Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reaver Daniels)
    I got AABB, two marginal Bs, which I'm getting remarked. I have extenuating circumstances though, so I'm still predicted A*A*A* and am applying to Cambridge.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    With the extenuating circumstances Cambridge will take a much more holistic stance towards your B's.

    I don't have any extenuating circumstances though, so unfortunately if I applied I would feel Cambridge's full wrath.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    I think a lot of people on TSR feel this way.

    The problem is that they get told how intelligent they are when they are really young and might even get taken on trips for 'gifted' students to Oxford/Cambridge and so get an inflated self-image. But in most cases they aren't really Oxbridge standard. I think the 'everyone's a winner' mentality is what enables this.

    These people are in line for a barrage of disappointments in life. They will constantly feel like they aren't good enough and that they should be achieving more because that's what they were told they were capable of. I suspect a lot of them will experience depression.

    The only way out of it is to make a conscious effort to reduce your perceptions of yourself. You have to accept that you are not Oxbridge standard, you won't be Prime Minister, and you won't win a Nobel Prize. And that's okay.

    And of course practically, there are dozens of UK universities that can be described as 'great' and have excellent international reputations. Oxbridge is not the be all and end all.
    The notion of someone objectively being "Oxbridge standard" or not is rather facile. For one, Oxbridge has a variety of courses, with a variety of entry requirements. For another, it depends on singular performances - single exam performances, single interview performances. And lastly, plenty of people reapply and get in, so how is one to know whether or not someone is "Oxbridge standard" based on a first rejection? Also, there is a huge difference between an achievement like getting into Oxbridge vs an achievement like becoming Prime Minister or winning a Nobel Prize. The vast majority of Oxbridge students are just bright people who were passionate about a subject, got good grades and gave a good interview. They aren't all ridiculous geniuses either. Let's not aggrandise thousands of people when the vast majority will also not achieve anything notable either, or pretend that it is some particular level of intellect that gets you through the doors.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    The notion of someone objectively being "Oxbridge standard" or not is rather facile. For one, Oxbridge has a variety of courses, with a variety of entry requirements. For another, it depends on singular performances - single exam performances, single interview performances. And lastly, plenty of people reapply and get in, so how is one to know whether or not someone is "Oxbridge standard" based on a first rejection? Also, there is a huge difference between an achievement like getting into Oxbridge vs an achievement like becoming Prime Minister or winning a Nobel Prize. The vast majority of Oxbridge students are just bright people who were passionate about a subject, got good grades and gave a good interview. They aren't all ridiculous geniuses either. Let's not aggrandise thousands of people when the vast majority will also not achieve anything notable either, or pretend that it is some particular level of intellect that gets you through the doors.
    Would you prefer if I said 'good enough for Oxbridge'?

    The point is that most people aren't good enough for Oxbridge - and it would be wrong to say that there isn't an rough expected standard - but they've been constantly told that they are good enough, and that's where the problem lies.

    Of course becoming Prime Minister is harder than getting into Oxbridge, but that's not the point. The point is that most young people nowadays have an inflated sense of self-worth and believe they are capable of things which they are not capable of, then are crushed when they can't achieve them.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Would you prefer if I said 'good enough for Oxbridge'?

    The point is that most people aren't good enough for Oxbridge - and it would be wrong to say that there isn't an rough expected standard - but they've been constantly told that they are good enough, and that's where the problem lies.

    Of course becoming Prime Minister is harder than getting into Oxbridge, but that's not the point. The point is that most young people nowadays have an inflated sense of self-worth and believe they are capable of things which they are not capable of, then are crushed when they can't achieve them.
    Sure, but it isn't "most people" who think they have a shot. Yes, sometimes an "everybody's a winner" sentiment exists, but I think, where Oxbridge is concerned, it is people who perform well in school who are encouraged. What do you need to get into Oxbridge? As I said, passion for the subject, a good interview, and good grades. It's completely reasonable for anybody with the predicted grades to think they have a shot at Oxbridge, and, provided they interview well enough, and their grades are backed up by previous performance, and there aren't too many candidates performing better than them, and, of course, they end up achieving the necessary grades, they should get in. Of course, nobody should expect to get into Oxbridge but I think your reasoning does more harm than good: rather than recognising that it can be somewhat of a lottery, what with all the very capable applicants they have to choose form, and often one bad performance can screw you, you put forward this notion that there are just people who are good enough, and people who aren't.

    Although, yes, perhaps this is true, but when it comes to TSR, and anyone with an "Oxbridge complex" we tend to be talking about the people who are good enough, as they are the ones who have had a strong academic history. Being "good enough" does not mean you get in. It means you have a chance to get in. Such is the selectivity and stringency. Someone who is simply not good enough is simply not good enough, somebody who has the capacity to get in can easily get a B in an important AS subject due to one bad exam, or fluff the interview, and be rejected. You could say that simply getting rejected is what renders someone not "good enough", but this doesn't make sense because plenty of people reapply and get accepted.

