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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    well, I think that 12% are pretty much for "the best grade possible" (I dont care about A* since Oxford doesnt care about them ) and clearly way more than, for example the 0.6 % who get 1.0. I dont say that the interview system is a bad system. I just say that it would be easier for the VERY gifted/talented students to distinguish themselves from the "rest" if the range of grades left more room for exceptional people. Although I am aware that grades cant cover all of one's academic capability I think it is important to give grades at least SOME relevance .. that's why I like the Oxford system: grades AND interviews. and still it would be easier if grades mattered more .. we wouldn't need the TSA, BMAT, ELAT, HAT, PAT ...

    and, yes, I think that a grade that is achieved by 12-18% of all pupils has NO RELEVANCE for an institution like Oxford ...
    You should have brought that up at interview, told the tutor you thought they were running things the wrong way, I'm sure they;d have loved to hear an exceptional student's opinion.

    Of course, they might have told you that grades are not the be all and end all at Oxford. They may even had stressed that AAA at some places is pretty much eqiuvalent to A*A*A* at others. They may even have added that obviously, they don't just care about grades as they have interviews, and these are designed not only to test potential and aptitude, but also suitability to the tutorial and collegiate systems.

    But hey, you know more than the tutors of Oxford obviously, so I'll run along and leave you to bask in you immensity.

    EDIT: AND A NEG?!!
    :angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

    EDIT II: I assume then, that my sarcastic ways have disgusted you. Well, I stand by my view, the person was being very arrogant, my assumed arrogance was only taken on for parodic purposes. Or, more likely, people don't like that I'm suggesting their qualifications aren't as amazing as they think they are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It depends on how many other people miss their offers too...

    They make more offers than they have places (although oxbridge do this a lot less than other universities because how many people would turn down Oxbridge) so they expect some people not to get the marks.

    If lots of people miss their offers and they have less people than the number they can have on the course, they may let other people in as well, even if they have miised their offers because they get oney for the more people they have. The offers go to the people with the highest grades and who did best in the interviews etc. so it it varies an awful lot on the individual wether or not they'd make you an offer.

    But yes, it happens
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    You should have brought that up at interview, told the tutor you thought they were running things the wrong way, I'm sure they;d have loved to hear an exceptional student's opinion.

    Of course, they might have told you that grades are not the be all and end all at Oxford. They may even had stressed that AAA at some places is pretty much eqiuvalent to A*A*A* at others. They may even have added that obviously, they don't just care about grades as they have interviews, and these are designed not only to test potential and aptitude, but also suitability to the tutorial and collegiate systems.

    But hey, you know more than the tutors of Oxford obviously, so I'll run along and leave you to bask in you immensity.

    EDIT: AND A NEG?!!
    :angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

    I would really like to know what's happened to this poor guy on christmas eve that he is so blatantly aggressive for no good reason ... I really pity you although I do know nothing about your apparently horribly adverse fate :O

    PS: All I say is that Oxford cant base any decision on grades since they cant say anything about a student except that they are among the best 20% ... which isnt that useful for an university which wants to educate the very best, I dont know, like the best 2000 and not the best 40 000 ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    I would really like to know what's happened to this poor guy on christmas eve that he is so blatantly aggressive for no good reason ... I really pity you although I do know nothing about your apparently horribly adverse fate :O

    PS: All I say is that Oxford cant base any decision on grades since they cant say anything about a student except that they are among the best 20% ... which isnt that useful for an university which wants to educate the very best, I dont know, like the best 2000 and not the best 40 000 ...
    You want to know what happened to me? You happened to me, with your arrogance, and your big stupid doo-doo head.

    I'm bored of this now, if you really think you'd run Oxford better than the current administration, then I don't know what to say.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    It's a fallacy that people only take subjects they like.
    Perhaps they don't, but they still have the opportunity to choose subjects which play to their strengths and interests, no? And as far as I know, people generally make use of that opportunity, because it's the sensible thing to do, as long as there isn't too much of a clash with the required subjects for their prospective course. With a baccalaureate-style system you never get much of a choice, though, so unless you're an all-rounder in all subjects you won't get a good overall grade in the end.
    That difference in itself doesn't make A-levels easier, of course, but the system does advantage a certain category of student who'd be disadvantaged in a baccalaureate-style system (i.e. students who are very strong in some subjects but nowhere near as good in others), because it allows them to drop their weaker subjects and focus on their strong ones...:dontknow:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hobnob)
    Perhaps they don't, but they still have the opportunity to choose subjects which play to their strengths and interests, no? And as far as I know, people generally make use of that opportunity, because it's the sensible thing to do, as long as there isn't too much of a clash with the required subjects for their prospective course. With a baccalaureate-style system you never get much of a choice, though, so unless you're an all-rounder in all subjects you won't get a good overall grade in the end.
    That difference in itself doesn't make A-levels easier, of course, but the system does advantage a certain category of student who'd be disadvantaged in a baccalaureate-style system (i.e. students who are very strong in some subjects but nowhere near as good in others), because it allows them to drop their weaker subjects and focus on their strong ones...:dontknow:
    I'd say whilst that's true, I assume say, Physics A-Levels are harder than the equivalent Baccalaureate subject?

