BBC: Oxbridge entry 'dominated by five schools'

Mr Jack said:
Here's an interesting thing: although people educated at private schools typically do better at GCSE/A-Level, that difference reduces dramatically at degree level.
Click to expand...

Isn't that because A-Levels are standardised across all schools, whereas every degree at every university is different?
 
scorza said:
The reason the article "blabs" on about A-Level results is there is a stark contrast in the number of places given to students from state schools compared with independent schools (and especially the Big 5).

Why are these interviews resulting in more rejections for state school pupils? Is it because, as I suspect will be the popular opinion here, that state school pupils are thicker than their richer, independent school educated peers, and this becomes apparent at the interview? or is it perhaps that the interview process is biased (very probably unintentionally) toward "people like us"? There are probably plenty of other potential reasons as well.
Click to expand...

Or it's neither but top schools have a much bigger role than just teaching subjects and prepare people for the wider world. They have the interview techniques, they have the confidence.
 
TheCenturion said:
Admissions tutor at Oxford said when looking applications, he really didn't give a **** about an extra curricular activity. Unless it was academic, AND related to the subject of study.
Click to expand...

I guess the point I made (badly) was that extra curricular activites often lead to a more rounded person who does better come interview time. It's very true that tutors don't give much of a hoot about what you do outside of the subjects you study, they never asked me about any extra curricular activities at my interview.
 
Greebo said:
Tbh the problem is private school fees has vastly outstripped inflation.

When I went to the Grammar school in 1980 it was £700 per annum. By the time I left in 1987 it was £2,100 per annum so it has tripled in 7 years.

I think I heard recently it is now £12,000 per annum so that's almost a 6 fold increase in the last 23 years.

So if you had a child starting school this year, it might start off at £12,000 but could easily be £36,000 by the time they finish in 7 years. You need a very, very good income to afford private schools for your children nowadays.
Click to expand...

A lot of the top public (private) school (Eton, Harrow etc) are high twenties per year now. Obviously boarding accounts for a lot of the cost.
 
alx said:
I guess the point I made (badly) was that extra curricular activites often lead to a more rounded person who does better come interview time. It's very true that tutors don't give much of a hoot about what you do outside of the subjects you study, they never asked me about any extra curricular activities at my interview.
Click to expand...

In that case, I think you're very right :)

People who are able to balance their life with extra curriculars tend to be more successful people.
 
scott212 said:
Why do people care so much about Oxbridge? I had no desire whatsoever to go to either. At the end of the day you're sacrificing a lot for a bit of prestige and a first/2:1 in a decent academic degree from any Russell Group university is likely to land you a fantastic job anyway.
Click to expand...

Because it's the best place in the world to study? If you enjoy your subject and are willing to work hard then I can't see why you wouldn't want to go to Oxbridge. Haters gonna hate, but Oxbridge is always gonna provide the best education in the world.:cool:


Tunney said:
One of the biggest problems is that many of the interviews are biased towards public school leavers. Questions are thrown in on subjects like Latin and classics that are rarely taught at state schools.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did you read that? If you're applying for classics, you'll probably get questions on classics. Otherwise you'd get exactly the kind of questions you'd expect for the subject you apply for.


Re: the article in the OP. The top five schools (and other very good private and grammar schools) teach kids how to think, and teach them to aim high. There still exists in state schools the attitude that medicrity is fine, and aiming high is too much effort. Also, that academic achievement is pointless and the only important thing is to get a well paid job. I went to a state school and then to Cambridge and I've seen first hand the difference that a good education can make. Someone that's been educated at a top school is prepared to think carefully and methodiclly through a problem that a state-educated kid would just shrug their shoulders at.
 
p4radox said:
Where the hell did you read that? If you're applying for classics, you'll probably get questions on classics. Otherwise you'd get exactly the kind of questions you'd expect for the subject you apply for.
Click to expand...

I didn't read it anywhere. I got told it firsthand by the dozen or so people that I know who studied subjects like English and philosophy at Cambridge.
 
Tunney said:
I didn't read it anywhere. I got told it firsthand by the dozen or so people that I know who studied subjects like English and philosophy at Cambridge.
Click to expand...

How long ago?

If you're getting questions in Latin for English Lit then I can only imagine you'd have written something about that in your application and the interviewers know that you'd studied Latin A level. Otherwise it simply wouldn't be reasonable...

Interviews are never the same, and are tailored to the abilities and experience of each interviewee.
 
TheCenturion said:
I may well feel that it was incorrect. But like I said, I believe that a good student will find success no matter where they go. So I would rather train my children to be good students, and to make their success, rather than pay for a school to drill it into them.
Click to expand...

So why does Andy Murray pay for a top class tennis coach? He's a good player, he'll find success whoever he uses, right?

EVERYONE can benefit from top class schooling.
 
TheCenturion said:
I believe you are wrong :p

With medicine, you cannot objectively pinpoint the 'best' university. This is because all medical degrees are regulated by the General Medical Council. You cannot have one university churning out incompetent doctors, that would be awful!

