This thread is closed

Cambridge rejections/acceptances

Reply 360

Mentally Ill

Tek

They should really interview fewer candidates.

Here here.

Reply 361

Seer

My phil teacher said it's possible to do a philosophy Ph.D in Occultism :smile:

Reply 362

lizzzy`

Mentally Ill

Yep. The only thing is, that you can buy books from a philosophy bookstore to refine your thinking skills. If all canditates did this, then there would just be no point cos theyd be back to square one.

But it takes a while for the applicants to catch on :wink:

So they have a few years to figure out a new test then, or slap on more tests.

Reply 363

Tina

7

lizzzy`

But it takes a while for the applicants to catch on :wink:

So they have a few years to figure out a new test then, or slap on more tests.

well i spose theres no real test or interview that can be 100% foolproof!

Reply 364

lizzzy`

al65

I heard cambridge were really good in that they gave u an interview even with really low scores e.g 3.0.

Oxford rejected people if your results were av/ less than av even b4 interview

I was told that Clare rejected people without interview, based upon BMAT results.

Cambridge has that age-old thing of trying to interview all applicants, but in reality less are interviewed ~90%?

Reply 365

Seer

If you have less than AABB at AS don't think it's really worth interviewing you unless your results are due to mitigating circumstances.

Reply 366

Tina

7

lizzzy`

I was told that Clare rejected people without interview, based upon BMAT results.

Cambridge has that age-old thing of trying to interview all applicants, but in reality less are interviewed ~90%?

well at least that makes us feel good for reaching the interview stage!

Reply 367

lizzzy`

Tina

well i spose theres no real test or interview that can be 100% foolproof!

Nah. This sounds weird, but it just occured to me that in 100 years' time they could be selecting based on genetic sequence, i.e. so-called 'more intelligent' DNA sequence vs. the lesser ones.
But that's rubbish :smile:

Reply 368

Seer

If you have less than AABB at AS don't think it's really worth interviewing you unless your results are due to exceptional circumstances.

Reply 369

al65

lizzzy`

I was told that Clare rejected people without interview, based upon BMAT results.

Cambridge has that age-old thing of trying to interview all applicants, but in reality less are interviewed ~90%?

Its coz more and more ppl are applying as more and more are getting good a-level results. they simply dont have the time to interview everyone

They'll probably try to interview 30% applicants like oxford for medicine in a few yrs (if they can bear to go against that age-old promise of theirs)

Reply 370

lizzzy`

Tina

well at least that makes us feel good for reaching the interview stage!

We can only wait and see...
Reading other threads, Oxford slashed a lot of applicants this year w/o interview!

Reply 371

Tek

7

lizzzy`

Nah. This sounds weird, but it just occured to me that in 100 years' time they could be selecting based on genetic sequence, i.e. so-called 'more intelligent' DNA sequence vs. the lesser ones.
But that's rubbish :smile:

What about the "hard work" factor?

Reply 372

Tina

7

lizzzy`

Nah. This sounds weird, but it just occured to me that in 100 years' time they could be selecting based on genetic sequence, i.e. so-called 'more intelligent' DNA sequence vs. the lesser ones.
But that's rubbish :smile:

ye ur right...they might well do that in the future bcoz it will be seen as totally scientific and unbiased.

Reply 373

Mentally Ill

lizzzy`

But it takes a while for the applicants to catch on :wink:

So they have a few years to figure out a new test then, or slap on more tests.

Yes, I think that far too much rests upon whether the interviewer likes the interviewee. I understand that this is important as they will be having supervisions together but I think they'd be better off just putting names of all possbibles in a hat. This might actually help them with their 'widening access' initiatives. People could hardly accuse them of choosing a specific 'type' of candidate.

Reply 374

yawn1

Tek

They should really interview fewer candidates.

I think, in the recent past, they had an average of 3 applicants to every place and it was easy to pick those who they wanted. Now, with Access initiatives (which I think are great, incedentally) they are having to cope with far more interviews for the same number of places as they haven't expanded as other unis have.
They don't interview all applicants who apply, only those who are of sufficient potential, but with grade inflation it's a growing problem. Perhaps when top-up fees have increased to £10,000 pa they will have a lot fewer applicants!

Reply 375

lizzzy`

al65

Its coz more and more ppl are applying as more and more are getting good a-level results. they simply dont have the time to interview everyone

They'll probably try to interview 30% applicants like oxford for medicine in a few yrs (if they can bear to go against that age-old promise of theirs)