    So that means that say, if I wasn't great at Physics, I'd perhaps struggle, but because it's not to the same level, I don't have to be as good. So, whilst what you're saying is true, because A-Levels are harder singularly than a single Bacc subject, it levels things off somewhat. I do accept though that what you're saying makes Bacc more difficult for some people.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    I'd say whilst that's true, I assume say, Physics A-Levels are harder than the equivalent Baccalaureate subject?

    So that means that say, if I wasn't great at Physics, I'd perhaps struggle, but because it's not to the same level, I don't have to be as good. So, whilst what you're saying is true, because A-Levels are harder singularly than a single Bacc subject, it levels things off somewhat. I do accept though that what you're saying makes Bacc more difficult for some people.
    I wouldn't really know about that...
    But the point is that if you happen to be brilliant at maths and physics, A-levels offer you a chance to excel and achieve full marks regardless of how good you are at history, PE or languages. In a baccalaureate system, you might not be covering quite as much ground, and that might allow someone who isn't quite as good as physics to achieve the same grade as you, but unless that person also happens to be good at a number of other subjects, he'll probably still be worse off than if he had taken A-levels and just about scraped As.
    At the end of the day, it's a trade-off: A-levels let you focus on your strengths (which potentially increases your chances of getting good grades in the end), but that comes at the price of being forced to make definite subject choices quite early on. Baccalaureate-style qualifications allow you to keep your options open, so you could technically do a wide range of different subjects, but they may make someone who is very good at some select subjects but isn't an all-rounder look like an average student.

    Anyway, to answer the OP's question:
    (Original post by moritzplatz)
    i recieved a conditional offer for math...
    are oxford's conditions inflexible?

    i'm italian and i have to get 95% in my final exam (wich is really hard, at least in my school) and 100\120 in the toefl ibt...

    do you think that if i'll get sometihing like 94 % and 98 in the toefl, my place won't be confirmed?

    many thanks!
    If 95% is 'really hard' as in near-impossible to achieve, get in touch with your college and try to explain that it's an unrealistic offer (and preferably back up your argument with statistics showing that it's a grade which only a tiny fraction of Italian students achieve), and then they might lower it. If it's only 'really hard' as in you'll probably be able to achieve it, but it will be a stretch and you'd prefer an offer which leaves some more room for error, you could still try, but you probably won't be able to persuade the college to lower your offer.
    Either way, if you don't think you're likely to meet your offer, it will be better for you to get in touch with your college now (after the holidays, that is) rather than wait until you've actually missed your offer.

    The TOEFL score should be less of an issue, because it's a test which you can resit if all else fails. So if you're worried that you might not achieve 100, you should aim to sit it early enough to allow you to resit before the deadline for meeting your offer conditions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Is that the standard offer for your qualification that Oxford usually gives? While they only really give AAA offers to A-Level people, the offer for IB and other qualifications do fluctuate depending on whether they want to give an applicant an easy or hard offer.
    It would seem to be on the basis of this page:

    http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/under...ons/index.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hobnob)

    If 95% is 'really hard' as in near-impossible to achieve, get in touch with your college and try to explain that it's an unrealistic offer (and preferably back up your argument with statistics showing that it's a grade which only a tiny fraction of Italian students achieve), and then they might lower it. If it's only 'really hard' as in you'll probably be able to achieve it, but it will be a stretch and you'd prefer an offer which leaves some more room for error, you could still try, but you probably won't be able to persuade the college to lower your offer.
    Either way, if you don't think you're likely to meet your offer, it will be better for you to get in touch with your college now (after the holidays, that is) rather than wait until you've actually missed your offer.

