Oxford Admissions Statistics 2005

Parent Cafe
1

<p>For those playing the role of college counselor, or parents of 2006-07 seniors, perhaps of interest:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/adstats.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/adstats.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Total applications 12,496 - (you can only apply to either Oxford or Cambridge, otherwise everyone would apply to both).</p>

<p>Total acceptances 3,214, 245 of which were for deferred entry - 1,690 men, 1,524 women - interesting that males are over 50%</p>

<p>9.7% of the applicants were from overseas, 12.4% of acceptances. There were 135 offers for candidates with IB, 111 conditional offers for candidates with "other qualifications" (e.g., includes US - does not include A-Levels or IB or Scottish, French, EU IB, Ireland, etc.).</p>

<p>For UK students, 81% are Caucasian (approx. 90% from the UK, 10% from EU) 3.5% Indian, 3.7% unspecified, 2.4% Caucasian/Asian, 2.0% Chinese, every other group under 2%.</p>

<p>Some courses are very competitive, others less. For instance, in the 30 Arts courses (humanities, languages, math/physics, math/phil, etc.) overall success rate was for Classics 41.2%, Archaeology 40%, and Modern Languages & Linguistics 39.7%. At the other end of the specturm, for Economics & Management 13.9%, Modern History & English 10.1%, Law/LSE 9.7%. </p>

<p>The greatest number of applicants for Arts courses were PPE (Phil/Politics/Econ) 1,154 [those hopeful future PMs], English 1,116, and Law 1,006. The least were Classics & English, Classics & Modern Languages, European & Middle Eastern Languages, and Modern History & Economics - all four with only 39 total applicants each.</p>

<p>In the 18 Sciences subjects (classic sciences plus CompSci, Engineering, Psych, Math/CompSci, Math/Stats, Medicine, and Phil/Psych/Physiology), highest acceptance rates were Materials Science 54.9, Math/CompSci 51.4%, Biology, 48%, Chemistry 45%. Lowest are Engineering/CompSci 19%, PPP 17%, and Medicine 15%.</p>

<p>The greatest number of applicants in the Sciences were Medicine 1,025, Physics 608, and Mathematics 592. The least number of applicants were Math/CompSci 37, Physiology 28, and Engineering/CompSci 21. </p>

<p>1,868 open applications (no residential college chosen, most students from the US would probably submit an open app) were submitted, overall success rate 11.7%.</p>

<p>The last page of the report contains a three-year average of apps and acceptances by type of school - maintained, independent (UK) and "others" (includes US). This illustrates that in some subjects Oxford seems to favor UK qualifications - for example, in Medicine, the acceptance rate was 15.5% of applicants from maintained schools, 19.3% from independent schools, and only 4.4% from "other" schools. In PPP, it is 16.7% maintained, 29.3% independent, and 9% "other." In English, 22.4%-27.2%-11.9%. However, in other subjects the percentages are more even, such as Math/compSci 33.6%-40.5%-36%, Oriental Studies 32.3%-46%-34.4%, and Modern History 28.9%-31.8%-29.7%.</p>

<p>So what does all of this amount to for potential US applicants? Well, in some cases, the strongest departments appear to be the easiest to get into, either in general by overall percentages, or especially for those with non-UK qualifications (for example, Classics, Modern History, and Modern Languages). A strong student from the US would probably have a good chance of being accepted to Oxford, in many cases a better chance than at the most selective US universities, and there would be very few US colleges that could provide as strong a program in these subjects.</p>

<p>As always, students who are not ready to specialize in one, two, or three subjects shouldn't consider UK universities, because there are very few electives and no core or breadth requirements. You can go to any lectures and educate yourself in any of the subjects offered, but you will spend 95% of your time in your chosen subject(s).</p>

2

<p>Thanks for the post - this may be an option for a friend of the family next year.</p>

3

<p>
[QUOTE]
in Medicine, the acceptance rate was 15.5% of applicants from maintained schools, 19.3% from independent schools, and only 4.4% from "other" schools.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Anyone who applies to UK medicine note that this is the only subject with a quota of students which have to be from the UK. I think Oxford are only allowed to accept 7-8 overseas medicine students per year because the UK government (who bankroll Oxford. it's effectively like a US state school) needs to train a certain number of doctors to work in the national health service. Training overseas students who will then leave is not a good investment. The above stats probably relate to undergraduatre medicine (a 6 year course for students straight out of high school). There is also a 4 year graduate medicine course (which has a reputation for being one of the most competitive in the university).</p>

