Are my GCSE's Oxbridge Level?

Putting a large emphasis towards the interview is not the same as not caring about the other aspects of the application. In any case, do you have any evidence from an admissions tutor etc. about this? They would be the only people with any real authority to speak about how they give offers. What are you saying is sounding like hearsay at the moment.

Actually it is the same and you could prove it with very basic maths (assuming you meant "not caring AS MUCH" as oppose to straight not caring though if you did mean that then you are misinterpreting what I am saying)

It's the subject tutors as oppose to the admissions tutor that has the say over who gets a place or not (unless you get a general interview which is not that often). No I do not have any evidence that states exactly what the proportions are and I expect they vary from case to case but as a student at oxf with many friends also at oxf we do have a rough idea how it works. I agree no one knows for sure since the tutors won't come here and answer this but current students certainly know more than you as we have experienced it and therefore you are in no position to claim this is hearsay as we based it off what we achieved in GCSEs and admissions tests. In fact you could plot it on a graph with results on one side and offer rates on the other and the deviation is actually quite high. In fact this has already been done with SATs though this is somewhat weak as the data pool is much smaller

I am in a position to claim that it is hearsay since it seems to fit the definition of hersay quite well. I would love to see a graph or a study that shows what you are saying, if you can provide one, and then I will certainly be inclined to believe you.

All I have is what these tutors have listed on their website, which to me is a far more reliable evidence than you claiming what many of your friends have said.

Actually I think you'll find the definition of hearsay is "information received from other people which cannot be substantiated" however I have perfect information over my own application and grades etc. hence my claim was based on information known to be true so from this point you can only argue that I made a weak hypothesis. You could argue I have been lied to by other oxford students (btw which is what I meant by 'friends' hence making my hypothesis less valid however there is little logical reason why this would occur though it is a weakness hence I will just base the same claim over myself.

As for the SAT scores, it was a freedom of information request made to Oxford regarding SAT score for those who applied for the UG maths course which can be very easily found by googling but like I said previously the data pool is very small so draw whatever conclusions you want.

I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not tbh

And yes I do believe this is very unfair but that's just how it appears to be done. They claim they will look at everything but I believe thats for other reasons and in reality it's very different.
I struggle to see how this does not fit the definition of hearsay.


If you don't care then why have been arguing with me this entire time?

My previous argument already covered this point.

And just because I don't care doesn't mean I can't have other reasons for arguing such as I find it mildly amusing for example.

Your GCSE's mean jack, to be honest. Oxbridge don't take them nearly as seriously as people on TSR make it out.

i goot in with 3A*3B

Got in with no A*s lol

I don't think its completely even, but it's certainly very heavily skewed towards the interview with some contribution from the admissions test (physics claims to be 50% but no one actually believes that). And yes I do believe this is very unfair but that's just how it appears to be done. They claim they will look at everything but I believe thats for other reasons and in reality it's very different. BUT they certainly would use data from elsewhere to judge if the candidate was for example seriously ill during the interview and couldn't perform.

Yes of course they are, get at least A*AA at A level and do well in the entry test and interview youll easily do well with those GCSEs

A*AA isn't enough for Cambridge.

How is it unfair? The universities are trying to get the best people onto their courses. If they don't care very much about GCSEs it's because their experience has shown that GCSEs don't correlate very well with the kind of talent they're looking for, or at least that the interview correlates with it much better.

well i said at least A*AA. Cambridge do still accept A*AA for some courses dependant on what OP wants to do. Biology would be A*A*A, i checked here for that.
A*AA is standard offer at oxford AFAIK

I have - 8A*'s and 4A's at iGCSE
I'm sending one off for a re-mark, so maybe they'll mark me up. But as it stands now, are my GCSE's at Oxbridge potential?

Biology most likely.

Oh generally i think it's perfectly fair however some people get really nervous in the interview and hence the tutors are not fairly assessing their ability