This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do you have faith in the Oxbridge Admissions Process

Scroll to see replies

Jools

I got AABB at AS (declared), my friend got ABBC (declared), and one got AAAA including 300/300 in two subjects. We all got offers for same college/subject. In the 1st year exams, we were all within 1% of each other.

Yes, but how can oxford accept someone with ABBC in AS levels. That's appauling. Since AS levels are 'so easy' a C is terrible. Someone else who was rejected may have got AAAA. And if that person had got in who knows what they would have got

Reply 21

amateurish

zip it123

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I think the point of the interviews is that they look beyond grades on a sheet of paper to potential, and whilst proven academic record is often a very good indicator of this, that might not always be the case, whether they're looking at someone with lower grades who might do better at oxbridge or someone with very good grades who's just not suited to the place(s). I think it's important to consider that the admissions tutors are not (just) judging people in terms of how amazingly brainy and good at passing exams they are; they're also udging them in terms of their suitability for universities that work in a very different way to others.

Reply 22

spurs123

amateurish

ummm how can they guage how suitable someone is.

I think the key point forgotten so far is that this girl was applying for LAW. One of the most competitive subjects. It may be alright to relax conditions in subjects such as 'land economy' where you don't need to be that briany but for law it is very difficult to justify why someone with 4As is rejected in favour of someone with ABBC.

Reply 23

mobb_theprequel

zip it123

Yeh, I think it's *******s too.

Got rejected from Oxford for law despite scoring 100% on 5 modules (got 5As at AS-level). Apart from Geography [got 245; with a low C in one module, which on reflection, I should have got remarked] all my UMS scores were between 92%-97%. And yet some of the ppl I spoke to during the interviews had wack AS-grades and GCSEs.

I also don't buy the "seeing as you were rejected, you were clearly worse than all the other 300 ppl given offers; and had you have ended up in Oxford - you clearly wouldn't have been able to hack it, and would have got a 3rd/fail".

Oxford give offers to people with mediocre academic records; who will struggle to get AAA - whereas for others it will be a formality. Fact. And don't believe that all these people are champion athletes, hidden geniuses, kickass thesps - and that, by the same token, all those rejected are introverted geeks - because they aren't.

The system is far from perfect. And I'm not saying that just because I got rejected!

Reply 24

amateurish

zip it123

For starters, I think you're going to offend an awful lot of people if you start suggesting that students of some subjects are less 'brainy' than others.

As for guaging how suitable candidates are, what do you think interviews are for? If the way you handle a discussion about your subject on your own with an academic isn't a fairly decent indicator of whether you'll cope with an oxbridge course then why would they bother putting so much effort into seeing people? it's a lot of wasted time/expense/hassle for the fellows if it's not at all useful! I understand that there's doubt as to how useful interviews are; I'm simply saying that a possible reason for their use is that a string of A grades doesn't necessarily signify the ability to do well at oxbridge.

As people have said many times on these forums before, A-levels aren't *that* reliable as an indicator of future potential, and oxbridge admissions tutors don't seem to have that much faith in them.

Reply 25

Brown Patrick Bateman

mobb_theprequel

Got rejected from Oxford for law despite scoring 100% on 5 modules (got 5As at AS-level). Apart from Geography [got 245; with a low C in one module, which on reflection, I should have got remarked] all my UMS scores were between 92%-97%. And yet some of the ppl I spoke to during the interviews had wack AS-grades and GCSEs.
Having met you, I think it's a travesty of justice that you didn't get an offer. Though as amateurish says, having 97% at AS Level doesn't necessarily mean one's academic potential is superior to someone who scrapes 240. Also, a lot of the time tutors don't check the UMS scores, an A is an A according to them, which is unfortunate.

mobb_theprequel

I also don't buy the "seeing as you were rejected, you were clearly worse than all the other 300 ppl given offers; and had you have ended up in Oxford - you clearly wouldn't have been able to hack it, and would have got a 3rd/fail".
I don't think that is ever asserted, it's generally agreed that virtually everyone invited to interview ought to be capable of a 2.1 minimum. 90% of people with AABB+ should be capable of a 1st/2.1, so it just comes down to who the tutor likes; very subjective I know. But it's no different to a job interview - most people being interviewed would be perfectly capable of the job so it just goes down to who the employer likes.

Reply 26

d750

Although noone could every claim that the system is perfect or could ever be perfect, the fact that the probably quite small number of errors tutors make can very seriously affect the people involved seems to skew the debate.

Reply 27

fishpaste

Jools

wow.

likewise in the year above me, they let one person in with 2:2 in STEP, and they got a 1st at the end of their first year.

