The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Solid_Snake_100
I wish that was the case, however I think you are being a little idealistic to believe that the best wont apply to the best colleges, and the less strong to other ones. The teacher who advised me on this is my head of sixth form and has been doing this for several years, I completely trust his judgement.

The whole point of the pooling system (especially the new one introduced last year) is to make sure that your overall chances of getting an offer aren't affected by your college choice. So the only real difference is that if you apply to a less popular college, your chances of getting an offer from the college you originally applied to are higher than if you apply to a popular college which pools lots of people because they get far more good applicants than they have places.
^^ True, but the colleges cannot pool unlimited numbers, and admissions tutors look more favourably upon those that applied directly to their college (believe it or not its just the way it is). Moreover, the system is not flawless, students may not meet the "oxford standard" in the eyes of those interviewing at the best colleges, but may at lesser colleges who are not used to the differentiation in talent.
hobnob
The whole point of the pooling system (especially the new one introduced last year) is to make sure that your overall chances of getting an offer aren't affected by your college choice. So the only real difference is that if you apply to a less popular college, your chances of getting an offer from the college you originally applied to are higher than if you apply to a popular college which pools lots of people because they get far more good applicants than they have places.

This is right. If you apply to History at Balliol, you have exactly the same chance of getting into the university as you would if you applied to Hilda's, but the chances of you actually getting a place at Balliol itself are slimmer.
Reply 23
Solid_Snake_100
^^ True, but the colleges cannot pool unlimited numbers, and admissions tutors look more favourably upon those that applied directly to their college (believe it or not its just the way it is).
I don't believe it because it's balls :rolleyes:
No tutor cares whether or not their new student wants to be at that college. They care about whether or not they'll be teaching a good student.
You talk about strong applicants applying to "good colleges" like there's some kind of hierarchy. There's not. There are a handful of famous colleges. Famous because they're big, and have boys' choirs and nice scenery. They're not better, and you'd be daft to choose where you applied because you thought it'd be easy. Pick somewhere you LIKE and stop making assumptions about a system you know little about when the people who are THERE and who talk to their tutors on a daily basis, and who help out with admissions are telling you you're wrong :rolleyes:
Solid_Snake_100
^^ True, but the colleges cannot pool unlimited numbers, and admissions tutors look more favourably upon those that applied directly to their college (believe it or not its just the way it is).


Actually, admissions tutors may be blinded as to that information, and in general don't care. While tutors do want to pick undergraduates that they would want to teach, they are quite aware that people choose their college for all sorts of reasons, hardly any of which would recommend a candidate (hardly any would harm a candidate with other merits either).
Solid_Snake_100
I wish that was the case, however I think you are being a little idealistic to believe that the best wont apply to the best colleges, and the less strong to other ones. The teacher who advised me on this is my head of sixth form and has been doing this for several years, I completely trust his judgement.


I personally think that trying to play the system will not work like that. I applied to Emmanuel, which is academically one of the strongest colleges in Cambridge, but that doesn't mean that I thought I was 'the best', and I'm sure that's true for a lot of Emma applicants. My UMS grades were definitely not as high as other people's at my interviews. I applied because it was the only college I felt at home at when I went for the open days.

My school also advise us to apply to colleges that aren't at the top of the league table because we're a state school, which I think spreads unnecessary cries of elitism, and is frankly a little defeatist. If you are good enough for Cambridge, the pooling system should ensure that you get an offer. Of course, it's not infallible, but I'd still recommend applying to the college you like the most, not the one that you have strategically picked out as giving you the best chance of an offer.
Solid_Snake_100
^^ True, but the colleges cannot pool unlimited numbers,

When I cam up for interview, every single applicant got automatically given an interview at a third college. Some were asked to stay for a third (I suspect these were borderline candidates whom tutors were still undecided about.) Admittedly I only have experience of one subject, but yes they basically do pool "unlimited numbers".

and admissions tutors look more favourably upon those that applied directly to their college (believe it or not its just the way it is).

I have no idea why you think this. I don't see why admissions tutors would care where the interviewees' first choices were. I doubt they even have to know.

Moreover, the system is not flawless, students may not meet the "oxford standard" in the eyes of those interviewing at the best colleges, but may at lesser colleges who are not used to the differentiation in talent.


