Turn on thread page Beta

It's not fair watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ben.S.)
    Obviously they didn't think so. Regardless of what you put at the end of your post, it did sound a bit...well - arrogant.

    Ben
    Ooops sorry for that ! I was a bit frustrated all of a sudden. I didn't mean it like that, what I meant to say was there was lots that I knew (not in terms of factual stuff but ideas of mine) that I didn't get a chance to express out of nervousness or just not having open enough questions.

    Of course, everyone who did get in must have been amazing - I didn't mean to undermine their success, but I think there were some unique things about me that didn't come across.

    Nevermind !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Trust me. I feel your pain - I could bet all my money on the fact that I know so much more than quite a few of the people who got in. And I'm not an arrogant person.
    As they have said 100s of time over, its not WHAT you know that counts. They are there to teach you that. They are looking for teachability.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier)
    As they have said 100s of time over, its not WHAT you know that counts. They are there to teach you that. They are looking for teachability.
    I didn't phrase it correctly - indeed I don't think there is a lot of WHAT to philosophy at all...I meant it loosely in the sense of ideas and general aptitude.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Dear "unhappy"
    I really do symaphise - you're evidently more than competent to handle a degree at Oxbridge - you hear about it time and time again, well rounded applicants who have amazing grades and all round experience and yet still get rejected...there's obviously something going really wrong here? But as cliché as it sounds, its their loss. I'm not just saying that, if you think Oxbridge turn down many straight A applicants with a broad range of knowledge & experience, then they are undoubtedly missing out on the 'creme de la creme'. I was reading about this guy who got 8 As at A level, Gold DofE, distinction in numerous instruments & county swimming champion and yet he still failed to get into Cambridge. Just reading those stats you can see for yourself that Cambridge are blind. Oxbridge are so selective, and its just pot luck, one day you could accepted, the next you might not. As difficult as it must be to get turned down from your top choice uni, try not to dwell on it, because there must be loads of other unis out there don't fail to see a good thing. And as I always say....if its the choice of degree that you love, the uni shouldn't matter.
    Katieeeee
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katie Heskins)
    .....I was reading about this guy who got 8 As at A level, Gold DofE, distinction in numerous instruments & county swimming champion and yet he still failed to get into Cambridge....
    Just reading those stats made me think that this person should get a life

    (Original post by Katie Heskins)
    I was reading about this guy who got 8 As at A level, Gold DofE, distinction in numerous instruments & county swimming champion and yet he still failed to get into Cambridge.
    I know stuff like Gold D of E, playing instruments etc are all very good achievements, show you use your time usefully, etc, but I don't understand the position some people (not necessarily you) seem to hold, that these make you somehow deserving of a place at Oxbridge/any uni.

    I for one am completely crap at anything sporty/hill-walking type thing (it doesn't help that I can't do most of these things even if I wanted to thanks to a genetic disorder) /music/artistic things - you name it, I'm crap at it.

    But, I don't really see what bearing this has on my ability to study at uni or my potential as a scientist. Just because I'm completely tone deaf doesn't mean I'm crap at science, does it?

    Anyway, my point is, that while achievements in things like that are great, I don't think they should be seen as a "passport" to success in uni applications, or should be that important a part of your application.

    It's important to be well-rounded, but you can do that in lots of other ways that might even be better - but strangely I don't see anyone on here saying "this person got 8A's at A level and had a part time job, why didn't they get in?"

    Rosie
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LBF)
    Im in the same situation, good grades etc but still a rejection. In the end i think it boils down to luck, luck and how much money 'daddy' has in the bank, lol (sorry, biterness raised its head there)

    I think the system sucks!
    Cambridge pooled me and i thought i was still under concideration until i checked UCAS and had been rejected.
    So after travelling all the way there, etc they dont have the manners to inform me personally by post.....

    What implicable manners cambridge admissions personal have


    Maybe spelling is a consideration?
    Sorry that is so *****y, but it had to be said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Never do Oxbridge specify what they are looking for in an applicant, therefore if this girl has great grades and a broad range of experience then she's covered both ways. Although acadamic achievement will take priority, its assumed that Oxbridge look for balanced applicants that can offer more than simply dedication to one subject and the majority of their students will show that.

