Why do Oxbridge do just fine using only academic criteria in admissions?

Applying to College
21

<p>the one person got a phone interview... the other person got in without any sort of interview... both were going in for an engineering major... they say that different colleges within Oxford have different policies regarding interviews. Some always take it, others don't necessarily do it...</p>

<p>but it might also have been because at least one person from our school has been getting into Oxford every year for the past 4-5 years. and they always get recommendations from one teacher. They acknowledged her role this year, and invited her to Oxford for some seminar on this account. So, it might have been her recommendation which did it...</p>

22

<p>A levels are quite terrible!!!hehe...but there are MCQs in there as well..These are much more difficult than the Sat 2,for instance..SAt subject tests can be done in 1 month,say 2 months....A level requires 2 years..u see.Thats the difference.:)</p>

23

<p>as far as I know from looking at the syllabus of AP courses, they are nothing compared to A Levels.... though I still believe that A Levels are too easy...</p>

24

<p>To the OP:
Maybe because kids with strong academics just also happen to be strong in..most other things.</p>

25

<p>Post 24 nails it, as does post 5. (Different educational system entirely; different "k-12" preparation & expectations; education more thorough & demanding preparatory to University.)</p>

<p>The 'narrow' emphasis is partly because they expect a narrower band of matriculants. There is not the universal assumption that everyone will attend a rigorous institution, let alone that masses of students will apply to a small number of "elites."</p>

<p>Different national mindset regarding the universality of education; different cultures entirely. Our educational institutions are more linked with opportunity goals than theirs, hence more inclusive in their assumptions & purposes. In fact, as I recall Tony Blair was interested in making University study overall more accessible, especially economically, to more of the population.</p>

<p>But back to post 24. Indeed. Here our "Elites" expect both academics and much more because they can get it. It is less and less true that one can be admitted to our top U's without top qualifications in all areas. Very few students are admitted on a single (or very few) elements. Those who believe that this is what "holistic" means are just ignorant. In holistic admissions, one stronger factor can compensate for a slightly weaker factor, but I emphasize 'slightly.' And you'd better believe that the 'stronger' factors must absolutely rock to make that compensation an equivalency. (Please, no stupid anecdotes about students with supposedly low-life academics about which you have no real clue & never saw their applications & recommendations.)</p>

<p>There, the applicants are very clear that some majors/concentrations have a 9% acceptance rate, others a 40%, as someone above said. They don't whine about it & scream racism & start lawsuits. Here, some people don't understand these laws of supply and demand, & unfortunately will not get accepted to the London School of Economics, which is probably what they need to understand that your acceptance rate from an impacted application area (& major) may be 2% compared to a non-similar geographic area, which could be 12%. Here, litigiously oriented students believe it's their right to challenge the laws of supply & demand. There, students accept the laws & choose a different route, and move on.</p>

26

<p>I don't think any of us know what the applicant pool is like for Oxford. I know they get people from around the world (although usually not from the U.S. since we have so many great universities.) </p>

<p>I don't think it's a good assumption that Oxford only judges by academic criteria because their applicant pool is not as strong as HYP. I think there is just a difference in philosophy.</p>

27

<p>Except that what we do know is that mass marketing is not a factor there as it is here, with the dynamics of rankings & yields being so important. And what we do know is that there are not nearly as many unrealistic attempts, proportionally speaking, to be admitted to a small, select set of institutions. (Reduced 'frenzy factor.') We also know that there's not such a huge population there that has an 'Oxbridge or Bust' mentality. And given that the selection criteria are more predictable than here, the likelihood of 'long shots' and gambles are slimmer, since applicants need not consider whether their 'extras' will or will not be desirable or competitive to a particular college, relative to unknown applicants also applying.</p>

<p>All this information is known and discoverable.</p>

28

<p>"We also know that there's not such a huge population there that has an 'Oxbridge or Bust' mentality"</p>

<p>How do you know that?</p>

29

<p>"You," "I," or anyone knows that from reading and from common knowledge. Ask anyone who has significant knowledge about their system vs. ours, they will tell you that. The most ambitious students seek the most prestigious names (in general), as do ours. However, there's a lot of knowledge about the way admissions works, fewer measures on which to base decisions, and therefore you know going in on what criteria you will be judged. You also know that the interview will be academically focused. You have a chance to prepare for a substantive interview. However, you naturally do not know ahead of time what you will be asked -- just as with oral masters-level exams in the States. The point is, you are not likely to go through the process if you're not up to such an interview. An Oxbridge applicant tends to be very aware of the long odds & the level of competition, so there are incentives to look elsewhere protectively, at the same time. No doubt there are some very disappointed students -- just like here. But the idea of "getting in" does not have the level of obsession & fixation that it does here. That's not a secret.</p>

30

<p>Let's put it this way. My friend took Biology A-level, went to an Ivy League school and thought the introductory and intermediate biology classes were ego-boosting.</p>

31

<p>epiphany: "Here our "Elites" expect both academics and much more because they can get it."</p>

<p>I agree with most of what you say in posts 25 and 27, but here is where I disagree. If Oxford changed its admissions philosophy, then I think they would see a more diverse applicant pool. This is what happened at MIT. As MIT admissions used to mirror Caltech's philosophy, most people didn't bother applying to MIT unless they had sky-high stats. And there was less of a frenzy about who got in because their criteria were well-known. When MIT began doing its admissions like Harvard's, it started to see a more diverse applicant pool. </p>

<p>The only reason I can see why Oxford may have a less competitive applicant pool academically is because England's population is less than the U.S. As a corollary, do they favor English citizens to the same extent in admissions that American schools favor American citizens?</p>

