Well, first of all a big thank you to Dr John Green for the blogs he’s written for us over the last three weeks, they’ve been a great insight. There’s certainly plenty to think about for prospective university applicants, their parents and teachers. The relevance of his reflections for those considering applying to Oxbridge are particularly striking.The reports our users generate are specifically designed to help students make the right decisions about what college and course to apply to at Oxford and Cambridge, but that means more than just the age of the college or the male:female ratio on a course! We have full admissions and historical data on EVERY course and EVERY college at both Oxford and Cambridge for the last 10 years. No other site holds all this data in one place and no one else has collated the data in a way that allows users to make meaningful comparisons and examine trends over time, all tailored to their specific choice of metrics.So, how can all that help you, in light of the anticipated changes that Dr Green has outlined how should you create your reports to bear those changes in mind? One of the most striking messages from the blogs was that every student for every degree, regardless of ability, needs to be prepared to fight for their university place and know its value. Let’s look at these two issues in detail:Restricted funding to universities results in reduced places for students -As Dr Green pointed out the number of students achieving top grades at A level is now close to 5 times the number of places at Oxford and Cambridge universities. The level of competition for places is higher than ever before and it stands to reason that the greatest increase in competition will be for the most popular colleges and courses. But our data has thrown up some interesting revelations. For instance, in 2009 only 22% of applicants for Oxford’s joint Classics and English degree gained a place, whereas nearly double that amount gained places on the Classics and Modern Languages or the stand-alone Classics courses (at 48% and 41% respectively). Similarly less than 30% of maths applicants to Christ's, Downing, Magdalene, Pembroke and Robinson eventually gained a place at Cambridge, whereas over 50% got into St Catharine’s, Corpus Christi or Selwyn (or elsewhere via the pooling system). Have you considered looking at related degrees to your current chosen subject or colleges you’d not thought of before? There are plenty of examples of this variance between related degree subjects and colleges but the data the universities present to applicants makes them difficult to see.Fees of £25,000 per year at Oxford and Cambridge are not out of scope within the next few years -One of the near-inevitabilities that Dr Green highlighted is that all students will be paying more for their university education. At Oxford and Cambridge where small tuition groups and close supervision are the norm it is expected that fees will be even higher than the rising costs across the board. As fees rise so does the level of your investment. Students (and, indeed, their parents!) need to be sure that the money they are investing is going to pay dividends. Obviously, an Oxbridge student will be a diligent student, otherwise they wouldn’t be there in the first place but is that all that goes in to achieving a top-class degree? According to our data, last year 87% of Oxford physics students graduated with a 2:1, whilst only about 77% of engineering students achieved the same level of distinction. As Dr Green pointed out, places on graduate employment schemes are getting tougher too - would the knowledge that the degree you’re thinking about applying for is less likely to result in one of the top tier grades that they look for alter your decision to invest?These are just two examples of the way our data can help inform your application to Oxbridge, there are many, many more - limited only by how you chose to compare the data we hold. The decision of where to go to university and what to study is one of the most important in a young person’s life and we at myOxbridgeChoice think that students deserve to be equipped with all the information to make the best decision possible.
As student numbers increase so will the number of graduates competing for employment. This year the government has made an additional 10,000 university places available, meaning record numbers of graduates as those students complete their studies. As the cost of study increases students and parents are increasingly focused on the likely return on that investment. Does a good degree from a good university still represent value for money? And how will university and school assessment methods be forced to evolve to meet the demands of consumer?
There is an accepted premise that employers only look at students with an upper second degree or above, although it is worth noting that this is largely unproven and constantly shifting in today’s graduate market. However, the premise itself is misleading - can anyone justify using the same criterion to filter students from a top university together with those from a university with much lower entrance requirements? It is clear that a measure of the value-add which universities are achieving should be taken into account by employers – but is it?. The concept of a value add is well known in school measurements but has never developed across the HE sector: instead prejudices - negative and positive - come into play.
That apart, do students choose their course and university with an understanding of the outcomes of that course? Usually not – and yet there are huge differences between universities and even between courses even at the same university. At Oxford and Cambridge in subjects such as History and Law, over 95% of students gain a 2/1 or better degree whilst in science subjects such as engineering only about 65% achieve the same level of distinction. And a higher percentage of students achieve a 1st or 2/1 at Oxford and Cambridge than at any other UK university.
The net result is that if differential fees are introduced and as the graduate market continues it’s current trend towards saturation then students will naturally wish to evaluate the cost benefit of universities and the courses they offer. They will need information to achieve that, where information currently either is not collected, is held confidentially or is not available in one coherent place.