    (Original post by Katie Heskins)
    Never do Oxbridge specify what they are looking for in an applicant, therefore if this girl has great grades and a broad range of experience then she's covered both ways. Although acadamic achievement will take priority, its assumed that Oxbridge look for balanced applicants that can offer more than simply dedication to one subject and the majority of their students will show that.
    almost anyone who is reasonably intelligent can do work experience, get good grades if they work hard, do voluntary work, learn to do raffia work, or whatever..this doesn't necessarily mean that someone has what it takes to do well at Oxbridge.....

    so I don't really think having good grades and "a broad range of experience" means she's "covered both ways" at all. Good luck to her, but those two factors are no guarentee at all of an offer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Never do Oxbridge specify what they are looking for in an applicant
    Quoted from Cambridge Prospectus
    "Who are we looking for?
    Students who enjoy a challenge"

    Sorry but i think if you'd read the prospectus you may have seen that. Also (I don't know this girl so i don't know if this applies to her) but there's an A and there's an A. There's quite a difference between getting low 80's to scrape an A and getting 95+ UMS. Same thing at GCSE. I know they have the A* but i don't think that that can truly seperate out the people who have a talent in their subjects from those who work hard.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramsey)
    Quoted from Cambridge Prospectus
    "Who are we looking for?
    Students who enjoy a challenge"

    Sorry but i think if you'd read the prospectus you may have seen that. Also (I don't know this girl so i don't know if this applies to her) but there's an A and there's an A. There's quite a difference between getting low 80's to scrape an A and getting 95+ UMS. Same thing at GCSE. I know they have the A* but i don't think that that can truly seperate out the people who have a talent in their subjects from those who work hard.
    My friend, you appear to have made a logical error. You have stated that they are looking for people who enjoy a challengee and then said that this does not include people that enjoyed the challenge of gcse and A level. how would one know if they enjoy a challenge if their "natural talent" had meant they had never experienced anything challenging?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicboy)
    how would one know if they enjoy a challenge if their "natural talent" had meant they had never experienced anything challenging?
    They would have found something challenging and in addition to walking any exams thrown their way.
    Even if they do walk the exams, it's not exactly showing enthusiasm to then not find a bigger challenge in the field they want to study.

    Alaric.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katie Heskins)
    Dear "unhappy"
    I really do symaphise - you're evidently more than competent to handle a degree at Oxbridge - you hear about it time and time again, well rounded applicants who have amazing grades and all round experience and yet still get rejected...there's obviously something going really wrong here? But as cliché as it sounds, its their loss. I'm not just saying that, if you think Oxbridge turn down many straight A applicants with a broad range of knowledge & experience, then they are undoubtedly missing out on the 'creme de la creme'. I was reading about this guy who got 8 As at A level, Gold DofE, distinction in numerous instruments & county swimming champion and yet he still failed to get into Cambridge. Just reading those stats you can see for yourself that Cambridge are blind. Oxbridge are so selective, and its just pot luck, one day you could accepted, the next you might not. As difficult as it must be to get turned down from your top choice uni, try not to dwell on it, because there must be loads of other unis out there don't fail to see a good thing. And as I always say....if its the choice of degree that you love, the uni shouldn't matter.
    Katieeeee
    I think you are mistaken. It has been said a thousand times already, I'm sorry that I have to say this again, but: GETTING GOOD GRADES DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY GUARANTEE YOU A PLACE. Everybody who applied to Oxbridge has good grades, so they don't miss out on the "creme de la creme" only because they reject some students that have good grades. This is the differencce between the selection process of other universities and the selection process of Oxbridge; and this is the reason Oxford and Cambridge are so much better than other universities: they don't judge an applicant by what it says in his documents only (like we are doing it here - after all, we don't know these people who got 8 As at A Level and some Gold Awards). They have an interview to take a REAL LOOK at the candidate, and see whether he (and these are the three golden Cambridge criteria):
    1.) Really loves his subject
    2.) Has an INTERESTING mind, e.g. creative, flexible, open thinking
    3.) Is teachable, i.e. nice personality, not arrogant, etc.
    All these three things you can't really tell from your personal statement or from your teacher references, but these things really decide whether somebody would do well at Oxbridge or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have to agree with what the guy before just said. Everybody has heard the stories of amazing people who got turned down from oxbridge. I mean there was one guy in my school Head of School, England Cricket, four stars at the Fringe, never dropped a grade in his life practically walked on water but still didnt get in.

    Oxbridge have so many amazing people applyng that they simply cant miss out. Whatever you might have acheived if you had got in has been done before by some one else probably better. They've got no pressure riding on their choise other than one student perhaps getting a first rather than a 2:1. The whole process means so much more to you than it does to then. Even if they do make an ocassional mistake how much is it really hurt them? Not at all.

