Rejected before interview for Cambridge Engineering 2013 but offer from Imperial
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TenOfThem
I need paragraphs to read
Original post by TenOfThem
I would suggest that the penultimate paragraph probably answers your question with a couple of reasons
but I am no expert in this area
but I am no expert in this area
This guy is awesome.
Original post by AspiringGenius
You had 87.5% UMS. They are looking for 90%+ really and their successful applicants are usually closer to 95%.
EDIT: neg me, but the reality is they don't interview people they don't think have a realistic chance of getting an offer based on their academics. Your GCSEs are fine, so it must be the UMS.
EDIT: neg me, but the reality is they don't interview people they don't think have a realistic chance of getting an offer based on their academics. Your GCSEs are fine, so it must be the UMS.
Oh look, those utterly fictitious 90% and 95% figures again! oh look, from someone who is not only still applying, but also not applying to Cambridge! Good to know that Urban Myth is still going strong!
If averages were that important (and they aren't - there's a reason Cambridge ask for a module-by-module breakdown and that's because the average hides key information), 87.5% would be absolutely fine because the offer is A*AA and so you only need 1 subject to be above 90%, the other two just have to be above 80%.
People routinely get in with 87.5% and lower UMS averages at AS (Especially to Girton!). The OP's average hasn't let them down - it's the specifics of their breakdown.
Original post by PeterMcQuaid
How so?
This year i applied for medicine and got rejected with the uni claiming there was an increase in the number of applicants, but I looked up the stats and there was a decline. I also met all their pre-interview requirements, confused my school phoned up to ask them why I wasn't being interviewed and they didn't explain why
Original post by Kimina
This year i applied for medicine and got rejected with the uni claiming there was an increase in the number of applicants, but I looked up the stats and there was a decline. I also met all their pre-interview requirements, confused my school phoned up to ask them why I wasn't being interviewed and they didn't explain why
Applications to colleges can fluctuate greatly each year, so your chosen college may have seen more applicants than usual despite lower numbers across the uni as a whole.
However, this sort of phrase is often used as an excuse because the correct answer, being "you simply weren't good enough", is politically sensitive. Unis tend to avoid being open about that sort of thing because it is for some reason taboo to tell applicants they weren't up to scratch, and so reasons claiming an abnormally high number/quality of applicants are stated implying the applicant "would have got in any other year".
Original post by The Mr Z
Applications to colleges can fluctuate greatly each year, so your chosen college may have seen more applicants than usual despite lower numbers across the uni as a whole.
However, this sort of phrase is often used as an excuse because the correct answer, being "you simply weren't good enough", is politically sensitive. Unis tend to avoid being open about that sort of thing because it is for some reason taboo to tell applicants they weren't up to scratch, and so reasons claiming an abnormally high number/quality of applicants are stated implying the applicant "would have got in any other year".
However, this sort of phrase is often used as an excuse because the correct answer, being "you simply weren't good enough", is politically sensitive. Unis tend to avoid being open about that sort of thing because it is for some reason taboo to tell applicants they weren't up to scratch, and so reasons claiming an abnormally high number/quality of applicants are stated implying the applicant "would have got in any other year".
It sucks knowing that my application wasn't good enough though I don't know why 95% average UMS no resits predicted 4A*s at A-Level about 100 weeks of work experience, piano and singing grade 8 and a above required BMAT score. My college had a decline in the number of applicants from about 90s to 76 (including open application) so honestly I don't know why I didn't get an interview
Original post by The Mr Z
Oh look, those utterly fictitious 90% and 95% figures again! oh look, from someone who is not only still applying, but also not applying to Cambridge! Good to know that Urban Myth is still going strong!
If averages were that important (and they aren't - there's a reason Cambridge ask for a module-by-module breakdown and that's because the average hides key information), 87.5% would be absolutely fine because the offer is A*AA and so you only need 1 subject to be above 90%, the other two just have to be above 80%.
People routinely get in with 87.5% and lower UMS averages at AS (Especially to Girton!). The OP's average hasn't let them down - it's the specifics of their breakdown.
