What made the difference?

My daughter applied to Fitz and didn't get an offer :frown:

I was just wondering, of the people who did get an offer, if they had any recommendations or thoughts as to what tipped the balance for them to get an offer?

I know my daughter's school suggested she tried all the Oxbridge Applications tutoring stuff - http://www.oxbridgeapplications.com/ . However, we thought it wouldn't offer any real help and would generally be a bit of a waste of time and money. We thought they could probably tell who had been coached and that the main thing was for her to just be herslf. As she didn't get an offer, we are now unsure whether that was a good plan. So we wondered if there was any correlation between those who did and did not get an offer and those who did and did not use this kind of service?

We also wondered about people who got more than 90% overall in the AS exams for their A2 subjects. For example, did those who got an offer tend to get more than 90% (A*) in their chosen degree subject at AS? Did those that got an offer tend to have several of their subjects at >90% at AS?

Finally, we wondered about the school predicted grades. I know state schools were told not to predict A* grades - but then UCAS put it in as an option for prediction. So I wondered if those who had A* grades predicted were more likely to get an offer regardless of their module percentages?

Or if anyone had any other thoughts or recommendations as to what they think tipped the balance for them?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

PeeWeeDan

To be honest, luck. Presumably she got to the interview stage... and at that point it's a matter of having a good day or a bad day. It's never foolproof. There is a correlation between the rate of success and the combined UMS scores, but it's not too strong a correlation. At the end of the day the deciding factor was probably performance at interview. I doubt any of those tutoring things would actually have provided anything else. I'm sorry about your daughter, has she considered reapplying?

Also A* predictions are being ignored by Cambridge this year, as schools simply won't be able to accurately predict them with new syllabuses and a new grade.

Reply 2

bb193

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, she got an interview and seemed fairly happy about it afterwards.

I don't honestly know if she is considering reapplying. I'm not sure it is something I would suggest or even encourage, but if she gets really good grades, I guess she might come to that conclusion. We did loads of other open days too, and although she has a couple of other offers (York & Southampton), she was really impressed by Warwick - if she gets a decent offer from there, I think it's likely that is where she will go.

Both my wife (Fitz, 81) and I (Catz, '79) went there. My wife applied twice and got in second time through the pool. I always teased her that she just scraped through - although she got a better degree than me (if Geography can ever be better than Nat Sci). So my wife is very much of the opinion that if you think it is the right place for you and are determined enough, you should have another go.

I suppose the possibility of reapplying was one of the reasons I asked the question. I also have 2 younger daughters, and so I thought it was worth asking the question.

The one area where I think I missed out was checking colleges intake. Fitz seemed a better choice than Catz - it seemed so friendly and supportive, and beign quite a long way out, comparatively unknown and away from the centre, and quite male dominated, maybe gets fewer female applicants. After she put her application in, I found the intake sheets for History - http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/statistics/docs/hist.doc . If I read it right, for History, over the past few years, they take the majority of people from the pool rather than those that directly applied to them, and nobody takes anyone that they have pooled. I'm probably over thinking this, but I might have given slightly different advice if I'd seen this before.

I know there is a huge slice of luck involved here (after all, I got in!) but I just wondered if there might be something else that I could learn from, to try to offer better advice next time to my daughters.

Reply 3

twinsforever

I would second PeeWeeDan's opinion on this. I think luck definitely plays apart- what questions they ask you, which topics they ask you and how stressed you were in the situation- all things that are very hard to control. It could have been the interview performance but then some people have good interviews and still get rejected so it could be a combination of grades and interview. It also depends on the competition. In the end if you want feedback, I think you can ask for it although she wont get it until all the pooling is finished I have heard.

Reply 4

emilY?

Firstly I'd definitely not worry about the decision you made regarding "Oxbridge Applications". Here is a quote from a student newspaper last year:

"Cambridge University sided with CUSU, saying "We do NOT support or encourage any of these commercial enterprises. None of these companies has access to any information that is not already readily available free of charge."

