Rejection from Cambridge for 2011

Scroll to see replies

Reply 320

LucyM

Original post by cpdavis

Oh no

I'm really sorry to hear :frown:

Would you consider reapplying?

Aww thank you. I love your little hugging emoticon!! um...I don't think so...I might try and get a post grad there. It won't be the same experience but it'd still be brilliant! I absolutely love the place :smile:

Reply 321

LucyM

Original post by roblee

What kind of stuff did they say?

(I didn't even bother requesting feedback, I know it's because I only had 3 A*s at GCSE... From 4 years ago!)

Um, they said unable to move past initial assumptions...substituting enthusiasm for precision...when I did do anything right it was only after a "fair amount of prompting on the interviewers' part". All of this is very, very true. It's just a little hard to take, especially when they didn't sugar coat it at all...GIMME SOME SUGAR PLEASE?!?

What did you apply for? Where? Also, I didn't even ask for this feedback! Hahaha! They sent it to my principal who told me the afternoon we got our midterm. Put a bit of a dampner on the weekend...

Reply 322

paella

Original post by Ania_aa

I just observed that for unknown reasons Cambridge rejects really great people. I know it is not a dicovery of the century, but still I find it quite...disturbing. When I got 40 IB points predicted I thought I can do anything. My assumption has been proved invalid. I am shocked.

It's not for unknown reasons, it's basically making sure the student body is happy. If they give offers to the academically best and the smartest, then half of the year would commit suicide. They have to have people who will be happy being in the bottom half, the bottom third, and the bottom tenth of any undergrad intake, and they have to pick people that'll be happy getting 2.1s or 2.2s.

In the 1930s one top American university set a very hard maths test, and the people who got the best results got in. This yeargroup all did really badly and underachieved or dropped out - as most of them simply couldn't handle not being in the top 1% or 10% in the class. Consequently, American universities make no secret of the fact that they select a wide range of abilities.

Reply 323

roblee

Original post by LucyM

Can't beat effectively getting called a robot via letter :mad:

I applied for computer science at Girton, as in my sig (the little blue arrow at the bottom of my first post). Rejected without interview by form-letter, most likely for taking an ICT BTEC at secondary school instead of doing 11 GCSEs. Never mind sugar, just quit throwing salt in my eyes Cambridge.

(proved them wrong, though... Currently in the final round of the science olympiad for my subject, and guess where it's held? CAMBRIDGE)

Reply 324

roblee

Original post by paella

That sounds... Really really stupid. The great attraction of uni for me has always been getting to hang out with people above my own intellectual level, instead of those destined to work in KFC all their lives :rolleyes:

Reply 325

LucyM

Original post by roblee

Can't beat effectively getting called a robot via letter :mad:

Oh god, they really don't hold back do they? AAH brilliant! Hahaha, that is really coming full circle, definitely proved them wrong! :biggrin:

Where did you end up going?

Reply 326

roblee

Original post by LucyM

Oh god, they really don't hold back do they? AAH brilliant! Hahaha, that is really coming full circle, definitely proved them wrong! :biggrin:

Where did you end up going?

It's looking like Edinburgh or Imperial right now (I'd been weighing up a year-in-industry followed by a reapplication, but frankly Cambridge had their chance and they blew it) - which is your Oxbridge reject uni of choice?

Reply 327

paella

Original post by roblee

And thats why they might take someone like you, than someone who challenges all there negative energy into their subject, gets 11A* and A*A*A*A* then freaks out when they are not the best. OFten exceptionally high achievement comes with an exceptionally high level of emotional problems, as does exceptionally low achievement

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 328

LucyM

Original post by roblee

I agree about not reapplying...they only get one chance at Lucy! :biggrin:

Cool, they're both brilliant unis from what I've seen/heard. I'm actually from Ireland so I'm looking at either Trinity College Dublin or NUI Galway. (Both of which probably mean nothing to you!)

