OT - Why aren't students protesting over this?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

More applications to Oxbridge were accepted from the London Borough of Richmond than the whole of Scotland.

That is an eye catching statistic.

However:
(a) what is the population of the 6th form in (i) Scotland; (ii) Richmond; and
(b) is there anything to suggest that a Scottish school leaver with better results than a Richmond school leaver was refused a place, whereas the Richmond leaver obtained one (in fact, even that's not much help, as you'd have to look at those two candidates applying to the same college to read the same subject to get a like-for-like comparison. Although the label "Oxbridge" is easy to apply, not all colleges have the same entry thresholds, and not all subjects are equally hard to get places for).

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

Whether its 'Oxbridge material' or 'needing to be suited a particular way' the end result is a form of discrimination.

The Oxbridge X-Factor. What is it?

Well, I have heard it said on more than one occasion that Oxbridge tutors look for minds that are open, can think independently and can think critically.

So imagine you're interviewing. Both candidates have stellar results. But it appears to you in the course of two identical interviews that candidate 1 has worked hard, memorised huge volumes of information, finds it easy to navigate their way around what they know, but has difficulty answering a question that is premised on a chunk of that information being wrong.

Candidate 2 has worked hard (perhaps not as hard), has far less raw data at their fingertips, but can answer easily any question premised on a chunk of information that they should know either being right or being wrong.

(By "answer", I mean think intelligently and logically, and present structured and coherent monologue).

You have one space. Who do you give it to, and why?

lost_in_thought

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

Clever Pun

Candidate 4 offers the interviewer an old fashioned

dhope

Candidate 5's parents paid for the swimming pool

dhope

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 3. I'd not have gotten in.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

See my post about Yale, which seems to put a lot more effort into finding those who would make good students rather than waiting for them to apply. There's also the point about Oxbridge 'marketing' itself to all sections of the community equally - something that it doesn't seem to be doing.

Is this not premised on the assumption that there are a huge number of Oxbridge-quality students out there, who either have no idea that they could get in, or are positively discouraged from doing so? If so, isn't that the fault of their school? A halfway decent school should be able to spot and encourage someone who has that sort of ability.

Oxbridge can market itself to everyone, but the bottom line is that they are academic institutions at the top of the academic tree. They will, of necessity, select from the academic top tier of school leavers. Marketing to someone may fire their ambition, and for someone one the edge of the tier, that may be a good thing (although I'd ask first WTF the school hasn't already spotted that person and pushed them in the right direction). But marketing to all sections of the community seems to me a bit of a dead loss. No matter how idealistic one is, it's futile (in my view, at least) to think that that would uncover a statistically significant number of previously undiscovered academically top tier candidates.

lost_in_thought

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 3. I'd not have gotten in.

Me too. I did.

Clever Pun

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 4. I'd not have gotten in.

too rough?

sorry couldn't help it

dhope

lost_in_thought wrote:

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 3. I'd not have gotten in.

Me too. I did.

Damn, maybe I should have applied after all

dhope

Clever Pun wrote:

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 4. I'd not have gotten in.

too rough?

sorry couldn't help it

By that token?

lost_in_thought wrote:

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 4. I'd not have gotten in.

Me too. I did.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

Candidate 3 gets a demerit. Bad candidate 3!

Why? Because either (s)he is telling the truth about having done no work, and is therefore honest to a degree that discloses stupidity; or (b) talks with sufficient authority on their chosen subjects that the "no work" line is a simple lie...

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

See my post about Yale, which seems to put a lot more effort into finding those who would make good students rather than waiting for them to apply. There's also the point about Oxbridge 'marketing' itself to all sections of the community equally - something that it doesn't seem to be doing.

Is this not premised on the assumption that there are a huge number of Oxbridge-quality students out there, who either have no idea that they could get in, or are positively discouraged from doing so? If so, isn't that the fault of their school? A halfway decent school should be able to spot and encourage someone who has that sort of ability.

Oxbridge can market itself to everyone, but the bottom line is that they are academic institutions at the top of the academic tree. They will, of necessity, select from the academic top tier of school leavers. Marketing to someone may fire their ambition, and for someone one the edge of the tier, that may be a good thing (although I'd ask first WTF the school hasn't already spotted that person and pushed them in the right direction). But marketing to all sections of the community seems to me a bit of a dead loss. No matter how idealistic one is, it's futile (in my view, at least) to think that that would uncover a statistically significant number of previously undiscovered academically top tier candidates.

In short schools should be more pushy. Well possibly, but they do have a lot of other priorities, not east making sure that those who have no hope of getting into any university still achieve their potential. This might be why selective and independent schools have a higher success rate in getting pupils into Oxbridge: they filter out some of the difficult stuff, so can focus on teaching the really clever kids.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

Candidate 3 gets a demerit. Bad candidate 3!

Why? Because either (s)he is telling the truth about having done no work, and is therefore honest to a degree that discloses stupidity; or (b) talks with sufficient authority on their chosen subjects that the "no work" line is a simple lie...

Ah but when you do languages and English, you can do very well without doing much work at all if you've a talent for them...

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

In short schools should be more pushy. Well possibly, but they do have a lot of other priorities, not east making sure that those who have no hope of getting into any university still achieve their potential. This might be why selective and independent schools have a higher success rate in getting pupils into Oxbridge: they filter out some of the difficult stuff, so can focus on teaching the really clever kids.

But the notional school that is prepared to sacrifice its best students for its worst can hardly then complain that not enough of its students get into Oxbridge.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

In short schools should be more pushy. Well possibly, but they do have a lot of other priorities, not east making sure that those who have no hope of getting into any university still achieve their potential. This might be why selective and independent schools have a higher success rate in getting pupils into Oxbridge: they filter out some of the difficult stuff, so can focus on teaching the really clever kids.

Disagree.

It's the pushy schools that artificially create the interview difference between oxbridge trained candidates and not.

No schools should be pushy at all.

There needs to be an inate drive to be at these institutions, because, to be honest, it's extremely challenging.

The experience of lecturers I know all say that those who have come from non-pushy backgrounds who have got through the process tend to do better, since they are used to picking up the pieces themselves, rather than being spoon fed - which you don't get at Uni.

Paulie W

Admissions to Oxbridge still rely to a significant extent on the interview and the reality is that schools with a strong tradition of successful Oxbridge applications are able to offer their students much better training and support for this experience than schools without this tradition. There is also the issue of intellectual/academic confidence - students from public and independent schools tend to have much more belief in their ability than those from large state schools, ofetn because this is instilled in them by the school.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Paulie W wrote:

There is also the issue of intellectual/academic confidence - students from public and independent schools tend to have much more belief in their ability than those from large state schools, ofetn because this is instilled in them by the school...

...and their exam results.

hmbadger

Paulie W wrote:

Admissions to Oxbridge still rely to a significant extent on the interview and the reality is that schools with a strong tradition of successful Oxbridge applications are able to offer their students much better training and support for this experience than schools without this tradition. There is also the issue of intellectual/academic confidence - students from public and independent schools tend to have much more belief in their ability than those from large state schools, ofetn because this is instilled in them by the school.

+1

This is a very significant factor I believe. This is why all those Richmond students get in. All this candidate 3 garbage. I'd wager that the vast majority of canddate 3 type people are from very privileged backgrounds.

I'd say there was an argument for random selection from those with the grades, for at least a proportion of places!

hmbadger

lost_in_thought wrote:

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 3. I'd not have gotten in.

Me too. I did.

I think you said in some other thread that you dropped out? What happened?

lost_in_thought

hmbadger wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 3. I'd not have gotten in.

Me too. I did.

I think you said in some other thread that you dropped out? What happened?

I sure did. Got in too though, would have been harder to drop out otherwise. :P

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

In short schools should be more pushy. Well possibly, but they do have a lot of other priorities, not east making sure that those who have no hope of getting into any university still achieve their potential. This might be why selective and independent schools have a higher success rate in getting pupils into Oxbridge: they filter out some of the difficult stuff, so can focus on teaching the really clever kids.

Disagree.

It's the pushy schools that artificially create the interview difference between oxbridge trained candidates and not.

No schools should be pushy at all.

There needs to be an inate drive to be at these institutions, because, to be honest, it's extremely challenging.

The experience of lecturers I know all say that those who have come from non-pushy backgrounds who have got through the process tend to do better, since they are used to picking up the pieces themselves, rather than being spoon fed - which you don't get at Uni.

Probably should have used a different word other than pushy. I meant 'inspire to achieve full potential' rather than 'hot-housing'.

dhope

lost_in_thought wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

dhope wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Candidate 3 freely admits that they did basically no work between 13 and 17, but can talk confidently and critically about their chosen subjects....

I am candidate 3. I'd not have gotten in.

Me too. I did.

I think you said in some other thread that you dropped out? What happened?