If averages were that important (and they aren't - there's a reason Cambridge ask for a module-by-module breakdown and that's because the average hides key information), 87.5% would be absolutely fine because the offer is A*AA and so you only need 1 subject to be above 90%, the other two just have to be above 80%.
People routinely get in with 87.5% and lower UMS averages at AS (Especially to Girton!). The OP's average hasn't let them down - it's the specifics of their breakdown.
I'm sure they do look at the breakdown carefully, however I was told by a cambridge admissions tutor that if you didn't have at least a 90% average across your three most relavant subjects, you'd have to have some very very good mitagating circumstances to still get an interview.
And several times I was told by cambridge tutors that the average for offer holders was around 95%.
Of course there'll be exceptions, such as if you did "badly" in a subject with tenuous links to the course you were applying for, mitigating circumstances etc. But the 90% thing isn't an urban myth, unless the tutors are misleading all the applicants....
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by kettlechips
I'm sure they do look at the breakdown carefully, however I was told by a cambridge admissions tutor that if you didn't have at least a 90% average across your three most relavant subjects, you'd have to have some very very good mitagating circumstances to still get an interview.
And several times I was told by cambridge tutors that the average for offer holders was around 95%.
Of course there'll be exceptions, such as if you did "badly" in a subject with tenuous links to the course you were applying for, mitigating circumstances etc. But the 90% thing isn't an urban myth, unless the tutors are misleading all the applicants....
Posted from TSR Mobile
And several times I was told by cambridge tutors that the average for offer holders was around 95%.
Of course there'll be exceptions, such as if you did "badly" in a subject with tenuous links to the course you were applying for, mitigating circumstances etc. But the 90% thing isn't an urban myth, unless the tutors are misleading all the applicants....
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well unless it was certain colleges and subject combinations, they're lying.
Every application is judged on its own merits, and you are never competing with the average. I can tell you that the 90% number IS an urban myth, the admissions and access departments routinely put out official advice to that effect. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is NO cut off, and if there was it would be far bellow 90%. 80% of applicants get interviews, only about half have over 90% UMS average.
To be honest, on open days they often do mislead - people there hardly need extra encouragement, and by and large come from more traditional backgrounds. You hear a different story given to the access and sutton trust students.
And I've had a lot of success advising applicants with sub-90% UMS to apply and them subsequently receiving offers and getting in.
Original post by Kimina
It sucks knowing that my application wasn't good enough though I don't know why 95% average UMS no resits predicted 4A*s at A-Level about 100 weeks of work experience, piano and singing grade 8 and a above required BMAT score. My college had a decline in the number of applicants from about 90s to 76 (including open application) so honestly I don't know why I didn't get an interview
Given that, I wouldn't think it was your grades that led to you not getting an interview. Unless it was the BMAT score, I don't know much about those.
However, what you've said leads me to suspect something else - how did you aim your personal statement? It may have been, and this is the BIG hitch with medicine applicants, that they didn't think you were really suited to be a Doctor - that your reasons for applying were wrong, that you didn't seem to understand what it entailed, or that you weren't personally suitable. I wouldn't say they are always right in this regard, it's more subjective a judgement than others they make.
Also...well...medicine is hellishly competitive. Do you know how many places that was for? What often happens when fewer people apply is it's people who would have been rejected anyway not applying, not the ones who would have otherwise beaten you to it.
Original post by The Mr Z
Given that, I wouldn't think it was your grades that led to you not getting an interview. Unless it was the BMAT score, I don't know much about those.
However, what you've said leads me to suspect something else - how did you aim your personal statement? It may have been, and this is the BIG hitch with medicine applicants, that they didn't think you were really suited to be a Doctor - that your reasons for applying were wrong, that you didn't seem to understand what it entailed, or that you weren't personally suitable. I wouldn't say they are always right in this regard, it's more subjective a judgement than others they make.
Also...well...medicine is hellishly competitive. Do you know how many places that was for? What often happens when fewer people apply is it's people who would have been rejected anyway not applying, not the ones who would have otherwise beaten you to it.