    I do agree though that there is a more general problem. Nowadays it seems everyone has to go to university, and try to get a graduate job. Other professions are seen as something to escape from. Everyone has to make something of themselves. They have to try to win, they have to try to climb the ladder. They have to achieve. They have to be a success. Eurgh.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    The 'imperial get better grades then oxbridge students' is ******** mate.
    Imperial get around 519 UCAS points and Cambridge 567.
    That difference is massive.
    Even taking into account Imperial has more internationals ie IB takers who heighten UCAS point averages by alot.
    Cambridge has arts subjects which always achieve less then sciences, given Imperial has 100% sciences it still doesn't match it.
    On sciences alone(like imperial), cambridge hits 600+.
    You cannot conclusively state that more UCAS points = better A Level grades. It generally means more A Levels taken.

    Imperial has standard offers of A*A*AA for all engineering courses, with A*AA-A*A*A for nearly everything else. This is easily higher than Oxford's, but marginally lower than Cambridge's - but since I was comparing it to the average Oxbridge student - Imperial comes out on top (as you need AAA to get into lots of courses at Oxford).

    GG.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    Imperial get around 519 UCAS points and Cambridge 567.
    That difference is massive.
    Considering that a BHS diploma in horse knowledge and care is worth 45 points, the difference is horsesh__.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    Imperial has standard offers of A*A*AA for all engineering courses
    No

    MechEng at Imperial A*A*A or A*AAA
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/ug/...ineering-meng/

    And what's your source for your "higher grades at Imperial than Oxbridge" assertion?

    Apart from guessing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    No

    MechEng at Imperial A*A*A or A*AAA
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/ug/...ineering-meng/

    And what's your source for your "higher grades at Imperial than Oxbridge" assertion?

    Apart from guessing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Mech eng needs to catch up :/

    It's because the requirements on average, are naturally just higher. You can get into many courses at Oxford with just AAA, with only a few asking for A*A*A. Cambridge students, as I mentioned, are going to have better than Imperial, but when you consider them as Oxbridge, the result is likely a total lower than Imperial's.

    Reality is, basing grades off UCAS points is inaccurate in itself,(especially when you consider than general studies and critical thinking is standard in schools that send many to Oxbridge) but basing it off entry requirements, is likely more accurate, but still questionable (it's why I said "probably" in my initial post) In terms of the qualitt of A Level grades in meaningful subjects:

    Cambridge > Imperial > Oxford

    Imperial > Oxbridge

    I challenge you to find an imperial student on TSR with less than 2A* You'll find plenty with less at Oxford.

    When you consider the context of Imperial as a science university, and how easily the prospective students rack up A*s, particularly in maths and further maths, it's expected they'd have better grades.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    Mech eng needs to catch up :/

    It's because the requirements on average, are naturally just higher. You can get into many courses at Oxford with just AAA, with only a few asking for A*A*A. Cambridge students, as I mentioned, are going to have better than Imperial, but when you consider them as Oxbridge, the result is likely a total lower than Imperial's.

    Reality is, basing grades off UCAS points is inaccurate in itself,(especially when you consider than general studies and critical thinking is standard in schools that send many to Oxbridge) but basing it off entry requirements, is likely more accurate, but still questionable (it's why I said "probably" in my initial post) In terms of the qualitt of A Level grades in meaningful subjects:

    Cambridge > Imperial > Oxford

    Imperial > Oxbridge

    I challenge you to find an imperial student on TSR with less than 2A* You'll find plenty with less at Oxford.

    When you consider the context of Imperial as a science university, and how easily the prospective students rack up A*s, particularly in maths and further maths, it's expected they'd have better grades.
    Goddamn Oxford letting the side down
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    Mech eng needs to catch up :/

    It's because the requirements on average, are naturally just higher. You can get into many courses at Oxford with just AAA, with only a few asking for A*A*A. Cambridge students, as I mentioned, are going to have better than Imperial, but when you consider them as Oxbridge, the result is likely a total lower than Imperial's.

    Reality is, basing grades off UCAS points is inaccurate in itself,(especially when you consider than general studies and critical thinking is standard in schools that send many to Oxbridge) but basing it off entry requirements, is likely more accurate, but still questionable (it's why I said "probably" in my initial post) In terms of the qualitt of A Level grades in meaningful subjects:

    Cambridge > Imperial > Oxford

    Imperial > Oxbridge

    I challenge you to find an imperial student on TSR with less than 2A* You'll find plenty with less at Oxford.

