There is no way they will give up control of the admissions process. A common guiding board perhaps, but no more.

It is over twenty years ago since I went up, and I must admit to being more than a little faintly surprised by the endless claims that applicants from government schools and their teachers are somehow “unfamiliar” with the colleges and how to apply. Please don’t get me wrong, I attended both government and independent schools in Australia, as well as an independent school in the UK before going up to BNC. I managed to find my way to a scholarship at school in the UK without ever leaving Australia, and that was before the days of the internet and electronic everything.

Since then the admissions process has been changed because it was felt the old examination system was unfair. There is far more information on colleges than I or any of my peers was able to access, and colleges are bending over backwards to encourage people to come up and look around. In this digital age I simply don’t accept that people can’t find out about prospective colleges. It is simply a matter of hopping onto the internet and downloading information, emailing admissions tutors or JCR committee members, and then forming some opinions before getting on a train or bus and going for a look around.

I am afraid the claim people don’t know what to do is a little too convenient. Now it is suggested that we strip colleges of the right to admit students to accommodate these people.

Let us be frank, the college admission system is what makes each of the colleges subtly different. It is also a system that makes it easier to accommodate applicants from the government sector who might otherwise slip below the watermark in a centralised system where numbers, and not applicants, are the priority.

Do I wish to see all this disappear because some people can’t seem to make sufficient effort or sufficient headway to look after their own interests? No I do not, nor do I believe such a change would make the slightest positive difference to these applicants’ chances of success anyway.

William O’Chee

Here is the letter that I wrote to Sir Lankester:

Dear Sir Lankester,

I am a graduate of BNC and currently serve as the President of the Oxford Alumni Association of New York.

I read with dismay about the working group on college admissions.

There is no question in my mind that there are many aspects of the University that have to change if it is to remain a first class University.

The admissions system is not one of those things.

And if it is to be changed, it should be decentralized, not centralized. Just as anyone who is exposed to enough ideas for long enough would realize that there is no monopoly on the truth, and that no-one should try to impose it, a diversity of admissions practices is likely to be far superior than any centralized one.

Diversity of admissions is part of Oxford's strength. Is is also what makes Linux a more robust operating system than Microsoft's, and what makes the Wikipedia a much more interesting, dynamic and rapidly evolving body of knowledge than the Encylopaedia Brittannica. It is this very same democratic diversity of contribution that makes the Oxford English Dictionary such a great and enduring work of scholarship.

Instead, it appears that Oxford is succumbing to pressures to enforce a dull and mediocre equality of opportunity (or even, perhaps outcome), quite possibly at the expense of diversity and excellence.

These views are my own. But I can also tell you that, in my capacity as the President of the Oxford Alumni Association, the only issue that is more likely to rile the alumni body than threatening to change admissions, would be to take away the tutorial system.

I fear that you may not be taking the views of alumni into account - which will likely cost the University when it eventually gets its act together and starts to ask seriously for alumni money. At that point, the alumni will ask why the admissions system was changed, and will be more reluctant to give.

In connection with this, I urge you to read Senator William O'Chee's comment on the Future of Oxford blog.

Sincerely, etc.

The following was his response. I hope that other readers will email him. Again, his email is:

tim.lankester@ccc.ox.ac.uk

Dear Guy,

Many thanks for your message.

As you know, the proposals in the report are no more than ideas for discussion at this stage. Some of the UK press coverage suggested that decisions had already been taken, which is definitely not the case. I am sure there will be vigorous debate in the colleges and faculties on the issues that you and others have raised over the coming few months.

May I make five points?

First, there is no suggestion in our report that admissions should be centralised in the way they are, for example, at Princeton - where a central admissions office handles admissions for all subjects. What the Working Party has suggested is that there should be assessment of all canidates in a particular subject by college tutors in that subject acting collectively. The idea would be a achieve a ranking of all candidates, based on their achievements to date, their references, their submitted written work, and their performance at interview and in other tests that subject faculties may set, so that the very best candidates, as far as is possible, are admitted to the university. This procedure is already followed by several subjects. It works well and colleges do not complain that their autonomy has been taken away. We are suggesting that this approach be adopted in all subjects. In one of our suggested models, model B, colleges would still be able "overide" the rankings if t here was a good case - eg if the college to which the candidate had applied had knowledge that the candidate had faced special family difficulties.

Secondly, candidates would still be able to state a college preference and colleges would have the first choice of candidates who had given a particular college as their first choice. College choice and college identity are indeed very important. Our proposals do not compromise these key features of Oxford, but they do attempt to move the admissions system closer to one of the university's three stated admissions objectives - that college choice should not affect the chances of being admitted (see paragraph 1 of the report).

Thirdly, the proposals do not in any way mean "taking away the tutorial system". The tutorial system is, and will remain, an absolutely key feature of the Oxford undergraduate experience, and adding a greater element of collective assessment of candidates when they apply to Oxford would not change this.

Fourthly, although we were of course aware of the government's views on Oxford (and Cambridge) admissions, I can say unreservedly that the proposals we have put forward owe nothing to government pressure. They are motivated solely by a desire to further improve our ability to select the most able students, and to have in place an admissions system that is simpler administratively (the current diversity of admissions practices in different subjects is imposing a huge burden on colleges) and better understood by candidates from all educational and socio-economic backgrounds.

Finally, the colleges and the university will certainly be listening to the views of alumni as the report is debated. It goes without saying that their support over the coming years will be crucial.

With best wishes,

Tim Lankester

Oxford is, unfortuntely a chaotic place where one end does not know what is happening at the other end (2006). I fully support the more centralized admission procedure. If you are a good and able student, you have the equal chance of getting in whether you are interviewed by someone in your future college [whom you never met] or someone at a general admission board [whom you never met]. Hence a more efficient and less volatile [same board sees everyone] outcome is achieved that is equally fair to the good students. There is no added benefit from wasting money on 30-odd separate admission offices, admission days and admission materials. Only if Oxford had any money to waste...