(Original post by Rubgish)
Every factor is taken into consideration. I've said its not important in most situations, maybe if you took the time to read what I wrote you would have realised that.
it into consideration, but honestly, they do not give a damn. In fact, I will email Cambridge and Oxford to prove
they don't give a **** about attendance.
You have to consider that just because it isn't explicitly stated on the cambridge website doesn't mean they don't take it into consideration.
That would mean they are practically "conning" pupils. Why would they take something into consideration and not say it? That means many gifted A-level students could be at a disadvantage because they did not know attendance was taken into consideration.
Your attendance can be part of your reference, and they do take your reference into consideration.
"They offer places to the ones they believe have the most academic potential and are best suited to the course in question."
Not if they have the best attendance.
They are looking for: "Academic potential and aptitude for studying the chosen subject at degree level..."; "Enthusiasm for and commitment to the chosen course..."; "Motivation and self-discipline..."
Good attendance is not a sign of motivation and self-discipline. OK, maybe a sign of motivation and self-discipline to go to school
, but for their "chosen subject at degree level"? Not necessarily.
I'm backing up my statements using evidence from the Cambridge website (they go into more detail than Oxford). Then you state anything you deem logical from your brain.
If your teacher says "Blah may have potential, but they don't use it because they never turn up to lessons and don't put the effort in", do you think they will just ignore that?
"Admissions tutors take a 'holistic' approach, taking into account all the available information about an applicant".
They would not
reject an applicant based on that only.
Also, how the hell can Oxbridge trust the school reference? It's a bit like the personal statement. The personal statement can easily include lies from the applicant and be plagarised; who's to say that the school reference is the gospel truth about the applicant?
In addition, the referee could be biased against the applicant, which would prove an unfair disadvantage against the applicant and I presume Oxbridge would know not. The school reference is not gospel truth.
In fact, using your example, "has potential... don't use it". Maybe they don't use it in class because they think the A-level curriculum is uninspiring, but who is to say that they don't use their potential outside of school through extra reading and relevant extra-curriculars which the referee is unaware of?
"never turns up to lessons" - well, if you don't turn up to lesson, how would the candidate get excellent grades at AS. Let's be honest, good grades at AS is practically a necessity as Cambridge do take that into account. So that's ********. There's also the possibility that the quality of teaching is poor at their school, so they might as well self-teach at home and therefore they do not "turn up to lessons". Don't be so cynical.
"don't put effort in". Again - they might not put as much effort into their work as they find the A-level curriculum. In fact, I would argue that that statement is not a true statement. Again - chances are this applicant has to have
good grades at AS to be even considered, so they must have put some sort of effort into their work to get the grades needed to apply for Cambridge. So that's ********.
Can you see why Oxbridge does not take the school reference as gospel truth? It's an indication of what the student is like, but Oxbridge will make their minds up through the interviews.
Yes potential is important, but you could have the best potential in the world and not use it.
Who is to say they don't use it?
IN FACT, they might not even have had the opportunity to have used their potential, so if anything, it could even be a positive thing as the admission tutors will see that their potential has gone unnoticed and perhaps benefit from an Oxbridge degree.
Your opinion on what should or should not be on a reference is not relevent here, if your teacher decides to give you a bad reference they will read it and they will note it.
Define a "bad statement". One that insults the pupils? One that does not mention a single positive quality about the applicant?
In addition, you're twisting your words: there's a big different to taking attendance account, in comparision to taking the school reference into account.
I'm sure you are one of these people who claim personal statements are pointless and that the admissions tutors never read them, of which you would also be wrong.
Don't put words into my mouth. Both Oxford and Cambridge consider it part of the admission process so it is important, but the PS per se is not a deciding factor.
And I know this due to the fact that I have enquired to Oxford about it. They mentioned that: it “is an important component of your application” and “it will be read carefully by the admissions tutor in the college to which you apply or are allocated to”. They also mention that “it is just one of many factors we consider”.
Why the hell would I not agree with Oxford.
I believe the PS is important. Don't make false assumptions about me.
And if you haven't worked it out yet, if the admissions tutors are trying to decide between two candidates, and one has a good reference saying they turn up regularly and are willing to work, versus someone who doesn't regularly turn up and doesn't seem willing to put any effort in, who do you think they are going to pick?
Cambridge: "Admissions tutors take a 'holistic' approach".
They would not base an offer based on one single thing. Cambridge says so.
Are you disagreeing with Cambridge?
And for the record, I could easily change that situation around to be in favour of the second applicant:
Applicant 1: "turns up regularly" - does that show enthusiasm for the subject at degree level? Where's the passion for Medicine or Maths?
"willing to work" - for the A-level curriculum. But for their own interests? They might be willing to work, but not curious about the extended curriculum shown through extra reading etc.
Applicant 2: "doesn't turn up regularly" - maybe they have a genuine reason why not to? They prefer to self-study and learn through independent study - a value Oxbridge admires?
"doesn't seem to willing to put any effort in" - for the A-level curriculum. Again, they must have had to - otherwise they would not have achieved the grades for Cambridge. Also, they might not put any effort into lessons in A-level Maths or Biology as it is uninspiring, but outside of school they put in so much work through extra reading and attending lectures.
You're portraying applicant one to be better than applicant two, here I am portraying application two to be better than applicant one. So if you think I'm going to say applicant one - based on a a pathetic, meaningless reason, then no.
In fact, I would argue to the point that they do not care
about extras like "turning up to lesson" and punctuality. How the hell does that relate with a person's enthusiasm for their "chosen subject at degree level".
Again, they would take a holistic approach and look into other
factors, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to say whether applicant one will get into over applicant two and visa versa.
If applicant one does get in, it will be due to other factors as applications are looked at "holistically". Why the hell would Oxbridge disregard practically every part of the application and base it on "attendance"?
If applicant two does get in, it will be due to other factors as applications are looked at "holistically". He or she may have demonstrated enthusiasm etc that applicant one did not demonstrate in the interview for example, or applicant two succeeded well in the admissions test, but applicant one didn't.
Also, who is to say they look at the attendance in the school reference? Cambridge repeatedly emphasises "academic potential" for the subject at "degree level" - not for A-level. (Check yourself). In other words, an applicant may have poor effort for the subject at A-level, but who is to say they don't have amazing potential for the subject at degree level? This is aware through the interview, the applicant's personal statement, written work and admission tests.
It's also an unfair disadvantage on other applicants. How the hell can they take attendance into account when many schools don't say it? One applicant could have poor attendance, but all the other applicants at the same college they applied for had no mention of attendance - is it fair to discriminate against the pupil with poor attendance when you don't know about the other applicant's attendance record?
I could keep going forever at how wrong you are. I've backed up my points with evidence from Oxford and Cambridge.
You are making false claims without backing your opinion.
If you give me a validated source where they take into account attendance, I'll be willing to rethink my opinion. But honestly?
From evidence from Oxford and Cambridge, I conclude they do not care about your attendance to the point where they do not consider it a factor.
I hope Oxford and Cambridge will have replied back to me when you reply to this post where they address attendance specifically - to give you more evidence that they just do not care.