The Student Room Group

Law at Churchill College, Cambridge

Does anyone know why Churchill has such high grade requirements for Law?

http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduates/courses/law/

Basically at least 5 A*s at GCSE, and AAA at AS-level at a 90% average.

Virtually everyone admitted in the last ten years has had 9 A*s +, and the standard offer is A*A*AA.

I've also noticed how their applicants don't even do that well:
2010: 17 direct applicants, 0 direct offers, 1 offer to someone in the pool. 17/17 of the direct applicants were rejected by Cambridge - they were not fished from the pool.

2012: 14 direct applicants, all of whom did not receive an offer from any college. 2 offers were made through the pool, and 1 eventually enrolled.

In five years they've given 2 direct offers to 52 applicants - the remaining 50 were all rejected from Cambridge.

The number of students they take on has gone: 6, 0, 5, 1.. what is going on?

http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/apply/statistics/

Does anyone at Cambridge / with experience in Law admissions know why Churchill's admissions are so odd? Why don't other colleges push up their admissions criteria too? It seems weird how Churchill can have such high requirements, even if it means rejecting every applicant.
(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
My brother studies Law at Cambridge, and allegedly it's something to do with the DOS.

It wouldn't make sense for other colleges to push up their grade criteria, grades do not maketh the man. As you say Churchill's strategy clearly isn't all that great.
Reply 2
Original post by James941
My brother studies Law at Cambridge, and allegedly it's something to do with the DOS.

It wouldn't make sense for other colleges to push up their grade criteria, grades do not maketh the man. As you say Churchill's strategy clearly isn't all that great.


I've heard this too, that the DoS has ridiculous standards and pushes the grades up. Yep, it's really not working (well, on average they've performed best for law.. but they hardly have any students!).

What's ridiculous is how 17/17 applicants can all be rejected from Cambridge - I suspect that the DoS is also exceptionally harsh in marking the applicants, so that even if they get auto-pooled they'll be destroyed by his comments on their file :tongue:
Original post by The Polymath
I've heard this too, that the DoS has ridiculous standards and pushes the grades up. Yep, it's really not working (well, on average they've performed best for law.. but they hardly have any students!).

What's ridiculous is how 17/17 applicants can all be rejected from Cambridge - I suspect that the DoS is also exceptionally harsh in marking the applicants, so that even if they get auto-pooled they'll be destroyed by his comments on their file :tongue:


As Churchill has significantly more law students doing Parts 1B and II of the Tripos, the DoS must be fishing existing undergrads to switch into law. To all intents he is running it as a 2nd and 3rd year only degree.

As the DoS is well known for being "odd", I don't think most other colleges would take his assessment of candidates at face value. However, I suspect the College gets very few applicants from UK schools with a tradition of sending candidates to Cambridge. Therefore the 17 rejects may all be outliers in the normal Cambridge applications process.

Interestingly, apart from the fact that it is allocated open applications and Churchill isn't, Fitzwilliam has a similar applications profile.

Including open apps:

2009 28 apps 1 offer 4 winter pool offers
2010 25 apps 1 offer 6 winter pool offers
2011 25 apps 2 offers 3 winter pool offers
2012 16 apps 2 offers 4 winter pool offers
2013 18 apps 0 offers 8 winter pool offers

Of these 106 rejectees only 1 was fished by another college out of the pool
Original post by nulli tertius
... I suspect the College gets very few applicants from UK schools with a tradition of sending candidates to Cambridge.


Do you mean for Law or more generally? I mean, are you suggesting that those schools see utilitarian brick-build Churchill as 'not quite the thing' or that heads of 6th form here are savvy to the special circumstance in Law applications and steering specifically the would-be lawyers elsewhere?
Original post by cambio wechsel
Do you mean for Law or more generally? I mean, are you suggesting that those schools see utilitarian brick-build Churchill as 'not quite the thing' or that heads of 6th form here are savvy to the special circumstance in Law applications and steering specifically the would-be lawyers elsewhere?


