This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Oxford or Cambridge graduate entry medicine?
- The Official "Oxford or Cambridge?" Thread
- MST Creative Writing - University of Oxford
- Maths at Oxford or Cambridge?
- Oxford vs Cambridge Psychology
- UCAS grad medicine course question
- Should I withdraw my UCAS application and try again next year?
- St Hugh's Oxford vs Girton Cambridge, Mathematical Physics/Part III
- Cambridge MPhil Criminological Research 2022
- Oxford or Cambridge?
- Wondering between Oxford and Cambridge for History and Politics
- should i still apply for oxbridge Maths
- BA (Hons) - Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford only allows choice of 2 optional papers?
- stuck whether to apply to oxford or cambridge!
- MSc Oxford, MPhil Cambridge
- Difficulty of Course - Oxford BCL v Cambridge LLM
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- PhD history of art : Courtauld or Cambridge?
- Classics- Oxford or Cambridge?
- Reapplying to Oxford with a deferred place at Durham
Why CAN'T you apply to both Oxford and Cambridge?
Scroll to see replies
W0bble
You the average student' CAN'T physically have a better chance - there are still the same number of places!
Of course, some people might find it easier, but to balance this some people would find it harder.
Of course, some people might find it easier, but to balance this some people would find it harder.
generalebriety
The system isn't infallible, but if you're judged unsuitable at Cambridge, it probably means that if you go to Oxford, you'll still be unsuitable. I think they err on the side of caution.
At a personal level, i know i'd feel better knowing i had two shots at a place and it wasn't just bad luck. In the most competitive of courses (medicine, economics, law etc.) luck becomes so much more important as it's too borderline - candidates all having 3 or more A grades + string of A*s at GCSE etc. But yeah, i agree the success rate would stay constant for the average student due to fixed places.
However it's interesting...do you think applying to both might raise the chances of a "suitable candidate" (bearing in mind oxbridge make mistakes) getting a place? Perhaps it may even increase the quality of candidates accepted as a whole, due to the increased competition for them?
I don't know, i'm just speculating here!
generalebriety
That's hardly subtle; you couldn't write an economics personal statement that would allow you to apply for PPE, and you couldn't write a PPE statement that told the admissions tutors enough about economics to let you apply for that.
That's hardly subtle; you couldn't write an economics personal statement that would allow you to apply for PPE, and you couldn't write a PPE statement that told the admissions tutors enough about economics to let you apply for that.
It's not unheard of to tailor a personal statement for PPE at Oxford and then Economics at LSE, for example. But the distinction between E+M and E is more subtle i admit. You also have Natural Sciences at Cambridge vs. separate sciences at Oxford; the option to study History with French or English or Politics at Oxford vs. straight History at Cambridge.
FizFazFoz
However it's interesting...do you think applying to both might raise the chances of a "suitable candidate" (bearing in mind oxbridge make mistakes) getting a place? Perhaps it may even increase the quality of candidates accepted as a whole, due to the increased competition for them?
However it's interesting...do you think applying to both might raise the chances of a "suitable candidate" (bearing in mind oxbridge make mistakes) getting a place? Perhaps it may even increase the quality of candidates accepted as a whole, due to the increased competition for them?
Yes - I think that the someone could be interviewed by both means if they deserved a place, but messed up an interview (due to nerves or whatever) they had a second chance, making it slightly fairer.
But the problem then is if you apply for both and don't get in, you've only got three options left...
Also it might not be fairer actually since they have twice the number of candidates, so might not be able to look at them all as comprehensively as before.
OiaB
because they both have the same grade requirements?
because they want you to show commitment.
because they want you to show commitment.
Other universities have the same entry requirements for many of their courses (infact some universities have even more stringent requirements). Also, as for showing commitment, you're applying to other universities.
because its mutually beneficial for everyone involved.
What would happen is that a lot of people would apply to both (obviously not everyone who would apply to one), and in likelyhood, oxford and cambridge would select a decent proportion of the same students (obviously not entirely but to a significant level). This means that not only would they have less time to make a detailed assesment of each candidate, but they would also need to take into account that about half of their offers would not be taken up. However it is (arguably) worse to have too many students than too few, so they are going to be conservative with their estimate of who will decline. Given that for each candidate their will be about twice as many better candidates applying, and less than twice as many offers, it will be unbeneficial for them.