<p>I think there is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and this causes the narrow band of applicants rather than the other way around.</p>

32

<p>British schools favor international students, actually, because by law (I think) they're not allowed to charge more than xx amount for UK citizen tuition, whereas they're given free reign over international admits.</p>

<p>Tuition for a US matriculate would be several times that of tuition for a domestic student.</p>

<p>And that's amazing, if true, about the bio A-levels because I know that AP Bio is a wash.</p>

<p>Anyone have specific curriculum or testing rubrics for A-levels (akin to Collegeboard's AP info)?</p>

33

<p>.:</a> SEAB - 2009 GCE A-Level Examination - Exam Syllabus For Private Candidates :. contains the syllabus / curriculum for the Singapore-GCE A-levels, which I think is one of the tougher ones out there. You would want to look at "H2"-level subjects though, as "H1" subjects are actually considered half an A-level.</p>

34

<p>This is making my head hurt.. H2, GCE, etc.. is there a dictionary for this stuff?</p>

<p>From looking at Math H2, it doesn't seem the stuff is more advanced... it's just that they have everything from calc to trig to stat in there. Interesting</p>

<p>How many A-levels are you allowed per year? Can you take them at any level of your high school years? I know 3 x A's is supposed to be a lot...</p>

<p>In reference to the guy who thought college bio classes were a breeze after A-levels.. I took a look at HL2 Bio and the material was not even as comprehensive as what we did in AP this year... there was more cloning, but less animal classification</p>

<p>Thanks for the info though!!</p>

35

<p>you have to consider how much smaller hte applicant pool is for oxbridge as well - england has what, 1/6 the population of the us? having so many fewer applicants competing for roughly 3-4 times as many spots as our harvard or yale have for undergraduates means that the competition will simply not be as brutal as what we have here.</p>

36

<p>@ee33ee:</p>

<p>I took these papers last November:</p>

<p>H1 General Paper (i.e. English Language / Critical Thinking + Reasoning)
H2 Mathematics
H2 Physics
H2 Chemistry
H2 Economics
H3 Essentials of Modern Physics</p>

<p>You usually need 2 years to prepare for the A-levels.</p>

37

<p>The bio syllabus you're looking at is a completely new one, which was examined for the first time in November last year. It has a disproportionate focus on life sciences as the Singapore government is trying to push more students in that direction. The old syllabus was more holistic and included more physiology, ecology, etc. I think diversity and classification has always been lacking though.</p>

<p>For A-levels you don't take different courses every semester; you take each subject for the entire 2 years and at the end there's the exam.</p>

38

<p>Also, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but you can only apply to either Oxford or Cambridge. That's probably a reason the acceptance rate is higher, unlike the Ivies, which are becoming more and more like an 8-in-1 application box set.</p>

39

<p>The origin of taking ECs into account is that around a hundred years ago Harvard Yale and Princeton got tired of having so many Jewish students that they cooked up the idea that things like leadership, athletics, and geographic diversity should factor into admissions--not just brainpower. Other colleges started following their example, and we now find that policy in just about every college in the country. See this book:</p>

<p>Amazon.com:</a> The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton: Jerome Karabel: Books</p>

40

<p>just to clarify what has already been said:
the A-level (Advanced Level) is split into two halves. the first half is called the AS-Level.
99.99% of students take the qualification in two years, with in total four exam sessions (each spring and summer).</p>

<p>@ee33ee. in theory you could take A-levels at any age. but at 16 you do the GCSE national exams. you can study either qualification privately - so each year you hear about genius 9 year olds sitting a-level maths etc, but i have never heard of anyone not taking the majority of their GCSEs at age 16 and these are almost always followed by A-levels (there are different less academic vocational qualifications too if you want to be a hairdresser or w/e). most universities specify that you must complete A-levels in no more than two years.</p>

<p>AAA is not a remarkable feat - many oxbridge applic’s get AAAA. i believe that the record is 10As taken over the two years (94% average, self taught 5 of them. this guy went to cambridge for economics, tranferred to LSE so he could work for goldman sachs whilst studying). Indeed each summer there is national outrage over how many pupils get AAA whether exams getting easier or students are getting cleverer.</p>

<p>As a result this year a NEW A* (A star) grade has been added, because there have been so many students with AAA/AAAA so the better universities can differentiate. I believe the new standard on some oxbridge courses is A*AA.</p>

<p>oh and to make things more complicated there is another qualification that oxbridge/LSE/imperial/warwick like called the AEA - advanced extension award. its like a supplement to a-levels taken only by people that are going to do well anyway. afaik. you can get a distinction, pass or fail.</p>

<p>regarding ECs. british unis do account for ECs, but perhaps not to the same extent as harvard for example(being the only US examply i know enough abot to judge). indeed the oxford and cambridge rugby teams are certainly two of the best non-professionals in the UK. the ox/cam annual rowing race is televised around the world and IIRC you get a handful of olympians each year competing, its a really good event if you ever get to watch it.
sport at univeristy here is a different kettle of fish here though. generally the best athletes in our most popular sports (football/rugby/cricket) will go on to join professional clubs or academies at 16 or 18 (or younger) and not attend university. so oxbridge aside, there is no great interest, no televised matches or 5000+ seat stadiums as the best football or rugby players are already playing professionally, but the standard is still high. sports scholarships exist in some places and facilities may be very good, especially in sports excluding the big three i mentionned. hockey, rowing etc.</p>

<p>one guy from my school scored the third highest mark in physics a-level in the country last year and was rejected from cambridge, but then again - he is a bit of a wanker, so personality must count.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www”>www</a>. the student room .com - a good uk focused site, but lots of yanks and people from all over the world there. also good if you want a nice political argument.</p>