Oxbridge admissions, state v private

[starsandsparkles]

Quoting Lovely Goat from 23:40, 28th Feb 2007
Cheesedaddy - so glad it's not just me! Bit of a culture shock, after years of waiting to put up your hand until no-one else knows the answer, then saying what you KNOW is right like you're not really sure, coming here and not getting a word in. Or feeling lke a prat because you say the most basic thing, because that's where your school teachers always wanted you to start, and your tutor looks at you like you're kidding.

Not complaining; I'm happy to learn a different way of operating. Just nice to know it's not just me.

As a first year I'm so glad to find out I'm not the only one!

Although that said, it's taken me a semester to realise that just because someone sounds like they're saying something intelligent doesn't mean they are!

[WashingtonIrving]

Quoting Lovely Goat from 22:27, 28th Feb 2007
I'm from a comprehensive background and I believe myself to be the academic equal of at least the majority of my fellow students here. However, I'm aware that in class it sometimes doesn't sound like it. From my observations, I believe that the educational atmosphere in an average comprehensive is very different to that in most private or grammar schools. In my background, it was important to know the answers without looking like you did, to say clever things without sounding clever, so that's pretty much what I learned. In private or grammar schools, it seems that the general style of communication is more academic and more intellectual, so naturally, many pupils of these schools are likely to sound, at least on the surface, more intelligent and more academic than most comprehensive pupils.

I completely agree. I'm now in 3rd year and I still find that I'm incapable of 'sounding clever' when I'm talking about academic stuff. I'm perfectly capable when it comes to essay writing, but I'm convinced I sound like a total idiot in tutorials. I usually just speak as simply as is possible, which, if you actually do know what you're talking about, is probably preferrable.

I still get that thing where I know the answer to some question but feel unwilling to give it though. Christ, I remember at school teachers had to really fight to get any kind of answers from a class. Here some people just happily speak utter rubbish (philosophy tutorials I have found are awful for this).

In reference to the point of this thread, I'd really need to know facts and figures before commenting. I do think, though, that we should be celebrating the fact that more state school pupils are going to Oxbridge, I refuse to believe that people are being let in just because they went to state school.

[hr]

"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"

[exnihilo]

Has anybody said that people are being let in just because they went to state school? Not that I've noticed.

[nighteyes]

I was bullied for reading books and speaking with big words and actually wanting to learn. It is funny to suddenly be surrounded by people who will talk drivel simply because they want to say something, anything.

And I did get used to being one of the top pupils in my highschool. Very much feeling like the little fish in the small pond, now gasping in amongst the big fish. Although I have made it into honours when there were others I know that did not make the grade. So I cant be as stupid as I sometimes feel.

I already shake my head at the yahs that inhabit St Andrews. I think I would have gone barking if I had went to Oxbridge.


[hr]

i didnt say i was consistant, just right!

[munchingfoo]

I'm doing a PhD and I still feel stupid. The higher you go the more stupid you feel IMO.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Derya]

A couple of unrelated points:

1. I went to a private school, and yes the education was great but sometimes it can be overkill, and even a disadvantage: I still want to throw up whenever I read my personal statement. I give you the first line: "I see my life as a journey through knowledge." Completely overcoached in Oxbridge training sessions is all I can say to my defense. I´m not usually such a prat. I don´t think it helped my application.

2. I think they have so many excellent applicants applying, that they end up basing it on really small matters. Like when they asked me if I would take the place if offered to me without the gap year I wanted. Just their way of narrowing down, I guess. (I said no, thinking it was a test of my resolve and independent thinking. Yeah... )

My two cents.

[nighteyes]

Makes me feel better thanks. Damn Sinner - I am supposed to be finishing my review essay.

Quoting munchingfoo from 01:25, 1st Mar 2007
I'm doing a PhD and I still feel stupid. The higher you go the more stupid you feel IMO.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[hr]

i didnt say i was consistant, just right!