    When you consider the context of Imperial as a science university, and how easily the prospective students rack up A*s, particularly in maths and further maths, it's expected they'd have better grades.
    Computing at Imperial: Standard minimum offer for Computing courses are A*AA or A*AAA overall
    Chemistry at Imperial: Our minimum entry requirement is AAA or A*AA overall
    Medicine, yes Medicine: Please note that a standard offer is likely to be A*AA (minimum is AAA). I'll type that again: AAA for Medicine

    And, challenge accepted, here's a TSRian getting into Imperial with AAA http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...postcount=1938

    What do I win?!

    Also, TSR is not representative of the typical student population. And again, you are simply guessing.

    According to Entry Requirement rankings it is Cambridge > Oxford > Imperial.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Computing at Imperial: Standard minimum offer for Computing courses are A*AA or A*AAA overall
    Chemistry at Imperial: Our minimum entry requirement is AAA or A*AA overall

    Also, TSR is not representative of the typical student population. And again, you are simply guessing.

    According to Entry Requirement rankings it is Cambridge > Oxford > Imperial.
    Computing isn't engineering just because it has the abbreviation - just like maths isn't art, just because has the abbreviation of BA. Chemistry is never AAA, that's the minimum, the standard is A*AA and a lot of offer holders actually ended up getting A*A*A offers.

    Additonally, TSR grades against the general population will be vastly different, TSR grades faints top unis like Oxbridge and Imperial? Not so much, which is why they are, in fact, pretty representative.

    On the topic of guessing, yes, I admitted to that, but using entry statistics based off UCAS points and using this to determine the quality of grades, when in actual fact the QUANTITY plays just as big as a role is arguably worse, or just as bad as guessing.

    The difference between the UCAS points of Cambridge and Imperial is easily outweighed by a modest grade in A2 critical thinking... Or, as someone mentioned earlier, a qualification of sorts in horse knowledge

    I certainly would think that the average Imperial student is probably smarter than the average Oxford student, given that it's physicists, engineers, mathematicians against other science students overwhelmed by students studying classics, Celtic studies, art and other worthless crap - and that physicists and mathematicians typically have the highest IQs out of all degrees.

    I feel like this is going to cause some controversy :/
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    I certainly would think that the average Imperial student is probably smarter than the average Oxford student, given that it's physicists, engineers, mathematicians against other science students overwhelmed by students studying classics, Celtic studies, art and other worthless crap - and that physicists and mathematicians typically have the highest IQs out of all degrees.

    I feel like this is going to cause some controversy :/
    Nobody said Computing was engineering (although the MEng awarded does certainly imply it has aspects of engineering rather being an MSci), you said all engineering was A*A*A and I showed you Mech (at least, and there may be others I haven't checked - oh wait BioMedical Engineering : A*AA, anyhoo...) wasn't. You then moaned. So I listed other Imperial courses with below A*A*A requirements in the same way you spouted off about Oxford having AAA courses.

    And now you are calling humanities; worthless crap.

    At this point I'll leave you to troll elsewhere.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I had the exact feeling, for about a year I was obsessed with getting into Oxford. Then I got rejected post-interview () and gained a bit of perspective on life that there are at least some other unis that are worth going to. Now I'm on a gap year and reapplying and the obsession is building again, so it appears I've learned nothing!

    In all seriousness though, it is a fantastic milestone to reach for some people but it is also important to remember that it isn't for everyone. We're fortunate in the UK that there are so many great universities to choose from, but it's great to aim for the top! I wish you luck with your application
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Nobody said Computing was engineering (although the MEng awarded does certainly imply it has aspects of engineering rather being an MSci), you said all engineering was A*A*A and I showed you Mech (at least, and there may be others I haven't checked - oh wait BioMedical Engineering : A*AA, anyhoo...) wasn't. You then moaned. So I listed other Imperial courses with below A*A*A requirements in the same way you spouted off about Oxford having AAA courses.

    And now you are calling humanities; worthless crap.

    At this point I'll leave you to troll elsewhere.
    A*AA is still greater than AAA, isn't it?

    Furthermore, I never said humanities were crap, I stated that those specific humanities were crap, and they are, literally.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    Mech eng needs to catch up :/

    It's because the requirements on average, are naturally just higher. You can get into many courses at Oxford with just AAA, with only a few asking for A*A*A. Cambridge students, as I mentioned, are going to have better than Imperial, but when you consider them as Oxbridge, the result is likely a total lower than Imperial's.

    Reality is, basing grades off UCAS points is inaccurate in itself,(especially when you consider than general studies and critical thinking is standard in schools that send many to Oxbridge) but basing it off entry requirements, is likely more accurate, but still questionable (it's why I said "probably" in my initial post) In terms of the qualitt of A Level grades in meaningful subjects:

    Cambridge > Imperial > Oxford

    Imperial > Oxbridge

    I challenge you to find an imperial student on TSR with less than 2A* You'll find plenty with less at Oxford.

    When you consider the context of Imperial as a science university, and how easily the prospective students rack up A*s, particularly in maths and further maths, it's expected they'd have better grades.
    meeting the offer is a smaller hurdle to cross than getting an interview, doing well at the interview and then getting an offer from oxford or cambridge (except for courses with high STEP requirements). that's why oxford physics offers are "only" A*AA and law offers are a mere AAA. it's not indicative of the difficulty of the course or the calibre of students entering that course.

    besides, imperial inflates a-level offers all the time for computing, chemeng, chemistry etc. just so that people don't insure imperial in favour of oxbridge.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    meeting the offer is a smaller hurdle to cross than getting an interview, doing well at the interview and then getting an offer from oxford or cambridge (except for courses with high STEP requirements). that's why oxford physics offers are "only" A*AA and law offers are a mere AAA. it's not indicative of the difficulty of the course or the calibre of students entering that course.

    besides, imperial inflates a-level offers all the time for computing, chemeng, chemistry etc. just so that people don't insure imperial in favour of oxbridge.
    "Not indicative of the calibre of students entering that course"?

    So you're telling me that having a course requiring BBC and one requiring AAA doesn't indicate the difference of calibre of students entering that course?

    Furthermore, it's extremely subjective on whether it's harder to meet an offer, or whether it's harder to get an interview, then get an offer. What happens if you get an A*A*A* offer then? That certainly seems harder then merely getting interviewed in the first place?

    Your last paragraph is based entirely on opinion and doesn't really make sense. If I got a got an A*A*AA offer from Imperial, but an A*AA offer from Oxford for engineering, I'm just not gonna bother trying to go to imperial when I can go to Oxford with significantly less workload. They give what is typically mentioned, and only over-inflate when it's particulary competitive, like with chemistry last year - not for the sake of insurance or firm.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    Chemistry is never AAA, that's the minimum, the standard is A*AA and a lot of offer holders actually ended up getting A*A*A offers.
    That's not true. The standard offer is A*AA, yes, but a minority still receive AAA offers - I personally know one such person.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    That's not true. The standard offer is A*AA, yes, but a minority still receive AAA offers - I personally know one such person.
    Yes, I was generalising, but it's negligible. Its more likely of it being A*A*A than AAA.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    Yes, I was generalising, but it's negligible. Its more likely of it being A*A*A than AAA.
    I thought you were a STEM fanboy. Stop guessing.

    Here's some actual stats:
    Oxford in 2013 had acceptances with A*A*A or better: 64.3% (1,600 students)
    Cambridge in 2013 with A*A*A or better: 83.0% (2,161 students)
    (both excluding General Studies and Critical Thinking)

    Imperial? You tell me...

    In the absence of that info, the entry UCAS points ranking is the best we've got.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Going to enlighten you with a classic ForestShadow post... (original)

    The thing is, if you dont get into Oxbridge, your life is effectively over.
    Your A-levels lose any worth immediately and you can forget any GCSE grade you may have.

    You automatically lose 500 UCAS points permanently and receive a ban from all unis in the country.

    Also, all employers must routinely check whether you graduated from Oxbridge on your CV so without that, you will never make even a Tesco checkout post or a dustbin man

    Not to mention your credit score goes down 400 points for non-Oxbridge individuals and all your insurance increases by a 40% margin due to 'insufficient education'



    Finally, you are lowered in priority in all public services including transport and healthcare meaning you have to wait at the back of the already long queue at the NHS...


    Then as soon as you're 18, the government have the right to take your phone, car, house, family, friends and WiFi away until you're stripped down with nothing and deported out of the country with immediate effect.


    You are irrevocably, unarguably, irreversible inferior in life in all its ways.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Sarcasm. Unless you're going into Investment Banking, the uni you go to doesn't really matter that much on the whole - you may just have to work a little harder. It is only a big deal if you make one out of it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Applying to uni

    All the essentials

    The adventure begins mug

    Student life: what to expect

    What it's really like going to uni

    Graduates celebrate

    How to write a good personal statement

    Expert PS advice from the people who will read it

    Uni match

    Uni match

    Can't decide where to apply? Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Two students working together

    A-Z of universities

    Read our guides to unis and colleges from around the UK

    A student working on a computer

    Personal statement help

    Use our tool to get your ideal PS quickly!

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A student looking down a microscope

    Planning open days

    Find upcoming open days and get advice on preparing.

    Help out other students

    These questions still need an answer

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.