The Official "Oxford or Cambridge?" Thread

I second that too.

Know a few people (through someone else, but met them a lot) from Exeter, one from Cambridge and a two from Oxford.

The Cambridge girl is just really smart.
The Oxford people are both smart but both went to private schools.
The Exeter group are mostly just rich kids and very rah-ish, but the thing is, they're super nice people, it's just the way they talk.

The Cambridge girl was smarter than the Oxford guys?

On the Cambridge prospectus it states that there are 5 applicants per place, but I can't find the Oxford statistics.

it really depends on time, number of applicants, rate of A* grades. But in theory Cantab is harder since they require A*AA for all of their courses. Oxford requirements are AAA (im sure it hasnt cahnged), however if a student achieved A*AA or was predicted that then you can imagine they would apply for oxford since they would have a better chance then someone with AAA, rather than risk it all for cambridge who's base rate is A*AA,,,,,

Either way the oppertunities are probable, equal and exchangable. if you get a Congratulary First or a First from Oxford or a Starred First from cambrdige then you will be fine. (even if you come out of oxford with 2nd or 3rd you will be fine; look at David Dimbelby, Imran Khan cricket player and plicitician and Nick Griffin the spoon.) you do well at either then you could go to the other for post grad stuff e.g Oxon's BCL or Cantabs LLM or decide to go to the US.


in summary if you will struggle or just about get A* AA for definate then its just a matter of picking between the two and if you get AAA then Oxford is your only chance. And remember you can go into the other for post graduate with good grades from the degree. Do not discount LSE, UCL, KCL; people have many dilemas when the reality hits and the lodnon unis give them a place.


either way good grades means good oppertunities, you'll do well


honestly

You don't need a starred first from Cambridge to get a job or be successful. In many years, no one gets a starred first at all. Plenty of people get a decent job with a 2:i. A third won't cut it, and a 2:ii probably won't, either.

Also, an A*AA predicted student isn't necessarily any more likely to get into Oxford. If Oxford interview more A*AA candidates, then perhaps. But the interview is going to matter a lot more than whether a candidate is predicted A*AA or AAA.

I saw a graph produced by the Director of Undergraduate Admissions which showed the AS average UMS that people achieved when they were offered a place and it ranged from 85 to 100, with some way below that (due to special circumstances).

This was for engineering, however, so I don't know if it's true for other subjects.

Not at A2, you only need A*AA. The 90% is just a guideline, people get in with more and people get in with less. 85%+ is usually seen as good, so I'd say you're well placed to apply. They usually consider your top three, and you have 2 over 90% which is good. Maybe consider applying to Downing, they promise interviews to anyone with an 85% average over their top three subjects.

Where has this perceived over-emphasis of GCSEs come from? Just because Oxford don't see UMS scores does not automatically mean it is a GCSE Nazi...
Oxford uses many aptitude tests and submitted work to distinguish between AAAAA AS level candidates as well as GCSEs. In your case, you will have to sit the TSA which will cut away around 2/3 of the applicants before interview.

I don't think Oxford would be silly enough to discount an applicant with good AS grades and a TSA because of a piddling matter such as an A at GCSE.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that GCSE economics is anything like degree level economics. Not even A level economics is a required subject because it's not very qualitative...

In short: Go for it! Don't let misconceptions hold you back.

Your icon is Trinity College, Oxford's crest isn't it?