There is an underlying assumption that the current admissions assessment regime needs changing – and that assumption has been accepted for many years. And so we tinker with the system, introduce modular exams, retakes, AS, A*. We set up reviews (most recently the Sykes review). And on every occasion, individual bodies lobby. Most recently proposals by the coalition to scrap the modular A-level system in order to 'revive the art of deep thought' were held back by claims that to do so would seriously damage the uptake of maths at A level. Individual universities use their power to criticise what is planned (Cambridge, for example, criticised the aforementioned proposed changes to A-levels) but do not play a participative role in an integrated debate. We have a diverging exam system with many schools now starting to take IGCSE rather than GCSE and IB instead of A levels – thus introducing complexities not necessarily understood by the university admissions system.
And who misses out in this constantly changing scenario? The student and, critically, the uninformed student.
During the last government, Lord Browne was tasked with carrying out a review of how tuition fees should be modified as the cap was lifted – when the £3,000 tuition fee was introduced by the last government, a concession was that it would rise by no more than inflation and that it would be capped for five years. A change of government and the influence of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition means that all bets are off for how the fee system will evolve in the wake of Lord Browne’s review. What are the likely outcomes of the review and how can we expect the government to respond? And what is the likely impact on students and universities?
Lord Browne’s review was supported by all parties and he began his work under the previous government. Until the new coalition came in it was speculated that fees would be raised (and a figure of £7,000 was widely heralded). However, it is also expected that there will be some allowances for differentiation by university - universities have differing teacher to student ratios and styles of tuition - and by course. This fed from ongoing student unrest about the fact that fees are the same for arts courses as, for example, clinical medicine courses though their operating costs are wildly different.
Recently, a surprise intervention from the Vince Cable suggested the abolition of fees altogether and directed Lord Browne to consider a graduate tax, whereby graduates would pay a tax proportional to their earnings throughout their life. It is now seemingly supported by David Willetts and David Cameron and Lord Browne has been directed to consider it seriously, although there is some feeling that this concession to Liberal Democrat policy could diminish after the summer recess. However, what this clearly shows is that there are significant funding gaps and there is no clear and fair way forward to meet that gap.
Running parallel to this, is the possibility of privatisation of universities. It is no secret that the top UK universities have long been examining the implications of freeing themselves from the government constraints of quality assessment regimes and reporting. They have made no secret of the fact that they have also evaluated the cost of doing so - the loss of quality-assessed elements of grant funding and a dependence on government funds channelled through metric based criteria are an unwelcome intrusion on universities’ freedom to mange their own affairs and one which they would gladly be rid of. For the top universities government funding now represents possibly 15% or less of their income - therefore they see the opportunity of being self-funding and independent.
Such a move would change the whole structure of UK higher education and make it similar to the US, creating a “premier league” of exclusive, highly selective universities similar to the Ivy League. Top universities would then be free to charge fees to meet their chosen market. Ivy League universities have sufficient endowment funds to ensure that all applicants, irrespective of income can be admitted - for example 50% of students at Harvard are funded by endowment bursaries. However, the UK is nowhere near having the funds to achieve such support - so if the top universities were to privatise the effect on the socio-economic student profile could be very damaging.
It is, I believe, inevitable that fees will continue to be charged to students (either contemporaneously with their study or as a post-study tax), albeit there will be some loan/deferment system in order to protect fair access. It seems inevitable that those fees will be variable and that students at “better” universities will be charged greater fees – probably akin to levels in the US. Thus fee levels of £25,000 per year at some of the better universities are not out of scope within the next few years.
During the last government, Lord Browne was tasked with carrying out a review of how tuition fees should be modified as the cap was lifted – when the £3,000 tuition fee was introduced by the last government, a concession was that it would rise by no more than inflation and that it would be capped for five years. A change of government and the influence of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition means that all bets are off for how the fee system will evolve in the wake of Lord Browne’s review. What are the likely outcomes of the review and how can we expect the government to respond? And what is the likely impact on students and universities?
Lord Browne’s review was supported by all parties and he began his work under the previous government. Until the new coalition came in it was speculated that fees would be raised (and a figure of £7,000 was widely heralded). However, it is also expected that there will be some allowances for differentiation by university - universities have differing teacher to student ratios and styles of tuition - and by course. This fed from ongoing student unrest about the fact that fees are the same for arts courses as, for example, clinical medicine courses though their operating costs are wildly different.
Recently, a surprise intervention from the Vince Cable suggested the abolition of fees altogether and directed Lord Browne to consider a graduate tax, whereby graduates would pay a tax proportional to their earnings throughout their life. It is now seemingly supported by David Willetts and David Cameron and Lord Browne has been directed to consider it seriously, although there is some feeling that this concession to Liberal Democrat policy could diminish after the summer recess. However, what this clearly shoes is that there are significant funding gaps and there is no clear and fair way forward to meet that gap.