    The TOEFL score should be less of an issue, because it's a test which you can resit if all else fails. So if you're worried that you might not achieve 100, you should aim to sit it early enough to allow you to resit before the deadline for meeting your offer conditions.
    in my school i think that 3-4% of the students gets a grade over 95% (looking at the grades of the last year) but i cannot show statistics since my school does not provide them....

    for the toefl i reasoned the same way, infact i'm sitting it on February, 26
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    I would really like to know what's happened to this poor guy on christmas eve that he is so blatantly aggressive for no good reason ... I really pity you although I do know nothing about your apparently horribly adverse fate :O

    PS: All I say is that Oxford cant base any decision on grades since they cant say anything about a student except that they are among the best 20% ... which isnt that useful for an university which wants to educate the very best, I dont know, like the best 2000 and not the best 40 000 ...
    That is, surely, why the use all the aptitude tests. Feeling that A level doesn't adequately distinguish between their applicants, they prefer to set their own test to address this, rather than introduce the A* offer, as Cambridge have done. You could say from this that Oxford is happy with neither the content (skills and knowledge) taught at A level nor the 'difficulty'; Cambridge on the other hand might feel happy with the content of the course, but feels that the difficulty aspect needs to be addressed.

    For Oxford - and Cambridge to a lesser extent - school grades are a bit like a checkpoint; you have to reach this certain level, but past that they become more of a background feature. Once they have decided who they'd like to make offers to, the tutors set a such a checkpoint to make sure you can cope academically. This is where maybe internationals lose out a bit, I don't know, in that the English system is then translated directly into an equivalent standard (grade), possibly without full attention to the 'style' of course; e.g. 3/4 A levels against 7IB subjects or 10 Arbitur etc. without taking into account the 'rounded individual' nature of some international qualifications.

    Or maybe they do, who knows. Also don't forget they do have past experience as well. If they found that most people doing the Arbitur, say, didn't meet their standard offer, they'd probably lower it.

    Congratulations on all your offers btw.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moritzplatz)
    in my school i think that 3-4% of the students gets a grade over 95% (looking at the grades of the last year) but i cannot show statistics since my school does not provide them....
    Unless you go to a particularly good school, this seems like a fairly reasonable offer. Between them, Oxford and Cambridge take less than 1% of British school leavers. The top 4% of IB scores would be about 40 or 41+, which sounds about right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BJack)
    Unless you go to a particularly good school, this seems like a fairly reasonable offer. Between them, Oxford and Cambridge take less than 1% of British school leavers. The top 4% of IB scores would be about 40 or 41+, which sounds about right.
    yes but in this topic someone said that AAA is 12%...

    but it's ok, i'll try to to get these results, and i think i'll succeed..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    You want to know what happened to me? You happened to me, with your arrogance, and your big stupid doo-doo head.

    I'm bored of this now, if you really think you'd run Oxford better than the current administration, then I don't know what to say.
    Arrogance? Where the ******* did I say that I could run Oxford better than the current administration? I assume that you didnt apply (or at least didnt succed ) for any language related course including PPE at Oxbridge? Otherwise it would really be a shame for the admissions system, someone who isnt able to distinguish the not at all indirectly worded statements "A level qualification does not distinguish between very good and exceptional students, that's why Oxford needs TSA, ELAT, ..." and "Oxford should change their admissions system to anything that suits me better " ...


    btw: It's christmas, so it'll take some time for you to get some nice presents this year again, however, some READING COMPREHENSION excercise books and "how to be less aggressive especially if I am a moron and would probably fail the Turing test" seem to be appropriate presents for birthday or stuff...
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly, people. It's Christmas! Peace and goodwill to all men
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    Arrogance? Where the ******* did I say that I could run Oxford better than the current administration? I assume that you didnt apply (or at least didnt succed ) for any language related course including PPE at Oxbridge? Otherwise it would really be a shame for the admissions system, someone who isnt able to distinguish the not at all indirectly worded statements "A level qualification does not distinguish between very good and exceptional students, that's why Oxford needs TSA, ELAT, ..." and "Oxford should change their admissions system to anything that suits me better " ...


    btw: It's christmas, so it'll take some time for you to get some nice presents this year again, however, some READING COMPREHENSION excercise books and "how to be less aggressive especially if I am a moron and would probably fail the Turing test" seem to be appropriate presents for birthday or stuff...
    Obviously, I can't speak for admissions tutors, and this is wild conjecture on both our sides, but I would assume that they know what they are doing when it comes to admissions, and that we (mere mortals by comparison) cannot really know how they do things, but we may infer things using logic. My logic leads me to believe that at Oxford at least, potential is assessed as well as prior attainment, and that attainment alone is not good enough to secure a place, hence why admissions tests come into play.

