How do Oxbridge develop you intellectually once onto the degree? Watch

Muddy91
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 8 years ago
#41
(Original post by Sambo2)
im not sure university challenge is a measure of intelligence lol... and they only get 4 teams.. but clearly the guy you quoted was a muppet, we all agree on that.

My BAAAAAAADDD
0
quote
reply
i.am.lost
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#42
Report 8 years ago
#42
(Original post by Muddy91)
Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. I know a student at cambridge, who had low grades, and a very lucky interview (by his own admission - they asked him things that they thought were not on his syllabus when in fact they were). He is now struggling. Another guy got rejected, who had much better grades, had done much more worthwhile work, and was far cleverer. He's now thriving at a 'lower' uni. If oxbridge was so much cleverer than everyone then they wouldn't need 10 teams on university challenge, to demonstrate their dominance. and teams often defeat these ten teams of 'superior intelligence'.
I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying that they're some sort of genetically engineered super-geniuses I'm just saying that IF there's a difference as the OP suggested then I would attribute it to the reasons I described. Also, the people you mentioned are exceptions rather than the norm and I'm 100% sure similar things happen at every uni.
0
quote
reply
Craghyrax
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
(Original post by Sambo2)
this is BS, sorry bt it really is.. there is no such intelligence gap at all..
I'm inclined to agree.

*cough* [isastudentcurrentlyatcambridge] *cough*
0
quote
reply
_KilgoreTrout_
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
(Original post by Sambo2)
qed, it's about wether you who would benefit most from the oxford system, but this deosn't necessarily correlate to who the most intelligent are.
QED? What a gay...
0
quote
reply
Muddy91
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 8 years ago
#45
(Original post by i.am.lost)
I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying that they're some sort of genetically engineered super-geniuses I'm just saying that IF there's a difference as the OP suggested then I would attribute it to the reasons I described. Also, the people you mentioned are exceptions rather than the norm and I'm 100% sure similar things happen at every uni.
Hmmm... Our school had a massive defecit of oxbridgers this year - much lower than what we expected - and all of those rejected are just as clever - if not cleverer than those who got in. There really isn't a massive difference at all - besides the true potential of candidates is not reached until actually studying at university. the course and teaching style make a massive difference. Ill bring in another example of a cambridge drop out, who went to my school. He achieved 6 Alevels in 1 year, and got a Matrix offer from christ's. He did terribly in the system there, and as a result dropped out. he then ended up going to UCL and absolutely flying. This whole preconcieved notion of oxbridge > everywhere else may hold true for some courses, but for the larger courses, like medicine or economics there really isn't a gap anymore
0
quote
reply
Sambo2
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#46
Report 8 years ago
#46
(Original post by _KilgoreTrout_)
QED? What a gay...
says the theoretical physicist... lol
0
quote
reply
Craghyrax
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#47
Report 8 years ago
#47
(Original post by Sambo2)
such a typical load of oxbridge student ****... you are no cleverer than anyone who goes to Warwick, UCL, St Andrews just because you (let's face it, fairly arbitrarily) get a place at oxford. Certainly from my school one of the guys who got in to do law at magdalane was not at all the brightest in our year whereas a guy who we all consider to be something of a genius is now at st andrews. They don't pick 'the creme de la creme..' don't kid yourself, they pick those who are most suited to the oxford system at best... indeed the gap between oxford an the top unis these days is very small
Well I wouldn't go all that far, but I certainly agree that its arbitrary. I do think they do everything in their power to counteract any biases towards students who are better at interview simply because of cultural advantage. They try, and often they succeed at getting very good students. But amazing people also often get missed, and really average people who managed to do well at A levels (which doesn't require intelligence) and were lucky at interview get in instead.
I was rejected the first time I applied and accepted the second time. I then went on to get a first. This is neither proof that I'm a mistake or brilliantly intelligent or any other thing. Its just an example of how admissions to Oxbridge cannot be fool proof.
0
quote
reply
Sambo2
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
(Original post by Craghyrax)
Well I wouldn't go all that far, but I certainly agree that its arbitrary. I do think they do everything in their power to counteract any biases towards students who are better at interview simply because of cultural advantage. They try, and often they succeed to get very good students. But amazing people also often get missed, and really average people who managed to do well at A levels (which doesn't require intelligence) and were lucky at interview get in instead.
I was rejected the first time I applied and accepted the second time. I then went on to get a first. This is neither proof that I'm a mistake or brilliantly intelligent or any other thing. Its just an example of how admissions to Oxbridge cannot be fool proof.
agreed - I wouldn't go that far either, (although it is also true that other top unis succeed in getting high quality..) they do indeed succeed in getting very high quality students and mostly succeed, no system can work perfectly.. I was merely a little outraged at the arrogance..
0
quote
reply
Craghyrax
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report 8 years ago
#49
(Original post by Sambo2)
agreed - I wouldn't go that far either, (although it is also true that other top uis succeed in getting high quality..) they do indeed succeed in getting very high quality students and mostly succeed, no system can work perfectly.. I was merely a little outraged at the arrogance..
Justifiably. We're lucky enough to get the privilege of studying here. There's no need to try and make everything even more rosy by convincing ourselves that we're demi-gods :facepalm:

I have met alot of average students here. Sometimes they even seem stupid, but I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume its just because they didn't prepare for classes or supervisions properly. And I'm including people who seem very average in regular social conversation too. So all those being put off at the thought of going to a Uni full of nerds, rest assured it isn't so...
(In saying this please don't think I think I'm really intelligent. I don't know how intelligent I am :p:)
0
quote
reply
_KilgoreTrout_
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
(Original post by Sambo2)
says the theoretical physicist... lol
What do you study that gets you knee deep in clunge? Or do you just use the old QED line to woo the ladies?
0
quote
reply
Craghyrax
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#51
Report 8 years ago
#51
One thing I should also point out is that some of these posts that are trying to insist that Oxbridge is definitely full of much more intelligent people have been made by offer-holders. It is very easy to feel extremely intelligent once you've received an offer, but once you start the course almost all students at Cambridge (and presumably Oxford) start to have second thoughts about their own intelligence, whether or not their offers were a 'mistake' and so on. After awhile you calm down a bit, and accept that there are some really bright people around, but there are also alot more really normal average people who don't have IQs above 200 and that you're not going to fail your first year, and on it goes :p:
0
quote
reply
Sambo2
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
(Original post by Craghyrax)
One thing I should also point out is that some of these posts that are trying to insist that Oxbridge is definitely full of much more intelligent people have been made by offer-holders. It is very easy to feel extremely intelligent once you've received an offer, but once you start the course almost all students at Cambridge (and presumably Oxford) start to have second thoughts about their own intelligence, whether or not their offers were a 'mistake' and so on. After awhile you calm down a bit, and accept that there are some really bright people around, but there are also alot more really normal average people who don't have IQs above 200 and that you're not going to fail your first year, and on it goes :p:
if I had rep left this would get it - exactly, it's the same deal in medicine
0
quote
reply
Sambo2
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#53
Report 8 years ago
#53
(Original post by _KilgoreTrout_)
What do you study that gets you knee deep in clunge? Or do you just use the old QED line to woo the ladies?
oh trust me, I need the waders.. pull that line out and they all come running
0
quote
reply
harr
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
(Original post by Simplicity)
Not really. Certainly, I spent that hour I could be rote learning on learning how to prove stuff. This payed off more than any rote learning I could have done.
The fact that there are more effective uses of your time than rote learning doesn't mean that exam results aren't correlated with intelligence.
Hmm, I doubt you can judge a uni on its first year papers, anyway look at the fourth year papers.
That might be a bit easier if I was a fourth year.
But, it would be largely not a good indication.
My Director of Studies seems to think that it's a reasonable indicator. I'd be inclined to trust his experience over yours.
(Original post by DaveJ)
To be honest, I think sometimes that someone's fellow students who has known them for many years as well as knowing their grades can judge their intelligence better than a tutor who only sees them for around an hour as well as knowing their grades.
I agree that an hour or two isn't enough time, especially when compared to years of knowing someone, but fellow students don't really have much expertise in the area. In many cases they'll have a more accurate impression, but certainly not always. People at my school probably tended to view me as better at maths than I actually am. The interviewers should have a better idea of how to spot talent, even though an interview can't compare to actually knowing the person.
(Original post by Muddy91)
Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. I know a student at cambridge, who had low grades, and a very lucky interview (by his own admission - they asked him things that they thought were not on his syllabus when in fact they were). He is now struggling. Another guy got rejected, who had much better grades, had done much more worthwhile work, and was far cleverer. He's now thriving at a 'lower' uni.
Of course they make mistakes, but this doesn't mean that interviewing doesn't have advantages over not interviewing, or that it isn't true that offers are generally given to the more able applicants.
If oxbridge was so much cleverer than everyone then they wouldn't need 4 teams on university challenge, to demonstrate their dominance. and teams often defeat these 4 teams of 'superior intelligence'.
I can't work out whether this is a joke or not. If not then I have a few points to make:
1) It's more like 40 teams. Each.
2) Spreading the best people over several teams doesn't appear to be the most sensible way to win.
3) University Challenge isn't a test of intelligence.
4) Someone could be generally more intelligent but not as suited to the subject for which they applied.
0
quote
reply
JAKstriked
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
(Original post by Muddy91)
Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. I know a student at cambridge, who had low grades, and a very lucky interview (by his own admission - they asked him things that they thought were not on his syllabus when in fact they were). He is now struggling. Another guy got rejected, who had much better grades, had done much more worthwhile work, and was far cleverer. He's now thriving at a 'lower' uni. If oxbridge was so much cleverer than everyone then they wouldn't need 4 teams on university challenge, to demonstrate their dominance. and teams often defeat these 4 teams of 'superior intelligence'.
i. The teams on UC aren't the best from each university.
ii. I don't think general knowledge is the same as being brilliant at a specific subject.