[oddly familiar]

Quoting Derya from 08:19, 1st Mar 2007
A couple of unrelated points:

1. I went to a private school, and yes the education was great but sometimes it can be overkill, and even a disadvantage: I still want to throw up whenever I read my personal statement. I give you the first line: "I see my life as a journey through knowledge." Completely overcoached in Oxbridge training sessions is all I can say to my defense. I´m not usually such a prat. I don´t think it helped my application.

2. I think they have so many excellent applicants applying, that they end up basing it on really small matters. Like when they asked me if I would take the place if offered to me without the gap year I wanted. Just their way of narrowing down, I guess. (I said no, thinking it was a test of my resolve and independent thinking. Yeah... )

My two cents.

To be honest I think that sometimes they just take the applicant who's wearing the nicest tie, or who comes from a town beginning with C. For the top 4 applicants per place; in most cases theres really nothng to choose between them - either way they will get a great student. It's not just 4 applications per place either, it's 4 well qualified ones that get interviewed. That doesn't include the tens of other less well qualified applicants that don't make it to interview.

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[David Bean]

Quoting jono from 21:29, 28th Feb 2007
Not as bad as it sounds? David, that sounds absolutely scandalous, and I'd hope that someone would have put a stop to it by now! Universities should consider all candidates on their individual merits! Giving the Boys from "St. Snuffingtons," a leg up just because the old-guard all went there, is just as bad as giving candidates from state school backgrounds prefence places (Assuming that accusation has any basis in fact).

Why? Obviously all candidates should be accepted on their individual merits, I'm not disputing that for one moment. The problem is, establishing what those merits are. The argument in favour of discriminating positively in favour of people from poor state schools is that their educational background may have masked their abilities and potential, but the same problem applies to any applicant given the necessarily limited information an admissions tutor has about any one candidate. Part of this information is a reference from a teacher, whose job it is to get students into university and who may therefore be moved not to be entirely truthful about some of their less highly-performing students. If the university concludes that it can trust teachers from a certain department at a certain school, based on the consistently high performance of their previous referees and an assurance that they will only evver refer students they know to be good enough, why shouldn't they act on this by giving those students places? This hardly heralds the end of civilisation as we know it.

And anyway, there are a hell of a lot of utter morons at Oxford - it's not like you have to be all that bright to be there (which is entirely different from having to look very bright to get in!).

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[sweet]

David, your old school was one for which parents doled out fees believing that it would provide a higher standard of education for their little darlings. To compete not only with free schooling but other commercial/private schools in the area Dundee St Snuffingtons is under enormous pressure to produce good exam results and, of course, the icing on the cake, oxbridge entrants. As this is a commercial scheme, teachers at your school would be under more and not less pressure to put the best possible spin on their references for Oxbridge entrants, and there is more and not less reason to suppose they would be more rose-tinted than realistic. In addition, teachers don't choose which universities students may or may not apply for, they may encourage gifted pupils to apply, but do not personally put them forward - the pupil puts him or herself forward through UCAS.

The bottom line is, you are alleging that applicants from your school have a much better chance because it has "ties" and frankly that is pretty sickening.

[The Bitter Historian]

Well, actually, it *does* seem like a bad idea to me, David, because you're saying that the edge given to these pupils is not ability, or question answering, or colour of their tie, but the school they went to.

And that is, in my opinion, a Bad Thing.

Saying that, my (staunchly state-funded but in the top three in the country and generally beat the local private schools to the ground in terms of results and quality of students but not Oxbridge admissions, funny that) sixth-form college had links with Lancaster University's English department. By 'similar links' I mean that on results day if you wanted to do English but didn't get the marks you wanted, you went and cried at one of the English tutors who would then speak to her sister who worked in the English department during clearing. So yes, it does happen in other colleges and other universities, but I feel less iffy about the quiet nepotism as compared to the old school tie system.

[hr]

http://bitterhistorian.blogspot.com

Life. St Andrews. Budgeting. Some history. Mostly bitterness.

