This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is it me, or do Oxford reject more people without interview than Cambridge?

Ive heard so many stories of people getting rejected without interview at Oxford, and almost everyone getting an interview at Cambridge....?

I know someone who got 600/600 in history, but got rejected without interview when he applied to Oxford (For History)...i mean, atleast give him an interview!!! His PS and Ref. couldn't have been that bad could it????

And another guy got 10A* 1A, got AAAAAA at AS, predcited AAA, rejected without interview....I can understand the rejection, but why without the interview? How can they be sooooo bad that they rejected then without giving then a 'chance' so to speak....and Cambridge make it a point to interview *almost* everyone....I mean, im talking about people who got C's at GCSE, and C's at AS, and they were given interviews at Cam.....why is this? Why the disparity?

I mean, it seems to me that people who got rejected from Oxford would have defintely got into Cambridge....

Reply 1

N_n_N

Cambridge is better than Oxford that's why they value all people and give them a chance.

Reply 2

--

3

Yes, yes they do. It's fairly well known. And Cambridge are increasingly resorting to the same thing.

Oh and Oxford has pre-interview tests for History in the form of the HAT. He could have simply performed terribly and had some fundamental problems with his written work, but simply able to hide this in exams through rote-learning. It's impossible to know, but they are keen to take the best students they can, and grades are not always the best indication of this. If he got rejected before interview then there must have been something in his application which told the admissions tutors that he wouldn't have stood a chance of getting an offer.

Reply 3

shiver333

Hmm, yeah only 1 person out of 3 got an interview at Ox while 3 people out of 5 had an interview at Cam. But don't both unis invite cca 80% of people for interview?

Reply 4

Cirsium

19

Oxford do reject more people before interview, yes, because they invite everybody to stay for a few days and they are interviewed several times (rather than the Cambridge system where you might screw up interview 1 and then have to wait until the January pool for the second chance). Obviously this limits the number of candidates they can interview. To reject someone with a perfect score I would say he must have truly screwed up his HAT or else had a glaring flaw in his application - they still invite a LOT of History candidates to interview - it's not like they pick who they want to take before then.

There's a whole debate on here about this literally a week ago - use the search.

Reply 5

*pitseleh*

20

Cambridge do tend to interview more of their applicants (though they don't interview all applicants). Oxford more commonly use factors such as admissions tests to inform their decision before they send the interview invites out - so yes, fewer people get to the interview stage at Oxford than is the case at Cambridge.

Reply 6

Adrian1707

1

Yeah I hear that Cambridge is much more open then Oxford. I think Oxford are still trapped in the elitist bubble that the government are trying to pop atm and find it too risky to change when they are already one of the best unis in the world.

Reply 7

andiroo

The oxbridge adviser/helper at my college was telling me that at my 6th form college there is a particular school who's students leave with all A's and A*'s at GCSE. They then go on to perform BADLY at the college because they've peaked in their ability too soon.

I guess the Uni must know which colleges send good students who have peaked too early and thus perform bad on their degree courses?

Reply 8

--

3

Adrian1707

Yeah I hear that Cambridge is much more open then Oxford. I think Oxford are still trapped in the elitist bubble that the government are trying to pop atm and find it too risky to change when they are already one of the best unis in the world.

How does not interviewing everyone make them elitist? The majority of universities, even the truly dire, don't interview, so how can not interviewing be a sign of elitism?

Reply 9

*pitseleh*

20

Adrian1707

Yeah I hear that Cambridge is much more open then Oxford. I think Oxford are still trapped in the elitist bubble that the government are trying to pop atm and find it too risky to change when they are already one of the best unis in the world.

'Elitist' in what respect...? :confused:

Reply 10

Cirsium

19

Adrian1707

Yeah I hear that Cambridge is much more open then Oxford. I think Oxford are still trapped in the elitist bubble that the government are trying to pop atm and find it too risky to change when they are already one of the best unis in the world.

Which is why when 47.6% of applicants came from maintained schools they only gave out 47.1% of offers to state schoolers. :rolleyes:

(And yes before someone says something that does include grammars, I'm aware). Of course Oxford are elitest - how else would you describe demanding academic excellence?!