I don't think I've explained that very well, but my argument boils down to the fact that most people are going to get an offer from both and neither, and only a very few candidates will get an offer from their second choice of oxbridge, when they wouldn't have gotten an offer from their first choice under the current system, whereas a larger proportion of applicants will lose out, and the universities will lose out by not being able to make the assumption that a very large proportion of offer holders are going to accept and meet the offer.
Okay that was longer than I intended, hoopefully my point comes across.
What would happen is that a lot of people would apply to both (obviously not everyone who would apply to one), and in likelyhood, oxford and cambridge would select a decent proportion of the same students (obviously not entirely but to a significant level). This means that not only would they have less time to make a detailed assesment of each candidate, but they would also need to take into account that about half of their offers would not be taken up. However it is (arguably) worse to have too many students than too few, so they are going to be conservative with their estimate of who will decline. Given that for each candidate their will be about twice as many better candidates applying, and less than twice as many offers, it will be unbeneficial for them.
I don't think I've explained that very well, but my argument boils down to the fact that most people are going to get an offer from both and neither, and only a very few candidates will get an offer from their second choice of oxbridge, when they wouldn't have gotten an offer from their first choice under the current system, whereas a larger proportion of applicants will lose out, and the universities will lose out by not being able to make the assumption that a very large proportion of offer holders are going to accept and meet the offer.
Okay that was longer than I intended, hoopefully my point comes across.
Cause they would get even sillier amounts of applications compared to the enormous amount they get now. Their entry requirements are almost negligibly similar.
rockrunride
Cause they would get even sillier amounts of applications compared to the enormous amount they get now. Their entry requirements are almost negligibly similar.
As explained in another thread, Oxbridge tend to recieve less applicants than other uni's but it is more competitive as the one's that do apply are extremely good.
Also, I know many people who will have an insurance similar/higher to their firm. Surely, this is the candidates problem if they miss out and not the universities?
Because of the ******* at UCAS.
Yet, choral people or whatever are exempt! That's discrimination if you can't play the piano!
Gosh... so unfair.
/rant
Anyways, I think it's due to the fact that there's a fairer chance of people getting in or something, or to control applications of some sort.
Yet, choral people or whatever are exempt! That's discrimination if you can't play the piano!
Gosh... so unfair.
/rant
Anyways, I think it's due to the fact that there's a fairer chance of people getting in or something, or to control applications of some sort.
Also, I think if you got into both, it would be difficult to pick between the two and create even more work for them. If you apply to Oxford or Cambridge, it's very likely you'll firm them if given an offer, so by cutting out the other universities it makes their lives easier?
I don't really agree with it, but they claim it'd be an admin nightmare. Effectively those that were predicted results good enough for Oxbridge would double their applications up and send them to the other aswell, increasing the workload. You'd then get cries of those rejected by one but accepted by the other and vice versa of being somehow 'unfair', in addition to increased claims how subjective the whole interview system is, and probably putting both of them under a scrutiny that they'd rather avoid. Personally, I'd treat them like everyone else, having an early deadline/interviews/pooling etc only furthers an image of elitism, when in reality the gap between them and other leading universities is (in my experience) not all that great.
I always figured it's because they're bitches and don't like the fact that you've applied to both.
TommyWannabe
I always figured it's because they're bitches and don't like the fact that you've applied to both.
I was under a similar opinion.
I'd always wondered too! 
I think it's also because they want you to have really thought about which course you want to do (especially because similar courses are taught quite differently at both places). They would much rather take someone who is passionate a specific course, rather than someone who just wants to go to Oxbridge.
Related discussions
- Oxford or Cambridge graduate entry medicine?
- The Official "Oxford or Cambridge?" Thread
- MST Creative Writing - University of Oxford
- Maths at Oxford or Cambridge?
- Oxford vs Cambridge Psychology
- UCAS grad medicine course question
- Should I withdraw my UCAS application and try again next year?
- St Hugh's Oxford vs Girton Cambridge, Mathematical Physics/Part III
- Cambridge MPhil Criminological Research 2022
- Oxford or Cambridge?
- Wondering between Oxford and Cambridge for History and Politics
- should i still apply for oxbridge Maths
- BA (Hons) - Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford only allows choice of 2 optional papers?
- stuck whether to apply to oxford or cambridge!
- MSc Oxford, MPhil Cambridge
- Difficulty of Course - Oxford BCL v Cambridge LLM
- Has anyone ever rejected Oxbridge?
- PhD history of art : Courtauld or Cambridge?
- Classics- Oxford or Cambridge?
- Reapplying to Oxford with a deferred place at Durham
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 day ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
