Successful Oxbridge applicants? Are either of ur parents teachers??!! Watch

This discussion is closed.
rocksteady99
Badges: 0
#61
Report 16 years ago
#61
got in 4 med, both parents doctors (as are whole family on mums side) but no1 ever been 2 oxbridge!
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 16 years ago
#62
(Original post by loopy2)
idem
What does that mean?
Have you dropped this classicist idea of yours yet?
0
JaF
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#63
Report 16 years ago
#63
Here why I think teachers children might be more successful:

#Parents often try and help the children with their school work (I know mine did)

#Parents who are teachers will be very well placed to teach their children, not just in that particular subject but in general.

#Consequently these children benefit from in effect 'private tution' and consequently achieve better grades in external exams.

#Because teachers kids get better grades they are more likely to apply for Oxbridge, so that might explain why a lot of teachers kids get into oxbridge.

This is a massive generalisation but I think there is some sense in it.
0
fayzd
Badges: 0
#64
Report 16 years ago
#64
neither of my parents have degrees, and i got into oxford....
0
devilschild
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#65
Report 16 years ago
#65
my dads a headteacher and my mums a teacher and i got an offer for cambridge this year. but i dont really think my parents jobs had much 2 do with it.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#66
Report 16 years ago
#66
(Original post by lala)
What does that mean?
It means 'same' basically.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idem

Alaric.
0
loopy2
Badges: 0
#67
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#67
(Original post by JaF)
Here why I think teachers children might be more successful:

#Parents often try and help the children with their school work (I know mine did)

#Parents who are teachers will be very well placed to teach their children, not just in that particular subject but in general.

#Consequently these children benefit from in effect 'private tution' and consequently achieve better grades in external exams.

#Because teachers kids get better grades they are more likely to apply for Oxbridge, so that might explain why a lot of teachers kids get into oxbridge.

This is a massive generalisation but I think there is some sense in it.
Thank you Jaf: I couldn't have said it better myself
0
AmyBlue
Badges: 0
#68
Report 16 years ago
#68
my head of 6th form told me that if your parents didn't have degrees then you were more likely to get a place.........never explained why properly, just said that they were trying to get more people from 'disadvantaged backgrounds' so it worked in your favour if your parents hadn't been to uni......hmmmm
0
loopy2
Badges: 0
#69
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#69
(Original post by lala)
What does that mean?
Have you dropped this classicist idea of yours yet?
You canNOT be serious...
0
munchie_rox
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#70
Report 16 years ago
#70
(Original post by loopy2)
You canNOT be serious...
if i were you, i would quit eating those sour grapes, get over this vendetta you seem to be forcing on everyone else, and also offending a lot of people in the process, and sort out wher u r gonna go now u have been rejected.
0
hildabeast
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 16 years ago
#71
(Original post by fayzd)
neither of my parents have degrees, and i got into oxford....
Ditto here.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
0
Eggy Hog
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 16 years ago
#72
(Original post by munchie_rox)
if i were you, i would quit eating those sour grapes, get over this vendetta you seem to be forcing on everyone else, and also offending a lot of people in the process, and sort out wher u r gonna go now u have been rejected.
How do you know she was rejected?
0
munchie_rox
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#73
Report 16 years ago
#73
(Original post by Eggy Hog)
How do you know she was rejected?
educated guess
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 16 years ago
#74
(Original post by loopy2)
You canNOT be serious...
I could say the same to you, attempting to base a whole argument around a couple of classicists who've supposedly taken you into their confidence. Did it not occur to you that maybe if people who are in a position to know more about Oxbridge classics and admissions in general disagree with you then maybe you just got the wrong end of the stick altogether?
0
TomB2000
Badges: 0
#75
Report 16 years ago
#75
i am going to have to agree that classics is easier to get in for than other subjects.