The main difference between medical schools is teaching style and course structure, so for medicine, it's best to go somewhere where you like the style of teaching as that way you'll learn best :)
Click to expand...
I disagree, all Medicine courses will prepare you well enough to pass your exams to qualify as a doctor under the GMC regulations, but just like A levels, the difference in that quality of knowledge and preparation differs dependent on the Uni/course structure.

Im more aware of people getting further in their Med career because of this compared to other friends that went to other Unis for Med. Though in reality for that to happen you shouldnt be practising in the country in the first place ;)

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Tunney said:
I didn't read it anywhere. I got told it firsthand by the dozen or so people that I know who studied subjects like English and philosophy at Cambridge.
Click to expand...

You're saying that people applying to do English got asked questions on classical literature and one of the major influences of the English language?

Stop the presses.

Lets state what this actually is. It's not Cambridge asking "public school biased" questions. It's Cambridge asking relevant questions to the field being studied. Interviewers couldn't care less what school you're from, they care about how you think and your interest in the subject you're applying for. To be even more clear, they don't really care what you know, they care how you think. One of the main things I was taught for interview prep was this: There's no point brushing up and pretending that you know more than the next guy - they'll keep asking you questions until they find something you don't know, and then they'll discover how you think.

I went to a public school, and then studied natsci (chemistry) at Cambridge and I didn't get asked about Latin. Surprisingly, this might be because Latin has little relevance to modern sciences.
 
p4radox said:
How long ago?

If you're getting questions in Latin for English Lit then I can only imagine you'd have written something about that in your application and the interviewers know that you'd studied Latin A level. Otherwise it simply wouldn't be reasonable...

Interviews are never the same, and are tailored to the abilities and experience of each interviewee.
Click to expand...
Agreed I had a chat on the evil that was Windows 95 - irrelevant to what I wanted to read, but ultimately something I put on my personal statement which was informally questioned...

NB: I did carry on talking about CF and possible treatments bourne out of genetic engineering. Wasnt all Windoze vitrol :p

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
Dave said:
I don't see how people cannot have the desire to go to one of the world's top universities? You get the opportunity not just to learn from and work with top academics in your field, but also get the opportunity to make lots of connections and contacts with important people both in academia and industry. A degree from any Russell Group university is always going to put you in excellent stead for the future, but I think that Oxbridge will always be the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
p4radox said:
Because it's the best place in the world to study? If you enjoy your subject and are willing to work hard then I can't see why you wouldn't want to go to Oxbridge. Haters gonna hate, but Oxbridge is always gonna provide the best education in the world.:cool:
Click to expand...

Whilst this is true, we don't all go to University purely for academic reasons. I read Economics but truth be told I spent far more time having fun than studying hard. I picked that discipline because I felt I was academically capable of doing well and knew the job prospects associated with it. I knew fully well that Oxbridge students work extremely hard but that wasn't for me although I have great respect for those who studied there and excelled.

In the same way some of the guys I went to school with are starting careers in investment banking. They're getting paid an absolute packet but expected to work absolutely ridiculous hours. Again, not for me. I'd rather have a job that pays well and which requires me to work hard and to the best of my ability but not to the point where I have to sell my soul to the firm, to use a cliché! I still want plenty of time to live my life.

I guess a final point to make about Oxbridge and perhaps private schools is, as you say, that the prestige and networking most probably gives you advantages throughout your working life should you chose to make the most of it.
 
Last edited:
ps3ud0 said:
I disagree, all Medicine courses will prepare you well enough to pass your exams to qualify as a doctor under the GMC regulations, but just like A levels, the difference in that quality of knowledge and preparation differs dependent on the Uni/course structure.

Im more aware of people getting further in their Med career because of this compared to other friends that went to other Unis for Med. Though in reality for that to happen you shouldnt be practising in the country in the first place ;)

ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...

There's been some research done, and I can't remember where I found it, but it concluded that straight out of med school, people doing a traditional course had more knowledge than pbl students, but several months/years later, the pbl students had retained a lot more of their university knowledge than the traditional students had.
 
That doesnt diffuse the point you made that you cant objectively pinpoint the 'best' Unis for Medicine due to GMC regs - actually Im not sure what your point is, or why someone would misled you to think otherwise?

EDIT: Sorry that came quite blunt, I agree though go to the one that you like the course structure of, back in my day modular degrees etc werent the norm so didnt have the option...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
ps3ud0 said:
That doesnt diffuse the point you made that you cant objectively pinpoint the 'best' Unis for Medicine due to GMC regs - actually Im not sure what your point is, or why someone would misled you to think otherwise?

EDIT: Sorry that came quite blunt, I agree though go to the one that you like the course structure of, back in my day modular degrees etc werent the norm so didnt have the option...

ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that there is an absolute best medical school? If so, which is it?
 
Harvard

Actually I was trying to say that just because there is an external body that regulates the curriculum does not infer that the knowledge gained in each individual university is exactly the same and therefore can not make a reasonable deduction which universities provide the best course...
TheCenturion said:
I believe you are wrong :p

With medicine, you cannot objectively pinpoint the 'best' university. This is because all medical degrees are regulated by the General Medical Council. You cannot have one university churning out incompetent doctors, that would be awful!
Click to expand...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom