80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford

Was rejected yesterday and just found out I 80/100 on the HAT... The average offer holder score is 70.5. 80 is like top 5% of applicants! At this point, what do Oxford even want??

Reply 1

Anonymous #2

I’ve heard that the hat is used 50/50 with contextualised GCSEs and both of these are used with the written work score and interview so they can be super harsh with those things. Honestly you should be proud of that score and getting to the interview stage but I also understand the frustration

Reply 2

Anonymous #1

OP

Original post by Anonymous #2

I’ve heard that the hat is used 50/50 with contextualised GCSEs and both of these are used with the written work score and interview so they can be super harsh with those things. Honestly you should be proud of that score and getting to the interview stage but I also understand the frustration

The thing is I actually got 12 A*'s in my GCSE's (not teacher predicted grades)... maybe my interviews/written work wasnt great? honestly im less upset about being rejected and more ****ed off lol its like if i hit the criteria and still get rejected what more do they want...

Reply 3

Anonymous #2

There’s a bunch of people I know who got rejected and I felt like they were so good at verbal reasoning and so passionate which are all great things for interview so sometimes there isn’t much explanation. I would definitely ask for full feedback because it might give you some peace of mind?

Reply 4

Sorcerer's Storm

20

The HAT score was enough to get you to interview but it really is this face to face assessment that determines whether you're given an offer so you must have not performed as well as other candidates and/or they judged that your learning style wasn't suited to Oxford.

Reply 5

Anonymous #3

Original post by Anonymous #1

Was rejected yesterday and just found out I 80/100 on the HAT... The average offer holder score is 70.5. 80 is like top 5% of applicants! At this point, what do Oxford even want??

I'm in the same position. I got 80, and I didn't get in. It's really annoying. Are you a white male?

Reply 6

Anonymous #3

In 2020, 80 was in the top 3%. It could be more this year, but it still should be a very strong score. We're living in full-blown clown world. I don't believe my interviews went that bad. I have a strong suspicion that Clown World is a fault.

Reply 7

Anonymous #4

Original post by Anonymous #3

In 2020, 80 was in the top 3%. It could be more this year, but it still should be a very strong score. We're living in full-blown clown world. I don't believe my interviews went that bad. I have a strong suspicion that Clown World is a fault.

I felt the same way regarding E & M. Some guy got 15 questions more wrong than me in the tsa (test is 50 questions by the way) but got in over me because I couldn't solve a riddle. Joke.

Reply 8

Ami2005

1

Original post by Anonymous #3

In 2020, 80 was in the top 3%. It could be more this year, but it still should be a very strong score. We're living in full-blown clown world. I don't believe my interviews went that bad. I have a strong suspicion that Clown World is a fault.

People get rejected with high scores every year and in 2020 the HAT was used more than before or in 2023 because of Covid gcse disruption. Also written work and interview scores were used so it’s much more likely that it’s those factors at play rather than some illusion of “clown world” - please do more research about the admissions process before using some random prejudices.

Reply 9

Sorcerer's Storm

20

Clown world?? Far more people apply to Oxbridge than there are places so every year there will necessarily be a lot of clever and capable people who will be rejected, they can’t accept everyone. And while you may have been in the top 5% of HAT it’s likely you were not anywhere close to that in interview performance. Pretty sure it’s well known that applicants are notoriously bad at judging how Oxbridge interviews go because simply feeling like you’ve performed well won’t always cut it. Virtually everyone who makes it to interview is very bright and likely to perform well too, so the standards for performance may be very different to what an applicant (who won’t have had much interview experience before) thinks they are.

Reply 10

Ami2005

1

Original post by Sorcerer of Old

Clown world?? Far more people apply to Oxbridge than there are places so every year there will necessarily be a lot of clever and capable people who will be rejected, they can’t accept everyone. And while you may have been in the top 5% of HAT it’s likely you were not anywhere close to that in interview performance. Pretty sure it’s well known that applicants are notoriously bad at judging how Oxbridge interviews go because simply feeling like you’ve performed well won’t always cut it. Virtually everyone who makes it to interview is very bright and likely to perform well too, so the standards for performance may be very different to what an applicant (who won’t have had much interview experience before) thinks they are.

Thank you for saying this!!

Reply 11

ohyegodsmyroast

13

um yh something strange is going on at oxford for sure. i know of too many weird cases like this. apply to cambridge instead dummies

Reply 12

Anonymous #3

Original post by RiddlingTea

For history, they've said it's 40/20/40 HAT/written work/interview. And if they factor in GCSEs or A-levels at all I'm perfect there too. History has a 27% acceptance rate, so anything that puts you in the 96th percentile or better, with average performance elsewhere (i.e. 70th+ percentile) should be enough.