<p>Yulsie, thank you for your post. I often read posts here about how Oxford only accepts 2 US students a year etc etc. This is a MYTH. Or are the other 800 Americans here a figment of my imagination?</p>

4

<p>Hi Cupcake,</p>

<p>I suspected something of the sort about medicine, thanks for the clarification. Does that scheme apply to law as well?</p>

<p>I think it is very interesting that the subjects differ widely in their application numbers and acceptance chances. There are definitely some 'sweet spots' depending on a student's interests. Wonder if Cam's stats compare, maybe I'll take a look.</p>

5

<p>I think it's as well to read the subject-by-subject success rates alongside table 3a which sets out the qualifications achieved (in terms of A-levels) by subject. There is very little variation there. So the indication is that, while there are subjects where it is easier to get in because there is less competition, there are no subjects where you are more likely to get in if you are objectively less bright! The baseline required level of ability is broadly the same across the board.</p>

<p>Yulsie, I read the stats on overseas applicants differently. Table 1 suggests 9.7% of applicants were educated overseas but only 4.8% of acceptances, and Table 2 talks about 20.4% and 12.4% respectively on the basis of domicile. Either way the success rate is less than UK candidates (15.6% success rate compared to 25.7% overall - Table 2). It suggests an overseas applicant will find it relatively tougher, but not impossible (and more to be applauded if successful). On the other hand, at least it implies that Oxford is not giving overseas applicants an easy ride because it's after your money!</p>

6

<p>Right, oldspc, it seems to be true mostly across the board, according to the stats, that those from "other" (non-UK) educational systems do have it tougher. There was some comment by students that Oxbridge had lowered their standards for international fee payers, but these stats argue against that. It was mentioned on the international students admission web site, as I recall, that most successful candidates are in the top 2% of school leavers - that's probably true regardless of the previous educational preparation. </p>

<p>I'm wondering if the differences in acceptance rates per subject are also because the level of preparation demonstrated by students having completing A-Levels successfully has not been borne out by those having completed qualifications. They don't say, no way to know, maybe factor in quotas for internationals?</p>

7

<p>My impression is that which college one attends at Oxbridge makes a difference. Americans are more likely to submit an open application and that increases the chance of acceptance. However, the experience of being in one of the better Oxbridge colleges and one at the bottom of the tables is much greater than some young Americans realize when applying.</p>

<p>Much of the Oxbridge experience is based on tutorials, not lectures. The quality of tutors varies enormously and by and large is better in the colleges at the top of the tables.</p>

8

<p>Jonri, Do you have a link for the different colleges and how they rank? Or can you list the top ones or ones to avoid?</p>

9

<p>Read this general description :</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleges_of_Oxford_University%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleges_of_Oxford_University&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and then scroll down to the Norrington Table in footnote two.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ox.ac.uk/aboutoxford/facts/collegefigs.shtml#table2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ox.ac.uk/aboutoxford/facts/collegefigs.shtml#table2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Anyone actually applying should check the rankings for several years, but keep in mind the information about rankings in the above description and weigh more recent years more heavily. </p>

<p>There is some variation from year to year, but a college ranked 30th will not jump to 1-5 in the following year. Look at the variance between the percentage of students getting firsts (the top honors; roughly the top 15% at Oxbridge, top 10% at other colleges). The wealthier colleges have better tutors--they also tend to have better food, from what I've heard. Note: admission to the more highly ranked colleges is more competitive and some colleges tend to focus on particular subjects--don't ask me which I don't know.</p>

<p>Some of the college's own websites indicate their strengths. Others give a breakdown of what their students are studying..and generally the higher the percentage of students studying a subject at a particular college, the better the college is in that field. </p>

<p>There are message boards not unlike this one for UK universities.</p>

<p>I don't know if it's relevant, but note that these are undergraduate rankings. Grad student life also varies from college to college, but the strength of the MCR (Middle Common Room) is probably more important.</p>

