Is Doxbridge a thing?

[mids2019]

Oxford and Cambridge both outside top 3 in uni rankings for first time https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15114137/Oxford-Cambridge-outside-three-prestigious-university-rankings-time-London-School-Economics-first.html?ito=native_share_article-top

I think the DM was trying to make a point about social inclusion but given the Times is a reputable university of guide is this a beginning of a shift where Oxbridge aren't undisputed in their dominance?

Durham is a really good university and in 2025 is it that Oxford and Cambridge have competitors?

So what is your conclusion from these two facts?

That selectivity and academics improved but acceptance rate decreased?

I think there are two possible/ obvious conclusions but I'll leave them to others rather than state them myself so that I don't have to respond to outraged posts :)

Well, you posted it here so it would be nice to share your view. I haven't noticed much outrage on this thread, unlike many other.

No but once Eton is involved, you tend to get outrage.

I posted the fact of more selectivity academically, and poorer performance in terms of Oxbridge. I'm under no obligation to post my own opinion as to what the reason/s might be.

I posted the fact of more selectivity academically, and poorer performance in terms of Oxbridge. I'm under no obligation to post my own opinion as to what the reason/s might be

Oooh…….this is a cliffhanger!

@Wintersonata Yes, what @ChocolateTriflefortwo said! The exams now are much more widely used including for other universities so I don't think there is the same issue that used to exist where private schools would have had a much better idea of what was involved and how to prepare. Also, the exams now are supposed to be more aptitude based rather than testing knowledge.

@MonGrainDeSel thank you.

I don't think you understand how little the ability of undergrads matters to Oxbridge professors. For many, lecturing is like going to the restroom - it's something you need to do, but not something to waste your time on.

Have you even read the entry requirements for classics at Cambridge? An A in Latin is required.

I don’t think you understand my post.

Only for the 3 year course. If you take the 4 year course you can apply without Latin and they use the preliminary year to get your Latin up to speed https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/classics-ba-hons
I presume this is so they can broaden their pool of applicants to include the many intelligent linguists and historians who had no opportunity to study Latin at school.

Er not for the ab into course. You’re looking at the course for students who’ve studied classical languages at school.

Crossed.

This is a sweeping opinion.

I have two aunts who are now professors emeritus, and an uncle who was a professor but switched careers in his 40s. All three would say teaching and interacting with bright young people was a joy and a privilege. Their gripes revolved around administration.

Their subjects were psychology, ethics and philosophy, so perhaps attitudes are different in STEM subjects where professors are head down in their own research. But then, don’t their grad students do the lecturing and marking of the undergraduates?

Indeed it is hyperbole - but even for professors who are passionate about teaching undergrads, they wouldn't see a broadening of the undergrad population as something worth quitting over. I think your aunts would be about as happy teaching the current Oxbridge crop as they would teaching a batch from a previous admissions environment.

You still miss the point. The same ideology that says you cannot choose the brightest students is also colonising the curriculum and research with principally American ideologies - though ironically demanding it is called ‘decolonisation’. It is the same ideology than places identity over reality, that says individuals are to blame for events that took place hundreds of years ago by those who also oppressed them. That says disagreement is violence and any who do so must be cancelled. It is the whole culture that ‘positive discrimination’ is but a part of that is the issue for many academics.

Totally agree 💯

Except the ideology doesn't say you can't choose the brightest students, it says the brightest students may not have the best qualifications on paper but may be brighter than students with considerably more educational advantages. It's an imperfect system admittedly but since my memory of Cambridge is a lot of entitled, not terribly bright posh boys (and some very bright posh boys - still entitled on the whole) I don't see that replacing them with another cohort makes a big difference to the end result.

The brightest students do not all go to the top public schools.
In fact my supervisor at Oxford used to say: he couldn’t tell if someone with all As (before A star) from Eton was bright, whereas from a State school he could.
And at dinner the advantage a private school education gave was the ability to talk absolute bullshit with amazing confidence.

And at dinner the advantage a private school education gave was the ability to talk absolute bullshit with amazing confidence.

That confidence, is priceless..

@MollyButton
You said earlier

and also had double digit disadvantage for those from the most privileged.
What is their definition of the ‘most privileged’?

It is to do with the polar quintile you live in.

I think we can safely say OP that Doxbridge, Soxbridge, Loxbridge is NOT a thing. 😂

This thread has devolved into a discussion about whether the allocation of Oxbridge places is fair or ever was fair. Tells you everything you need to know.

Soxbridge 😂😂

But that is a population measure, not an individual one.