Dr Geoff Parks, Director of Admissions, said "As these companies aren't doing anything illegal it is difficult for the university to make any statements stronger than the official one." However, he added that "We would welcome the sort of website disclaimer called for in the CUSU motion. The resources available to applicants from the Cambridge Admissions Office, Colleges and CUSU themselves have never been better."

Admissions tutors try to gain a kind of "whole picture" of an applicant - so I wouldn't say there is any one reason why many candidates are rejected. Its a balance between all the aspects of an application. (Unless there's something very very obviously sticking out like genuinely awful exam results or something). Its very difficult to correlate individual aspects of an application directly with whether a candidate is made an offer - your daughter could request feedback about her application which may or may not highlight particular things.

There's always an element of luck and there are plenty of capable people who don't get in.
But university is what you make of it and she'll have a great time wherever she ends up.

Reply 5

bb193

Sorry - I replied earlier, but it seems to have got lost - I'm not really used to forums where posts go through a 'censoring' process. If I end up with a double post, please forgive the newbie!

Thanks for all the replies.

Yes, she got an interview and seemed fairly happy about it afterwards.

I don't honestly know if she is considering reapplying. I'm not sure it is something I would suggest or even encourage, but if she gets really good grades, I guess she might come to that conclusion herself. We did loads of other open days too, and although she has a couple of other offers (York & Southampton), she was really impressed by Warwick - if she gets a decent offer from there, I think it's likely that is where she will go.

Both my wife (Fitz, 81) and I (Catz, '79) came to Cambridge. My wife applied twice and got in second time through the pool. I always teased her that she just scraped through - although she got a better degree than me (if Geography can ever be better than Nat Sci). So my wife is very much of the opinion that if you think it is the right place for you and are determined enough, you should have another go.

I suppose the possibility of reapplying was one of the reasons I asked the question. I also have 2 younger daughters, and so I thought it was worth asking the question for them, if they are ever interested.

The one area where I think I missed out was checking colleges intake. Fitz seemed a better choice than Catz - it seemed so friendly and supportive, and beign quite a long way out, comparatively unknown and away from the centre, and quite male dominated, maybe gets fewer female applicants. After she put her application in, I found the intake sheets for History - http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/statistics/docs/hist.doc . If I read it right, for History, over the past few years, they take the majority of people from the pool rather than those that directly applied to them, and nobody takes anyone that they have pooled. I'm probably over thinking this, but I might have given slightly different advice if I'd seen this before.

I know there is a huge slice of luck involved here (after all, I got in!) but I just wondered if there might be something else that I could learn from, to try to offer better advice next time to my daughters.

Reply 6

twinsforever

I think the best advice that I was given was to always keep talking! Always say what you are thinking, even if you think it is stupid because it shows your thought process and some of what they are trying to determine is if you are comfortable with being taught in a tutorial system as well. Thats my two cents. Make of it what you will.

Reply 7

bb193

Thanks for all that advice - it looks really good (by that, I guess I mean it aligns with what my daughter did first time round, and our thoughts about 'what next'). We certainly understood the quality of the entrants, the likely result of failure and the excellent opportunities elsewhere - this was my first post to TSR - http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=23072695

I was interested in your comment 'apply to a different college so that you are seen by a fresh set of eyes. If you really want to apply to the same college you can but Cambridge themselves advise applying elsewhere the second time.' Obviously, in the unlikely event that she does reapply (she didn't get pooled either), Catz is a really good option (as indeed are all the other colleges). I just hadn't seen anywhere Cambs view on applying to another college second time round - you can't point me to where they say that, can you?

Thanks again
Eric

Reply 8

Azer

Hi Eric,

first off let me say that I'm impressed by
the amount of thought and effort you are putting into this on behalf of your daughter.

My take on the matter is that there are several seperate ways into Cambridge. The most obvious is being simply outstanding academically, and convincing of your
superiority in this way. Another, the one I presumably got in under, would be by force of personality, persuading the tutor that you are a student they should like very much to teach, perhaps in spite of poor grades (I had just a*aabbcd at gcse). A third would be by shameless luck, or perhaps through connections (not an accusation, but admissions tutors are every bit as human as the rest of us).