Reply 329

blackpot

I was told that I was endearing but tended to be too emotional (?????)
And that although I produced good insights, they were abstract and unspecific...of COURSE they were, I applied for psychology, they asked about law and justice!!! Did they expect me to know specific details?!! Stupid Cambridge :P

Yeah, so, I'm not bitter :P

Reply 330

User188463

Original post by paella

If they give offers to the academically best and the smartest, then half of the year would commit suicide.

Excelling academically does not correlate with mental issues. Most people here have perfectionism, and everyone gets in because they show the most potential for their subject than the other candidates. Obviously the entrance system is not perfect, and there are lots of people rejected who definitely would have been able to cope. But it has nothing to do with limiting depression!

Reply 331

LollipopRoses

Original post by LucyM

Hi, sorry I'm a bit of a newbie on here but I was just wondering if anyone else has gotten feedback from Emma? If so, was yours quite harsh or is it just me?
Oh, and I was rejected after interview, English, Emmanuel...
Pretty gutted to be honest. I was beginning to get over it but then I got this horrible feedback and now I'm all sad again... :frown:

Hi, I applied for English at Emma too!! Interviewed, pooled, then rejected sadly, but I haven't had any feedback yet although they said it would be sent to my school at the beginning of Feb. So I'm just wondering, did you specifically request feedback or was if automatic?
I was absolutely gutted to be rejected at first, but it's Cam's loss that they didn't accept us!! :wink:

Do you have a second choice uni? Xx

Reply 332

paella

Original post by T-o dore

From both academic study and first hand experience, I believe in a lot of cases it does.

It's not as simplistic as limiting depression, it's about having a year group they can teach and examine, a set of people that will actually be good students. It;s not just about being good academics, plenty of the world leading academics didn't go to OXbridge and often undergrad study is quite a poor indicator.

As a general point though - if you have 100 people, who are all intelligent, some are more intelligent than others, and they are all perfectionists, how can you grade them to their satisfaction. If you try and work as hard as you can, you've got top marks in everything you've ever done and you are a complete perfectionist; then you go to Cambridge and are never in the top 50% of the class, then you'll probably get depressed or drop out. That's why they let a mix of people in. Say for maths, they'll let in the best people. Then they'll let in the people who are really quite good at maths, and could get into most other universities, but whose life doesn't revolve around it and who are happy to get things wrong. They won't simply let in all of the best people and ignore everyone else.

Just as, in a work organization, you won't have a team of perfectionists. You'll have one perfectionist, one creative, one interacting person, and one moderator. If you have 4 perfectionists, then nothing will ever get done to a good standard.

Reply 333

Innately_Hedonistic

reapply anyone? otherwise ima be a bitter reject. emma was a bad call, way too competitive.

Reply 334

User188463

Original post by paella

If you try and work as hard as you can, you've got top marks in everything you've ever done and you are a complete perfectionist; then you go to Cambridge and are never in the top 50% of the class, then you'll probably get depressed or drop out.

It is a non-sequitur to say that all people who get top marks in everything are perfectionists. Also, even if a student does attain top grades, he might be unsatisfied with his performance - i.e he didn't quite make 100% - or with other areas of his life, perhaps in sports or drama. So how can the university discriminate between the high achieving perfectionists and the high achieving non-perfectionists?

It is also not necessarily true to say that all people who get top marks in school exams are the most intelligent. This is why Oxbridge do not go from academic results alone, but interview people to see how talented they really are in the supervision teaching style. This interview, thus, can account for the apparent 'range of abilities' that you can see at Oxbridge; potential, and not number of GCSE A*, is what is selected for.

Most people I know at Cambridge have some degree of perfectionism - this is natural and expected, and students in my year are occasionally warned against becoming too perfectionist. Yet Cambridge has the lowest drop out rate in the country. Yes, theres a pretty high depression rate, but I think thats more complicated than failing to adjust to a system in which they are no longer perfect. There is little or no correlation between achievement level and depression rate at Cambridge. There is simply no time to be perfectionist, as the workload forces students to produce work more quickly than perfection can allow for.