    Nobody can expect to get in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My first contribution to this argument would be to mention a statistic that I came across recently, which stuck in my mind because I think that it demonstrates perfectly why so many people are dissatisfied with the Oxbridge admissions procedure. Every year 25,000 pupils get three A’s at A-Level, which is generally perceived as meeting the Oxbridge ‘threshold’. However there are only 7,000 places available at either Oxford or Cambridge each September, and consequently two-thirds of the nations most gifted and talented will be omitted.

    Or rather that is the general perception of the procedure. My first feeling is that the above statistic is interpreted in completely the wrong way. If only one-third of the ‘best’ applicants get into Oxbridge, that should not mean that the other two-thirds have either failed in reaching the top of academia, nor should it mean that they lacked the skills and experiences which would qualify somebody as the ‘crème e la crème’. I would urge any Oxbridge applicant to consider that twice as many AAA candidates go to the ‘other’ top universities. So in actual fact, it is unlikely that the academic standard of any Oxbridge student is higher than someone at London or Warwick. Furthermore, it is simply impossible to tell whether the interviewing procedure picks the most talented candidates. However, it seems to me that most people consider an Oxbridge rejection to be an indication that they are either ever so slightly inferior to others or that the decision was in some way ‘unfair’.

    I simply wish that people would recognise that there are so many gifted and talented students that an Oxbridge degree is quickly becoming less and less of the exclusive award that it used to be. For instance, if anyone has seen the Financial Times league tables that are based not on reputation or assessments, but how highly employees rate degrees, they will know that there is far more to measuring success than whether or not a candidate was accepted into Oxbridge. Firstly, the FT survey showed that the class of degree completely overshadowed its institutional origins (so to be an Oxbridge success, you must work towards a first, and not rely on prestige of the course). Additionally, and related to my last point, the number of firsts awarded between Oxbridge, the ‘big three’ in London, and Warwick is almost identical. The final FT league table is judged to be an assessment of the ability of universities to ‘open doors’ into the future, which is what most people look to gain from university. Therefore, it should be noted that LSE is ranked above Oxford and, more significantly, their really is no difference at all between the top five uni’s.

    Furthermore, having established that you get out of university what you put into it, people should pay more attention to the QAA assessments. These rank York (much to my satisfaction) as equal #1 with Cambridge as having the highest quality of teaching across the board, and again there really is a tiny, in my opinion insignificant, difference between the top half-dozen institutions. In fact, in each subject, it seems to be typical that around 7/8 universities will receive a perfect (24/24) assessment of the quality of their teaching.

    Going beyond that, London (particularly LSE and Imperial) are often regarded as the finest sources of academic research in the country, with Oxbridge a noticeable way behind them.

    Ultimately, what I wish is that people who feel themselves to be at the top of the ability range do not view any non-Oxbridge degree as a handicap, again I would reiterate that I think you get out of university what you put into it, and that I believe that the gap is getting smaller and it will not be long before Oxbridge are no longer guaranteed #1 and #2.

    Finally, I would concur with Katie Heskins’ point that picking the right subject which can capture your attention is a far more crucial element than the University itself. And as a non-Oxbridge applicant, I hope you appreciate that the vast majority of people like me believe that they can get everything and more out of university, without the need to even apply to Oxbridge.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Trust me. I feel your pain - I could bet all my money on the fact that I know so much more than quite a few of the people who got in. And I'm not an arrogant person.
    'knowing' things is completely not related to intelligence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    so you think that the state school female bits should count in your favour?
    J
    Going to a state school should not make much difference.

    Being female shouldn't either.

    J.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was rejected by Oxford (applied to Mansfield for English) and it was even more galling than usual because I was sent with another girl for an interview at another college, so they must have been considering me. My English teacher got in touch with the college afterwards, and they confirmed that I was a hair's breadth away from getting a place. I'm pretty sure that the deciding factor was my choice of subjects (it was the first thing I was asked about at both colleges), more specifically my choice of ICT rather than a more traditional subject.

    You've just got to put it behind you and move on, which would be easier if I'd heard from any of my other choices since then. Unfortunately, I haven't. Just try to take it on the chin and don't let it get to you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think a lot of the cambridge application process is luck - it has to be, as there's so many good candidates.

    I'm not sure about this whole "daddy" thing - how would they know? why would they care? Some schools do have good links with certain courses and certain colleges though, which seems to help.

    And, in response to whoever said there are As and As (I apologise for forgetting your name!), Cambridge take your individual module marks into consideration.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Trust me. I feel your pain - I could bet all my money on the fact that I know so much more than quite a few of the people who got in. And I'm not an arrogant person.
    You really do make me laugh.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.