My recommendation to your daughter is to take a gap year and reapply. During this year she can take her time to develop one of the approaches I mentioned. Even if she does not get in, a succesful gap year works wonders for body and soul, and it is possible to get so much more out of university this way by means of maturity.

Hope that helped.

Reply 9

jjarvis

Azer

Hi Eric,
Another, the one I presumably got in under, would be by force of personality, persuading the tutor that you are a student they should like very much to teach, perhaps in spite of poor grades (I had just a*aabbcd at gcse).
My recommendation to your daughter is to take a gap year and reapply. During this year she can take her time to develop one of the approaches I mentioned. Even if she does not get in, a succesful gap year works wonders for body and soul, and it is possible to get so much more out of university this way by means of maturity.

Hope that helped.

bb193

Hi Eric,

I think Azer is right on the money with this. I think I got an offer because I gave the impression that I would be an interesting student to teach. I felt I had a rapport with the interviewers, in particular with the director of studies for law. Obviously you can't get in with disastrous marks, but the number of people who get rejected with straight A*s at GCSE and predicted A*s at A level suggests there's more to getting in than that. A gap year might help your daughter strengthen other aspects of her application.

I think that your daughter could probably be a stronger applicant after a gap year. If she gets excellent grades, that clearly stands in her favour. If she travels or works, she might get better at talking to people she doesn't know. It might also be worth some practise talking about her subject. Finally, a gap year offers time to read more widely, or to find some relevant voluntary/work experience, or an internship. I say this based more on instinct and from time looking at their website than anything else.

That said, I know it is possible to get a great education and have a terrific time at other universities. I was rejected at Oxford when I applied for PPE as a first-degree student (and, indeed, when I applied for law as a senior-status student.) I've loved Edinburgh, and it's been a better experience, I think, than Oxford would have been in some ways. I know you already know this, but I think it bears repeating. If nothing else, it's yet another anecdote of a happy Oxbridge reject!

Best of luck to you and your daughter,

John

Reply 10

_tiggy_

I got an offer this year from St John's, but as you can see, it's a very tough one! I think your daughter probably did all the right things and I'm sure it's not all that helpful to take tuition etc., since much of the interview is based on how you perform on that particular day. It could perhaps be that she just didn't make a connection with the interviewer.

Personally, my grades aren't all that outstanding (that's probably the reason for the terms of my offer) so I would say that it's possible to impress in other ways.

I would also add that my own feelings were that Cambridge was (and still is) not the be-all and end-all and that other universities can work out just as well. I know that if I hadn't been made an offer, I would have been disappointed, but moved on and hopefully been happy with my other applications. I suppose it's a personal thing, so it's really how your daughter feels. Good luck to her anyway!!

Reply 11

bb193

Many thanks to everyone for replying, particularly for finding some links that suggest reapplicants should consider a different college - that is very useful.

And also for sharing the jaw dropping A*A*A* offer - all the best with that one! - I confess to being happy my daughter didn't get that!

I think I would agree that connections play a much smaller part now - I do have very strong connections there - since it had to be my daughter's achievement, I did nothing to actively call any of them in, but familiarity (even if based 30 years ago) did help - but even then she didn't get an offer. Edit - on reflection, that didn't come out how I meant. I had confidence in a system that let my wife and me in 30 years ago - both from middle class families, state educated (admittedly grammar schools). I'm sure that the system now is as fair as it can be, so I do believe anyone relying on contcts is likely to be sorely disappointed.

In general, thanks for all your comments - at least it suggests we didn't do anything too wrong - and whatever happens next, I'm sure she will have a great time and do well.

Reply 12

Azer

fumblewomble

No way! At least not these days.
Students are rigourously assessed on ACADEMIC criteria.
They are assessed and discussed by a panel and there is simply no way that one member of the panel would get a weak student in because there was some connection - they wouldn't be able to justify it on academic grounds to their colleagues and get their agreement.

