oxford-for-oxford/students#:~:text=Foundation%20Oxford%20will%20offer%20up,the%20Oxford%20undergraduate%20admissions%20website.

For hard of reading,lower grades are for the Foundation year.

Which leads to an Oxford place, which - if the scheme works as intended - someone else would have picked up. The university has not expanded places overall.

This feels like a fairness v prestige offset. More fairness, I think, is good - even if it results in a loss of pre-eminence, as a higher proportion of bright & motivated students go elsewhere. High table may prefer to disagree ;)

@mumsneedwine I'm not sure if they publish data on admissions test. My info came from one course where I knew the students well. The one who got the offer had the lowest academic grades (predicted & achieved). Their admission test score was so below published criteria that they were highly surprised they made the cut for interview. Their postcode was the determining factor since they all went to the same school.

Another case, different subject was well published in my area as the student opened their results live on radio. They had received an acceptance for a place but their grades were below the offer and not normally what Oxford would accept.

State pupils are also offered a further round after results, this excludes students who have had some private education.

The issue seems to be that "Cambridge has faced significant criticism for admitting almost half of its students from London and the South East, including from state grammar schools with more socially privileged intakes"

I agree with this - some grammar schools have such a high offer rate but are in areas that you have to be very ££ privileged to get into. A family I know could easily afford private but knew that they had a much higher chance of Oxbridge if they attended the grammar school.

I think Oxbridge are trying hard for level the field but useful reminder that it isn't the only route to success and more employers recognise that.

The University has expanded places, same as every University. My school sends 10-20 students to Oxbridge most years. Majority either FSM, carers, refugees, EAL or a combination. None have ever been offered lower grades. There are 50 places on the Foundation scheme and it is insanely competitive- more so than normal entry. Harder to get than a Stormzy scholarship.

All the students have gone on to finish their degrees, very often with firsts. They are extremely motivated and bright young people, who know the value of hard work. Lots now work in high paid jobs. Although one runs a surf school in Australia (& is now v v rich -quite a change from the 13th floor of a council tower block).

More state school students apply now, so more get in.

PS Oxbridge, like all Unis, will often take lower grades on results day, especially if you impressed at interview. From all backgrounds.

How peculiar that the head of admissions for Oxford clearly stated that the university is not expanding to allow for the Foundation scheme -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7051599/amp/One-four-Oxford-University-places-ring-fenced-poorest-students-2023.html

As per @Pleasealexa , each year sees many students with lower than average grades getting surprise offers. While UCAS & other universities don’t conceal what a contextual offer means, Oxford - while it publicises the fact that it gives them out - seems embarrassed to admit what they are. It’s not a good look.

Is this true?? Not so many years ago, if you didn't get the grade for Oxford, then you didn't get in. I thought that was still the case?? Courses still have gaps from those who were offered but didn't meet the grades, so what's going on.

Contextualisation only goes on at offer stage, no?? More likely to get an offer, but reduced offers are not available.

Is this just for foundation rather than standard UG degrees.

This isn't true, I know a child who is a refugee who got an offer this year but dropped a grade and was rejected.

It's clearly at their discretion, I know someone who missed a grade and got in - they said it was because they had an A* in EPQ

I just had a look on the ucas site at actual grades accepted for Hsps at Cambridge and PPE at Oxford which are equally competitive courses. Hsps offer is normally A star AA and PPE is AAA. Minimum grade on Hsps was still A starAA but for PPE it was AAB . Maybe Oxford are more likely to drop incl contextual because they test more as part of application process?

Conversely this happened to Ds friend for Oxford this year and Oxford took him with a dropped grade - A instead of A star in one subject.

On the UCAS Oxford page it says, "A very small number of students are admitted to Oxford who don’t meet their offer conditions in non-essential subjects, and this is often as a result of exceptional circumstances."

@Ponyclubgirl they didn't expand for the foundation scheme. They just expanded. Like all Unis did when the cap came off.

I know a couple who missed grades for C this year - no admission. Also a couple who missed grades for O - they were admitted.

They'll look at each individual before deciding if they'll accept a dropped grade. Usually comes down to your interview score.

From one viewpoint, the Oxbridge admissions process is the final word on a person’s talent: if you get in, you must be the best. However bright the rejects are, they’re still rejects.

This is still, evidently, the view from Oxford. Thirty years ago, many other people thought so too.

Each time a high-grade achieving candidate goes in the bin, however, public opinion adjusts. You can raise up the disadvantaged, and that is commendable - and well overdue. You cannot, however, persuade bright kids that they are not bright. And why would you want to do that, anyway?

@Ponyclubgirl - I don't see it as 'raising up the disadvantaged'. More like opening the doors to opportunities they were never given before despite their abilities.

The process is much more open and because of this more competitive. The bulk of UK applicants are in state schools. Of course more are going to get in if more apply. In days gone by they just weren't applying in the same numbers.

An open process, which will not even disclose exactly what a “contextual offer” means. Okay.

And yes - as per my very first post - state school students fly much higher these days. Of course they’re going to apply in higher numbers. Oxbridge no longer caters for a tiny subsection of the rich and groomed. It’s a yes to fairness, and goodbye to elitism. A long, slow, and (for some) painful goodbye.

@Ponyclubgirl we agree then. They have plenty of the educationally well heeled applicants. They are searching for the unpolished intellects hiding away in sink schools and colleges that given a chance would thrive and likely prove to be life changing.

www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/increasing-access/opportunity-oxford

Yes: getting in can be life-changing; not getting, increasingly, is not.

Not to throw tinder on any fires, but @Ponyclubgirl I agree with you that Oxford and Cambridge are actively working to remove the elitism of the past as manifested in class and wealth. They are however, maintaining their intellectual "elitism" and that is not going to change, and nor should it.

The writer (or editor) of that article must have failed their maths GCSE. They say 1/4 places, but the figures they give are for 1/10.

Oxbridge will never stop maintaining the idea that their undergrads are an intellectual elite. It’s built into the very layout of the buildings: once you’re through the porter’s lodge, the world cannot appear otherwise. And yet, once you leave, you realise that it was a hallucination. Grads with STEM degrees from red bricks can, and do, fly very high. And, with university-blind grad recruitment, as well as the loss of demand for arts graduates (classics has taken an especial thumping lately), are set to fly even higher.

I think the university will stay at the top for postgrad and research - those endowments buy in some heavyweight talent - but the ground is shifting very fast elsewhere.