Reply 28

spurs123

mobb_theprequel

at least cambridge ask for UMS

Reply 29

fishpaste

Jools

90% of people with AABB+ should be capable of a 1st/2.1.

is this true even in subjects like law?

Reply 30

d750

fishpaste

is this true even in subjects like law?

The proportion of people who get 2.1s is very high for all subjects.

Reply 31

Brown Patrick Bateman

fishpaste

is this true even in subjects like law?

I'd say so. Getting a 2.1 is 90% hard work, 10% intelligence. It requires a degree of intelligence to construct a coherent argument, but it's not rocket science.

Reply 32

fishpaste

I suppose so. What about engineering? Apparently my college has been kicking out tonnes for underperforming in engineering.

Reply 33

ad_infinitum87

Honestly? I have little faith in the admissions process, particularly at the college I applied to. I don't feel that one was given the opportunity to demonstrate one's abilities to the appropriate level. Also, I think they should have taken into consideration the fact that some applicants do the IB, and therefore are burdened with 7 subjects, a dissertation, and 150 hours of CAS, and can therefore perhaps not immerse themselves in the subject as much as they would have liked! This sounds like me just being bitter about the rejection, but I don't feel like I was justly assessed.

-Becs

Reply 34

Brown Patrick Bateman

fishpaste

I suppose so. What about engineering? Apparently my college has been kicking out tonnes for underperforming in engineering.

The failure rate in Engineering is very high. Notice I said 90% are capable of getting a 1st/2.1, which is different to reality where many don't work to their full potential.

Reply 35

mobb_theprequel

Jools

Having met you, I think it's a travesty of justice that you didn't get an offer. Though as amateurish says, having 97% at AS Level doesn't necessarily mean one's academic potential is superior to someone who scrapes 240. Also, a lot of the time tutors don't check the UMS scores, an A is an A according to them, which is unfortunate.

I don't think that is ever asserted, it's generally agreed that virtually everyone invited to interview ought to be capable of a 2.1 minimum. 90% of people with AABB+ should be capable of a 1st/2.1, so it just comes down to who the tutor likes; very subjective I know. But it's no different to a job interview - most people being interviewed would be perfectly capable of the job so it just goes down to who the employer likes.

I'm not trying to solicit sympathy; although, knowing you, I understand that you're being sincere in your comments. I just don't think that the interview system is all that it's cracked up to be - especially when there's so much variation between the colleges.

Take me [or, for that matter, any prospective lawyer who applied to Univ - nobody was moved on to other colleges]:

- 1 x 20 min interview
- Interview: solely based on quite a dense, 3-page legal extract. No deviation from the extract was permitted in the interview.

People at other colleges [SPC, Somerville, Wadham, Worcester, Hilda's etc. etc.]:

- 2-4 x 20-30 min interviews
- At least 1 personal interview [where the PS was discussed; stock questions were asked "Why Law?", "Why Oxford?", "Why this college?"]
- They were given 3 line statutes to discuss.
- Some of them were moved on to other colleges.

There is no uniformity [between colleges] in the interview process; the safety net is meant to be the pool, but this strikes me as a wholly discretionary measure.

The fabled and much vaunted interview is Oxford's cop-out; and it's long-stop, in terms of effecting its own self-propagating agenda. It pisses on, what could otherwise be, a meritocratic arrangement.

Reply 36

H&E

I do believe Oxford's admissions process is the best in the English speaking world. Nevertheless, it is not perfect. The principal problem is second interviews. There are thousands of these, all organised over a day or two; it's just not long enough to give everyone a fair shot. I'd like to see the second round of interviews after Christmas, so tutors can be properly prepared and applicants are fresh. This would be expensive, but the cost would be more than covered by not having to accomodate, and feed, all
candidates as currently happens.

NB I haven't mentioned Cambridge as I don't know enough anything about its admissions process

Reply 37

spurs123

The same thing happned to me at Cambirdge....my interview was very very different to those of other economics applicants in my year. I think the lack of college unifomity measn htta suitable applicants are being turned away

Reply 38

fishpaste

Jools

The failure rate in Engineering is very high. Notice I said 90% are capable of getting a 1st/2.1, which is different to reality where many don't work to their full potential.

Point.

Reply 39

Brown Patrick Bateman

mobb_deeprequel

Fair enough. It seems only this year there's been so much uproar about the interviews process, I don't remember any complaints on TSR last year. The discrepancy between colleges for interview procedure is as farcical as every other college discrepancy - the fact that some charge £50/week, others £150/week, that some get 90% 1sts in certain subjects others 0%, the list goes on.