And on your second point about persuasion: You are right that you would have had to persuade them to let you in with grades below what many of their applicants would have. However it won't be your personality that produced this persuasion - it will be your academic ability and potential. Cambridge are lucky to be able to assess people carefully enough to see when a student - for whatever reason - did not perform at the top of the range at GCSE but is nonetheless worthy of a place ON ACADEMIC GROUNDS. Don't think that there are any 'alternative' ways into Cambridge. There is only one way and that is your first method - 'being simply outstanding academically'.

Incidentally, see this old but useful article for interesting insights into the selection and the way they really do take a careful look at everybody: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/dec/20/accesstouniversity.highereducation NB the LNAT is no longer used in Cambridge Admissions - that is the only detail that is out of date though..

One of my mother's best friends is the master of a college I won't name, and I'm just repeating what he said to me. Believe me or not, either way I'm just putting this out there. There's no way I would've gotten in on academics alone. My mother also didn't call in the contact, as I applied to a different college, so I don't see what else could have gotten me in than personality and potential. Remember that these tutors will have to teach you face-to-face for three years. Surely they will take an amiable, confident student who enthusiastically engages in discussion over a perhaps smarter but extremely shy student who is not likely to say two words during the tutorial. It's not all about academics, it's also whether the student 'fits into the system', and is the kind of kid who will likely benefit from the Cambridge way of going about learning.

Reply 13

Azer

fumblewomble

Sure, you're right about this. They won't take an extremely shy person who wouldn't suit the Cambridge style of teaching. In fact someone on TSR was commenting that they were rejected and the feedback was that they were too shy. Equally they won't take an over-confident person if they're the type who is unteachable because they refuse to take on board any point of view other than their own and don't listen to other people. But these are only the 2 extremes.

But I can tell you that they will take students who they don't take a liking to personally or who have political views etc that they can't stand. I'd say that 'aimable' isn't too important (particularly as some people just take a bit of getting to know and you can't always do this in half an hour). A bit of confidence is important but you don't have to be very confident. A shy person (in life) can get in if they will still speak up in supervisions.

I see your point, but I think you're not taking human nature seriously enough. Even if it is at an unconscious level, a likeable person will leave a better overall impression on the tutor.

Reply 14

Azer

fumblewomble

Masters of colleges have a certain amount of power but they would never get a weak student into the College in this day and age. In fact there is often tension because people who thought they had certain connections fail to get in and the colleges sometimes loose major benefactors because they didn't admit their grandson etc. Interviewers occasionally bow out of certain peoples interviews/assessment because they declare an 'interest'.

As I said, I don't know anything beyond what he told me. What you wrote is interesting, though.
Slightly off-topic: do you think it is a good thing that Cambridge rejects certain people, even though this means a loss of substantial donations? Surely the benefit to all students through the donations is worth much more than the loss of one place to a sub-standard applicant?

Reply 15

Craghyrax

bb193

My daughter applied to Fitz and didn't get an offer :frown:

Sounds like you were sensible. Those companies are a giant scam, frankly.
I think you're overanalysing it. As others have pointed out, luck plays a huge part. And Cambridge have had record increases in applicants this year and last. To a large degree it is arbitrary who gets in and who doesn't. Less arbitrary than other University admissions procedures, but still arbitrary.

We also wondered about people who got more than 90% overall in the AS exams for their A2 subjects. For example, did those who got an offer tend to get more than 90% (A*) in their chosen degree subject at AS? Did those that got an offer tend to have several of their subjects at >90% at AS?

Finally, we wondered about the school predicted grades. I know state schools were told not to predict A* grades - but then UCAS put it in as an option for prediction. So I wondered if those who had A* grades predicted were more likely to get an offer regardless of their module percentages?

Or if anyone had any other thoughts or recommendations as to what they think tipped the balance for them?

Well grades are a must, but less than perfect grades don't stop them from recognising a strong candidate through interviews/references/submitted work. I was admitted with AAC - one of the As being borderline. (and no, readers, I do not want a flood of PMs asking how I managed that. The answers to that are in the last few sentences :dry:

)

If your daughter is very determined to go to Cambridge then she could try reapplying, when she has her A level grades to hand. I was rejected the first time I applied, but was admitted on reapplication. I found the interviews much easier the second time round because I'd already had a rejection and handled it, and I knew what to expect. It sounds cliched, but loving your subject is important, and also being very certain that you want to do that course at that Uni, and why you want to. If your daughter does reapply, you can help her prepare for interviews by trying to have discussions about her subject where you encourage her to think critically about the things she already knows about the subject she applies for, and to read around it.
But if she doesn't get in, don't take it personally. Cambridge have to turn away multitudes of quality applicants.