However, what you've said leads me to suspect something else - how did you aim your personal statement? It may have been, and this is the BIG hitch with medicine applicants, that they didn't think you were really suited to be a Doctor - that your reasons for applying were wrong, that you didn't seem to understand what it entailed, or that you weren't personally suitable. I wouldn't say they are always right in this regard, it's more subjective a judgement than others they make.
Also...well...medicine is hellishly competitive. Do you know how many places that was for? What often happens when fewer people apply is it's people who would have been rejected anyway not applying, not the ones who would have otherwise beaten you to it.
I've had an interview so it can't be my PS and my BMAT was pretty good. But you're right I wasn't good enough.... I'll work harder and reapply next year.
Original post by PeterMcQuaid
So I'm not trying to say there's a mistake in my rejection, I just simply am surprised and am wondering if anyone else has had a similar ordeal.
In answer to your question, I did considerably better at GCSE and slightly better at A Level and didn't get to the interview stage either. Having visited Bath, where I plan to firm, I've realised I'm going to be much happier there than at Cambridge. Sure Cambridge looks great on your CV and gives you a world class education, but not everyone can go to Cambridge and looking at the current state of affairs, there'll be good engineering jobs waiting for you no matter where you go.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Kimina
I've had an interview so it can't be my PS and my BMAT was pretty good. But you're right I wasn't good enough.... I'll work harder and reapply next year.
Ah, you did have the interview?
Well, in that case they just decided you weren't suited.
Cambridge isn't just about being the most intelligent - it takes a certain type of intelligence, and indeed a certain type of personality, the interview is primarily for spotting that (because it can't show up on paper)
Cambridge, and medicine in particular, demands that students not only can handle stress, but thrive under it. The entire system is designed to put applicants under tremendous pressures. You almost need to be the sort of person who can't work effectively without an impending deadline.
The other snag, as I said, is that they didn't think you were suited to be a doctor. I question their judgement quite a lot, but the medical profession has been running smoothly for hundreds of years on whatever criteria they use to pic Oxbridge medics so they must be getting something right. You may just be too normal.
Some people get in by reapplying, but normally because there was some glaring deficiency with their application that they remedied that year. Honestly, your application on paper is spot-on perfect, so it's unlikely reapplying will change that.
Original post by The Mr Z
Ah, you did have the interview?
Well, in that case they just decided you weren't suited.
Cambridge isn't just about being the most intelligent - it takes a certain type of intelligence, and indeed a certain type of personality, the interview is primarily for spotting that (because it can't show up on paper)
Cambridge, and medicine in particular, demands that students not only can handle stress, but thrive under it. The entire system is designed to put applicants under tremendous pressures. You almost need to be the sort of person who can't work effectively without an impending deadline.
The other snag, as I said, is that they didn't think you were suited to be a doctor. I question their judgement quite a lot, but the medical profession has been running smoothly for hundreds of years on whatever criteria they use to pic Oxbridge medics so they must be getting something right. You may just be too normal.
Some people get in by reapplying, but normally because there was some glaring deficiency with their application that they remedied that year. Honestly, your application on paper is spot-on perfect, so it's unlikely reapplying will change that.
Well, in that case they just decided you weren't suited.
Cambridge isn't just about being the most intelligent - it takes a certain type of intelligence, and indeed a certain type of personality, the interview is primarily for spotting that (because it can't show up on paper)
Cambridge, and medicine in particular, demands that students not only can handle stress, but thrive under it. The entire system is designed to put applicants under tremendous pressures. You almost need to be the sort of person who can't work effectively without an impending deadline.
The other snag, as I said, is that they didn't think you were suited to be a doctor. I question their judgement quite a lot, but the medical profession has been running smoothly for hundreds of years on whatever criteria they use to pic Oxbridge medics so they must be getting something right. You may just be too normal.
Some people get in by reapplying, but normally because there was some glaring deficiency with their application that they remedied that year. Honestly, your application on paper is spot-on perfect, so it's unlikely reapplying will change that.
