These are the Top 5 Universities in the UK!

Nope, a large proportion of interviewed candidates get rejected...http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/applying/interviews says that around 80% get interviewed. Normally there's around a 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 chance of getting an offer and that's even after you've been selected for interview(s).

The problem I have with your point is that it's not a waste considering so many undergrads have 3A*s or 2A*s at many top 10 universities so it's not like you'll be clumped together with people who are dumb at all.

but if you define 'cambridge standard' at that stage as someone whom cambridge themselves believes has a serious chance of getting an offer, then you have to concede that any such person would fall under that label. I'm not sure why you are arguing about this? just to prove to her that she can't say that she is 'cambridge standard'?

I love how this whole thread has been dominated by discussions as to whether UCL is a top five uni. The top 5 is debatable depending on where your viewpoint arises. UCL is one of the strongest multi-disciplinary universities in the UK with an outstanding reputation, so it's pointless to argue whether it is a top five when so many fall short of Oxbridge and the top University of London institutions.

The thing is, how can you know that you'll get an offer if you're not sure that you impressed at interview? I personally wouldn't risk it.
The problem I have with your point is that it's not a waste considering so many undergrads have 3A*s or 2A*s at many top 10 universities so it's not like you'll be clumped together with people who are dumb at all.

1 in 3 to 1 in 4 chance of getting an offer having been selected for an interview isn't a serious chance. The 10-20% who don't get interviewed are the ones who honestly don't have the grades generally. After that, everyone is of decent calibre but it still doesn't mean that they have a high chance of getting in, neither does it mean that they are of Cambridge standard.

Well of course I don't know for sure. I had two interviews, and i never had practice ones so in the first one I did very badly on easy things (one of the reasons I was rejected I bet), but my second one went great because I knew what to expect. Therefore next year my application would be better because I'm familiar with the process.

I don't mean I'd be mixed with "dumb" people. I just want to go to the best uni possible, and that's Cambridge. That's just my preference, and if I have the grades required for camb then why not go for it? It's just where I'd prefer to study

You basically ignored what I said.


Cambridge themselves define everyone they interview as someone potentially worthy of an offer. Thus, by that definition, it can be justified for someone who receives an interview to see themselves as Cambridge standard.

Um imperial>Oxbridge at science?? Nopeee

Doing phys at UCL would've been the same as Imperial to me. You can disagree but you can't really call my opinion wrong lol

Maybe in the quality of practical parts of science yes. Teaching would be on the same level

No, I read what you said. Potentially doesn't mean probably.

You disagreed with me and said my opinion was wrong !

My opinion is that UCL just isnt in the same category as the other 4. However after those 4, on the things OP is talking about, I would say it leads the pack, so is a solid 5th. I'm not disputing that it isn't a top uni, just I personally think it's not in the same league as the other 4 which is why my first post said it should just be a big 4 and not include UCL.

Yeah sure, go and reapply all you want; no one can stop you. It's just the way that you initially put it that cheesed me off; it sounded rather dismissive of other good unis. Best of luck..


No, I read what you said. Potentially doesn't mean probably.

It doesn't need to.

No I didn't say it was wrong. That's fine it's ok if you don't want UCL there but in my opinion and according to several rankings it should be there


Well thank you
Things may come of as arrogant but I was given a chance once but didn't know how to make the most of it, that's why i want to reapply now that I know what to do

Then I'd argue that it doesn't mean Cambridge standard. Cambridge standard = people who receive offers and enrol imo.

You don't need to sound so pretentious lol. it's likely that even Imperial wouldn't accept you if you applied to a decent course there too.

You wouldn't have 'settled' for anything. Instead you'd be lucky that you got in. UCL isn't even in the same league as Imperial. Infact there are courses at Imperial (e.g Medicine) that are harder to get into than the same course at Oxbridge. And simply saying "top 5" doesn't really put perspective.

It's

Oxbridge
(small gap)
Imperial
LSE
(MASSIVE GAP)
Everything else.


And even then I wouldn't rank UCL as top 5. It's only considered as good as it is because it's a great London Uni.

No one gets into Imperial meeting their A*A*A or A*AA offer and thinks "damn. I guess I'll have to settle for this place"

1 in 3 to 1 in 4 chance of getting an offer having been selected for an interview isn't a serious chance. The 10-20% who don't get interviewed are the ones who honestly don't have the grades generally. After that, everyone is of decent calibre but it still doesn't mean that they have a high chance of getting in, neither does it mean that they are of Cambridge standard.
Also, I still think it's rather arrogant of her to say that she is Cambridge standard when she's not even at Cambridge.

I'll stop it here haha.

Well of course I don't know for sure. I had two interviews, and i never had practice ones so in the first one I did very badly on easy things (one of the reasons I was rejected I bet), but my second one went great because I knew what to expect. Therefore next year my application would be better because I'm familiar with the process.

I don't mean I'd be mixed with "dumb" people. I just want to go to the best uni possible, and that's Cambridge. That's just my preference, and if I have the grades required for camb then why not go for it? It's just where I'd prefer to study

What even is 'Cambridge standard' in your opinion? For me, most of those who make it to interview are academically capable of excelling in an Oxbridge institution. You'd also have to take into account Cambridge's appalling reputation in selecting the more financially equipped candidates, those that fit the 'Cambridge fashion brand' and so on over their actual ability (although I must note that all, or at least the vast majority of candidates are indeed equally deserving of a place academically).

Lol Cambridge does not consciously select those who are more well off and in the 'fashion brand'! That's an outdated opinion.

True, to some extent. But the more well off will be the ones that tend to be best prepared for the interview (/interview environment) etc.