I suspect a little bit of the first, but an awful lot of the second. Most schools with a track record of applications will have a teacher in charge of Oxbridge applications alert enough to check his or her pupils' choice of subject and college. Many will have Cambridge contacts. Whether they have or not, the starting point will be to ensure that the candidate meets the admission requirements for the chosen course and college. Once someone starts doing that, he or she will be led down a path of discovery.

This should start the alarm bells ringing for a competent teacher

http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduates/courses/law/

I also think that if he wasn't rejecting no-hopers, the Access police would have been after him. There comes a point where offers are pitched beyond the reasonable ability of many schools to deliver, even for the brightest pupils. That is where Churchill's law offers are set particularly bearing in mind the limited number of double mathematicians (who are a significant proportion of those doing 4 or more A levels) who wish to read law. As it is, he is having no real impact on the stats either at college or university level. He is probably being indulged because what he is doing is harmless. Contrary to the OP's post, I suspect he isn't blighting the prospects of credible applicants. If he was, something would have been done.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius


This should start the alarm bells ringing for a competent teacher

http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduates/courses/law/


for a capable counsellor at a fee-paying school perhaps. Making that the standard for measuring competence in a state school classroom teacher is too exacting, they've neither the time nor anyway the cultural capital to investigate in that kind of depth. And so the bright young lad from provincial comp is here scuppered before he begins, the poor bugger. And to the extent that he weighed it, he probably thought he was playing it smart in choosing Churchill.

My sister is head of 6th form at one of the costliest schools in the country. We're the products of the provincial and aspirant lower middle-class, but they'll have her because she did 7 years at Cambridge. Fortunate she was to get pooled to Newnham out of an ill-informed or non-informed application to Trinity if it wasn't Kings. And fortunate Newnham, too, since she finished with all the prizes, making the pity of it that she had to stumble her way in. The kids she advises won't have to, mind: they're counselled by her.
Original post by cambio wechsel
for a capable counsellor at a fee-paying school perhaps. Making that the standard for measuring competence in a state school classroom teacher is too exacting, they've neither the time nor anyway the cultural capital to investigate in that kind of depth. And so the bright young lad from provincial comp is here scuppered before he begins, the poor bugger. And to the extent that he weighed it, he probably thought he was playing it smart in choosing Churchill.

My sister is head of 6th form at one of the costliest schools in the country. We're the products of the provincial and aspirant lower middle-class, but they'll have her because she did 7 years at Cambridge. Fortunate she was to get pooled to Newnham out of an ill-informed or non-informed application to Trinity if it wasn't Kings. And fortunate Newnham, too, since she finished with all the prizes, making the pity of it that she had to stumble her way in. The kids she advises won't have to, mind: they're counselled by her.


Please see my edit.
Original post by cambio wechsel
for a capable counsellor at a fee-paying school perhaps. Making that the standard for measuring competence in a state school classroom teacher is too exacting, they've neither the time nor anyway the cultural capital to investigate in that kind of depth. And so the bright young lad from provincial comp is here scuppered before he begins, the poor bugger. And to the extent that he weighed it, he probably thought he was playing it smart in choosing Churchill.

My sister is head of 6th form at one of the costliest schools in the country. We're the products of the provincial and aspirant lower middle-class, but they'll have her because she did 7 years at Cambridge. Fortunate she was to get pooled to Newnham out of an ill-informed or non-informed application to Trinity if it wasn't Kings. And fortunate Newnham, too, since she finished with all the prizes, making the pity of it that she had to stumble her way in. The kids she advises won't have to, mind: they're counselled by her.


I'm a bit confused by your post tbh. Surely the teachers of 'the bright young lad from the provincial comp' should have even more time to investigate, given they are likely to only have to do this for a couple of applicants each year?

