Barts and The London Applicants 2012

Any offers yet? Apparently there have been 5 unconditionals given out this year

Any offers yet? Apparently there have been 5 unconditionals given out this year

According to who? (That seems highly unlikely if its for undergrads as its been confirmed that offers will all be given out once all the interviews are done)

Do people think that they are doing this system of telling people in March to try to weed out the people who are going to reject their offers regardless? If you think about it, someone who applies to Barts is (likely) to have applied to another london uni, and perhaps Barts knows that lots of people are choosing this as their 3rd/4th choice and want to weed them out so they can give more offers to people who actually want to come to barts?

Opinions?

Actually, and this caught me off guard, a lot (or rather a larger than expected number) of the students that I spoke to in the interview waiting room seem to have applied all over the country and to BL as their only London medical school choice. In my experience, I've noticed that people living in/around London generally tend to apply to more than one London medical school whereas people from outside London tend to apply to 1 (or maybe 2 at a push) London medical school(s). This is of course a massive generalisation, as is what you've said, which basically means, no one can really tell to be totally honest. Surprising as this may seem, some people actually want to firm BL when they initially apply - I've got a couple of friends here who really wanted to come here. And tbh, it is MUCH better deciding on offers after the interviewing cycle is finished (albeit a little annoying for applicants) as it gives people who happened to be interviewed earlier no added advantage.

But other systems don't give added advantage to earlier interviews either? Take KCL UCL and Imperial.... you have an interview they decide and tell you X days later. The chance of you getting the offer is the same on day one or day X, which is how it should be imo

But giving out offers once everyone has been interviewed allows a comparison to me made between all interviewees. Newcastle work like that too iirc and on the whole I think it is fairer. With the old system, its quite hard to decide what is 'good' enough overall to warrant an offer as someone offered an earlier interview and subsequently offered a place might have actually performed worse at the interview than someone who was interviewed later on in the cycle but couldn't get a offer because of the offer quota - at a place like BL where once you get an interview, everything is generally forgotten and your performance in the interview is all that matters, I think this is much fairer.

But other systems don't give added advantage to earlier interviews either? Take KCL UCL and Imperial.... you have an interview they decide and tell you X days later. The chance of you getting the offer is the same on day one or day X, which is how it should be imo

Actually, and this caught me off guard, a lot (or rather a larger than expected number) of the students that I spoke to in the interview waiting room seem to have applied all over the country and to BL as their only London medical school choice. In my experience, I've noticed that people living in/around London generally tend to apply to more than one London medical school whereas people from outside London tend to apply to 1 (or maybe 2 at a push) London medical school(s). This is of course a massive generalisation, as is what you've said, which basically means, no one can really tell to be totally honest. Surprising as this may seem, some people actually want to firm BL when they initially apply - I've got a couple of friends here who really wanted to come here. And tbh, it is MUCH better deciding on offers after the interviewing cycle is finished (albeit a little annoying for applicants) as it gives people who happened to be interviewed earlier no added advantage.

Statistically speaking you are inherently likely to have an advantage if you are interviewed later or earlier depending on which of the two scenarios the medical school is experiencing based on below.

To put this into an example we'll first have to make a few assumptions. Assumtion 1 is that you need to achieve X points on your application to get an offer. Secondly, no university can give an unlimited amount of offers. Finally there are a set amount of interview dates ranging from December to March.

So, let's say the number to achieve an offer is based on a pre-determined value from either last years cycle. They could find out that by the time they get to the January interviews they've already given out enough offers because the quality of applicant this year has been outstanding. What do they do with the rest of the applicants? It would be unfair to reject them because some of them would have higher/equal pre-interview scores as others that had come to interview.

The other scenario is that they give out too few offers as the quality of applicant is worse this year and they end up with equal trouble for undersubscription and have funding cut. What do they do then? Email some who were rejected and give them offers? Or do you lower the cut off so that students who should have been rejected get offers?

Logistically, the way BL have started doing it is a much fairer and easier system. I don't know why more universities haven't adopted doing it. It makes organising course numbers much easier too. It allows a cut-off to be determined in hindsight ridding the "offer quota" issue with those interviewed earlier/later.



BL was the only London university I applied to. I applied to BL, Keele, Leicester & BSMS.

Nice specs

Thanks, hopefully ill have everything under water within a month or two too, trying to decide on fittings and colour.

But giving out offers once everyone has been interviewed allows a comparison to me made between all interviewees. Newcastle work like that too iirc and on the whole I think it is fairer. With the old system, its quite hard to decide what is 'good' enough overall to warrant an offer as someone offered an earlier interview and subsequently offered a place might have actually performed worse at the interview than someone who was interviewed later on in the cycle but couldn't get a offer because of the offer quota - at a place like BL where once you get an interview, everything is generally forgotten and your performance in the interview is all that matters, I think this is much fairer.

Statistically speaking you are inherently likely to have an advantage if you are interviewed later or earlier depending on which of the two scenarios the medical school is experiencing based on below.

To put this into an example we'll first have to make a few assumptions. Assumtion 1 is that you need to achieve X points on your application to get an offer. Secondly, no university can give an unlimited amount of offers. Finally there are a set amount of interview dates ranging from December to March.

