Oxford to drop PAT, MAT, TSA, etc

[Muu9]

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/guide/admissions-tests

Thoughts? I think it's a bad move for physics, as the time-pressured nature ESAT simply isn't very good at spotting the deep thinkers most physics programs look for.

I don’t disagree with you about the predictive value of these tests. The point I was trying to make is that Cambridge use the ESAT in a different way to how Oxford used the PAT. Now Oxford are switching to the ESAT I wondered if they wld follow the same interview selection process as Cambridge ie interview a higher % of students. I wld have thgt that if they interview more applicants than before then they will have more information with which to make an offer decision which can only be a good thing for students whose schools don’t prepare them for these tests. If Oxford is going to use the ESAT in the same way as the PAT then it will be just as hard/competitive to get an interview as before and those best prepared for the test - whether it’s PAT or ESAT - will be more likely to get an interview. Having said all that, the test score is only one factor in the decision process.

I’m not a physicist so I can’t say which test is “harder”. They seem to test in a different way so I expect that there will be students of equal calibre/potential who do better on one rather than the other and this will vary by student.

I think the switch to ESAT is mainly driven by cost, logistics and security of the exam, rather than pedagogical reasons. And that is why they will continue to look at the overall application and will continue with interviews.

I’m a little surprised they are sticking with online interviews as these are not robust at all given the developments in AI - as many employers are finding.

Home students are put off Imperial while international students are put off Oxbridge: Imperial is too cosmopolitan for some home students and Oxbridge too parochial for some international students. Does that matter? Isn't a plurality of university environments a good thing?

In theory. The UK’s muddled approach to UG fees is not (a good thing)

I agree that UG fees are a complete mess.

Personally I find the parochialism and special treatment of recruitment at Oxbridge rather concerning. I'm not at all sure that the early UCAS deadline, different admissions process and even the requirement to choose between Oxford and Cambridge are justified or even desirable. The very short and intense Oxbridge terms, quite unrelated to those of any other universities on the planet, certainly put off some excellent international students. Perhaps the use of the same admissions tests across Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and LSE (and some others) will shed new light on which universities are attracting the strongest applicants.

I don't think that Oxbridge is too parochial for international students. In fact, I believe Oxbridge has a moral obligation to cap overseas intake at a certain level(lower than 30%). Without such quotas, international students would likely overwhelm the universities, particularly in STEM subjects. Furthermore, it isn't that home students are 'put off' by Imperial; rather, the low proportion of UK students there is likely because those with the required grades often secure a place at Oxbridge—an opportunity that remains far more elusive and competitive for overseas applicants.

From the perspective of someone who knows an awful lot of international students: yes, Oxbridge is increasingly felt to be parochial, both by potential applicants (who visit on open days thinking that they are going to be enamoured and are instead underwhelmed) and also by those international students who do get in and just find the whole experience lonely and insular.

For many years, every international student at DC's school who applied to Imperial also applied to Oxbridge. Not a single student turned down an Oxbridge offer in favour of Imperial. In fact, the vast majority of those who secured places at Oxbridge also held Imperial offers.

A school in the UK?

Yes. The Oxbridge might be too competitive and hence the students feel the big pressure and lonely. The percentage to get a first degree in Cambridge maths, for example, is 28%. But in Imperial is about 60% or more.

This isn’t the full story at Imperial. They made a considered decision 10-15 years ago to pursue a majority international cohort. I was an RG STEM admissions tutor then and this was a hot topic amongst our informal networks.

We can only discriminate so far, with STEP being the best differentiator - and it probably is biased to the British secondary Maths curriculum. Any top degree programme in the UK could easily fill its places twice over with well qualified applicants. Home vs Overseas is not an important question for finding excellent students. The question of the very best students is imprecise, means different things to different people, changes over time, and isn’t the only basis for putting together a good cohort.

I am not sure what the obligation to cap Overseas students is, @DEI2025 If HMG were supporting UG education properly I would agree there should be a cap (everywhere)

Do you think Oxbridge bears a special burden, or would you cap enrolment at all British universities the same way?

International students at UK universities who have also been pupils at UK (private, mostly boarding) schools are a tiny niche segment of the international students market and have been "groomed" into the English mindset and boarding school ideal which perpetuates at Oxbridge. They are not at all representative of the wider world.

Of course, Oxbridge bears a special burden. It is the "face" of the British education. It is well known that for European applicants, if you want to apply the maths course in Cambridge and don't have the record to get to the national Olympiad team level, it is unlikely to be shortlisted for an interview.

I know this question isn't directed at me "Do you think Oxbridge bears a special burden, or would you cap enrolment at all British universities the same way?" but I shall respond anyway because I think it's a very important issue.

If UK universities are to remain highly attractive, they cannot pursue policies that prevent them from recruiting large numbers of the most attractive international students if that is what their international competitors are doing. The question can only be answered in that light. Does the UK want to lose highly able students to eg EPFL and EPFZ by putting a cap on recruitment at Imperial?

I am not sure this is true. Cambridge claim not to distinguish between Home and Overseas applicants. The Maths and Maths-adjacent Cambridge UGs I have known, including DH, have not been competitive types, so not taken the Olympiad pathway.

I think it would be artificial for referees to mention that candidates were of Olympiad calibre if they weren’t doing the competition.

This question needs to be a national conversation. In the presence of a sensible policy of UG tuition support, recruiting the best students worldwide without caps may stand in some opposition to giving taxpayers a return on their investment.

Interestingly, given your examples, public universities in Switzerland charge very low tuition fees to overseas students. So the Imperial motivation to take lots of them isn’t there.

Most UK universities, excepting Oxbridge, have separate UG Home and Overseas annual targets. We talk a lot about balance and it isn’t false, but the Overseas portion keeps rising and we all know why.

You pointed out that there is the "Overseas annual targets"

Yes, enrolment targets

PS Overseas tuition is keeping some of the best STEM programmes in the country afloat. In the absence of a supportive government policy it’s just a reality of life.

As I said, the Home v Overseas debate is not about finding students of the highest calibre. That could be done entirely from either cohort (which would be a bad idea for other reasons)

If a top degree program could fill their spots twice over with well-qualified applicants, shouldn't they raise tuition until the number of well qualified applicants willing to apply and attend decreases to be roughly equivalent to the number of available seats?

Are you in the UK?

Tuition for Home students is capped. Most programmes do increase Overseas tuition annually in line with what the market will bear and above the rise in inflation.

The China behemoth being what it is, unless there is a disruption in relations between the two countries potentially excess numbers will always exist.

I was talking about international students - but if tuition is raised to the maximum the market can bear, how can excess numbers of potential students exist? Or in other words, how can Imperial's foreign acceptance rate be so low if their foreign tuition is already the highest it can be?

About 60% of Imperial students are Overseas. IIRC, by design. I do not think that is low.

I don’t know their fees structure. At my university each degree programme sets its own Overseas fees. Even within a given School the fees can be different. I think this is typical.

There is nothing to gain by having such high fees that recruiting becomes difficult. AFAIK most if not all degree programmes at Imperial are selecting, not recruiting. During my time as an admissions tutor my School made the shift from recruiting mode to selecting mode (even as our entry requirements increased), and it is a much more pleasant place to be.

I don’t think individual universities should be allowed to have their own extra tests because it discriminates against those at schools who provide no support for said tests. I was in this position, if I wanted to apply to Oxford I had to take exams and needed a private tutor which my parents couldn’t afford, I’d never seen the general verbal reasoning test before in my life so no way could I have passed (pre internet) without any assistance. 4 from my college got in and all paid for multiple tutors for the 3 papers. Entrance should be judged on grades and not who can afford coaching

Excuse me, @Muu9 You said Imperial’s foreign acceptance rate. Yes, it’s low ad a consequence of being in selecting mode.

No one wants to raise O fees so high as to put students off. The UK isn’t America and , sadly, we do not offer much financial aid.

I suspect this is part of why Oxford is making the change and it is certainly why some of us see it as a move towards equity.

I think Oxford might have argued that they’re really looking for those who can succeed at their admissions tests without much preparation. A very few can, but there is a great tendency to underestimate the role of great teaching and extracurricular tuition. these less complex exams are more amenable to self study.