Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eeyore)
    Hi there! This is directed mainly at current Oxford students reading English Lit, but if anyone else has any advice fire away!
    I am currently in year 12 at a pretty good state school, and I really want to go to Oxford to study English Lit. However I'm not sure how good my chances of getting in are.... I could use some advice, so perhaps if you could glance over the info below and get back to me? Thanks!
    - I was home educated from the age of 8 til I joined the Sixth Form last September and consequently I'm very self-motivated and am quite happy with independent study having done it most of my life.
    - I'm taking AS levels English Lit, Music, Psychology, Geography and General studies, and planning to drop geography next year to end up with full A levels in the first three, and also take history at AS next year too.
    - I do quite a bit of reading around my subject - e.g. other books by the authors I'm studying in class, etc.
    - At the beginning of my A level study I was writing A grade essays for English Lit while everyone else was writing E or U grade essays.
    - I got A for GCSE English Lit and A* with a top five mark for GCSE English Lang.
    - I play the viola at grade 6 standard (just got Honours, woo-hoo!) and flute at grade 7, plus a bit of piano.
    - I play and sing in numerous music groups both in and out of school.
    - I am about to start working towards my Duke of Edinburgh Award.
    - I have lots of interests besides English Lit - obviously classical music, but also archaeology, horses, etc.

    So, realistically, what are my chances? I'd really appreciate any advice.
    I've just read the thread and your replies, and it appears very clear for me to see, you don't have an immense passion for english and care more about the UNI rather than the course.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    I've just read the thread and your replies, and it appears very clear for me to see, you don't have an immense passion for english and care more about the UNI rather than the course.
    Hmmm; probably.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    I've just read the thread and your replies, and it appears very clear for me to see, you don't have an immense passion for english and care more about the UNI rather than the course.
    i 100% agree with you there corey.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier)
    To the person who said you need all A*:

    You Pr*ick. You think you need all A*s to get in. Your going to be in for a shock when you get there.
    Who on earth has all A*'s?

    there are not even a 100 people per year who get straight A*'s at GCSE.
    Don't talk nonsense.

    (Original post by bono)
    Who on earth has all A*'s?

    there are not even a 100 people per year who get straight A*'s at GCSE.
    Don't talk nonsense.
    there were seven in my year, thats one school, some schools have an average of 6A*s and 4A's for their pupils, in places like that loads will get all A*s, theres way more than 100..
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rah)
    there were seven in my year, thats one school, some schools have an average of 6A*s and 4A's for their pupils, in places like that loads will get all A*s, theres way more than 100..
    Yeh it's about 3000 or so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The idea that you without them you haven't got a hope is ******** though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    *sigh* I don't know why I ever bothered posting on here. It was such a big mistake.
    You don't know me and you cannot possibly judge how much I love English just from what I've written here. To the person who mentioned Shakespeare's Sonnets... yeah I've been reading them for the last three weeks. To claire_james.... the education system is a failure because, as you so aptly show us, grammar just isn't taught like it used to be. Those misplaced apostrophes... and from an Oxbridge candidate.... dear dear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eeyore)
    You don't know me and you cannot possibly judge how much I love English just from what I've written here.
    Well as long as you know how much you love English then I say go for it You shouldn't take criticism too much to heart especially as the admissions' procedure can often be taxing. Good luck !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    The idea that you without them you haven't got a hope is ******** though.
    Yeah, loads of people with all A*s and As get rejected from Oxbridge, because a lot of the time, they are unpleasant people that no tutor would want to spend three years with.

    And Corey, Claire _James and Tek, get a clue, and stop *****ing at everyone else just to make your own, pathetic selves feel better.
    You just cannot judge how much a person loves a subject by reading a few posts, so grow up and get a life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Not wishing to burst your bubble, but I notice you don't have a modern language at GCSE level, which I'm pretty sure precludes you from applying to Cambridge for an Arts course (although I don't know about Oxford).
    Huh? Did she say what she took other than english and english lit? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Yes, and scientists are equally valued; but they just don't reach the same, deep levels historians reach. Scientists appreciate the surface value of how things work: historians appreciate how society works, how human beings work; historians think on deeper and more valuable levels than scientists. Scientists are but the products of society; historians seek to understand this society.
    That's a load of B.S. Since when have historians reached 'deep levels' and since when have they thought 'on deeper and more valuable levels than scientists'? All historians do is analyse the past, looking at how selfish and stupid human have been. That hardly counts as 'thinking on more valuable levels than scientists', quite the opposite, in fact, as scientists seek to improve life, rather than just uselessly anyalsing the past to no purpose and intent other than to help us learn from our past mistakes. Have we done that? No. Have our lives been improved by the developments of science? Yes.

    You decide which the better/more beneficial one is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Ha! They do not think deeply! They examine and record! Measure and pour! Prod and poke! They are but pawns in the universe; they refuse to be drawn into the deeper meanings of self; they choose to escape: the easiest way out. They refuse to face the true meaning of self; the true meaning of society; they are but cowards spawned by more cowards! Historians - real, brave people - analyse and seek to understand the human race at its deepest, most intimate level; it is for this courage that they are prized above the scientist. It is for this courage, Ladies and Gentlemen, that historians are the most valued contributors to the understanding of society.
    *rolls eyes* Good grief! You are so pathetic! You must be really insecure if you have to talk that crap just to make yourself feel important.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LilMissSunshine)
    Huh? Did she say what she took other than english and english lit? :rolleyes:
    Yes, you idiot, she did.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LilMissSunshine)
    That's a load of B.S. Since when have historians reached 'deep levels' and since when have they thought 'on deeper and more valuable levels than scientists'? All historians do is analyse the past, looking at how selfish and stupid human have been. That hardly counts as 'thinking on more valuable levels than scientists', quite the opposite, in fact, as scientists seek to improve life
    You idiot...it is only in the light of the past that we can understand the present - didn't you ever read EH Carr?

    I emboldened the phrase which particularly shows you to be a complete idiot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't you just f*** off. Leave Eeyore alone and stop putting people down all the time. I notice you didn't reply to my other post, obviously because you knew it was true.

    Oh, and, 'not wishing to burst your bubble' but get this: just because you go to an independant school and have a load of A*s doesn't mean you are better than anyone else.

    I'm leaving now. This is a waste of time when people like you come and ***** at people just to make yourself feel more important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Who on earth has all A*'s?

    there are not even a 100 people per year who get straight A*'s at GCSE.
    Don't talk nonsense.
    me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by claire_james)
    Your chances are very slim as your grades aren't good enough. sorry to put it so bluntly but i got all a*'s thats why they excepted me. just a's will not be good enough sorry!!!
    You can get all A* grades at GCSE, but you don't seem to know that it's "accepted" not "excepted".. which in my world isn't a word.

    It's funny, because the Oxford I applied to seemed to look for ability, perception, intelligence and love for the subject.. perhaps you applied to another Oxford, because I only have one A* at GCSE, and I got an offer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    You idiot...it is only in the light of the past that we can understand the present - didn't you ever read EH Carr?

    I emboldened the phrase which particularly shows you to be a complete idiot.
    Stop using Carr dammit
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hmm... not too sure i want to halt any of the increasingly intensified debate about history vs. science, but...

    at college a while back a tutor of ours told us a story about him and his brother for an assembly. they were having the same debate, with him on the arts side and his brother on the science side. it basically went on like the previous posts (um, perhaps minus the swearing... ), but the conclusion he reached was not that one was better, or more important than the other, but that the most important thing is to engage in the debate in the first place. i liked that.
 
 
 
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.