At my (state) school, and many others, there is a list of colleges they advise the average applicant to apply to. More capable applicant are allowed to disregard this completely an apply where they like. Our teacher probably doesn't have the time to do this research for everyone, as there were 45 Oxbridge applicants this year ad probably another 20 Med/Vetmed/Dentistrt applicants who all had to have applications in before 15th October. Yet, she does try her hardest and any new information she takes on board. Currently, Churchill is on the list and I'm sure she'd take on board this information and perhaps advise law applicants against it.

All that said, why is it even the job of the teacher :lolwut: can VIth form students not read?
Original post by tooambitious
I'm a bit confused by your post tbh.


What I am referring to is largely cultural capital. To prosecute the example with my sister - ill-advised she stumbled into Cambridge with very little briefing about interview technique, college choice, and the rest of it. Once there she got a double-first and the named prizes for finals and dissertation, and stayed with funding for her masters and doctorate. But she got in on good fortune, hers and theirs. Not so for the students she now advises. The machinery swings into terrifyingly efficient operation so that they can go get their 2.1s and 2.2s. It is the default expectation at the school that most teachers are Oxbridge grads, and the younger teachers very recent indeed. They know the interviewers' quirks and hobby-horses, or can call a friend who does.

I'd suggest as well that if your school has 45 applicants for Oxbridge yearly, it is likely not representative of state schools on the whole.
Original post by cambio wechsel
What I am referring to is largely cultural capital. To prosecute the example with my sister - ill-advised she stumbled into Cambridge with very little briefing about interview technique, college choice, and the rest of it. Once there she got a double-first and the named prizes for finals and dissertation, and stayed with funding for her masters and doctorate. But she got in on good fortune, hers and theirs. Not so for the students she now advises. The machinery swings into terrifyingly efficient operation so that they can go get their 2.1s and 2.2s. It is the default expectation at the school that most teachers are Oxbridge grads, and the younger teachers very recent indeed. They know the interviewers' quirks and hobby-horses, or can call a friend who does.

I'd suggest as well that if your school has 45 applicants for Oxbridge yearly, it is likely not representative of state schools on the whole.


Ok, now, I understand. I thought we were just talking about people being advised as to which college to apply to.

No, it isn't. I gave that info, more to say that I understand that schools with lots of applicants and few resources may not be able to look at each individual case but I don't understand why schools with few applicants wouldn't (be able to).
Reply 11
Original post by cambio wechsel
I'd suggest as well that if your school has 45 applicants for Oxbridge yearly, it is likely not representative of state schools on the whole.


Agreed, and I still disagree with tooambitious - schools with lots of applicants will spend more time looking at Oxbridge - perhaps not at each applicant, but they'll know more about the Oxbridge process. Applicants at schools with hardly any applicants will have to do most of the work themselves, and will inevitably make some mistakes.

Normal schools will probably only have 1-2 applicants each year, which means you could easily be the first person to apply for your subject. As a result, teachers aren't anyway near as savvy about specific courses and colleges. The person who checks over your application at a normal school won't necessarily know about Churchill Law, but someone who's seen 45 applications a year will. Plenty of maths teachers, even heads of department, won't know what STEP is, as they'll never have had anyone take it.

Original post by tooambitious
I don't understand why schools with few applicants wouldn't (be able to).

It's not that they wouldn't be able to, just that they won't spend tonnes of time on one applicant unless they ask for help with a specific issue. If a teacher knows they have 45 students applying, they'll be clued-up about Oxbridge well in advance to answer the hundreds of questions from them all. If there's just one applicant, they'll probably say "I'll look into it for you" to each question, rather than having a huge bank of previous knowledge and experience to rely on.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by tooambitious
At my (state) school, and many others, there is a list of colleges they advise the average applicant to apply to. More capable applicant are allowed to disregard this completely an apply where they like.
I don't really understand why a school would strategically advise students to apply to certain colleges...
Original post by fluteflute
I don't really understand why a school would strategically advise students to apply to certain colleges...