So, let's say the number to achieve an offer is based on a pre-determined value from either last years cycle. They could find out that by the time they get to the January interviews they've already given out enough offers because the quality of applicant this year has been outstanding. What do they do with the rest of the applicants? It would be unfair to reject them because some of them would have higher/equal pre-interview scores as others that had come to interview.

The other scenario is that they give out too few offers as the quality of applicant is worse this year and they end up with equal trouble for undersubscription and have funding cut. What do they do then? Email some who were rejected and give them offers? Or do you lower the cut off so that students who should have been rejected get offers?

Logistically, the way BL have started doing it is a much fairer and easier system. I don't know why more universities haven't adopted doing it. It makes organising course numbers much easier too. It allows a cut-off to be determined in hindsight ridding the "offer quota" issue with those interviewed earlier/later.



BL was the only London university I applied to. I applied to BL, Keele, Leicester & BSMS.

It's not hard to decide though! Let me use KCL UCL ICL again... they have some sort of marking criteria/scale and if you are above that you get an offer, simplez. How is that not fair? What to me is fair is that the people with the better overall application should get interviews first, surely that is fair! This is a competitive process. I think your getting confused....,at least UCL and ICL , not sure about KCL, if you get an interview, THERE IS A PLACE THERE FOR YOU so its not about quotas or any other rubbish, its just about impressing on the day enough for them to give offers, so once you have gained an interview, the only person you are competiting against is yourself, which I prefer

You can't compete against yourself, the very definition of competition means it has to be against one or more. when people compete with themselves it's more to do with personal progress which isn't the case here.
People with better overall application should get interviews first fair enough, but what are the chances that people who look better on paper will interview better? That's why there are cut-offs and everyone who meets that is interviewed.
I fail to see your point about at least UCL and ICL , not sure about KCL, if you get an interview, THERE IS A PLACE THERE FOR YOU are you suggesting that at Barts it's not the same? Surely if there is no place for you what is the point of their interviewing you? Like it or not every university has a quota because there is a limited number of places, they might give out offers as they interview but they do have a quota and if they have a pre-determined cut-off for the interview then in some way you are competing against others because people who do not meet that will be rejected.
You are clearly infatuated with UCL,KCL blah blah - nothing wrong with that - but you should be open-minded enough to see that every school has it's pros and cons depending on which aspect affects you or in this case your point of view

Statistically speaking you are inherently likely to have an advantage if you are interviewed later or earlier depending on which of the two scenarios the medical school is experiencing based on below.To put this into an example we'll first have to make a few assumptions. Assumtion 1 is that you need to achieve X points on your application to get an offer. Secondly, no university can give an unlimited amount of offers. Finally there are a set amount of interview dates ranging from December to March.So, let's say the number to achieve an offer is based on a pre-determined value from either last years cycle. They could find out that by the time they get to the January interviews they've already given out enough offers because the quality of applicant this year has been outstanding. What do they do with the rest of the applicants? It would be unfair to reject them because some of them would have higher/equal pre-interview scores as others that had come to interview. The other scenario is that they give out too few offers as the quality of applicant is worse this year and they end up with equal trouble for undersubscription and have funding cut. What do they do then? Email some who were rejected and give them offers? Or do you lower the cut off so that students who should have been rejected get offers?Logistically, the way BL have started doing it is a much fairer and easier system. I don't know why more universities haven't adopted doing it. It makes organising course numbers much easier too. It allows a cut-off to be determined in hindsight ridding the "offer quota" issue with those interviewed earlier/later.BL was the only London university I applied to. I applied to BL, Keele, Leicester & BSMS.

My point is that, the only thing standing between you and an offer (if you gain an interview) is performing well enough on the day. At Barts you could perform well on the day, but be 401st and they give out say 400 offers. Fair enough you sort of didn't perform well then.... but I'm just saying that at said institutions you don't feel like you are competiting for a place at interview, because you aren't, the only thing stopping you from getting a place is you. At Barts you and I are competing for a place.... which is fair enough tbh because its a competitive process as you said

I was merely pointing out that I prefer other systems in terms of the telling you quickly rather than making you wait. It rewards those who get earlier interviews as they have a chance to get an offer earlier. Whereas this system provides no bonus for those who are interviewed earlier. UNLESS Barts follows through with what it seems to say on their website , that they will combine interview score with UCAS Points when deciding who gets offers....That is something I would certainly be against, even though it might benefit me because I do IB hence have the equivalent score of 5 A* at A level I think it is or something stupidly ridiculous due to the generous way UCAS tariff rewards IB. I would be against it because I think that once you get an interview, that should symbol the end of the "academic" selection (if you get what I'm saying?) in that an interview (IMO) should symbolise the institution knows you are now smart enough, they need to now see that your a human being etc etc.

The competiting against oneself was merely a manner of speech.

This is only just my opinion, feel free to disagree, agree, spit on it or whatever

It's not hard to decide though! Let me use KCL UCL ICL again... they have some sort of marking criteria/scale and if you are above that you get an offer, simplez. How is that not fair? What to me is fair is that the people with the better overall application should get interviews first, surely that is fair! This is a competitive process. I think your getting confused....at least UCL and ICL , not sure about KCL, if you get an interview, THERE IS A PLACE THERE FOR YOU, so its not about quotas or any other rubbish, its just about impressing on the day enough for them to give offers, so once you have gained an interview, the only person you are competiting against is yourself, which I prefer