Is this true about Fitzwilliam college?

You're forgetting that they make decisions on preference applicants before they make decisions on pooled applicants. This means that before looking into the pool, and not knowing how "good" all the applicants from the pool were, Fitz decided to reject 43 out of the 44 who applied, which in my books is quite incredible, especially since they had no idea whether the pooled candidates from other colleges were better than the 43 rejected.

You're forgetting that they make decisions on preference applicants before they make decisions on pooled applicants. This means that before looking into the pool, and not knowing how "good" all the applicants from the pool were, Fitz decided to reject 43 out of the 44 who applied, which in my books is quite incredible, especially since they had no idea whether the pooled candidates from other colleges were better than the 43 rejected.

43 people out of 44 not being up to the "objective standard" of usual Cambridge applicants is quite a statement. And it is an unfair comment to say that applicants to Fitz, Girton, Homerton are less upto standard than applicants to somewhere like Emma; to some of us, there are genuine reasons why we applied to Fitz/girton/homerton. If interviewers are going to conclude that people who come from the pool from Downing, Churchill etc. can be expected to be better than direct applicants to Fitz, that is quite sad.

Actually its not unknown for some colleges to pool applicants and then bring them back when they don't like anyone in the pool. A fair few people at Newnham had this happen to them I think. At the end of the day you are looking at one years statistics, as I demonstrated this hasn't happened before, you can't take anything from one year samples. Over *100* lawyers were not offered a place at Downing, I would imagine that a lot of these people were put in the pool (13 were offered places at other colleges, the normal ratio is 1 in 5 get an offer form the pool which means perhaps 65 in the pool though its likely downing lawyers in the pool have a better ratio of getting in) there are huge numbers of potentially amazing lawyers out there. You don't know if Fitz pooled some of their candidates first.

Incidentally has anyone seen the churchill requirements for law, they don't beat about the bush:
We are not keen on some A-level subjects of more recent and dubious vintage: Media Studies, Sports Studies, and so forth. We want our applicants to be taking at least three of the more rigorous/traditional A-level subjects. We attach very little weight to extra-curricular activities, which are of trifling importance in comparison with the manifestation of academic prowess.
In order to maintain our formidable academic prowess in Law, we have to apply extremely stringent standards for admission. To stand any chance of success at all, an applicant will have to have achieved extraordinarily strong marks at GCSE level and will have to be demonstrably on the way to achieving similarly impressive marks in his or her A-levels. (We frequently attach a condition of AAAA to our offers in Law, and we never attach a condition more lenient than AAA.) Applicants whose GCSE results or A-level predictions are well below our minimum standards for admission in Law will not be interviewed. An applicant whose credentials do satisfy our very high minimum standards will undergo a 30-minute interview and a 45-minute written test, on the basis of which a final decision will be made.


Wow

43 people out of 44 not being up to the "objective standard" of usual Cambridge applicants is quite a statement. And it is an unfair comment to say that applicants to Fitz, Girton, Homerton are less upto standard than applicants to somewhere like Emma; to some of us, there are genuine reasons why we applied to Fitz/girton/homerton. If interviewers are going to conclude that people who come from the pool from Downing, Churchill etc. can be expected to be better than direct applicants to Fitz, that is quite sad.

Heh, incredible. I'd hate to read that if I was a Law applicant to Churchill!

Also, you say those in the pool have a 1 in 5 chance of getting an offer...what's your source on this? I'm not doubting it, I would just like to know. And is that overall for all courses and colleges, or specificly to a particular subject?

I dont think that's fair at all! I applied to Fitz and im not a weaker candidate than some others i know that have applied to the likes of Emma and Kings. I picked Fitz because it felt like the best college for me. I think its very arrogant to assume im a weak candidate because of my college choice

However its probably fair to say that the average candidate applying to Fitz is weaker than the average candidate at Trinity. However its just an average and the interviewers aren't going to think that simply because you applied to fitz you are a weak candidate.

I dont think that's fair at all! I applied to Fitz and im not a weaker candidate than some others i know that have applied to the likes of Emma and Kings. I picked Fitz because it felt like the best college for me. I think its very arrogant to assume im a weak candidate because of my college choice

(exasperated with this debate going nowhere)...lets just first get into Cambridge..and then worry about being "weaker" than our peers at Trinity shall we? Good luck to everyone on their letters!