A Question About Oxford

League rankings really aren't anything compared to the social benefits of Oxford over Cambridge. I'm not talking about the partying scene, I'm mentioning, Quality of Life, Chance of Employment.

I can only speak anecdotally in this response about Oxford but what I can say about their interview process was quite frankly, from a professional point, disgraceful. Absolutely horrendous.

A headteacher to me recounted the time a student phone him crying, because the interviewers had been so cruel to the kid. They had feigned sleeping and snoring noises in response to one of her questions. They then told her, thanks, she was free to go home.

So she books a train back to Wolverhampton, gets on it, and then, lo and behold, once on the train she received a message about how they wanted to see her again and return to the interview room. Suffice to say, she told them to **** off and left.


Others have said they were discriminated on accent. People from where I am have a fairly thick accent, which can be strange to people who haven't heard it before, but not to the point where it isn't understandable. However they've had interviewers tell them to speak clearer, or more "Appropriately" essentially asking them to a fake a posh accent, rather than be themselves.

As I say, this is anecdotal, and may not fully reflect all of the interviewers at Oxford, and I mean it in no way to disrespect them. I can only speak from vicarious experiences and trustworthy accounts.

You got an offer with AABC at AS? That's amazing.

What were you applying for?
- Did they care about your gcses etc

Why is Oxford better than Cambridge? Cambridge is above Oxford in the UK and international rankings.

This is vastly dependent upon they applicant's choice of course; Art History, for example, at Oxford is ranked #1 while Cambridge is ranked at #5. Let's not make any sweeping generalizations!

It's somewhat fair though, lot's of people Romanticise this idea of Oxford/Cambridge but they aren't worth it. The interviewers are often incredibly rude and other applicants arrogant to start with.

There are comparable northern universities which are less prone to snobbery. Also, Oxford and Cambridge have a horrendous obsession with foreign students and such, notable for sometimes being at the expense of other students studying at the university.

For law, which would be better?

The interviewers are often incredibly rude and other applicants arrogant to start with.

There are comparable northern universities which are less prone to snobbery. Also, Oxford and Cambridge have a horrendous obsession with foreign students and such, notable for sometimes being at the expense of other students studying at the university.

While we're here, I'd be interested to know what the interviews are like for medicine at Oxford please...if anyone has experience haha.

I can only speak anecdotally in this response about Oxford but what I can say about their interview process was quite frankly, from a professional point, disgraceful. Absolutely horrendous.

As I say, this is anecdotal, and may not fully reflect all of the interviewers at Oxford, and I mean it in no way to disrespect them. I can only speak from vicarious experiences and trustworthy accounts.

As someone who has gone through the interview process and received an offer, all I can say about the interviewers is that they showed me nothing but respect. A lot of the posters in this forum are recounting anecdotal evidence which serves as a vicious game of Chinese whispers which often originates from bitter Oxbridge rejects.

For medicine its a combination of science questions and ethics questions, sometimes split into different interviews. You're also interviewed at two colleges, so 4+ interviews is the norm.

The science questions will build on your knowledge from your studies - chemistry, biology, physics. They frequently take a medical slant, though clearly they don't expect you to have knowledge of medicine itself. I had questions about the cell cycle, chromosomes, clotting cascade, deriving equations defining blood flow, calculating concentrations, thermoregulation, evolution. One I was given a picture of something down a microscope and told to describe the tissues seen. I was also given a couple of abstract questions for which oxford has a reputation - namely this one http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99xx1.htm (its very famous so I'll share).

The main point of questions is to find something that you have no idea about, then encouraging you to use what you do know to work out the possible answers. It can be very conceptual. Its about seeing how you think, not how much you know.

This is very contrasting to medicine interviews at other universities.

It's somewhat fair though, lot's of people Romanticise this idea of Oxford/Cambridge but they aren't worth it. The interviewers are often incredibly rude and other applicants arrogant to start with.

There are comparable northern universities which are less prone to snobbery. Also, Oxford and Cambridge have a horrendous obsession with foreign students and such, notable for sometimes being at the expense of other students studying at the university.

I would never put somebody off applying for Oxbridge - thousands of students a year after all go to Oxford and leave satisfied and well educated. However I do have a similar anecdotal experience of the interview process. They made a derogatory remark about the northern mill town I am from which I found to be wholly unprofessional.



I don't think anybody who recounts an anecdotal experience is saying that that is the experience of every single person. I'm sure there are many highly professional Oxbridge interviewers. But I did not get one. As for being a 'bitter reject', I have never believed my interviewer was responsible for me not getting in. I just didn't have a wide enough range of extra-curricular interests and wasn't able to talk about my subject analytically enough. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to go to an Oxbridge interview expecting a professional interviewer who can keep their opinions on your home town to themselves.

I don't think people who spread these tales are attacking Oxbridge personally - it's just that few other university courses actually require an interview. Therefore a lot of university interview 'horror stories' will likely concern Oxbridge. But I'm sure if all universities interviewed as standard, there would be some bad interviewers at all of them.

Thanks a lot! I didn't do bio last year, but my teacher has suggested doing an AS next year...would you recommend please?

Also, did they test you on material you weren't necessarily taught in school...that you'd taught yourself in your own time?

The key guidance on biology is here. They say:

"N.B. Despite the fact that most applicants offering A-levels tend to take Biology (or Human Biology), this subject is NOT required at A2 level (or indeed at AS-level). However, do be aware that not having A-level Biology is associated with a greater risk of having difficulty at the early stages of the course (and other medical courses)."

So I would try to pick up the AS. That may also leave you eligible to apply toa few extra medicine courses at other universities.

The questions can stem from school work, something in your personal statement, or something else. They rapidly move onto things you haven't seen before though - that's the idea.

Hmmmm, sounds like you got brutally rejected by Oxbridge

In fact it seems that it is every other week that Oxford and Cambridge are being accused of being racist and biased against state school students.

The fact that Oxbridge requires an interview sets the universities apart as being highly selective; this naturally attracts rumors concerning discrimination and snobbery which in the vast majority of cases just isn't true. Indeed more often than not interviews are carried out by two members of faculty which is designed to reduce bias etc. I just get annoyed by the negative stereotypes which surrounds the universities; age and prestige have been equated with outdated conservative values and institutional snobbery and bigotry. In fact it seems that it is every other week that Oxford and Cambridge are being accused of being racist and biased against state school students.

It's somewhat fair though, lot's of people Romanticise this idea of Oxford/Cambridge but they aren't worth it. The interviewers are often incredibly rude and other applicants arrogant to start with.

There are comparable northern universities which are less prone to snobbery. Also, Oxford and Cambridge have a horrendous obsession with foreign students and such, notable for sometimes being at the expense of other students studying at the university.