I applied for medicine, which this year had 8 applicants for every place. For subjects like classics and chemistry you need to be in the top 50-60% of applicants in order to get a place. Yet I know i was in the top 30% of applicants for medicine coz only 30% were interviewed, yet i still didn't get a place...
Thus some subjects are easier to get in for than others.
0
Lurker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#76
Report 16 years ago
#76
(Original post by TomB2000)
i am going to have to agree that classics is easier to get in for than other subjects.

I applied for medicine, which this year had 8 applicants for every place. For subjects like classics and chemistry you need to be in the top 50-60% of applicants in order to get a place. Yet I know i was in the top 30% of applicants for medicine coz only 30% were interviewed, yet i still didn't get a place...
Thus some subjects are easier to get in for than others.
Nobody was arguing with that - of course some courses are more competitive than others. It was loopy2's stupid idea that some people only choose their subject because it's less competitive that p****d everyone off.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 16 years ago
#77
(Original post by TomB2000)
i am going to have to agree that classics is easier to get in for than other subjects.

I applied for medicine, which this year had 8 applicants for every place. For subjects like classics and chemistry you need to be in the top 50-60% of applicants in order to get a place. Yet I know i was in the top 30% of applicants for medicine coz only 30% were interviewed, yet i still didn't get a place...
Thus some subjects are easier to get in for than others.
That would of course be assuming that all applicants are of the same standard, which is not necessarily so. If one subject typically draws people who are very very into it, more so than average, then that makes it more difficult than slavish adherence to statistics would be able to tell you. Its actually very very complex and theres a bit more to it then the little figures in the prospectus.
I'm reliably informed by medic mates by the way that though medicine tends to get large numbers of applicants, quite a lot of them are no hopers who will never get onto a medical course. This apparently is especially true of the really oversubscribed courses- this I have heard the reason for the 20:1 admissions ratio at Southampton (or whatever it is).
0
Lucy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 16 years ago
#78
(Original post by lala)
That would of course be assuming that all applicants are of the same standard, which is not necessarily so. If one subject typically draws people who are very very into it, more so than average, then that makes it more difficult than slavish adherence to statistics would be able to tell you. Its actually very very complex and theres a bit more to it then the little figures in the prospectus.
I'm reliably informed by medic mates by the way that though medicine tends to get large numbers of applicants, quite a lot of them are no hopers who will never get onto a medical course. This apparently is especially true of the really oversubscribed courses- this I have heard the reason for the 20:1 admissions ratio at Southampton (or whatever it is).
I agree with your reasoning but in this case I agree with Tom - there was a new admissions process this year at Oxford - the 35% were selected on the basis of GCSE and BMAT results. There were plenty of people with say for example 7A*s and 3As who were rejected. So I think it's alright to assume that everyone else got around that or higher (i.e. not so much variation between candidates in that 35%).
0
Eggy Hog
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 16 years ago
#79
(Original post by Lurker)
Nobody was arguing with that - of course some courses are more competitive than others. It was loopy2's stupid idea that some people only choose their subject because it's less competitive that p****d everyone off.
I would be naive to suggest that people don't target less competitive courses. Hence the number of people evey year who try to switch into law from Theology, for example.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#80
Report 16 years ago
#80
(Original post by Lucy)
I agree with your reasoning but in this case I agree with Tom - there was a new admissions process this year at Oxford - the 35% were selected on the basis of GCSE and BMAT results. There were plenty of people with say for example 7A*s and 3As who were rejected. So I think it's alright to assume that everyone else got around that or higher (i.e. not so much variation between candidates in that 35%).
Oh I'm not saying that application to place ratios prove nothing at all, just that if you only look at them you're going to be missing out on a lot of information. For example, jumping to the conclusion that loopy did about classicists.
I'm aware that the candidates who get into medical schools are in general very good indeed, but a lot of their competition isnt. Apparently, lots of people apply despite not meeting the requirements, just on the offchance, and this is more widespread than in other subjects, I suppose because so many people do want to be doctors. I wonder if its the same for stuff like law- anyone?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (216)
67.92%
No (102)
32.08%

Watched Threads

View All