On a more basic level, why is 'perfectionism' the main cause of depression? Surely the sheer stress from the academic workload, and an inability to cope with it, as well as other external factors (illness, family troubles, bereavement etc) are the main causes?

Original post by paella

That's why they let a mix of people in. Say for maths, they'll let in the best people. Then they'll let in the people who are really quite good at maths, and could get into most other universities, but whose life doesn't revolve around it and who are happy to get things wrong. They won't simply let in all of the best people and ignore everyone else.

Why would Cambridge set SUCH high academic offers, particularly for maths (top in STEP exams etc), if their aim is to let in a 'mix' of people? On a broader level, why would people at Oxbridge have such generally exceptional results if letting a range of ability was on the university's agenda? The reason is that the motive behind the admissions process is ultimately to produce the best results, which is why academic potential is the main criteria.

Reply 335

User188463

Original post by paella

Just as, in a work organization, you won't have a team of perfectionists. You'll have one perfectionist, one creative, one interacting person, and one moderator. If you have 4 perfectionists, then nothing will ever get done to a good standard.

Since when were exams completed in teams?

Reply 336

paella

Original post by T-o dore

I didn't say that all people who get top marks in anything are perfectionists. I said that from a psychological viewpoint and evidence based studies, exceptionally high academic achievement is often correlated to mental problems. The majority of people who get top marks in everything are going to be perfectionists, apart from the very few natural talents, most people who get top marks in everything devote an inordinate amount of time and mental space to getting the top marks, often lacking in other areas of their life.

I'd suggest they differentiate between high achieving perfectionists and high achieving non perfectionists at interview.

Reply 337

LucyM

Original post by blackpot

Mmhm, feeback is cruel and unhelpful...I too am clearly not bitter... :biggrin:

Original post by LollipopRoses

Do you have a second choice uni? Xx

It automatically was sent to my principal but since it got sent to my school it was their choice to tell me that they'd received it. Uck, I too am gutted! I'm from Ireland so my other choices are over here...Trinity College Dublin and NUI Galway! x

Reply 338

LucyM

Original post by Innately_Hedonistic

reapply anyone? otherwise ima be a bitter reject. emma was a bad call, way too competitive.

Did you apply to Emma? What course? Also, I'd agree with you there. Very bad choice...
I'm sorry I can't do this noble thing of "it's their loss" anymore...BITTER AND PROUD! :biggrin:

Reply 339

Zoedotdot

Original post by paella

As a general point though - if you have 100 people, who are all intelligent, some are more intelligent than others, and they are all perfectionists, how can you grade them to their satisfaction. If you try and work as hard as you can, you've got top marks in everything you've ever done and you are a complete perfectionist; then you go to Cambridge and are never in the top 50% of the class, then you'll probably get depressed or drop out. That's why they let a mix of people in. Say for maths, they'll let in the best people. Then they'll let in the people who are really quite good at maths, and could get into most other universities, but whose life doesn't revolve around it and who are happy to get things wrong. They won't simply let in all of the best people and ignore everyone else.

Not to burst your bubble, but I am an absolute perfectionist, was always top of my class and school, and have not managed to make it into the top 50% of the class in the vast majority of my papers at Cambridge. Not depressed and haven't dropped out. I agree that they take different types of people, but I'm not sure it's in the way that you're suggesting. They take people that they feel they can teach - despite being top of my school my grades were not as good as some of the other people coming in, but I think I was most likely accepted because I responded very well to the interview situation (which is modelled on a supervision - and indeed, I'm probably one of the most pro-supervision people I know, I absolutely love them). It's not only one kind of person who can achieve top marks at Cambridge and so they do take a variety rather than sticking to one kind of person - not necessarily for the good of the student body, but because different people respond to different aspects of the teaching, and the people they take have obviously performed very strongly in one or other part of the admissions process. While Cambridge's welfare systems are very good, I can't see them moulding the student body in that way, seeing as the majority of the work you do is individual anyway and all they want is to take the people who they feel will get the most from the degree.