10

<p>On the differing acceptance rates by subject, a lot of this is due to shifts in the popularity of subjects at A-level amongst UK students which aren't reflected in changes in the size of Oxford's academic departments.</p>

<p>An obvious example is Classics, which is still a major department at the university, but the teaching of Latin and particularly Greek in schools has declined massively and is now rare in the state sector. To a lesser extent the same probably also applies to many of the sciences; articles bemoaning a decline in the number of students taking sciences at A-level are not uncommon in the UK press. </p>

<p>It is quite possible to enter for many of the humanities like Law or PPE or even History without studying related subjects at A-level, but I think it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to take on university level Chemistry or Physics without the relevant A-level/IB etc.
All of this narrows the field of potential applicants. </p>

<p>For a lot of the combined subjects the numbers are really too small to read anything particular into them.</p>

11

<p>I do agree that resources vary across colleges, but I don't think varying quality of tutors is particularly an issue, since movement between colleges as a tutor is fairly common. As a current student I would say that Norrington table rankings are more dependent on a) cash and resources and b) the working "culture" at each college: for example, Merton (which is usually top three) has a much more aggressive?/firm attitude towards work, with penal collections and more penalties for not doing spectacularly well.
In any case it is worth bearing in mind that the actual, as opposed to statistical, differences between number of Firsts is really very small, and can be swung radically by one or two people.</p>

12

<p>outwestmom, go to The Student Room:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.**************.co.uk/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.**************.co.uk/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(Edited: somehow the cursing editor doesn't like this address - type The Student Room, all one word, where the astericks are above.)</p>

<p>There you will find threads and threads about colleges. Most student love their college, and here's how I interpret that: 1) college, wherever you go, is usually a very positive experience; 2) the residential college system at Oxbridge is great in general - colleges have their own counselors, their own pastor, their own security, their own chapel, their own dining hall, their own student council (JCR) etc. - Even the largest is quite small and supportive, and you get to know many people very quickly 3) One student's meat is another student's poison - some of the colleges that regularly come top on the Norrington Table are, according to most students, sort of pressure cookers - meaning, not as much fun to live in if you want a balanced life.</p>

<p>Norrington, as mentioned above, is ranked each year by how many Firsts, not by the average Finals outcome. In most colleges, rankings vary - see this link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fantasyfacup.com/matthew/fun/norrington/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.fantasyfacup.com/matthew/fun/norrington/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>For example, my son's college ranking has varied widely - from 2000 to 2005 it has been 18-5-25-13-20-18 - so that goes to show you how much the table can vary. He said that one of the reasons he is very happy to be in his college is that the college's values and culture does not include extra added pressure, outside of the tutor-student 'pact' (which is, in sum: - "I will teach you as best I can, you will learn as thoroughly and rapidly as you can"). He thinks that the college has the living-learning-nurturing-support balance pretty well mastered, and that most of the students are very happy there. </p>

<p>In addition, prices for accommodations and meals do not always directly reflect the financial resources of the college, so if a US student applied to a specific college, the family should check the prices before applying if that is an issue. Undergraduate admissions recommends an open app for international students, and that's what we did. However, you could also look at the most recent statistics and apply to a college that had more favorable chances for your subject.</p>

13

<p>My college (Worcester) was definitely known as a "fun" place. Well-known for law and math, but not much else. Used to be poor - however, Rupert Murdoch, George Sainsbury, and Bill Bradley are relatively recent alums, and money is way up. But folks choose it because of its magnificent grounds (it's where Alice in Wonderland took place) - including all sports fields right inside the college walls, theatrical performances, wealth (the opening scene of Waugh's "Decline and Fall" is modeled on Worcester), and the fact that it isn't an academic pressure-cooker. This may all change, of course, once the new entrance system takes effect.)</p>

14

<p>Oh Mini did you go to Worcester? Every time I walk past it I always think what a beautiful view you get through the door out into the gardens, so gorgeous.</p>

15

<p>Yes, Worcester '71. Among the most beautiful places on the face of the earth. Have you made it into Wonderland yet? (the chute is on the far left side of the quad.)</p>