Which Oxbridge University is more open to opportunity?

Ive researched both the Oxford and Cambridge English courses and they both look absolutely fantastic, yet I was just wondering about which one is more open for an individual to progress through entering the university and which one is looking more for an excellent academic back catalogue? If that makes sense. Thanks alot.

I think the OP is asking this in the context of being slightly disappointed with GCSE results and confident this can be corrected at A2. In such cases, I would argue that Oxford has the advantage that the ELAT gives a chance to shine while simultaneously eliminating 40% of your rivals prior to interview. A super ELAT score, plus great A2 predictions (or even better, take a gap year and present great actual A2 results) would help to recover from the GCSE situation.

http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/prospective-undergraduates/shortlisting-and-selection-criteria

So, when I apply to Cambridge with completed A2 grades of hopefully three A*s, they will be less inclined to look at my GCSEs (which are quite bad) when considering whether to give me an interview?

Sorry, not sure about Cambridge; Comrade_jon may be able to answer. I only really know something of Oxford's admissions process, and even then my subject is History, although this does have a similar admissions process to English (ie. an aptitude test elimination stage). GCSE grades don't feature prominently in the History decision process at Oxford.

Ah, thank you. I am 100% applying for history but am not yet ultimately sure of which of the two universities to apply to.

How competitive would you say that history at Oxford is compared to, for example, law and medicine?

Oh, I thought you were keen on English, you're a different Alex to the OP then?

One in four applicants get an offer for History, though it's more like one in three if you get through the HAT. Law and Medicine are both more 'competitive' than this. The exact figures are on the Admissions page for each course, on the website.

In terms of special circumstance students CSAS at Cambridge makes more sense, plus I'd argue that since Cambridge interview more rather than dismiss many off paper alone (leading to students with better GCSE results gaining an advantage, and best GCSE results happen in private schools), but the difference is minimal and I'm clutching at straws. In 99/100 cases they're gonna be largely the same.

hmm equally one could argue that the HAT gives an opportunity to show what you have above grades (which are dominated by private schools at any level, including AS UMS grades that Cambridge attach a lot of weight to) and that once you have an interview you are far more likely to show your potential as it is weighted more (Cambridge usually only give a single interview, don't they? Whilst Oxford gives you multiple chances).

Its difficult, but once you've considered all other factors then i guess it would not be an unreasonable assumption to broadly say a) Oxford look at HAT/GCSEs, cambridge look at UMS, you are less likely to get an interview at oxford but once you do it is more important. Maybe.

But the fact that Cambridge interviews ~90% of applicants means that those who get invited to interview have a chance to shine and prove that if their grades are bad they don't necessarily reflect their true ability.

Saying that, the one thing I like about Ox's system is the way that there are several interviews spread over several days, merely because it allows a decision to be made quickly.

I think 'shining' at a single interview enough to eclipse poor grades when you are competing against everyone else who applied for the course would be extremely difficult. I think at the end of the day Oxford's interviews override academics more often (albeit not to the most under-achieving). I accept your point though.

I disagree. If you're Cambridge material but you have bad exam technique/don't do well in exams for some reason, the interviewers will realise. Conversely, if you have perfect grades but aren't really passionate about your subject/are good at rote learning this will be picked up by the interviewers. Obviously, this won't work all the time and people will slip through the net, but it helps explain why somebody such as myself (ie somebody with poor UMS) gets accepted and people with perfect grades get rejected.

I think the flaw in Oxford's system is that it's over reliant on aptitude tests. Someone may have a natural aptitude for the subject but they may suck at aptitude tests. Furthermore, aptitude tests aren't always the best indicator of aptitude (as silly as that may sound). The perfect example is the LNAT; that test is in no way a good indicator of how good a Law student you'll be.

Ive researched both the Oxford and Cambridge English courses and they both look absolutely fantastic, yet I was just wondering about which one is more open for an individual to progress through entering the university and which one is looking more for an excellent academic back catalogue? If that makes sense. Thanks alot.

hmm equally one could argue that the HAT gives an opportunity to show what you have above grades (which are dominated by private schools at any level, including AS UMS grades that Cambridge attach a lot of weight to) and that once you have an interview you are far more likely to show your potential as it is weighted more (Cambridge usually only give a single interview, don't they? Whilst Oxford gives you multiple chances).

Its difficult, but once you've considered all other factors then i guess it would not be an unreasonable assumption to broadly say a) Oxford look at HAT/GCSEs, cambridge look at UMS, you are less likely to get an interview at oxford but once you do it is more important. Maybe.