Damn the whole system!

Obviously AS's are by no means a deciding factor, but how can GCSEs tell you more about a person's academic ability and potential in their chosen subject than their AS levels can? At least AS levels are a bit harder, and Cambridge (and soon the other universities) can see modular marks and distinguish between high and low As. I would think that much more should rest on interview, statement, reference and written work than on any exam results, but what makes people say that GCSEs are a better indicator of ability than AS

I believe that the reason they look at GCSEs more than AS

because GCSEs are a two year course, and therefore you have two years as opposed to nine months to learn a syllabus and prepare for the exam, and most degree courses are similarly between 2 and 3 years,

with a vast majority (apart from the sciences really) testing you at the end of those two years as opposed to splitting your degree into chunks.

Also AS are very new for Oxbridge who

- as an archaic institution - prefer something which has been tried and tested for longer (in this case GCSEs).

Additionally, many A Levels are linear meaning you will improve throughout the two year coursebecause by the time you get to the end of French A Level you should find AS French a joke.

Finally, not all schools declare their AS results (as someone else has stated) - some, like Westminster, don't even do AS, they make their students take all the exams at the end of the second year - and so its not fair to judge all students by this qualification if not all of them have it.

On top of that, its an incomplete qualification - amounting to half an A Level effectively - and therefore not really a great indicator.

They don't. Dunno where you got this idea from.

Most degrees are three years, some are four. Most GCSEs can be done with maybe a a week's worth of work from a student going to Cambridge (with the exceptions of things like art that take time).

Actually, most GCSEs have significant coursework content. This is mirrored in only a few oxbridge degrees (except through dissertations and projects that most people do in their final year)

This is a clear logical fallacy. The fact that Cambridge is old and GCSEs are older than ASs are independent and irrelevant to one another,

Are you claiming that you are not at a specific level at any moment in the course? At the end of AS levels you should find GCSEs a joke, How exxactly is this relevant to your argument?

In these cases (though they are few and far between) I am sure that the admissions tutors are able to make a judgement.

My Oxford tutor told me.

As far as I know most students took their GCSEs when they were 16 and not on their way to Cambridge: GCSEs are to sixteen year olds what degrees are to (capable) undergraduates. Your point that a Cambridge or A-Level student could prepare for their GCSEs is nonsensical and irrelevent.

Most GCSEs do not have 'significant' coursework content: a small perecentage may be given over to coursework but as you yourself have just said degrees include theses, dissertations and labwork.

ASs have been ridiculed by the government's own advisor for educational reform: they are too new to have proven themselves worthy of anything other than offering students retakes in order to improve their grades. GCSEs on the other hand have shown for the last decade or so how a student copes after *two years* on a course.

I dont know what your problem is Musicboy, but I'm not out to get you, and there is no need to take every one of my comments and puncture it with your incredible wit. Grow up.

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?

To me, the Oxbridge system seems a hell of a lot fairer than all other British universities. Instead of only having predicted A-level grades, AS grades (and marks at Cambridge), GCSE grades, personal statement and reference to go on, they ask you to sumbit written work, sit a written test and attend at least 2 interviews, usually with 2 or 3 academics. It's also certainly far superior to the Ivy League American universities, where much more emphasis seems to be placed on wealth, connections and extra-curricular activities, whereas Oxbridge take your background into account to make sure no-one is disadvantaged and academic merit/potential is really the only thing that counts.

Just thought id point out, although he referred to Oxbridge as "the pinnacle" he was referring to the whole system in general.

Just thought id point out, although he referred to Oxbridge as "the pinnacle" he was referring to the whole system in general.

He's actually made some fair points. Perhaps the systems at Oxford and Cambridge differ, but I can't find fault with most of his comments.

Fair points such as:

"You attribute far too much to the quality of the admissions system. Maybe you should think abot the consequences of what you're saying rather than spewing cliched crap about how your rather dubious anecdotal evidence confirms elements of your own thoughts on admissions criteria."

Musicboys problem is the fact that two of his friends didnt make it through the system and he's taking it out on us: my best friend got rejected from oxford on his *birthday* but I dont sit here whinging about how he should have been given a 'fairer' chance. The point is that oxbridge admissions have a far fairer criteria than any other university and will spend more time looking at each candidate. Despite how wonderful and exalted Musicboy maybe Cambridge don't have to tell him squat, and therefore he will NEVER know the reasons his friends didnt get interviews. Get over yourself and quit whining: about 20 000 people or similar with AAA were rejected last year from Oxbridge - what makes your friends so much better than them.

I dont know what your problem is Musicboy, but I'm not out to get you, and there is no need to take every one of my comments and puncture it with your incredible wit. Grow up.

In which way exactly was this not a fair point. As for undermining almost everything you say, it is a consequence of most of what you say being unheard of ****.

Areyou trying to be useful or just plain vindictive?