anyone appeal successfully after being rejected?

You may have some knowledge, but when what you say clashes with the half a dozen people here who have either been through the system, or are actually going through the system, then it's time for you to reconsider. You admit you're not an expert on Cambridge - but some of us here are.

Of course tutors are humans, and humans will never make decisions 100% based on academia, but Cambridge most certainly does not include extra-curricular activities (i.e. sport, music or other elements unrelated to the course the applicant is applying for) as an even vaguely important part of the process, and they would be completely insulted by the suggestion they would use them formally in a points system.

I can say without any doubt that Oxford do not care one single bit about extra curricular activities that have nothing to do with academia. They honestly do not want to know how good you are at rugby or flute playing, they want to know how smart you are, how you think and how you come to conclusions on discussions related to the subject you are applying for.

Reading around your subject and showing true passion in an intellectual way, count for so much, once grades, tests and essays have been judged. I do not have first hand knowledge of the US system, but I can easily imagine that because of the strong sports scholarship system in place there, that they probably do consider EC's more.

To the OP, As others have suggested it is probably best to move on and focus your efforts on gaining successful entry to other universities that you applied to. For each place on that course you are competing with 3 other applicants, so your application would have to be amazing in every way to stand a good chance of interview, especially as Queens do not run any tests to support an applicants marks.

it makes me think a lot less of the institutions and more reluctant to hire their output. I suppose its good if you are looking for someone to spend all day in the lab doing R+D, but it re positions how I think of their grads.

Your critical thinking skills are still in hibernation. Just because Oxford and Cambridge don't make extracurricular activities part of their selection process does not mean that their graduates don't take part in them and develop interests and skills to the same extent as those of other universities.

Okay, well they're all good A levels. Not doing Further Maths is an issue for PhysNatSci, though. I don't know enough / anything about HKDSE, so I agree with everyone else - ask them for feedback. However, it's unlikely to make a difference. Cambridge have more information on you and your grades / passion for the subject than we do. Good luck with your other choices!

Yes - which was my point when I said "So for example, the fact you play musical instruments will make you a more interesting, better rounded individual, and Im sure that would have benefitted your application somewhat."...

I just find it surprising anyone would come to the conclusion that the ability to lead, the ability to think strategically etc wouldn't be developed by say, being captain of a rugby team at a serious level. Furthermore, if you have knowledge outside just that one subject area, you might think in new ways/challenge conceptions in ways that perhaps others would not.

I think perhaps I’m thinking of it more from a post-grad point of view where they/you are looking to display leadership qualities, the ability to persuade, strategic thinking etc. It would seem I am wrong though.

With the US, they take the position that of the perhaps 6 measurements of intelligence, academic intelligence represents 1 form. Ultimately, US universities lead the way in international rankings and to be honest, even as a Brit (and subsequently wanting British universities to do well), I can see why if this is indeed the case.

. However, as I say to my students, you will be hedging your bets of you leave out all your extra-curricular activities as the other universities you may be applying to may wish to hear about them. Oxbridge say 100% of PS should be subject based, why you wish to study that subject, further reading etc.

.

Sure - I agree with that, I am just rather shocked by it, and it makes me think a lot less of the institutions and more reluctant to hire their output. I suppose its good if you are looking for someone to spend all day in the lab doing R+D, but it re positions how I think of their grads.

Re your previous post - Disappointed you see it that way. I think your post is a little off. You can’t put something there that isn’t there in the first place. If someone has shown no aptitude what-so-ever, and there is no disposition naturally, no amount of training can place it there. You can improve via training, education and practice yes, but you cannot place them there.
It is evidently true leading institutions prefer Ivy Leagues to Oxbridge, although Imperial is loved by banks.
As for critical thinking skills, I’m trying to constructively criticise what you are saying. I did study at Harvard and have a Masters from Imperial. Fully appreciate I’m not the smartest person on the planet, nor have I studied at Oxbridge (although I did successfully apply some time ago), but I do have a lot of friends there and I am surprised with what you (and to be fair, several others) are saying - it flies in the face of what I was told at school (admittedly some time ago now! - I feel old :-(. ) and also, against my own perception...

Just because a university does not consider a trait in their application process does not mean that a large number of students cannot have said trait. There are a large number of very interesting people at cambridge who take part in a large number of ECs. I was a university level sportsman, but there are many more activities as well.

I fail to see how you can hold cambridge graduates in lower regard just because the university doesn't take ECs into account for applications. It shouldn't change your decision making process when confronted with a cambridge grad who does/doesn't have ECs compared to the choice you would have made before today.

I'm also involved in recruiting processes for our company. It's generally very easy to see if candidates are well-rounded from their CVs, and if they haven't mentioned any extra curricular activities one can always ask about this at an interview. I'm not from the UK, but in the country I'm in universities exclusively admit on academics and we've never found it a major issue to figure out if job candidates have something more to offer than a good academic record. As it happens we also have a couple of Oxbridge grads as well as a couple of Ivy Leaguers working for us, so it's not as though we're completely ignorant of such graduates either. (We did actually reject a Cambridge alumnus earlier this year, even though she had plenty of "extra curriculars", because we felt someone else was a better fit for the job.)

Sure - didnt say it did.
It means they havent already shown that disposition as part of their application process, and makes me question how much they value those characteristics, something I look for in people I recruit.

Sure - didnt say it did.
It means they havent already shown that disposition as part of their application process, and makes me question how much they value those characteristics, something I look for in people I recruit.

Sure - didnt say it did.
It means they havent already shown that disposition as part of their application process, and makes me question how much they value those characteristics, something I look for in people I recruit.

What the university cares about shouldn't make a difference to an employer. You look at the candidate in front of you, a good applicant has everything you want, a bad one doesn't. Unless previously you were assuming that a Cambs grad has ECs even if their CV lacks them?

If someone went to Cambridge, I would have (apparently wrongly) assumed they had something more to them than just being gifted academically. I spend less than 10 seconds looking at each CV - I dont have time. I interview them, within 5 mins I know whether to progress the interview further. Equally, when meeting someone at networking events etc you have to make a quick judgement. Prior to this I would have given good probability to the fact they were well rounded etc. It somewhat diminishes that probability from what I have been told on here I guess

Oxford and Cambridge are purely academic institutions. They are not designed as a training ground for people to go and get jobs.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of Cambridge grads are well rounded indivuduals, but there is a significant number who wouldn't have much on their CV apart from academics.