Running parallel to this, is the possibility of privatisation of universities. It is no secret that the top UK universities have long been examining the implications of freeing themselves from the government constraints of quality assessment regimes and reporting. They have made no secret of the fact that they have also evaluated the cost of doing so - the loss of quality-assessed elements of grant funding and a dependence on government funds channelled through metric based criteria are an unwelcome intrusion on universities freedom to mange their own affairs and one which they would gladly be rid of. For the top universities government funding now represents possibly 15% or less of their income - therefore they see the opportunity of being self-funding and independent.
Such a move would change the whole structure of UK higher education and make it similar to the US, creating a “premier league” of exclusive, highly selective universities similar to the Ivy League. Top universities would then be free to charge fees to meet their chosen market. Ivy League universities have sufficient endowment funds to ensure that all applicants, irrespective of income can be admitted - for example 50% of students at Harvard are funded by endowment bursaries. However, the UK is nowhere near having the funds to achieve such support - so if the top universities were to privatise the effect on the socio-economic student profile could be very damaging.
It is, I believe, inevitable that fees will continue to be charged to students (either contemporaneously with their study or as a post-study tax), albeit there will be some loan/deferment system in order to protect fair access. It seems inevitable that those fees will be variable and that students at “better” universities will be charged greater fees – probably akin to levels in the US. Thus fee levels of £25,000 per year at some of the better universities are not out of scope within the next few years.
There is no question that competition for university places is fierce and getting fiercer - this year 660,000 students applied for UK university places, up 12% on last year’s record breaking figure. The number of undergraduate places has increased but David Willetts, the Universities Minister has warned that it will still not be enough to stop high-achieving students missing out on places. When a place at university becomes a lottery for top students, parents and students will lose faith in an education system which fails to reward effort and the crisis in university funding will be matched by a crisis in confidence in the education system. How did we get here? ‘And how are the coalition government going to undo the crisis in British universities? And what does this mean for the Oxbridge applicant? The Labour government set a target that 50% of 18-year-olds should enter university. No-one ever explained why that was deemed a sensible, let alone an achievable, target but as the number has crept upwards (it is currently just above 40%) there has been a related devaluation in the value of a degree and a growth of expectation that anyone should have the option of a university place, almost irrespective of ability. With headlines like "250,000 to miss university places this year" the media can at times seem intent on portraying university as a right of passage, not necessarily earned through ability. Recently the new Universities Minister, David Willetts has launched the idea that people will not necessarily undertake their university education at the age of 18 to 21 but could embark on it at any time up until they are 30. One can see that this might defuse the expectation of an 18 year old and help to re-establish the idea of a university education as being part of the skill-set for a working professional life. However, one wonders whether the idea doesn’t also represent a much-needed (in terms of the government’s coffers) method of restricting university places, cutting funding to the universities (mature students are more likely to enrol on part-time courses) and generally curtailing the currently overstretched market.Whilst there is a hierarchy of universities with Oxbridge and other high-status universities providing overall higher standards of education and teaching, as evidenced in the league tables and by student surveys, these universities are increasingly finding it hard to select the best students given the qualification framework which has developed. Changes since 1992, including the 1992 creation of an integrated polytechnic-university sector and the use of GCSE, A and AS level examinations to determine student ability, have proved challenging. One might ask how a single exam system can possible be used to accurately determine the ability of the 50% of 18-year-olds whom the previous government determined should have access to university? Alongside this, the examining bodies have agglomerated and become commercial entities charged with delivering profits to their shareholders - in many cases the universities themselves. In fulfilling this pressure they have inevitably made the examination system more profitable through modular exams, retakes etc – all of which increases their income but makes it harder to judge the quality of the results. The number of students achieving top grades at A level is close to 5 times the number of places at Oxford and Cambridge universities. Inevitably and understandably top universities have introduced A* requirements and their own tests (BMAT, Law, TSA etc). Whilst such additional criteria may be good differentiators they also make the examining system more complex. And in being more complex they become more inaccessible to those who are from under-privileged backgrounds. Once again we are beginning to move towards an imbalanced socio-economic profile of university applicants.All universities claim success in providing a needs-blind admissions process. Indeed, large sums of money have been allocated by government, philanthropists and by universities themselves in order to provide bursaries and support to ensure that education is accessible to all. However, in the face of all this support, very little quantitative evidence-based evaluation has been undertaken to establish universities’ claims. Of the many millions spent by both Oxford and Cambridge on “Access initiatives”, it is hard to see just from the small changes in entries and applications from state schools whether this money has been well spent. We still do not know whether state school pupils stand a lesser, equal or even greater chance of getting a place at Oxbridge than their fee-paying peers. And much of the money to widen access has been spent in a pepper-shot, unfocused way too – many Colleges focus on just one geographical area in which to promote applications, but within those geographical areas there are often huge disparities. Few of the universities or colleges use freely available public data to evaluate who they should target to achieve change in their access statistics, let alone how to evaluate the success of initiatives.