I agree the system isn't flawless. I'm sure some people who may deserve to get in often somehow get unlucky and slip through the system. However I don't think there's any reason to think this happens more often at any one college than another.
Solid_Snake_100
^^ True, but the colleges cannot pool unlimited numbers, and admissions tutors look more favourably upon those that applied directly to their college (believe it or not its just the way it is). Moreover, the system is not flawless, students may not meet the "oxford standard" in the eyes of those interviewing at the best colleges, but may at lesser colleges who are not used to the differentiation in talent.

This is complete rubbish. Firstly they want the best students. College choice makes very little difference. The days of students doing their BA and PhD at the same college and then remaining there forever more as snooty dons is well over. Many academics have studied and taught at numerous colleges (and for that matter numerous universities) and some even think the collegiate system is a complete waste of time. Note that some colleges in some subjects as standard take more people in from the pool than from their own applicants

'Lesser' colleges will also have been exposed to a wide 'differentiation' in talent. For a start almost all interviewers will have lectured and supervised students from many colleges. They will have been exposed to students of all differing abilities. Secondly the quality of students who are finally admitted isn't that different. The Tompkins and Norrington table show considerable variation within college performance and the difference between top and bottom isn't huge. I also imagine that the Baxter tables (that measure college performance by subject) show a huge variation with colleges jumping from the top to the bottom.

League tables also hide considerable variation that is not based purely on acaedmic performance. For instance women do less well than men in finals. Threfore Newnham and New Hall are way down the list. If, however, you only ranked colleges on performace on girls these would apparently be near the top. Likewise colleges with high number of scientists as a proprtytion of students are likely to be in an inflated position as more scientists get firsts than humanities students.

THe pooling system is also very detailed with candidates ranked on performance with a number of symbols. Significantly more people are pooled than can be taken which means there is lots of room for pooling lots of candidates to allow them to be more fully assessed.

I understand where you are coming from becuase my school went on about more prestigous colleges/state:tongue:rivate ratios/school's historical ties with certain colleges. At the end of the day though its crap
Zoedotdot
I personally think that trying to play the system will not work like that. I applied to Emmanuel, which is academically one of the strongest colleges in Cambridge, but that doesn't mean that I thought I was 'the best', and I'm sure that's true for a lot of Emma applicants. My UMS grades were definitely not as high as other people's at my interviews. I applied because it was the only college I felt at home at when I went for the open days.


I'm going to agree with Zoe on this one- I didn't even look at the Tompkins Table before choosing to apply to Emmanuel, instead I made a list of criteria to choose a shortlist and visited those colleges on the open day. Emmanuel was the one where I felt at home and that was literally the reason I chose it. However when I told certain teachers that Emmanuel was my college of preference, they immediately tried to change my mind, as they thought that it was incredibly risky to apply for Medicine there. I was told to apply to 'one of the weaker colleges' to increase my chances of getting an offer.

I think as long as schools spread the view that it is possible to play the system (or indeed the view that certain colleges are in fact weak academically), there will always be rumours and myths circulating that will panic applicants. My school has a long history of sending girls to Oxbridge (it is a good grammar school) and yet these ideas still circulate amongst the staff and inevitably, applicants. As I see it, a Cambrdge college is a Cambridge college and you might as well apply to one you like regardless of where it is in the Tompkins table, as there will be yearly fluctuations anyway. If you have the ability to get an offer, you will be pooled and although the system probably isn't infallible, you have to trust that the system works and hope for the best. After all, you could have the same concerns about your application to any university.
*stars and stripes*
I'm going to agree with Zoe on this one- I didn't even look at the Tompkins Table before choosing to apply to Emmanuel, instead I made a list of criteria to choose a shortlist and visited those colleges on the open day. Emmanuel was the one where I felt at home and that was literally the reason I chose it. However when I told certain teachers that Emmanuel was my college of preference, they immediately tried to change my mind, as they thought that it was incredibly risky to apply for Medicine there. I was told to apply to 'one of the weaker colleges' to increase my chances of getting an offer.


I didn't look at the Tompkins Table either, and Emmanuel wasn't even on my shortlist! I'd taken some of my schools' advice, and combed the prospectus for colleges that explicitly stated that they welcomed state school applicants. I'm glad I visited it by accident, and I'm glad that I decided to apply there regardless. High five for going against all advice, Danielle!
Zoedotdot
I didn't look at the Tompkins Table either, and Emmanuel wasn't even on my shortlist! I'd taken some of my schools' advice, and combed the prospectus for colleges that explicitly stated that they welcomed state school applicants. I'm glad I visited it by accident, and I'm glad that I decided to apply there regardless. High five for going against all advice, Danielle!