I think it's quite obvious actually, especially at Cambridge where some colleges are always more competitive than others. I don't think it's very helpful though, which is probably what you were hinting at, because I'm sure you do know why they do it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by The Polymath
Agreed, and I still disagree with tooambitious - schools with lots of applicants will spend more time looking at Oxbridge - perhaps not at each applicant, but they'll know more about the Oxbridge process. Applicants at schools with hardly any applicants will have to do most of the work themselves, and will inevitably make some mistakes.

Normal schools will probably only have 1-2 applicants each year, which means you could easily be the first person to apply for your subject. As a result, teachers aren't anyway near as savvy about specific courses and colleges. The person who checks over your application at a normal school won't necessarily know about Churchill Law, but someone who's seen 45 applications a year will. Plenty of maths teachers, even heads of department, won't know what STEP is, as they'll never have had anyone take it.


It's not that they wouldn't be able to, just that they won't spend tonnes of time on one applicant unless they ask for help with a specific issue. If a teacher knows they have 45 students applying, they'll be clued-up about Oxbridge well in advance to answer the hundreds of questions from them all. If there's just one applicant, they'll probably say "I'll look into it for you" to each question, rather than having a huge bank of previous knowledge and experience to rely on.


There is some validity to these points but my instinct is that in practice the folk being rejected are not bright students from schools with little understanding of the process. The people who are fully clued up are the DoSs at other colleges. If they thought Churchill represented profitable waters in which to fish, they would cast their net in that direction.
Original post by The Polymath
Agreed, and I still disagree with tooambitious - schools with lots of applicants will spend more time looking at Oxbridge - perhaps not at each applicant, but they'll know more about the Oxbridge process. Applicants at schools with hardly any applicants will have to do most of the work themselves, and will inevitably make some mistakes.



That just laziness on the school's behalf then. We don't have a special role for ucas applicantions, like many schools do, our 'UCAS' teacher still teaches full timetable, if she can do it, I still don't understand why others can't/wouldn't. Why would the pupil make any more mistakes ran the school?

Original post by The Polymath

Normal schools will probably only have 1-2 applicants each year, which means you could easily be the first person to apply for your subject. As a result, teachers aren't anyway near as savvy about specific courses and colleges. The person who checks over your application at a normal school won't necessarily know about Churchill Law, but someone who's seen 45 applications a year will. Plenty of maths teachers, even heads of department, won't know what STEP is, as they'll never have had anyone take it.


Again, if you had a pupil applying for Law at Churchill, why wouldn't you look into it? why wouldn't the pupil look into it themselves?
I was the first person to apply to Christ Church from my school, the teacher didn't have to do any research, I had done it.

Original post by The Polymath

It's not that they wouldn't be able to, just that they won't spend tonnes of time on one applicant unless they ask for help with a specific issue. If a teacher knows they have 45 students applying, they'll be clued-up about Oxbridge well in advance to answer the hundreds of questions from them all. If there's just one applicant, they'll probably say "I'll look into it for you" to each question, rather than having a huge bank of previous knowledge and experience to rely on.


I'm sorry, I just don't think it's good enough that a school/ an applicant would not know the risk they were taking by applying to Churchill for law. Personally, I don't think the school is at fault at all, I don't think they should have to do anything, but seemingly, I'm one of few




Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 16
Original post by fluteflute
I don't really understand why a school would strategically advise students to apply to certain colleges...

Obviously the schools would think that certain colleges have taken applicants from their school before and/or are statistically easier to gain offers from. It's not particularly good advice, but it's easy to see what their (flawed) reasoning is.

Original post by nulli tertius
There is some validity to these points but my instinct is that in practice the folk being rejected are not bright students from schools with little understanding of the process. The people who are fully clued up are the DoSs at other colleges. If they thought Churchill represented profitable waters in which to fish, they would cast their net in that direction.

My thoughts would be that if the Churchill Law DoS is as fiercely competitive as people say, perhaps he marks by a very harsh standard, resulting in pooled applicants having a low score on their profile? (in the pool there's a kind of covering sheet with scores and comments from the interviews and DoS, and if it was say, 5/10 = doubtful, then the fishers would just flick on through to the next file). Technically, they should try to be impartial, but if it's a very harsh DoS who rejects 17/17 applicants, I doubt he'd be very generous on the pool form.

Original post by tooambitious
That just laziness on the school's behalf then. We don't have a special role for ucas applicantions, like many schools do, our 'UCAS' teacher still teaches full timetable, if she can do it, I still don't understand why others can't/wouldn't
Again, if you had a pupil applying for Law at Churchill, why wouldn't you look into it? why wouldn't the pupil look into it themselves?
I was the first person to apply to Christ Church from my school, the teacher didn't have to do any research, I had done it.
I'm sorry, I just don't think it's good enough that a school/ an applicant would not know the risk they were taking by applying to Churchill for law. Personally, I don't think the school is at fault at all, I don't think they should have to do anything, but seemingly, I'm one of few
Posted from TSR Mobile

Well yeah, it is partially down to the school. Maybe the applicants do know the risk, but don't appreciate that (if my theory above is correct) that they will be doomed in the pool by a DoS who scores unfairly, the subtleties of which people won't look into when they apply.

It still is incredible that 100% of applicants, up to 17 of them, could be rejected year on year.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by The Polymath
Obviously the schools would think that certain colleges have taken applicants from their school before and/or are statistically easier to gain offers from. It's not particularly good advice, but it's easy to see what their (flawed) reasoning is.


My thoughts would be that if the Churchill Law DoS is as fiercely competitive as people say, perhaps he marks by a very harsh standard, resulting in pooled applicants having a low score on their profile? (in the pool there's a kind of covering sheet with scores and comments from the interviews and DoS, and if it was say, 5/10 = doubtful, then the fishers would just flick on through to the next file). Technically, they should try to be impartial, but if it's a very harsh DoS who rejects 17/17 applicants, I doubt he'd be very generous on the pool form.


Well yeah, it is partially down to the school. Maybe the applicants do know the risk, but don't appreciate that (if my theory above is correct) that they will be doomed in the pool by a DoS who scores unfairly, the subtleties of which people won't look into when they apply.

It still is incredible that 100% of applicants, up to 17 of them, could be rejected year on year.


By applying to Churchill for law, the stats almost guarantee you'll be pooled at best. Who applies somewhere just to be pooled :lolwut:

Every single Cambridge applicant (not the teacher!) at my school, looked at the admissions stats for the course/college they applied to. They noted the fluctuations meant its not the most reliable document, but anyone looking into churchill for law would see thus and steer clear.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by The Polymath

My thoughts would be that if the Churchill Law DoS is as fiercely competitive as people say, perhaps he marks by a very harsh standard, resulting in pooled applicants having a low score on their profile? (in the pool there's a kind of covering sheet with scores and comments from the interviews and DoS, and if it was say, 5/10 = doubtful, then the fishers would just flick on through to the next file). Technically, they should try to be impartial, but if it's a very harsh DoS who rejects 17/17 applicants, I doubt he'd be very generous on the pool form.



I am sure he does, but it doesn't work like that. Academics know which of their colleagues' opinions are reliable and which are not. If they thought that Churchill was rejecting real talent they would be congregating as bees around a honey-pot.
Reply 19
Original post by tooambitious
By applying to Churchill for law, the stats almost guarantee you'll be pooled at best. Who applies somewhere just to be pooled :lolwut:

Every single Cambridge applicant (not the teacher!) at my school, looked at the admissions stats for the course/college they applied to. They noted the fluctuations meant its not the most reliable document, but anyone looking into churchill for law would see thus and steer clear.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Don't know why I didn't think of this before:

Spoiler



It is still astounding that out of 52 applicants, only 2 got into Cambridge, and not one got into another college.

In fact, last year, someone was fished *by* Churchill, and if you assume that they got the standard offer, they were asked for A*A*AA - imagine the shock :tongue: It's no surprise, then, that only one of them ended up enrolling..

Quick Reply

Latest