[David Bean]

Quoting sweet from 22:42, 1st Mar 2007
David, your old school was one for which parents doled out fees believing that it would provide a higher standard of education for their little darlings. To compete not only with free schooling but other commercial/private schools in the area Dundee St Snuffingtons is under enormous pressure to produce good exam results and, of course, the icing on the cake, oxbridge entrants. As this is a commercial scheme, teachers at your school would be under more and not less pressure to put the best possible spin on their references for Oxbridge entrants, and there is more and not less reason to suppose they would be more rose-tinted than realistic. In addition, teachers don't choose which universities students may or may not apply for, they may encourage gifted pupils to apply, but do not personally put them forward - the pupil puts him or herself forward through UCAS.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the nature of private education, and your characterisation of private schools as "commercial" demonstrates this. What a private school represents, at base, is a collective decision by a group of parents to bandy together to invest more in the education of their sons and daughters than the state is prepared to, and the school itself is what results from that. It does not exist to make a profit for a group of private investors, which is why private schools are afforded the status of registered charities. Essentially it is like the organisation I currently work for: a co-operative, owned by its consumers. I find it strange that the same people who heartily support the co-operative model for other businesses often wholeheartedly oppose it in the field of education. Your last point about pupils putting themselves forward is not pertinent to the case, either, as the issue I've brought up only applies to those pupils who do take the choice to put themselves forward; believe me, they would have been more than happy to send me to the college and course in question, but I wanted to come to St Andrews, so I did.

BH: no, that's where you misunderstand me. It's the college itself that chooses to accept the teachers' recommendations as trustworthy and, Sweet, one of the things that parents pay for is the integrity on the part of the teachers that means that if their students don't honestly deserve a place at Oxbridge, they won't recommend someone for a place - at least not one where such a relationship exists. It has nothing to do with getting pupils in through the back door as in the example BH cites, and everything to do with the teachers taking a conscious decision only to recommend people who are actually worth it, and the college choosing to take them at their word as good, honest people.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Jono]

Quoting David Bean from 01:02, 2nd Mar 2007


BH: no, that's where you misunderstand me. It's the college itself that chooses to accept the teachers' recommendations as trustworthy and, Sweet, one of the things that parents pay for is the integrity on the part of the teachers that means that if their students don't honestly deserve a place at Oxbridge, they won't recommend someone for a place - at least not one where such a relationship exists. It has nothing to do with getting pupils in through the back door as in the example BH cites, and everything to do with the teachers taking a conscious decision only to recommend people who are actually worth it, and the college choosing to take them at their word as good, honest people.


[hr]

Psalm 91:7

But therein lies the overarching inequality. This department, I take it, has a strong Oxford background. Whereas not one of my teachers went to Oxbridge (I expect it's the same deal for a lot of places). Without any reference to what this "Standard" is from first hand experience, you ultimately end up with the situation at my school; teachers encouraging the top-scoring lot to apply, on the basis that we had as good a chance as anyone else of getting in. Just because other schools flood Oxbridge with potentially under-qualified applicants, while this department is more self-restrained does that make them more trustworthy? In fact, I'd argue that it's in Oxbridge’s best interest to get large numbers of applicants. After all, the entire justification for their privileged positions in academia is that they take on only the best and the brightest! Were they to miss out on prospective students just because schools were too timid to forward them, It’d just serve to weaken their position.

Why? Obviously all candidates should be accepted on their individual merits, I'm not disputing that for one moment. The problem is, establishing what those merits are. The argument in favour of discriminating positively in favour of people from poor state schools is that their educational background may have masked their abilities and potential, but the same problem applies to any applicant given the necessarily limited information an admissions tutor has about any one candidate. Part of this information is a reference from a teacher, whose job it is to get students into university and who may therefore be moved not to be entirely truthful about some of their less highly-performing students. If the university concludes that it can trust teachers from a certain department at a certain school, based on the consistently high performance of their previous referees and an assurance that they will only evver refer students they know to be good enough, why shouldn't they act on this by giving those students places? This hardly heralds the end of civilisation as we know it.