*high five* I'm glad I didn't follow one iota of what my school said, as if I'd opted to apply to another college and got an offer, I think that I'd be wondering 'what if?' To be honest, I wouldn't have been able to tell who came from a private or state school at interview and it didn't come up in conversation. I'm assuming that will be the same if I get my grades :smile:
*stars and stripes*
*high five* I'm glad I didn't follow one iota of what my school said, as if I'd opted to apply to another college and got an offer, I think that I'd be wondering 'what if?' To be honest, I wouldn't have been able to tell who came from a private or state school at interview and it didn't come up in conversation. I'm assuming that will be the same if I get my grades :smile:


I couldn't tell either, but it did come up in conversation. And yes, I felt very conspicuously state school. But that was mainly because I was worried about the competition! Everyone had put such emphasis on me being severely disadvantaged because I was from a state school I'd started to worry. However, I'm sure it won't make a blind bit of difference if I get there.
Zoedotdot
I couldn't tell either, but it did come up in conversation. And yes, I felt very conspicuously state school. But that was mainly because I was worried about the competition! Everyone had put such emphasis on me being severely disadvantaged because I was from a state school I'd started to worry. However, I'm sure it won't make a blind bit of difference if I get there.


Why is it that whatever thread we post in, it ends up being a conversation between us two? :wink:

Anyway, back on topic...do you think you would have performed even better at interview if you weren't worried about the supposed stigma attached to state school applicants? Although my school is technically state, I suppose it doesn't feel like it and so I didn't even think about my application in terms of my background. I was more worried about the task in hand, so to speak, than the type of school I went to (although I know that it did cross the mind of other applicants from my school).
*stars and stripes*
Why is it that whatever thread we post in, it ends up being a conversation between us two? :wink:

Anyway, back on topic...do you think you would have performed even better at interview if you weren't worried about the supposed stigma attached to state school applicants? Although my school is technically state, I suppose it doesn't feel like it and so I didn't even think about my application in terms of my background. I was more worried about the task in hand, so to speak, than the type of school I went to (although I know that it did cross the mind of other applicants from my school).


Because we're procrastinaty and chatty? :p:

To be honest, I think I would have performed worse if the thought had never crossed my mind. I wanted to prove everyone that I could do it and that my school being a non-selective inner city comprehensive was not going to reflect negatively on me. In fact, as much as I moan about my school, I'm very proud of it. I have been supported in my choices pretty much the whole way through my education there, and they've always given me the opportunities I've needed. And when I turned up to interview and discovered that almost everyone there went to a private school, and failing that, a grammar school, I was determined to do my best to show that I had as good a chance as them regardless of my background. (Obviously, I don't have anything against private or grammar school people, this is just a reaction to the comments that were made by teachers, parents and friends prior to interview :smile:)
Zoedotdot
Because we're procrastinaty and chatty? :p:

To be honest, I think I would have performed worse if the thought had never crossed my mind. I wanted to prove everyone that I could do it and that my school being a non-selective inner city comprehensive was not going to reflect negatively on me. In fact, as much as I moan about my school, I'm very proud of it. I have been supported in my choices pretty much the whole way through my education there, and they've always given me the opportunities I've needed. And when I turned up to interview and discovered that almost everyone there went to a private school, and failing that, a grammar school, I was determined to do my best to show that I had as good a chance as them regardless of my background. (Obviously, I don't have anything against private or grammar school people, this is just a reaction to the comments that were made by teachers, parents and friends prior to interview :smile:)


Very true :wink:

You put a positive slant on it then and used it as motivation :smile: I wonder how many applicants do the same, or whether some are so firmly fixed on the idea that because they are from a state school, they are in some way doomed to failure.

My personal view is that with it being Oxbridge, everyone is at least slightly scared of the process and probably does doubt their own ability at some point, but it doesn't help when schools exarcerbate the problem. I was told so many wrong things by my school (I only now recognise them as being wrong due to TSR!) that after the interview process, the Biology department wanted to probe me for lots of answers so that they could pass on the reality of Medicine interviews in particular to applicants from lower down the school! I don't think it's my school's fault though and they did try to support me through the process as well as they could, it's just that there are too many myths and rumours flying around for anyone to work out which were true and which were nonsense! I can see why the Access people in particular are fighting a losing battle in some cases!
*stars and stripes*
Very true :wink:

You put a positive slant on it then and used it as motivation :smile: I wonder how many applicants do the same, or whether some are so firmly fixed on the idea that because they are from a state school, they are in some way doomed to failure.