You sound a bit full of yourself. Whilst the workload is higher at Oxbridge, I don't deny that there are tens of thousands of people not at oxbridge who could also cope with it. For most people Interviews at oxbridge are about 50% luck and 50 % talent. You never know if the right question's will come up, how ur feeling that day or if you'll have similar interests to the interviewers.
Original post by Blutooth
You sound a bit full of yourself. Whilst the workload is higher at Oxbridge, I don't deny that there are tens of thousands of people not at oxbridge who could also cope with it. For most people Interviews at oxbridge are about 50% luck and 50 % talent. You never know if the right question's will come up, how ur feeling that day or if you'll have similar interests to the interviewers.
If you think that, then that's your prerogative.
However, I think you're misunderstanding the point of the interviews entirely - there's no right question or wrong question (the idea is not to get the questions right - if it was, they'd sit you down in front of a test, not have two interviewers there. If anything, the most important questions are the ones you can't do.), if you are unwell they will notice and you are likely to get a second chance/pooled, if you are nervous they see through that, and frankly the interviewers could rip you to tiny little shreds on any topic of their choosing - mutual interest is almost a disadvantage. (Case in point, at interview one person at my college had the complete opposite view to one of the interviewers which resulted in a 10 minute heated argument, after which they had to stop for the next interviewee. Both left fuming, but he got the place because he stood his ground against an academic who had written a book on why he was wrong.)
I'm not saying it's foolproof, but I am saying that they know what they're looking for and it's not pot luck, but nor is it what you'd think of as "pure talent". And Cambridge are open and honest about that - they don't claim to take exclusively the most able candidates - they claim to take the most suited candidates.
The workload is not only higher at Oxbridge - it is designed in such a way to put students under high stress, and it's not the best working environment for most people. In fact it's an absolute pressure cooker and even most hand-picked cambridge students can't handle it - the term is shorter because everyone burns out at the end, and there's a Cambridge-wide phenomenon of getting overwhelmed 5 weeks in. (I don't know if you have that at Oxford, though I suspect you might)
Some people, some personalities, are inherently more durable in that sort of environment (and may struggle in others).
Frankly I do deny that there are other people who could cope with it - I deny that there is anyone who can cope with it. There are just those who last longer.
And I don't see why you think I'm full of myself. I am not meaning to imply that Cambridge students are better - they're worse in so many ways: obsessive, unhealthy, very unstable, they loose the ability to work when not under pressure, have no capability to maintain a work-life balance, generally lacking in empathy etc. But they are, somewhat uniquely, suited to Cambridge.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by The Mr Z
If you think that, then that's your prerogative.
However, I think you're misunderstanding the point of the interviews entirely - there's no right question or wrong question (the idea is not to get the questions right - if it was, they'd sit you down in front of a test, not have two interviewers there. If anything, the most important questions are the ones you can't do.), if you are unwell they will notice and you are likely to get a second chance/pooled, if you are nervous they see through that, and frankly the interviewers could rip you to tiny little shreds on any topic of their choosing - mutual interest is almost a disadvantage. (Case in point, at interview one person at my college had the complete opposite view to one of the interviewers which resulted in a 10 minute heated argument, after which they had to stop for the next interviewee. Both left fuming, but he got the place because he stood his ground against an academic who had written a book on why he was wrong.)
I'm not saying it's foolproof, but I am saying that they know what they're looking for and it's not pot luck, but nor is it what you'd think of as "pure talent". And Cambridge are open and honest about that - they don't claim to take exclusively the most able candidates - they claim to take the most suited candidates.
The workload is not only higher at Oxbridge - it is designed in such a way to put students under high stress, and it's not the best working environment for most people. In fact it's an absolute pressure cooker and even most hand-picked cambridge students can't handle it - the term is shorter because everyone burns out at the end, and there's a Cambridge-wide phenomenon of getting overwhelmed 5 weeks in. (I don't know if you have that at Oxford, though I suspect you might)
Some people, some personalities, are inherently more durable in that sort of environment (and may struggle in others).
Frankly I do deny that there are other people who could cope with it - I deny that there is anyone who can cope with it. There are just those who last longer.