    Your logic leads you to think that admissions tests are in place because A-Levels have failed to distinguish between excellent, and good students. This is supported by the new A* grade. However, seeing as the admission tests remain, and must be undertaken by all applicants, this leads me to believe that it is either that all tests worldwide are "faulty" or Oxbridge want more than just grades.

    This is corroborated by the fact that Oxbridge used to use entrance exams before the 1990s, but abolished them after concerns that these created an advantage for privately educated students. Seeing as in the mid 1980s, less than half of Oxbridge offer holders recieved AAA, this suggests that the driving factor behind entrance exams is not that they enable tutors to circumvent AAA, but to assess potential. Entrance exams obviously have been re-introduced in many sectors, but they are drafted in such a way that attempts to ensure parity between all students, a true assessment of potential, rather than how well prepared you are.

    I hope that you found this reply more level headed, and humbly await any riposte you have.

    Yours faithfully,

    -Mann18.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in serious danger of quoting Cliff Richard on this thread in an attempt to restore harmony. I kid you not :ninja:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I'm in serious danger of quoting Cliff Richard on this thread in an attempt to restore harmony. I kid you not :ninja:
    Whilst I would love to hear that, I agree, it's gone too far now, I shall not be replying anymore.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Whilst I would love to hear that, I agree, it's gone too far now, I shall not be replying anymore.
    Something this forum has taught me is that it's sometimes better to maintain silence, lose the battle and let the other person think they've "won" but have some dignity in doing so :yes:

    For the record, you are both right and both wrong in aspects of your argument but I'm far too lazy and away with the fairies to bother adding fuel to this rather silly discussion by elaborating :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Obviously, I can't speak for admissions tutors, and this is wild conjecture on both our sides, but I would assume that they know what they are doing when it comes to admissions, and that we (mere mortals by comparison) cannot really know how they do things, but we may infer things using logic. My logic leads me to believe that at Oxford at least, potential is assessed as well as prior attainment, and that attainment alone is not good enough to secure a place, hence why admissions tests come into play.

    Your logic leads you to think that admissions tests are in place because A-Levels have failed to distinguish between excellent, and good students. This is supported by the new A* grade. However, seeing as the admission tests remain, and must be undertaken by all applicants, this leads me to believe that it is either that all tests worldwide are "faulty" or Oxbridge want more than just grades.

    This is corroborated by the fact that Oxbridge used to use entrance exams before the 1990s, but abolished them after concerns that these created an advantage for privately educated students. Seeing as in the mid 1980s, less than half of Oxbridge offer holders recieved AAA, this suggests that the driving factor behind entrance exams is not that they enable tutors to circumvent AAA, but to assess potential. Entrance exams obviously have been re-introduced in many sectors, but they are drafted in such a way that attempts to ensure parity between all students, a true assessment of potential, rather than how well prepared you are.

    I hope that you found this reply more level headed, and humbly await any riposte you have.

    Yours faithfully,

    -Mann18.

    Wow, thank you for that answer. now I understand what you tried to say beforehand Suddenly everything makes sense

    I think I have read that Oxford has been giving less emphasize on entrance exams like the TSA lately (sorry, no source here, might have been some TSR nonsense without anymore trustworthiness than the "...and then he set the table on fire" stories about the interviews) because they realized that performance in these tests does not reflect potential (measured against the academic achievement of those students who had taken the TSA... stuff in the last years)

    If that was true (I honestly have no idea, although I am pretty sure that I failed my TSA completely and still got an offer...) then your logic would have a minor fault indicating that A levels are not enough to distinguish between the very best students. By the way, it is more or less proven that it does not distinguish adequately, that's why they introduced the A* lately, and I think Oxford does not use A* yet because they want to test whether A* offers any clue about potential (again, measuring academic success of past students in correlation to their grades) and not because they think that 15% is a percentage small enough for Oxford

    I think that the fact that everybody has to sit the TSA/... is not another proof for your theory Oxford does simply not know enough about other countries' education systems to say "these German kids are so tremendously bright they dont need no ELAT!!!" and I think it would also be quite unfair to exclude non-English applicants from these tests

    however, your point has some weight, obviously

    thank you again for your friendly response,

    yours sincerely,
    Assassnum
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    Something this forum has taught me is that it's sometimes better to maintain silence, lose the battle and let the other person think they've "won" but have some dignity in doing so :yes:

    For the record, you are both right and both wrong in aspects of your argument but I'm far too lazy and away with the fairies to bother adding fuel to this rather silly discussion by elaborating :yes:
    I think both of us, me and Mann18 should add some patience and elaboration in our posts, then these serious misunderstandings would not occur :P
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.