I sure did. Got in too though, would have been harder to drop out otherwise. :P

Thinking ahead I see, keeping your options open, can't drop out if you don't get in. That sort of planning is the type we want to see from our Oxbridge candidates.

shouldbeinbed

Headhuunter wrote:

I'm sure we'll see an increasing upper middle class-ification of all universities in England once unlimited tuition fee increases are introduced. Essentially as fees rise only those with relatively wealthy parents who are able to start a "college fund" as parents do in the USA will be able to send their kids to uni. Kids from poorer backgrounds (be they black, white, brown or whatever) will not have access to funds to get themselves through education. Entrance to university (be it Oxford, Cambridge or Wolverhampton) will in future be based on ability to pay rather than (as in the days of grants and paid tuition fees) intellectual ability.

I find myself (as a leftie and passionate school governor in a very very £ poor area) torn on tuition fees, I've looked hard and can understand the logic of fees for optional education IF and its a huge IF the money stripped from the post 18 sector finds its way to improving things at primary and secondary level to genuinely raise aspirations & narrow the gaps between gas street comp and Eton and make the university admissions apartheid harder to get away with. I fear I'll go a lovely shade of blue if I hold my breath waiting though.

But what makes me really angry with the edu cuts and policy changes is cutting the EMA that was a genuine force for keeping the talented poor in education and the loss of that front end supplement rather than a hike in pay back after fees will be a decisive factor in the product of the Oldham Council Estate or Peckham tower block missing their shot at climbing the further education ladder.

I can't help wondering why the overwhelming white plummy voiced gap & next clothed, got the free time to be bussed in for a jolly good shout student fee protestors we see aren't waving placards and declaiming the right to education for the ones needing financial assistance just to get to the academic stage before uni even becomes a consideration.

rjsterry

Indeed. There were a few people shouting about the EMA on tonight's news, but it has received much less pubilicity than the changes to university tuition fees, but as you say, its withdrawal has potentially a greater effect on access to education.

daviesee

shouldbeinbed wrote:

I can't help wondering why the overwhelming white plummy voiced gap & next clothed,

Can't help but think those are the wannabees.

Genuine toffs will find Gap & Next beneath them dahlings :twisted:

Sewinman

Is this really suprising? If you go to a good private school they will train you up to get into Oxbridge. Poor black people tend not to go to such schools, so it is unsuprising they are less succesful at the "what is you opinion on the gold standard" type interview process.

notsoblue

I've read Oxford's "Behind the headlines" article about this and I'm not sure what more they could do. Their admissions procedure doesn't appear to disadvantage black students. But the application pattern of these students does work against them:

[quote=Behind the Headlines]Once black students do apply, Oxford's own recent analysis shows that subject choice is a major reason for their lower success rate. Black students apply disproportionately for the most oversubscribed subjects. 44% of all black applicants apply for Oxford’s three most oversubscribed subjects (compared to just 17% of all white applicants). That means that nearly half of black applicants are applying for the same three subjects, and these are the three toughest subjects for admission.[/quote]

Personally I think this is an interesting observation that says something about the views on what constitutes success and achievement for different racial groups.

Anyway, from a student's point of view, being rejected by Oxford is only going to be devastating if their teachers, tutors and parents have given them the impression that there is no other option and not getting in is a catastrophe. Going to Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all, and by not getting in people's lives aren't ruined.

I get the feeling that Oxford and Cambridge represent the apogee of human achievement and success to many in our society and as such they're held to standards of fairness and equality that are impossible to achieve without fundamentally changing their nature.

W1

shouldbeinbed wrote:

But what makes me really angry with the edu cuts and policy changes is cutting the EMA that was a genuine force for keeping the talented poor in education and the loss of that front end supplement rather than a hike in pay back after fees will be a decisive factor in the product of the Oldham Council Estate or Peckham tower block missing their shot at climbing the further education ladder.

EMA is being dropped as it isn't effective apparently. On QT last night Lian Fox was outlining that the money would go into scholarship schemes instead. Not sure how that works, but if EMA isn't actually encouraging (or keeping) poor young people in education then the money should be spent more effectively elsewhere.

Your thoughts?

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

Is this really suprising? If you go to a good private school they will train you up to get into Oxbridge. Poor black people tend not to go to such schools, so it is unsuprising they are less succesful at the "what is you opinion on the gold standard" type interview process.

It's not just poor (black) folk. You could be rich (ethnic minority), have gone to a good school maybe even public school, got the grades and still not be accepted.

Personally I think the lack of diversity in terms of admissions at these Universities has less to do with certain individuals meeting the entrance criteria - as written down on paper and advertised to the public.

And more to do with other aspects that cannot be made public but is a generally accepted part of the 'unspoken' entrance criteria.

Well that's my view anyway.