Why did YOU choose Oxford or Cambridge over the other?

Its not unfounded speculation, its a conclusion based on speaking with quite a lot of Oxbridge people and also senior people in top schools who have sent many people they think are Oxbridge material to both places with the result that more of them got into Cambridge, and that some incredible students were turned down by Oxford while others who were not expected to have such a good chance did get in.

Considering many other uni's ask for 3 A's asking for AAB was traditionally a vote of confidence in an applicant, the reason they have had to stop doing this as much is because it prejudices the institution in league tables. But they still do give AAB offers, in my year I got an AAA offer and the two historians the admissions tutors obviously liked best (one went on to get a 1st) were given AAB. Kings College, London faces the same problem they like to give people AAB offers even though they expect 3A's and can fill up most of their places with them. It has traditionally been a goodwill thing to put less pressure on people who they have already judged to be top students. My history teacher at school was from the generation when Oxford gave out EE offers (which is the offer he got), if you really think that Oxford students in those days often had EE then you are incredibly misguided. I think this whole thing about the asking offers is mystifying the question, it has nothing to do with the judgements of the people I have spoken to - my Oxbridge friends, people in the HK Oxford and Cambridge Soc, and housemasters et al in schools.

It is true that Oxford will sometimes choose somebody less good on paper who appears to have a spark and unusual passion for their subject over a better qualified candidate who is impressive at interview. One might characterise it as the arts approach, while Cambridge is more scientific and objective in its admissions.

Well I would say if you are very strong on paper, but not so great orally then apply to Cambridge, and if you are weak on paper but think you will do well at interview go for Oxford.

If other people don’t believe this that is up to them, at the end of the day everyone makes their own decision and takes their chances. People who have already gotten in like to present a picture that its a clear, fair and uniform system that gets it right 99% of the time and has no room for Machiavelli's fortuna . Well that is a great thing to think if you are at Oxbridge isn't it? I am here because I am better than all the people who got rejected.

My own experience suggests that its not all so clear cut, and that there is always an element of luck involved - I know plenty of Oxbridge students who aren't all that bright and don't deserve to be there, and quite a few people who were rejected who are at least as intelligent as the people I went to college with.

So I am not really talking to Oxbridge people who disagree with me here, but to people thinking of applying who I feel it my duty to present what is in my experience the truth so that for those that want to hear it they are not simply left with the typical university propaganda which self-interested Oxbridge students love to repeat because it makes them feel good about themselves.

Ok, founded speculation, then. Speculation all the same. My own experience based on the 15 or so people who applied to Oxford and Cambridge from my school was that: Based on the year above me, one exceptional student almost got rejected from Cambridge medicine but was pooled. On paper he could match anyone.

I think I could quite easily make up some internally consistent but totally bogus theory based on all this, but it wouldn't be very accurate and it wouldn't fit in with other people's different but equally valid anecdotal experience. Coincidentally, my school, despite having much experience in sending kids to Oxbridge, did not direct people towards Cambridge or Oxford - they let people choose for themselves. This suggests to me that they saw Oxford and Cambridge as both looking for similar qualities in their students.

Regarding the fallibility of admissions, I agree with you wholeheartedly and always have. The only thing we disagree on seems to be that you think Cambridge's admissions process relies on interviews to a lesser extent than Oxford - I don't think you'll find many Cambridge students who agree with you on this, particularly not the ones who boast about getting in with no A*s at GCSE etc. etc.

Yeah, I'm well aware of this practice. There is a big difference between giving an EE offer as a vote of confidence and giving an AAB offer because it is more realistic, however. I don't know which other unis you are referring to when you say that others asked for AAA - from memory there were none aside from Cambridge back in 2002.

Well, I think you probably know what I think about that!

So basically you just think its harder to get into Cambridge in absolute terms. What a suprising view for someone who went to Cambridge.

Firz, what you need to do is look at the differences between the courses, because there are quite a few for that particular subject, and visit both Oxford and Cambridge and see which one you prefer, after a visit most people prefer one or the other.

The MML tripos is much better at camb than oxford, thats why I will be applying

I'm genuinely curious as to what reasons you give for why you applied to Oxford over Cambridge and vice versa. Name your course, college and why you chose your university etc. would be quite interesting to see.

Also, the other day I was reading information from both sites - apparently Cambridge has a Tripos system where exams are taken throughout the 3 years while Oxford's has it all at the end (which makes me a bit uneasy).

Actually Oxford has two lots of exams -- mods or prelims take place at some point in the first or second year.