And I don't see why you think I'm full of myself. I am not meaning to imply that Cambridge students are better - they're worse in so many ways: obsessive, unhealthy, very unstable, they loose the ability to work when not under pressure, have no capability to maintain a work-life balance, generally lacking in empathy etc. But they are, somewhat uniquely, suited to Cambridge.
However, I think you're misunderstanding the point of the interviews entirely - there's no right question or wrong question (the idea is not to get the questions right - if it was, they'd sit you down in front of a test, not have two interviewers there. If anything, the most important questions are the ones you can't do.), if you are unwell they will notice and you are likely to get a second chance/pooled, if you are nervous they see through that, and frankly the interviewers could rip you to tiny little shreds on any topic of their choosing - mutual interest is almost a disadvantage. (Case in point, at interview one person at my college had the complete opposite view to one of the interviewers which resulted in a 10 minute heated argument, after which they had to stop for the next interviewee. Both left fuming, but he got the place because he stood his ground against an academic who had written a book on why he was wrong.)
I'm not saying it's foolproof, but I am saying that they know what they're looking for and it's not pot luck, but nor is it what you'd think of as "pure talent". And Cambridge are open and honest about that - they don't claim to take exclusively the most able candidates - they claim to take the most suited candidates.
The workload is not only higher at Oxbridge - it is designed in such a way to put students under high stress, and it's not the best working environment for most people. In fact it's an absolute pressure cooker and even most hand-picked cambridge students can't handle it - the term is shorter because everyone burns out at the end, and there's a Cambridge-wide phenomenon of getting overwhelmed 5 weeks in. (I don't know if you have that at Oxford, though I suspect you might)
Some people, some personalities, are inherently more durable in that sort of environment (and may struggle in others).
Frankly I do deny that there are other people who could cope with it - I deny that there is anyone who can cope with it. There are just those who last longer.
And I don't see why you think I'm full of myself. I am not meaning to imply that Cambridge students are better - they're worse in so many ways: obsessive, unhealthy, very unstable, they loose the ability to work when not under pressure, have no capability to maintain a work-life balance, generally lacking in empathy etc. But they are, somewhat uniquely, suited to Cambridge.
I just think to deny that luck plays a big role in the admissions of about at least a third of the students at Oxbridge is fool-hardy. Had they interviewed at a different college, on a different day with a different set of questions who knows whether they would have got a place.
I have managed fairly well to cope with the workload (although i was late for a few deadlines), and there has been one boy on my course who's managed to play bout 4 or 5 different sports for the college whilst also maintaining the highest standards in his degree.
I think the case with your friend actually supports my point that knowledge and interest in common with tutors (even if opinions differ) will help you get a place: It's hard to have a heated discussion about a topic you care little bout.
I was reading your post in isolation, and it came across as slightly arrogant, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick.
Original post by Blutooth
I just think to deny that luck plays a big role in the admissions of about at least a third of the students at Oxbridge is fool-hardy. Had they interviewed at a different college, on a different day with a different set of questions who knows whether they would have got a place.
I have managed fairly well to cope with the workload (although i was late for a few deadlines), and there has been one boy on my course who's managed to play bout 4 or 5 different sports for the college whilst also maintaining the highest standards in his degree.
I think the case with your friend actually supports my point that knowledge and interest in common with tutors (even if opinions differ) will help you get a place: It's hard to have a heated discussion about a topic you care little bout.
I was reading your post in isolation, and it came across as slightly arrogant, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick.
I have managed fairly well to cope with the workload (although i was late for a few deadlines), and there has been one boy on my course who's managed to play bout 4 or 5 different sports for the college whilst also maintaining the highest standards in his degree.
I think the case with your friend actually supports my point that knowledge and interest in common with tutors (even if opinions differ) will help you get a place: It's hard to have a heated discussion about a topic you care little bout.
I was reading your post in isolation, and it came across as slightly arrogant, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick.
Well, this is a discussion you can have for years and never reach any conclusion. I'm of the opinion that most people here got in for a reason (though we all have a limited selection of people to judge). If you look at the colleges that take high numbers from the pool, perhaps it's more down to luck. (Although the existence of the pool is rather to the detriment of chance)
There's a reason we have 2 interviews, with a total of 4 different interviewees, so you're getting 4 different opinions on your candidacy - that's specifically to get rid of any personal preference. (at Cambridge all from the same college, I gather from different colleges at Oxford which may reduce the reliability)
I really don't see your point about a "different set of questions" either - from my experience what the questions are makes trivial difference, as they're not looking for a right or wrong answer. There isn't so much difference between the questions as you think, and in the case of those which do vary more greatly or are more topic-specific, which are chosen is tailored to the applicant's interests (They spend a few minutes while you're outside deciding which questions to ask you, I suspect they'd choose pretty much the same selection every time)
I'm not saying that there aren't more who could get in - given Cambridge plans to build 3 new colleges, it must reckon there are going to be about 400 people a year (in about 10 years time) who could make the cut if there were enough places. I just don't think many got here by luck. Perhaps bad luck leads to some missing out, but that's very different to saying that some hoodwinked the system (let alone a third! A THIRD!? I'd be prepared to give you 5% on uncertainty, 10% at a long stretch! But nothing approaching a third!)
Maybe Oxford is less pressured
. What level of commitment are these college sports? I'm not sure anyone could manage that at Cambridge if they were high commitment. ...well...I perhaps know of one, although she's more politically inclined.Well no, the case with my friend shows that it can be a disadvantage - the person he was arguing with wanted very much to reject him (and it happened that he was the DoS), it took the other admissions tutors a while to, begrudgingly, win him round.
And, while you may not have the interest to launch into a full on heated argument, there shouldn't really be large parts of the course you're applying for which hold no interest for you (unless it's a tri-discipline course like PPE and PPS where you really want to focus on one of two)
Original post by The Mr Z
Ah, you did have the interview?
Well, in that case they just decided you weren't suited.
Cambridge isn't just about being the most intelligent - it takes a certain type of intelligence, and indeed a certain type of personality, the interview is primarily for spotting that (because it can't show up on paper)
Cambridge, and medicine in particular, demands that students not only can handle stress, but thrive under it. The entire system is designed to put applicants under tremendous pressures. You almost need to be the sort of person who can't work effectively without an impending deadline.
The other snag, as I said, is that they didn't think you were suited to be a doctor. I question their judgement quite a lot, but the medical profession has been running smoothly for hundreds of years on whatever criteria they use to pic Oxbridge medics so they must be getting something right. You may just be too normal.
Some people get in by reapplying, but normally because there was some glaring deficiency with their application that they remedied that year. Honestly, your application on paper is spot-on perfect, so it's unlikely reapplying will change that.
Well, in that case they just decided you weren't suited.
Cambridge isn't just about being the most intelligent - it takes a certain type of intelligence, and indeed a certain type of personality, the interview is primarily for spotting that (because it can't show up on paper)
Cambridge, and medicine in particular, demands that students not only can handle stress, but thrive under it. The entire system is designed to put applicants under tremendous pressures. You almost need to be the sort of person who can't work effectively without an impending deadline.
The other snag, as I said, is that they didn't think you were suited to be a doctor. I question their judgement quite a lot, but the medical profession has been running smoothly for hundreds of years on whatever criteria they use to pic Oxbridge medics so they must be getting something right. You may just be too normal.
Some people get in by reapplying, but normally because there was some glaring deficiency with their application that they remedied that year. Honestly, your application on paper is spot-on perfect, so it's unlikely reapplying will change that.
