Oxford change selection process

**sunny** · 04-07-2005, 10:33 AM

Everything above highlights the problem with a system where individual colleges are free to regulate their own admissions but pool candidates are taken from different ones. I'm not sure, but I think that the process of admissions in Cambridge is centralised which would make certainly seem like a way of making the process fairer. Sorry to hear about your experiences. I'm not surprised you feel cheated.

**Scrutiny** · 04-07-2005, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by sunny

Everything above highlights the problem with a system where individual colleges are free to regulate their own admissions but pool candidates are taken from different ones. I'm not sure, but I think that the process of admissions in Cambridge is centralised which would make certainly seem like a way of making the process fairer. Sorry to hear about your experiences. I'm not surprised you feel cheated.

Thanks, Sunny. You are right the process in Cambridge does seem fairer. However, it's not centralised as such, just 'more centralised' (and the process is different) because fewer colleges are involved.....three in the GEM programme (Hughes Hall, Lucy Cavendish, and Wolfson).....and three in the other possible route for graduates...that of 'Affiliated-entry medicine' (Lucy Cavendish, St. Edmund's, and Wolfson - who make up the 'Group IV Colleges'). Obviously, in each case female applicants have the choice of one of three colleges whilst male applicants only have the choice of one of two colleges.

For GEM, Cambridge also have taken the step of issuing one form to the Colleges for the use in grading application.....each college will shortlist it's own interviewees, but with 'some' consultation between the colleges - which largely amounts to some applications from female candidates who would have been otherwise not shortlisted by Hughes Hall and Wolfson being sent to Lucy Cavendish for a second chance of being shortlisted even though their score was not sufficient to have been shortlisted by the other two colleges.

Cambridge have (finally) taken the sensible step of not requiring highly qualified candidates to sit the BMAT if they meet the pre-medical requirements. Unlike Oxford, Cambridge do not automatically exclude highly qualified candidates on the basis of an entrance test, and unlike Oxford, do take into account ALL parts of the application when initially ranking candidates for interview.

However, there are still some important considerations for graduates applying to Cambridge.

Firstly, despite having been judged to have met the pre-medical requirements by virtue of degree and/or advanced degree(s) subjects, where the standard-entry A/AS/GCSE might not have all been met, those candidates judged to have met the pre-entry requirements with equivalent qualifications will be disadvantaged in the selection process to shortlist for interview, as scores are attached to A/AS/GCSE but not to the equivalent qualifications that have been determined to meet the A/AS/GCSE pre-medical requirements. This is clearly a major consideration for graduate candidates, as despite having met the pre-medical requirements, such candidates will then be automatically penalised in the scoring system.

Secondly, for those graduates considering 'Affiliated-entry' medicine who are from a socio-economically disadvantaged background, their choice of college will be reduced to either Lucy Cavendish or Wolfson (so two choices for female and only one choice of college for male).

This is because St. Edmund's College refuses to take any student to read affiliated-entry medicine who is IN ANY WAY dependent upon student support funding (i.e. student loans and/or NHS bursaries), and require their applicants to present a 'personal financial guarantee' of £50K to the College in order to be shortlisted for interview. According to St. Edmund's, poor students represent a 'financial risk' to the College, and have in the past removed a candidate from the selection process because the candidate could not to cough up £50K (the candidate could meet all the costs of the course - but only with the assistance of student loans and NHS bursary, which St. Edmund's refused to recognise). The College and the University then lied to the candidate about the College having removed the application from the process, and refuse to address the issue of St. Edmund's discriminating against candidates from poor backgrounds....but that's another matter!

So, there are several factors that graduates really should consider before applying to Cambridge.....but as you rightly pointed out it is not surprising that I feel cheated by Oxford....because there is no other word for what happened (and happens) at Somerville College.

**munafiq** · 04-07-2005, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Scrutiny

So, there are several factors that graduates really should consider before applying to Cambridge.....but as you rightly pointed out it is not surprising that I feel cheated by Oxford....because there is no other word for what happened (and happens) at Somerville College.

So have Somerville told you why they seemingly reject stronger candidates who apply there first choice and favour second choice candidates?

**Scrutiny** · 04-07-2005, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by munafiq

So have Somerville told you why they seemingly reject stronger candidates who apply there first choice and favour second choice candidates?

Obviously not. Also not surprisingly, Somerville have also not stated why they use one process to reject some candidates but then do not use the same process for candidates who are then offered places. There is much that Somerville have not told people.

**Scrutiny** · 08-07-2005, 12:26 PM

Of course, you can ask them yourself if you are very interested.

Best people to ask are the Somerville College Admissions Tutor, Dr. Matthew Wood (matthew.wood@some.ox.ac.uk), and also Professor Angela Vincent (angela.vincent@some.ox.ac.uk) who assists Dr. Wood in the use an unauthorised, non-standardised, independent admissions 'process' to reject some candidates (even those who have fulfilled the 'published official selection criteria) whilst admitting favoured candidates without having applied the same criteria.

I am sure they will be more than willing to explain why they use independent marking criteria not used by ANY other college admitting for GEM, and also why they only use this independent marking criteria to reject some applicants whilst not applying the same criteria to other applicants who are offered places.