My personal view is that with it being Oxbridge, everyone is at least slightly scared of the process and probably does doubt their own ability at some point, but it doesn't help when schools exarcerbate the problem. I was told so many wrong things by my school (I only now recognise them as being wrong due to TSR!) that after the interview process, the Biology department wanted to probe me for lots of answers so that they could pass on the reality of Medicine interviews in particular to applicants from lower down the school! I don't think it's my school's fault though and they did try to support me through the process as well as they could, it's just that there are too many myths and rumours flying around for anyone to work out which were true and which were nonsense! I can see why the Access people in particular are fighting a losing battle in some cases!


I wish I still had the Oxbridge booklet we were given at the beginning of Year 12 so that I could quote all the myths that were included in that as gospel truth. The only one I remember was the one about applying to supposedly weaker colleges to maximise chances of getting in. I don't really like using the word weaker though, because as far as I'm concerned, Cambridge is Cambridge and I'd have been delighted to get an offer from any college!

I've already offered to help out with the Oxbridge side of UCAS days in a couple of years at my school :smile: And I'm definitely getting involved with the Access stuff, grades permitting.
camstudent123
This is complete rubbish. Firstly they want the best students. College choice makes very little difference. The days of students doing their BA and PhD at the same college and then remaining there forever more as snooty dons is well over. Many academics have studied and taught at numerous colleges (and for that matter numerous universities) and some even think the collegiate system is a complete waste of time. Note that some colleges in some subjects as standard take more people in from the pool than from their own applicants

'Lesser' colleges will also have been exposed to a wide 'differentiation' in talent. For a start almost all interviewers will have lectured and supervised students from many colleges. They will have been exposed to students of all differing abilities. Secondly the quality of students who are finally admitted isn't that different. The Tompkins and Norrington table show considerable variation within college performance and the difference between top and bottom isn't huge. I also imagine that the Baxter tables (that measure college performance by subject) show a huge variation with colleges jumping from the top to the bottom.

League tables also hide considerable variation that is not based purely on acaedmic performance. For instance women do less well than men in finals. Threfore Newnham and New Hall are way down the list. If, however, you only ranked colleges on performace on girls these would apparently be near the top. Likewise colleges with high number of scientists as a proprtytion of students are likely to be in an inflated position as more scientists get firsts than humanities students.

THe pooling system is also very detailed with candidates ranked on performance with a number of symbols. Significantly more people are pooled than can be taken which means there is lots of room for pooling lots of candidates to allow them to be more fully assessed.

I understand where you are coming from becuase my school went on about more prestigous colleges/state:tongue:rivate ratios/school's historical ties with certain colleges. At the end of the day though its crap


Unfortunately this thread was just asking for a stats link. While I accept your view, my Head of Sixth form is highly experienced in the Oxbridge applications system so I will have to trust his judgement.
Reply 37
Solid_Snake_100
While I accept your view, my Head of Sixth form is highly experienced in the Oxbridge applications system so I will have to trust his judgement.

Meaning what exactly?
Reply 38
I applied to Balliol for History. If we're doing this whole 'play the system' crap, that was by all means a terrible idea.

However, I love this place. I wanted to come here. I know I would have ended up liking most colleges, but looking back, going with my gut instinct and applying here anyway is something I would never take back. Even when I've hated the university, town and course, I've still loved the people and atmosphere here. It's like choosing your subject because you want to do it, instead of "oooh, 2 out of 6 instead of 2 out of 8 get in." For god's sake, apply somewhere you genuinely want to go, not somewhere you think you have a better chance of getting it. It's all crap anyway, tons of people think they can play the system, and just as many of them get rejected as anyone else.
Reply 39
Solid_Snake_100
Unfortunately this thread was just asking for a stats link. While I accept your view, my Head of Sixth form is highly experienced in the Oxbridge applications system so I will have to trust his judgement.


Have to agree with hobnob here. He can't have been in an interview since he was at university, and he can't have gone through the application for every subject. Bearing in mind how WILDLY different it is for different subjects (e.g. even the science / arts divide) I think anybody who claims to know everything, especially if they're not currently or recently from the university is a little full of themselves, and hence I'd be wary...

Latest