No I meant an interview at Birmingham medical school not Cambridge. I blame my school they were building me up for it asking me which college I was 'going to' (instead of applying to) and asking what I will study in my intercolate year
Original post by PeterMcQuaid
Yeah, so I just got a letter from Cambridge saying,"I regret to tell you that, after carefully considering your application and all the information available to us, we will not be inviting you for interview." Kinda surprising I must admit. I am by no means a very strong candidate however I think I deserved at least an interview from Girton. I got 5A*s, 4As and 1B at GCSE, A*s in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Add Maths and R.E. All the rest normal subjects and B in Music. I did Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Further Maths for AS and am carrying them through to A2. I got 4 As at AS with a 87.6% UMS average (which is kinda **** but still). I got 95% in C1 Maths, 100% in C2 and 74% in M1. The M1, although maybe worrying for engineering, was an anomaly as I got 100% in M2. I have engineering work experience from Queens University and Kilroot Power Plant and have taken part in a few schemes. My personal statement was verh good and I have a prediction of 4A*s at A level. The real annoying thing is that I have an offer from Durham, Bath and 6 days after my interview for Imperial, got an offer for MEng Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
Okay, so I would be happy to go there but I just want something more as to why I was rejected at this stage. Ideas are that I did STEP 1 last summer and got a U (I did no work for it as it wasn't important, I just wanted to get experience at admission tests) and I didn't include it in the SAQ when they asked for admission tests (or in my UCAS) as it wasn't relevant, it might have complicated things and my careers teacher told me twice not to put it in! Also my careers teacher sent my application before I wanted it to be sent, so it had a few mistakes but she rectified those in subsequent emails to UCAS and plus Imperial accepted that! So I'm not trying to say there's a mistake in my rejection, I just simply am surprised and am wondering if anyone else has had a similar ordeal.
Okay, so I would be happy to go there but I just want something more as to why I was rejected at this stage. Ideas are that I did STEP 1 last summer and got a U (I did no work for it as it wasn't important, I just wanted to get experience at admission tests) and I didn't include it in the SAQ when they asked for admission tests (or in my UCAS) as it wasn't relevant, it might have complicated things and my careers teacher told me twice not to put it in! Also my careers teacher sent my application before I wanted it to be sent, so it had a few mistakes but she rectified those in subsequent emails to UCAS and plus Imperial accepted that! So I'm not trying to say there's a mistake in my rejection, I just simply am surprised and am wondering if anyone else has had a similar ordeal.Hey, Congratulations for the Imperiall offer. could i know what your Imperial offer for EEE was? Do the specify subjects and base offer on all 4 subjcts?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- EEE offers
- Should I reapply for next year?
- Opinions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Imperial?
- Still waiting to hear back from Imperial
- Official Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering Applicants Thread 2021
- Gap Year??
- Official Imperial College 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Thread
- Official Imperial College 2023 Undergraduate Applicants Thread
- Reapplying for 2023- is it wise?
- Chances of getting a place from ucl and imperial after Cambridge rejection?
- Durham taking their time
- What do I do for uni
- Reapply to Cambridge or go to LSE
- Best university for (mechanical) engineering?
- 2022 Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering applicants
- Do I have a chance at Imperial EEE with average GCSEs + mat score?
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- Imperial Design Engineering 2024 Entry
- Official Imperial College London Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Why wasn't i even pooled for cs?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 4 days ago
TSR Decisions Drop In 2024 - open any time - help choosing university offersLast reply 5 days ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Last reply 1 week ago
I've been rejected by UoN Law School but given an alternative offerLast reply 1 week ago
2024 applicants: what's your main concern around starting uni?Last reply 1 week ago
UCAS Applications + Uni Applicant Thread Directory for 2024 **Official Thread**Last reply 1 week ago
Study now at Exeter or wait one year to study at KCL or Bristol?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Deciding between universities - Exeter vs WarwickLast reply 2 weeks ago
Not heard back from some unis after applying in early December, should I be worried?Trending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 4 days ago
TSR Decisions Drop In 2024 - open any time - help choosing university offersLast reply 5 days ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Last reply 1 week ago
I've been rejected by UoN Law School but given an alternative offerLast reply 1 week ago
2024 applicants: what's your main concern around starting uni?Last reply 1 week ago
UCAS Applications + Uni Applicant Thread Directory for 2024 **Official Thread**Last reply 1 week ago
Study now at Exeter or wait one year to study at KCL or Bristol?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Deciding between universities - Exeter vs WarwickLast reply 2 weeks ago
Not heard back from some unis after applying in early December, should I be worried?
