The Official Cambridge Winter Pool 2013 Thread (includes FAQ and Status Reports)

Everything.

May I respectfuly suggest that you don't know what we are talking about? You got an offer, and you were not a poolee. Your comments are therefore deeply insensitive.

Has anyone else not heard back from reinterviews yet...? Loads of poolees seem to have and I havent
Minerva- Does this mean I should give up hope and await the rejection letter?

... and I can't see why it would to anyone else.

This is the part that seems peculiar and insensitive. People are inherently emotional and varied, so to assume that your own feelings / response represents 'the true response' and that anyone else who has a different response is somehow doing it wrong, seems a bit inhuman.

Personally I have aspergers. I've had to learn (via many bumps in the road) that my own responses are - no matter how logical they might seem to me to be - not often reflective of how other people respond. (I'm not in anyway suggesting that you also have autism). Most people value the medium as much as the message, particularly when the message itself is painful.

Yes.

Applicants put in a huge amount of extra effort for an application to Cambridge, compared with any other university except, possibly, Oxford. Attending for interview costs money, which some people may find difficult. The LEAST the university can do is to ensure that their communications are properly sequenced so that pooled applicants receive their rejection letters well before Track is updated. End of, frankly.

Has anyone else not heard back from reinterviews yet...? Loads of poolees seem to have and I havent
Minerva- Does this mean I should give up hope and await the rejection letter?

You're suggesting that no-one should ever question whether others' complaints are valid or justified?

You and most people may prefer paper all you like, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism of the Cambridge system. Not when the standard medium across other unis is Track. Unless there's some specific reason why paper should be required in this context -- which is what I'm looking for.

I'm not sure why I'm getting all these hostile "you just don't get it, man" type responses when I asked really quite a simple question.

So the fact that you put in more effort makes the medium by which you find out more important? Somehow getting a piece of paper -- a total waste of resources, by the way -- saying "rejected" rather than some pixels on a screen saying "rejected" becomes fundamentally more important a distinction because you've attended an interview?

I originally applied to Selwyn for History, was pooled and then re-interviewed by Murray Edwards. I know a considerable amount of people received rejection by Selwyn yesterday via Track, however, I've heard nothing from either college. Should I give up hope now ?

Still nothing from cambridge today.

No - I'm really not. Re-read your posts and my response. You weren't questioning, and I'm not saying that no-one should ever question. I'm saying that I have come to understand that the fact that I don't feel a certain way doesn't mean that other people are being ridiculous if they do feel that way.



People have asked for an email of their response to be delivered shortly before/along side their Track update. Paper is irrelevant.



You disguised a criticism in the form of a rhetorical question. Don't play the 'I was only asking... ' card, it's disingenuous.



Medium does not equal physical medium. I'm using medium as in:

"An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred."

(Number 3 on this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/medium)

In this instance the medium people would prefer is a contextualised communication from the college itself with a sign off from a human being involved in the admissions process, rather than a 3rd party statement of fact (UCAS Track). Most would prefer that in the pixel form of an email.

I can see that if you thought that people were asking for paper, when actually what they were asking was that the college make contact with them directly, you might find it ridiculous. But paper vs pixels is not what people are bothered by.

No, sometimes people really are being ridiculous. If they are -- and I'm not taking a stance on whether that word applies here -- it is not because their reaction differs from mine, but is rather because their reaction is irrational. If someone knocks their drink off the table and gets angry at the table, that is ridiculous, because there's no understandable reason for such anger. I'd like to see you argue that that's not a proper characterisation of that emotion in that circumstance. It wouldn't be ridiculous because I wouldn't feel that way if I knocked my drink off the table (perhaps I would, though I'd recognise at the time I was being stupid). It would be ridiculous because there's no rational cause for anger.

I thought that if you are reinterviewed by another college then it is that college that rejects you so just because lots of people seemed to get rejected by Selwyn yesterday doesn't mean you will!

Resorting to absurd counter-examples is a weak way to argue a point.

Edit: I just realised you're a law applicant. I'm going to assume that you're arguing for 'sport'. As the people you're criticising are already somewhat stressed out and upset, it would be sensible not to continue this - they probably don't need to be told that they are irrational or ridiculous as well. After all, it's somewhat more important to them than a spilled drink - something which you also seem to have failed to realise. (Or perhaps they would be irrational for thinking you were insensitive in comparing getting rejected from Cambridge to spilling a drink?) Anyway - good luck at Cam, you seem well suited to your chosen course!

Actually resorting to extreme examples is a perfectly valid way of demonstrating logical conclusions. If you'd like to point out some principled distinction between my counter-example and those situations in which you think judging irrational anger as "ridiculous" is wrong I'd be happy to hear it.

I was under the illusion that it was your original college that sent out the final rejection ? I do hope you're right, thank you

I thought that if you are reinterviewed by another college then it is that college that rejects you so just because lots of people seemed to get rejected by Selwyn yesterday doesn't mean you will!