Warning to everyone

At least they don't call you John like someone did.

Umm, I might be wrong, but by virtue of signing your application I believe that could be considered in some ways contractual and therefore you would be binded by whatever rules and procedures needed to be followed during interview period.. this case being the discussion of interview question. I doubt you'd have much of a case then..

As far as I'm aware, you can't sign away your human rights...

Incidentally, I notice that my post has had its swear word removed - how ironic!

SAY IF there are DoS's on here, and IF they do recognise you as an applicant for Oxbridge, I would advise you to change your signatures so that you don't reveal your grades and Unis applied to, so that it makes it harder for them to match people from here to their applicants.

Yes, swearing is against the rules. Maybe you should read them.

And I'm sure that it is possible to sign a contract binding you to keep quiet about certain things.

Firstly, no need for the sarcasm

Secondly, swearing per se is not against the rules (yes I did read them):


So swearing in some cases would be acceptable. The point is that swearing is allowed "in context" but blocking out swear words is not allowed. So your original post should say "Yes, blocking out swear words is against the rules."

Which again is inconsistent. Because swearing is allowed "in context": so why is there a swear word filter??

Hence my confusion over the rules.

its not hard for the colleges to work out the identity of the posters, all they have to do is look on the "i have an interview thread" where people wrote their college, subject and times of iterview. these will surely be unique for every candidate . . . on a sheet of questions i got it said that i wasnt to discuss them then or at any time in the future as it might put me at a disadvantage and other candidates at an advantage, although, i know for a fact that someone had told the other candidates on the day the actual questions that they were asking in the interview, that pissed me off a bit really, gave quite a few people an unfair advantage (not myself because i was about the 3rd person). stupid of people to discuss their questions to people they are "competing" with anyway, just gives an unfair advantage and disadvantage.

And I'm sure that it is possible to sign a contract binding you to keep quiet about certain things.

so that's why they tightened up the system a bit the day after.....

Can't help but think that concerns over Cambridge admissions staff monitoring this (and presumably other) web sites for interviewees divulging questions is silly.
1. If admissions staff have all this spare time why not simply come up with new questions on a regular basis. This seems about as practical as spending the day hovering over a multiude of websites (which isn't very).
2. The web is only one source of information sharing. How to they mitigate the risk of people from the same school passing information on to those who haven't been interviewed yet? Answer - they don't.

No, they cannot write 'contracts' that contravene applicable law. eg. An employer could not enforce a contract where the employee was supposed to undertake not to sue for any injury sustained at work.

You really are at liberty to discuss your interview as explicitly as you wish, BUT they quite reasonably request you not to do so, and probably assume that if you are applying to Cambridge, you are bright enough to see why.