I got an 88 on the HAT (for 2022, 97th percentile - average score for acceptees was 70), applied last year and got an 8 for my written work (average of 7.06 for acceptees), and had 7.75 for interviews last year (average for acceptees was 7.79). My interviews this year weren't my very best work but by my maths I'd need a 5.5 interview score to fall to even the average accepted composite score - let alone the fact that 50% of acceptees got worse than the average.

I'm not saying some ****ery is afoot, I'm saying that I got absolutely shafted, and the 'qualified applicants' thing is ********. I know plenty of less-qualified, genuine idiots that got into Oxford, go to Oxford and went to Oxford. They may have more 'qualified' applicants than places in the literal sense - ie meet the minimum offer - but not more good applicants.

You got f****d. It's probably social engineering. Bet you went to a private.

Reply 13

Anonymous #3

What did you get in your HAT this year?

Original post by Anonymous

What did you get in your HAT this year?

The title says 80/100

Ah got it!

No, I meant what did @RiddlingTea get this year.

Reply 17

Sorcerer's Storm

20

Original post by RiddlingTea

For history, they've said it's 40/20/40 HAT/written work/interview. And if they factor in GCSEs or A-levels at all I'm perfect there too. History has a 27% acceptance rate, so anything that puts you in the 96th percentile or better, with average performance elsewhere (i.e. 70th+ percentile) should be enough.

I got an 88 on the HAT (for 2022, 97th percentile - average score for acceptees was 70), applied last year and got an 8 for my written work (average of 7.06 for acceptees), and had 7.75 for interviews last year (average for acceptees was 7.79). My interviews this year weren't my very best work but by my maths I'd need a 5.5 interview score to fall to even the average accepted composite score - let alone the fact that 50% of acceptees got worse than the average.

I'm not saying some ****ery is afoot, I'm saying that I got absolutely shafted, and the 'qualified applicants' thing is ********. I know plenty of less-qualified, genuine idiots that got into Oxford, go to Oxford and went to Oxford. They may have more 'qualified' applicants than places in the literal sense - ie meet the minimum offer - but not more good applicants.

Pretty sure that’s not how it works. Written work and admissions tests are enough to get you to interview but once you’re there they’re not really taken into account anymore and it’s solely how you subsequently perform which determines whether you’re given an offer. You’re not going to be let off with a mediocre or even below average interview just because you scored in the top 1% or whatever of the HAT. Getting an offer isn’t a game of averages over work, tests and interviews. It’s the latter by far which is the greatest decider which is why interviews at Oxbridge are so crucial and generally much more intense and grilling than interviews at other UK unis. Remember, tutors aren’t just looking for someone clever (which comprises pretty much every Oxbridge applicant who reaches interview stage), but rather someone who is going to thrive in the tutorial system, able to think quickly on their feet and so many other factors that they will have a lot of experience in identifying. As an applicant you obviously only ever experience your own interview, you don’t get to see how other applicants for the same subject perform and how they compare to you. Admissions tutors do, they see the entire picture so it makes sense they would pick the top however many candidates that they think will best perform at the uni to give offers to.

(edited 3 months ago)

Reply 18

Anonymous #5

Original post by RiddlingTea

For history, they've said it's 40/20/40 HAT/written work/interview. And if they factor in GCSEs or A-levels at all I'm perfect there too. History has a 27% acceptance rate, so anything that puts you in the 96th percentile or better, with average performance elsewhere (i.e. 70th+ percentile) should be enough.

I got an 88 on the HAT (for 2022, 97th percentile - average score for acceptees was 70), applied last year and got an 8 for my written work (average of 7.06 for acceptees), and had 7.75 for interviews last year (average for acceptees was 7.79). My interviews this year weren't my very best work but by my maths I'd need a 5.5 interview score to fall to even the average accepted composite score - let alone the fact that 50% of acceptees got worse than the average.

I'm not saying some ****ery is afoot, I'm saying that I got absolutely shafted, and the 'qualified applicants' thing is ********. I know plenty of less-qualified, genuine idiots that got into Oxford, go to Oxford and went to Oxford. They may have more 'qualified' applicants than places in the literal sense - ie meet the minimum offer - but not more good applicants.

You aren't unique in this - there were people rejected this week who already had straight A* in their A levels, scored materially above average in their entrance papers. They also got shafted - but Oxford isn't about getting the best people - its about the most suitable for their teaching methods and agenda.