<p>No, your brain doesn't decide whether or not you get into Oxford, because the system is heavily favoured towards private school students who know the rules of the game. For example, look at the classics program, could many of those students get into oxford if they didn't know 'the rules'?</p>
<p>Oxford would be far more likely to accept a student from a higher-class background than a student of a lower-class background, even if the latter student had a slightly higher intelligence, just because the former's school would have connections with a specific college and would know which program to apply for to maximise his chance of admittance. How is this admittance scenario guided by brains?</p>
<p>'We in Britain [I live in Britain, by the by] think everybody should have an equal chance for admission, that is why we have a tough academic interview system'</p>
<p>PI SSes me off to be honest. It is exactly the type of snobbish remark that encapsulates all Oxbridge should get away from. If everyone should have an equal chance for admission, then why is everyone graded on exactly the same scale, even when it is extremely more difficult for lower-class students to acheive competitive grades? This system heavily favours those with top preperatory educations, which (suprise suprise) can be bought by rich white families. Following your train of logic, that only the smartest people get into Oxford, why are there so few minorities and lower-classes in Oxford? Is it because they are inherently less intelligent than upper-class whites? OF COURSE NOT! and that attitude makes me physically sick. It is because these groups do not have the benefits that the richer groups have and are penalised by Oxbridge as a result. The American system may not be perfect, but it does fix this substantial problem. As for your lauded 'tough academic interview system' Who does this favour? Why yes, suprise suprise, it favours the rich white private-school demographic, as these students have more preparation for these interviews and a better quality of teaching to prepare them for it as well (this better teaching also helps students get critical top A-Levels).</p>
<p>My problem with your 'tons of poor people get rejected from Oxford witih top results every year' argument was - shockingly (to you, anyway) - that tons of poor people get rejected from Oxford w/ top results when richer counterparts would be far less likely to (as I clearly stated in my last post...). I did read through your point fully and I did respond to it in my last post as well: </p>
<p>'So Harvard broke some red tape to get Laura Spence in? So what? Are they to be criticised for their charity?' What I (fairly obviously, I should think) meant by this was that I saw nothing wrong with H letting in Laura Spence, even if it was only a one time thing. What are you basing your claim that Harvard has never offered a place to another student like Laura on, anyway? Please back your ridiculous claims with fact in the future before attacking me about them. </p>
<p>To answer your final question, Blue, I am 16 years old and so of course I have not got into Harvard yet (nor do I realistically expect that I will under the current intense competition). However, this allows me to be fully objective in my opinions, so I really don't see how it hurts my argument. </p>
<p>Just out of interest, Blue, what college at Oxford are you at at the moment, and what type of secondary school did you attend?</p>