What are my options?

Also, let's not play any 'word tricks' here. You suggested that I "may not be good enough;" therefore, I tell you that I am 'good enough.'

Let's not play any word tricks. If you don't get in this year the only evidence available to you will tend to confirm the idea that you are not good enough. There will be no evidence that you are, except in your head.

This is all crazy - at least wait until the answer comes in! It won't be long now! From the way you talk about your interview it sounds like you might have misunderstood the process - they are not looking for perfect people who get everything right, they just want to see how you think and reason things out. Also, applications for a subject like maths are far less subjective than the arts and they are trained to look for *potential*, not just right answers. I think you can rest assured that whatever decision they make will be the right one.

I don't even see you point. The 'word trick' refers to 3320's interpretation of 'good enough. I suggest that you re-read the posts.

Of course this is all subjective. If you constantly REQUIRE evidences to confirm you of your own competence, then there must be a serious lack of self-confidence. On another point, is this arguement of yours even faintly related to ANYTHING?

Sorry if this appears to be so abnormal, but I just wanted to see all the possibilities.

You don't seem to realise that it is not the candidate's competence that is at issue. Virtually all Oxbrige candidates are very able indeed. The problem comes when judging whether you make the grade (i.e. are acceptable to the university). Your own opinion of this is utterly irrelevant - the only one that counts is that of the rejecting (or accepting) college.

Actually it doesn't seem abnormal - lots of people go through the same thing, if that makes you feel any better. The issue is whether (if you are rejected) you would have a chance if you reapplied. This is something the interview feedback when it comes will be able to tell you. If you are rejected without being pooled, it could well indicate that you are not boarderline and there is a problem that could not be solved in a reapplication. If you are pooled, you could well stand a chance next year.

I still think you could be surprised though. In my experience the only ones who can know they're being rejected are the ones who cry all the way through or run out/clam up completely. You did not do this, and therefore have as good a chance as anyone else.

Although it is arguable that outright rejection would likely indicate incompetence, but I think other factors are in play as well. For example, I know a person who was admitted based on pretending to share a similar interest with the interviewer! Of course, such an action is utterly despicable and this person will not likely survive, but the point is that rejection/acceptance does not determine your own value. No matter the result, I am still who I am.

Although it is arguable that outright rejection would likely indicate incompetence, but I think other factors are in play as well. For example, I know a person who was admitted based on pretending to share a similar interest with the interviewer!

there is never again harm in being a stoic realist.

That person probably had the references, grades, PS and written work to back up his application. Unless the interviewer told you that himself then it is pure conjecture on your part (and not a small amount of bitterness too).

On a more serious note, it's important to bear in mind that a rejection may not be so much to do with your failings as it is to do with the fact that someone else just did really REALLY well that day. So other factors may be at play, but it's not neccessarily corruption on Oxford's part. With that in mind, it may well be worth applying again, but admissions are always going to be hard to predict, and remember to leave yourself a 'plan b'.

Bitterness? I don't even know this person. IN FACT, this story was told to me by my counsellor, who advized me to take similar actions. According to her, the mock interview was disastrous, but, that applicant managed to fill in most of the time with a discussion regarding that interest.

I'm curious 3232, why do you end almost every post with a personal attack, psychoanalysis and/or declaration of superiority? Is this a typical Oxbridge symptom?

Oh come on, re-read your own language in the post. If you know nothing about that person apart from what a careers counsellor has said why do you feel you're in a position to say what they did was even what that counsellor has said, or make a moralistic judgement of that person?

As for that last comment, I'd advise looking towards yourself. The fact you've said that this person's actions were 'utterly despicable' and that they will 'likely not survive' based on the account of a careers counsellor, who has absolutely no idea what led to that person getting an offer, is the problem. Your language reeks of bitterness, it's not that hard to see. And, incidently, your constant sensitivity to people from 'Oxbridge' seems to imply an inferiority complex. How's that for psychoanalysis?

i also suspected English was your second language.

It doesn't matter whether the college decides to accept or reject you. YOU are not determined by the opinion of another person, who may be in a good/bad/disgusting mood!