No one will argue that wrong calls don't get made; a girl in my year who is probably of about average intelligence got an offer for geog whilst a friend who I would have suited Oxford very well and with straight *s at GCSE was rejected for English.

I think to say there's no difference at all between uni's is wrong.
0
quote
reply
Muddy91
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by JAKstriked)
i. The teams on UC aren't the best from each university.
ii. I don't think general knowledge is the same as being brilliant at a specific subject.

No one will argue that wrong calls don't get made; a girl in my year who is probably of about average intelligence got an offer for geog whilst a friend who I would have suited Oxford very well and with straight *s at GCSE was rejected for English.

I think to say there's no difference at all between uni's is wrong.

(Original post by harr)
The fact that there are more effective uses of your time than rote learning doesn't mean that exam results aren't correlated with intelligence.That might be a bit easier if I was a fourth year.My Director of Studies seems to think that it's a reasonable indicator. I'd be inclined to trust his experience over yours.
I agree that an hour or two isn't enough time, especially when compared to years of knowing someone, but fellow students don't really have much expertise in the area. In many cases they'll have a more accurate impression, but certainly not always. People at my school probably tended to view me as better at maths than I actually am. The interviewers should have a better idea of how to spot talent, even though an interview can't compare to actually knowing the person.
Of course they make mistakes, but this doesn't mean that interviewing doesn't have advantages over not interviewing, or that it isn't true that offers are generally given to the more able applicants.I can't work out whether this is a joke or not. If not then I have a few points to make:
1) It's more like 40 teams. Each.
2) Spreading the best people over several teams doesn't appear to be the most sensible way to win.
3) University Challenge isn't a test of intelligence.
4) Someone could be generally more intelligent but not as suited to the subject for which they applied.

I was joking.
0
quote
reply
dichr0ic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by Rucklo)
I could have named who they would be before we even took are GCSE's.
how could you tell?

i remember my physics teacher describing me as oxbridge material in year 9 or 10 :proud:
0
quote
reply
wazzup
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 8 years ago
#58
(Original post by Simplicity)
I doubt there is anything special about Oxford or Cambridge or that if you look at any top ten for say Physics or Maths that the people who go to Cambridge will have a harder course than people who didn't.

To be fair, I got rejected from Oxford and yeah I don't care about it that much. Certainly, you must be pretty stupid to take a year out and then reapply, as that is wasted year.

But, I highly doubt Cambridge for say maths is superior to every other uni for maths.

P.S. Alot, is probably down to the individual.


Not really. To judge the students they would test it with A levels and GCSEs. Both of which are really flawed. Cambridge and Warwick are better in that they test on STEP, however that is still a pretty poor example with emphasis on techniques and has no proofs in it.
well you ll face the truth when applying for jobs. (and i mean the very competitive ones)
0
quote
reply
Unbounded
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#59
Report 8 years ago
#59
(Original post by Simplicity)
STEP [...] has no proofs in it.
You joke surely?
(Original post by Rubgish)
I'd be surprised if the cambridge course wasn't one of the hardest, if not they hardest maths course around. Especially if you do part 3 of the tripos.
Perhaps in the country; probably not internationally however: eg. Harvard's Math 55.

As for as this thread goes, a mixture between the tutorials/supervisions and the leading researchers lecturing you probably help as to developing your way of thinking.
0
quote
reply
Iapetus
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#60
Report 8 years ago
#60
On average they will get a higher calibre intake of students than most other universities. This combined with the tutorial system where you are learning from other very clever people seems to be the answer. I wouldn't generalise to say that there is a distinctive intelligence gap though :eek:
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Lincoln
    Mini Open Day at the Brayford Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 19 Dec '18
  • University of East Anglia
    UEA Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 4 Jan '19
  • Bournemouth University
    Undergraduate Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 9 Jan '19

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (3)
50%
No - I got the required grades (2)
33.33%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (1)
16.67%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed