Damn the whole system!

I don't know anyone who hasn't been interviewed by Cambridge - I can't and won't comment on Oxford - when they've applied. I don't know what sort of circles you live in, but from all the evidence I've ever seen you're very wrong. The fact that you posted your complaint in the forum of the two universities who are furthest from the 'reject on the basis of forms' idea suggests that you do need to find out what you're talking about.

Your example might be right but it is hardly typical.

I know two people who are doing all sciences and want to study law and philosophy respectively. Their exam results will not reasonably show their "basic knowledge" in those subjects.

I agree - but have they been turned down without interview?

You said, sweepingly, that a lack of basic knowledge cannot be shown without interview and I gave you a fairly typical example in which that wasn't the case.

where individuals are concerned, little is 'typical'.

where individuals are concerned, little is 'typical'. I would understand if you applied for physics with a Ds in AS physics and Maths. But I still feel a D in maths and physics should not prejudice your chances of studying a completely unrelated subject. Yet let's be honest, they too often do and would.

If you can only get a D in maths you're not very intelligent.

If you can only get a D in maths you're not very intelligent. It doesn't matter whether you're appying for Physics or for English. Come on, we're talking about selecting the best students in the country, and there's no shortage of well qualified applicants.

are you having a go at the system for not being infallible?

jeez! what are those Oxbridge types thinking?

simply not true. i'd probably get a D in maths. i don't have a scientific brain. however in a humanities subject i can get a place at oxford.

If you can only get a D in maths you're not very intelligent. It doesn't matter whether you're appying for Physics or for English. Come on, we're talking about selecting the best students in the country, and there's no shortage of well qualified applicants.

Your lack of interest in sciences and maths will be no hindrance to you, I'm sure, but I do wonder whether you're underselling yourself simply to take the moral highground.

i wish that were the case. i'm hugely interested in science, but not very able. i'm quite confident i'd have underachieved at a-level maths.

What typically prejudiced rubbish. Jeremy Paxman (whom I do not know personally, but nonetheless consider to be fairly intelligent) re-sat his O level maths several times before getting decent grades. I hate maths (and am not very good at it) but enjoy philosophy. People like you really do think you have the world sussed out through "statistical and empirical evidence" don't you.

I can accept the your point about there being many other qualified people. However, like I said, I am talking about AS grades - the ones on which many people apply - not A2 grades which can more reasonably be used to discriminate.

OK, I'm sorry about my post; perhaps I was a bit hasty in condemning people who are not good at one particular subject.

No I am having a go at the system for being too mechanical (it seems from the responses my grievances have received, many of the people who benefit from the system see the world in an equally mechanical way). As somebody said, you are not your grades, but even in those supposedly venerable institutions of Cambridge and Oxford, a certain degree of prejudice remains over AS grades (I am not dealing with A2 grades here, that is a fair enough measure by which to discriminate). And in cases like the above, grades are simply not a good enough indicator of whether or not you would be able to study at that university. But of course, a line must be drawn somewhere, and unfortunately good people will necessarily slip through the net. However I think many of you have ignored that my rebuke applies to other universities too, not solely or primarily oxbridge.

I probably sound like an envious, churlish, graceless and ebittered fool but I am really losing faith in the whole university system (especially the OxBridge system). I mean I keep reading of people who get 100 A*s, 10As at A level, speak 15 languages and have written books on obscure subjects and still get rejected WITHOUT interview! I am just so sick of how arbitrary and random this whole system seems. What chance do we mere mortals have in this case (and I just want to get into a half decent university, I am not even thinking of oxbridge, but i have singled them out because they seem to be the pinnacle of this rotten system)? Also I think the idea that so much hinges on the strength of your AS grades is absurd. Exams are not a marker of intelligence, and they severely disadvantage those on harder exam boards, those at worse schools, those with worse teachers, and those who for whatever reason simply trip up in the single hour that 'tests' a years' worth of learning (they will tell you all manner of claptrap that "we just want to see how teachable you are, your AS grades are not the only thing we use", when in truth they have probably chucked out your application based entirely on your grades, before evevn reading your references and statement). I mean it's like the system is designed to make you fall. The idea for instance that we can only apply in autumn means that with what seems like a lottery, you only have one chance a year of getting into university. I am just so sick of reading of people who really seemed to at least deserve a chance (even if they do not get an offer) being cast out for reasons that seem as mysterious to me as the arcane rituals of the OxBridge colleges. So out of interest, just who does/did get in?

Ok perhaps I have been hasty. I own that I am speaking out of emotion rather than necessarily reason or fact. But my main rant is over the incredible lack of fairness in the whole application system. It's a one chance kind of thing and if it were possible I wish universities didn't put so much emphasis on exam results (of course they are important but by no means the sole indicator of ability).

I don't think it does apply to Oxbridge in any significant way is my problem. the system isn't fallible but you're having a go, in the Oxbridge forum, at the two unis to which your issues/remarks least apply.

And the unis can't undo all previous injustices, social or personal. The Oxbridge system is not mechanical (I work in admissions) and individual care is taken, over those few that are desummoned and during the admissions process. There is no mechanical adding up, or checklist of boxes to tick, or pass mark in the exam, or right words to say in the interview - tutors really do get a good chance to see the applicants and the applicants several chances to shine.