Reply 11

*pitseleh*

20

andiroo

The oxbridge adviser/helper was telling me that at my 6th form college there is a particular school whos students leave withs all A's and A*'s at GCSE. They then go on to perform BADLY at the college because they've peaked in their ability too soon.

I guess the Uni must know which colleges send good students who have peaked too early and thus perform bad on their degree courses?

IMHO, it's far more likely that they do badly because they waltz in expecting offers (having come from such good schools, with such good grades), rather than that they've peaked too early.

Reply 12

Cirsium

19

andiroo

The oxbridge adviser/helper was telling me that at my 6th form college there is a particular school whos students leave withs all A's and A*'s at GCSE. They then go on to perform BADLY at the college because they've peaked in their ability too soon.

I guess the Uni must know which colleges send good students who have peaked too early and thus perform bad on their degree courses?

Really? So when my tutor interviewed in my first year (which was also HIS first year in Oxford having been at Bath for 13 odd years) he magically KNEW that School X sent good candidates and happened to pick someone from this school. This feat was then MAGICALLY matched by my new tutor who also picked somebody from that school. It had nothing to do with the fact that School X just sent us 2 good candidates in 2 good years. Do you honestly expect tutors to know the name of every school in the country or something? And how do they know which school you went to anyway?

Reply 13

HCD

16

andiroo

The oxbridge adviser/helper was telling me that at my 6th form college there is a particular school whos students leave withs all A's and A*'s at GCSE. They then go on to perform BADLY at the college because they've peaked in their ability too soon.

I guess the Uni must know which colleges send good students who have peaked too early and thus perform bad on their degree courses?

That really makes no sense. They might be taught in a particular way that's good for GCSE, but fails thereafter, but I don't buy all this "peaking too early" stuff. You can get all A*s at GCSE, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're at your peak, not by any means.

Reply 14

Wangers

16

andiroo

The oxbridge adviser/helper at my college was telling me that at my 6th form college there is a particular school who's students leave with all A's and A*'s at GCSE. They then go on to perform BADLY at the college because they've peaked in their ability too soon.

I guess the Uni must know which colleges send good students who have peaked too early and thus perform bad on their degree courses?

Oh %%%%%%%% off, if you're seriously saying that the people get rejected have peaked in academic ability due to taking A levels then you've got your head up the arse end.

Reply 15

Cirsium

19

I wouldn't say they've peaked in their ability - more got sick of working.

Reply 16

andiroo

Bekaboo

Really? So when my tutor interviewed in my first year (which was also HIS first year in Oxford having been at Bath for 13 odd years) he magically KNEW that School X sent good candidates and happened to pick someone from this school. This feat was then MAGICALLY matched by my new tutor who also picked somebody from that school. It had nothing to do with the fact that School X just sent us 2 good candidates in 2 good years. Do you honestly expect tutors to know the name of every school in the country or something? And how do they know which school you went to anyway?

He might not know, but it wouldn't be hard for the department to match the percent of students from college X who got firsts, to the percent of students from college Y who got firsts.

I agree the "peeking to early" is a load of rubbish. Laziness and academic fatigue i would agree with. I think a more realistic reason would be that some colleges spoon feed the students so yes they get AAAA, but they can't cope with the degree because it isn't spoon fed. I don't see any reason why they would want to accept students from a college that they know doesn't provide students that can adapt to their method of teaching.

Reply 17

Cirsium

19

Except the department don't choose. Individual tutors do. And bearing in mind that for my subject you can practically predict a college's finals results from who the tutor is and which options the students took (e.g. Pembroke + Animals + Environment = 1st; Hilda's + Cells + Environment = low 2:1). School is irrelevant really - it may influence the applicants we get but once they're here it's really not part of what determines your final degree class.

Reply 18

andiroo

Bekaboo

Except the department don't choose. Individual tutors do.

The tutors do choose, but your acting like the department and the tutors don't communicate with each other.

Reply 19

--

3

andiroo

The tutors do choose, but your acting like the department and the tutors don't communicate with each other.

Which department do you see compiling this data? Admissions Tutors are interdisciplinary, so do you presume that individual faculties have people working out which schools are providing the most capable students? And what about those schools that have little or no history of sending people to Oxbridge?

Is it me, or do Oxford reject more people without interview than Cambridge?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you