Reply 16

Craghyrax

Azer

...Another, the one I presumably got in under, would be by force of personality, persuading the tutor that you are a student they should like very much to teach, perhaps in spite of poor grades (I had just a*aabbcd at gcse)...

This is an interesting point I've not seen anybody try to argue here before. I think fumble is right to caution that likeability would not make up for academic inadequacy, but I would readily believe that force of personality would help along with demonstration of potential. I think my personal statement was far more about communicating my character strengths and how I felt they would make me an ideal student than it was about showing off my academic knowledge. I just put my effort into trying to show them how genuinely interested I was, and most of all - how naturally hard working, focused and analytical I was. My interview feedback was also extremely complementary.

I think fumblewomble also pointed out some good points as to why they wouldn't want a bad student if it got them more money. Cambridge has the lowest dropout numbers of any University in England, and their reputation for outstanding academic output is really important. On top of not wanting to compromise these qualities, a rubbish student is just hassle. Colleges may have to let them degrade/find extra help for them/provide pastoral support. And fumble is right that it would be inhumane.
The social and psychological pressure is intense, and most people who aren't doing well feel hideously depressed and anxious. Along with Oxford I think we have some of the highest depression rates. Academic competence is a huge part of students' identities here and people constantly compare themselves to perceived ideas about their peers' abilities and time spent working. People good enough to get into Cambridge are often already predisposed to perfectionism, and all of the degree courses are immensely hard work even when you have no problems handling the conceptual challenges. If you struggle conceptually, however, you're doomed.

Reply 17

bb193

I was happy with the idea of not tutoring for Oxbridge interview - they are bound to be able to see the difference and compensate.

And then I saw this - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2492736.ece

Maybe it was my commitment to state education that made the difference? I'm trying not to become bitter and twisted about it all - but it has its tricky moments.

Reply 18

pgl

bb193

Maybe it was my commitment to state education that made the difference? I'm trying not to become bitter and twisted about it all - but it has its tricky moments.

A state educated student will get in if they're good enough. I think that you've got to accept this year's decision and move on.

Reply 19

SouthernFreerider

bb193

My daughter applied to Fitz and didn't get an offer :frown:

90%+ UMS in most of their AS subjects is pretty much a necessary condition for cambridge. you'll hear stories of people getting offers with marginal As, I even know a few. But these people almost always have a very very good component of their appilcation that swings it. It could be scoring in the top 5% on their pre-interview test, something like that.

luck is a factor too, every year good people dont get offers, and not-so-good do. But its all about making luck play as small a part as possible (i.e. having a good all-round application).

p.s. on the UMS point again, if the person hasn't got 90%, or even 95%+ in their chosen subject at AS, they almost definitely won't cope here. granted, I only know of sciences, where exams are pretty objective, I can't comment on essay subjects.

fumblewomble

You've no idea the extent to which these people believe in a fair admissions process - the university and their studies is their life. And the thing is that letting in a weak applicant actually does them no favours because when they arrive in Cambridge they will not be able to keep up with their peers etc and will probably feel miserable. What are Cambridge supposed to do? Fudge the exam results next? All Cambridge academics are well aware of the misery suffered by students who, for one reason or another (illness etc), struggle academically. Cambridge is a brilliant place if you're equipped to deal with it. It can be a hell-hole otherwise. They would not put any student in that position deliberately.

If Cambridge are to keep their reputation as a world class university they have to be seen to be absolutely fair.

And if they did let in the grandson of a major benefactor and that person performed badly - it would be all over the press which would do even more damage to them and would make the poor student involved feel even worse.

Also, the people who make the admissions decisions are different from the people who think about extracting money from alumni etc. There are OFTEN arguments between the 2 groups but the academics always win.