Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acaila)
    What are Baz's exam results? Rahayden has great ones IIRC. He also got rejected from Cambridge. I didn't know anything about his grammar or his exam results so they can't be that well known.
    GCSE - 12 A*s, 1 A
    A-Level - 6 As
    BA - First

    And STEPs and SATs; but there's no need to go into those.

    happy? That was a bit of a pointless excercise now wasn't it... :rolleyes: One last thing.
    Only 1 in 5 or so applicants get accepted and of those rejected, almost all go on to get perfect grades. Yes, some slip up on interview, but what about the rest? There just aren't enough places for them.
    I think you'll find a lot of people crack in interviews, and most the people that think they did well didn't. For the rest? Some hand in poor written work, other may not do well in test, a few write very average personal statements and a slim minority have quite poor references.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Looking at some of the responses on this thread, it's difficult to take an alternative reading of the situation...but then maybe I shouldn't respond to comments which are so obviously disingenuous.
    Of course there are snobs at Oxbridge who'll think they're somehow better than other people bacause they're there. It's nothing to do with Oxbridge, some people are just like that. I'm sure if you go to Durham you'll find people looking down on certain universities; I'd be very surprised if any Russell group university is devoid of that sort of behaviour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acaila)
    But someone who got a 2:2 at Oxford might have had the capability to get a 2:1 and didn't bother working. Wheras ex-poly person might have been thought to only have been capable of a third, and worked much much harder for the 2:1.

    Finally I think I see where some of the disagreement is coming from. I suppose a big part of the dispute is what the qualification is being used for. OK, if an employer is using it as a measure of how HARD WORKING a candidate is then what they should be looking for imo is someone with poor a-levels in comparison to other students at that particular university combined with a 1st/2.1.

    I would still maintain though that a degree from Oxbridge proves more about the actual ABILITY of the students than from most other universities. Admittedly you can't just class Oxbridge and all other universities as two distinct groups - it's clearly a sliding scale and not exactly accurate at that. However, to say that and Oxbridge student with AAAAA at A-level and a 2.1 is automatically less able than a student with CCD and a 1st from a former poly is ridiculous, even if they might be more hard working.

    I think in the end employers have to look at a number of factors. What is also worth mentioning is that from my experience at Oxbridge there are very lazy but near genii who get 1st/2.1s. There are also some very very hard working and also bright students who get 2.2s. You can't just claim that it is automatically the lazy students who get the poorer degrees.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    * snores Zzz *
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Of course there are snobs at Oxbridge who'll think they're somehow better than other people bacause they're there. It's nothing to do with Oxbridge, some people are just like that. I'm sure if you go to Durham you'll find people looking down on certain universities; I'd be very surprised if any Russell group university is devoid of that sort of behaviour.
    I just refuse to accept that Oxbridge admissions procedures operate at anything near perfect efficiency and I think that anybody trying to suggest this is deluded. It comes as no surprise that the very people willing to perpetuate these myths go to Oxbridge and, for whatever reasons, feel the need to protect the idea of an untouchable, infallible 'Gold Standard'.

    Several exceptional candidates are denied admission to Oxbridge.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Actually, it was the STEPs and the SATs that I found a lot more impressive than the rest of the results, bar the BA and the scholarness.
    When you say SATs, are these the exams you take in applying to top American universities, such as Harvard, Yale etc.?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    I just refuse to accept that Oxbridge admissions procedures operate at anything near perfect efficiency and I think that anybody trying to suggest this is deluded. It comes as no surprise that the very people willing to perpetuate these myths go to Oxbridge and, for whatever reasons, feel the need to protect the idea of an untouchable, infallible 'Gold Standard'.

    Several exceptional candidates are denied admission to Oxbridge.
    But you cannot say that an all round excellent appliant won't get in - Surely a fault must be spotted that makes them not quite good enough to get an offer?

    e.g.)

    Excellent Exam results, Excellent Interview, Nice and friendly personality, Excellent UCAS Form overall, Excellent Admission Test Result etc.

    Would such an applicant be rejected? How?

    In my view, all that is happening in the Oxbridge admissions procedure are that standards increase each year and you need to be that ever bit closer to perfection to get a place.

    OR: They just like you, despite the odd flaw here and there, and you're a quality candidate in the interview irregardless of the rest.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Aren't SATs multiple choice?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    But you cannot say that an all round excellent appliant won't get in - Surely a fault must be spotted that makes them not quite good enough to get an offer?

    e.g.)

    Excellent Exam results, Excellent Interview, Nice and friendly personality, Excellent UCAS Form overall, Excellent Admission Test Result etc.

    Would such an applicant be rejected? How?

    In my view, all that is happening in the Oxbridge admissions procedure are that standards increase each year and you need to be that ever bit closer to perfection to get a place.

    OR: They just like you, despite the odd flaw here and there, and you're a quality candidate in the interview irregardless of the rest.
    Wouldn't you say that there is a margin for error in the selection of the best candidates when you consider the discriminators?

    - An Interview: Highly subjective, non-standard

    - The proprietary tests that Oxbridge may set - the STEP, HAT, BMAT, LNAT etc.

    Personal statement, Public Exam results, Teacher references etc. - very much by the by. It is expected that these are excellent.

    If you believe that Oxford admit only the best, and the rest fall by the wayside - fine, but I don't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    If you believe that Oxford admit only the best, and the rest fall by the wayside - fine, but I don't.
    You ignored my last comment then, where I explicitly stated that even with some flaws, the candidate is just "liked" in interview and get's a place...

    Edit:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    OR: They just like you, despite the odd flaw here and there, and you're a quality candidate in the interview irregardless of the rest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    You ignored my last comment then, where I explicitly stated that even with some flaws, the candidate is just "liked" in interview and get's a place...
    Certain elements in your post caught my attention, moreso than others...
    "But you cannot say that an all round excellent appliant won't get in"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Any Maths applicant can tell you that this is an outstanding achievement.
    Wow, those STEP results are seriously fantastic! Really! Those results would allow him to breeze into Trinity at Cambridge for Maths!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    "But you cannot say that an all round excellent appliant won't get in"
    Yes, someone who ticks all the boxes in very department will get in, in my view. You need a reason to reject someone, surely.

    How many candidates are all round, excellent? I think it's rare.

    Most people have a slight flaw, comparatively to the rest, many have several flaws comparatively to the rest.

    You'd be surprised how many crack in interview or do average, as H & E said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OK a question to everyone who thinks that all degrees are equal. Why don't you just go to your local uni? Or the one where you think you will enjoy yourself most? What is an advantage to going to one of the "top" unis?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel)
    OK a question to everyone who thinks that all degrees are equal. Why don't you just go to your local uni? Or the one where you think you will enjoy yourself most? What is an advantage to going to one of the "top" unis?
    N.B A personal response:

    - Better quality of teaching
    - Better resources
    - Better employment prospects
    - More students of similar ability: going to a state primary school was the singular worst thing I ever did.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel)
    OK a question to everyone who thinks that all degrees are equal. Why don't you just go to your local uni? Or the one where you think you will enjoy yourself most? What is an advantage to going to one of the "top" unis?
    Gah, no one is trying to say that going to a top university is bad. It is just that going to a top university does not automatically entitle you to a free ride in life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMagicMan)
    Gah, no one is trying to say that going to a top university is bad. It is just that going to a top university does not automatically entitle you to a free ride in life.
    Well obviously, it's up to you to get a good degree in the end.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMagicMan)
    Gah, no one is trying to say that going to a top university is bad. It is just that going to a top university does not automatically entitle you to a free ride in life.

    Course it doesn't entitle you to a free ride. But if we assume it is true that a first at any university is of equal quality - i.e. you've had to overcome the same hurdles to achieve it - I personally don't see what the point of going to a top university actually is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think Oxbridge degrees are easy!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ralfskini)
    Aren't SATs multiple choice?
    In the most part, some papers have short essays but mostly it's 5 or 4 choice answers. The main problem, other than they're a pretty crap indicator of ability, is that there's very little difference between 1300 and 1500, it's hard for universities to use the data to its fullest. But the Ivy league like them so what can we do. :rolleyes:
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Days - Exeter Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • University of Bradford
    Faculty of Health Studies Postgraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • Northumbria University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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

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