In true form to the sinner, I shall respond thus; "I never for one minute suggested that the UCAS system was perfect! You're misrepresenting my words! How dare you!"

Yeah, In all seriousness I'm highly critical of the UCAS system myself. It doesn't give enough information to make reasonable predictions. Half the information you're required to provide is wholly irrelevant unless used for positive discrimination (e.g: What do your parents do for a living?!) And it's generally in need of serious re-vamping. But even if UCAS is flawed, playing favourites with one department in one school isn’t any better. Oxford already have entrance exams. They already have interviews for candidates. They already have any number of better ways of determining what an individual candidate's “merits” are without having to blithely accept the recommendations of a couple of old-guard Alumni . I'm planning to go into teaching myself. What do you think people would say if everyone I was to referee into St. Andrews in future was given an unconditional offer?


[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376
Exclusive to The Sinnner, and all other forums.

[David Bean]

Quoting jono from 02:18, 2nd Mar 2007
But therein lies the overarching inequality. This department, I take it, has a strong Oxford background.

No, I don't think any of the teachers went there, if that's what you mean.

Just because other schools flood Oxbridge with potentially under-qualified applicants, while this department is more self-restrained does that make them more trustworthy?

Well, yoiu'd have to ask the college in question that. They're the ones accepting the offers - nobody has a gun to their heads.

In fact, I'd argue that it's in Oxbridge’s best interest to get large numbers of applicants. After all, the entire justification for their privileged positions in academia is that they take on only the best and the brightest! Were they to miss out on prospective students just because schools were too timid to forward them, It’d just serve to weaken their position.

That's a non-sequitur. Yes, it's in their interests to get lots of highly qualified applicants, but the number of less highly-qualified people they have to reject is neither here nor there - in truth they'd probably refer to have fewer applications to have to process.

In true form to the sinner, I shall respond thus; "I never for one minute suggested that the UCAS system was perfect! You're misrepresenting my words! How dare you!"

I get that you're joking, but I didn't say anything about your views of the perfection or otherwise of UCAS.

Half the information you're required to provide is wholly irrelevant unless used for positive discrimination (e.g: What do your parents do for a living?!)

That would be correct if you assumed that the sole purpose of UCAS is to get university places for people, but questions like this serve the secondary objective of tracking the background of applicants for statistical purposes.

Oxford already have entrance exams. They already have interviews for candidates. They already have any number of better ways of determining what an individual candidate's “merits” are without having to blithely accept the recommendations of a couple of old-guard Alumni . I'm planning to go into teaching myself. What do you think people would say if everyone I was to referee into St. Andrews in future was given an unconditional offer?

Well, apart from the fallacy in your assumption that the teachers came from Oxford, if everyone you recommended DIDN'T get an unconditional offer to St Andrews, I think people would have seriously to question your judgment. In any case, none of these hurdles is being avoided in the situation I'm describing.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[theshadowhost]

[s] It's also an acknowledgement of how hard the straight A state school student has had to work given that their educational facilities are not to the same standard as private and grammar schools.

I went to a grammar school, they are state schools that are selective. They do not have facilities over and above a regular states school, the only difference is that they have access to pupils who pass a test at age 11/12, which in a lot of cases doesn't mean you are any good at age 18 going into uni.

I agree with what i was taught in my political philosophy class here in St A's, that people who went to a crappy school who do better deserve a place more than someone who went to a good school and do well - they had to put up with crapper stuff and had less help to get to the same place.
edit: - god knows who i quoted - it's 2 pages back and i'm tired. sorry
[hr]

[Gubbins]

Quoting munchingfoo from 01:25, 1st Mar 2007
I'm doing a PhD and I still feel stupid. The higher you go the more stupid you feel IMO.

Yup... that sounds familiar. I'm sure someone famous said something like "the more I learn, the more I come to realise how much I don't know", or words to that effect.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[Reject...!]

I applied to Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. After I'd sent the application in, the head of my school's French department told me that I had no chance of getting in.

The two problems? School and postcode.

Not saying that my interview was fantastic, but I didn't get in...