MyOxbridgeChoice opened for business just under a month after the formation of the coalition government but even before then we all knew that great changes were afoot in the way university funding would be operated, the exams system and the structure of British universities. The £3,200+ tuition fee, set by the previous government, and the associated terms that it would rise by no more than inflation, came up for review by Lord Browne in November 2009. The outcome of this review, despite all-party support, was always going to be contentious and with the advent of Vince Cable’s proposals for a graduate tax these are interesting times in the world of student finance and university admissions.Whatever the results of Lord Browne’s review it seems guaranteed that university students and their families will continue to invest greatly as a result of the decisions they make about when and where they go to university and what they study. One of the reasons we do what we do at MyOxbridgeChoice is because we believe that significant investment warrants thorough research - pupils and parents don’t want to make financially life-changing decisions without easy access to all the information they need to make sure those decisions are right for them and likely to pay dividends in their futures.With this in mind, Dr John Green, currently Chief Co-ordinating Officer at Imperial College London and previously Senior Tutor of a Cambridge College (and one of our founders) has agreed to do three guest blogs for us to give an insider’s view on the background to the changes we might see to the universities system, fees, graduate employment statistics and examinations. He’ll also examine the implications of those changes and the impact they may have on students and parents.As always we are grateful for your feedback - we’d like to hear what students, parents, teachers and tutors think about what’s happening and how it has affected the decisions you’ve made or counselled. We’re especially interested to hear from previous Oxbridge applicants who’ve been rejected despite having the requisite grades or anyone who has considered studying overseas in order to avoid either the fees associated with British universities or the growing competition for places.
myOxbridgeChoice.com, the definitive resource to help Oxford and Cambridge applicants make informed decisions when choosing their university, college and course was launched on Thursday 3rd June 2010.
On Sunday 20th June an article highlighting some of the discrepancies in admissions data that our system has exposed was published in the Sunday Times.
Since then the concept of myOxbridgeChoice and what we do has stimulated a lively debate about the use of data to help applicants when having to make difficult decisions about the choice of course and college at Oxford and Cambridge.
John Green, a former senior tutor at Queens’ College, Cambridge and founder of myChoice Data Systems Ltd which developed myOxbridgeChoice, said, “We’d like to make it clear that myOxbridgeChoice has never claimed to do anything but present data that is already in the public domain. The site’s unique features enable comparisons to be made between courses and colleges at Oxford and Cambridge over 10 years of carefully researched admissions data. Sources are clearly referenced throughout and we see our service as a significant break-through for prospective students who simply don’t have the time or the inclination to trawl through countless websites, prospectuses or editions of the Gazette or Reporter.”
Dr Green is also keen that myOxbridgeChoice be as useful and relevant as possible and does not want to be at odds with the universities’ admissions offices. He says, “We acknowledge that Oxford and Cambridge have gone much further than any other publicly funded university in publishing admissions data. We do not wish their openness to be misconstrued and believe that many of the behaviours demonstrated are apparent in other universities. We will be contacting admissions tutors at Oxford and Cambridge over the next few weeks and asking them to give us feedback on our service.”
Dr Green answers academics who have called our service “a scam” saying that the real scam is that universities take money from the taxpayer and want to increase fees without being in anyway publicly accountable for the services they provide. “myOxbridgeChoice is showing the way in which university admissions data may be presented in ways which are informative to the public, revealing systematic behaviours in admissions systems which may demonstrate unfairness. The concept behind myOxbridgeChoice is very simple and could be developed a lot further to cover all courses and universities. As the cost of a university education is set to increase dramatically the public will want to know what they are getting for their money. myOxbridgeChoice is not creating data. It shows what can be done with publicly available data.
“If such services are to be useful and relevant it is important that we find out what information people would find useful. We are committed to developing myOxbridgeChoice and we hope that Oxford and Cambridge universities lead the way for all UK universities in making such data available.”
We'll be sure to keep you updated on the responses we receive from the admissions tutors as they come in.
myOxbridgeChoice is venturing into the world of blogging. Since we opened for business a few weeks ago we've stimulated some lively debate on the use of admissions data in preparing university applications.We think those discussions are important so we will be using this space to let you know what we think, discuss anything relevant in the news and, to open up the floor to your feedback. Stay tuned for updates, news and any other developments.
