Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minerva)
    Everything.

    May I respectfuly suggest that you don't know what we are talking about? You got an offer, and you were not a poolee. Your comments are therefore deeply insensitive.
    Certainly you may, though such a suggestion would be, to say the very least, disappointing. Quite what you think about not having been in the pool renders me fundamentally unable to comprehend any difference between finding out via letter or via track I'm not sure. I was rejected from the LSE via track, for what it's worth, and I must say it didn't make the slightest bit of difference to me via what exact medium I found out; and I can't see why it would to anyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarah-madeline)
    Has anyone else not heard back from reinterviews yet...? Loads of poolees seem to have and I havent
    Minerva- Does this mean I should give up hope and await the rejection letter?
    Depends on the college. I don't think we have heard from Fitz yet, I was reinterviewed at Fitz.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    ... and I can't see why it would to anyone else.
    This is the part that seems peculiar and insensitive. People are inherently emotional and varied, so to assume that your own feelings / response represents 'the true response' and that anyone else who has a different response is somehow doing it wrong, seems a bit inhuman.

    Personally I have aspergers. I've had to learn (via many bumps in the road) that my own responses are - no matter how logical they might seem to me to be - not often reflective of how other people respond. (I'm not in anyway suggesting that you also have autism). Most people value the medium as much as the message, particularly when the message itself is painful.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stray)
    This is the part that seems peculiar and insensitive. People are inherently emotional and varied, so to assume that your own feelings / response represents 'the true response' and that anyone else who has a different response is somehow doing it wrong, seems a bit inhuman.

    Personally I have aspergers. I've had to learn (via many bumps in the road) that my own responses are - no matter how logical they might seem to me to be - not often reflective of how other people respond. (I'm not in anyway suggesting that you also have autism). Most people value the medium as much as the message, particularly when the message itself is painful.
    You're suggesting that no-one should ever question whether others' complaints are valid or justified?

    You and most people may prefer paper all you like, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism of the Cambridge system. Not when the standard medium across other unis is Track. Unless there's some specific reason why paper should be required in this context -- which is what I'm looking for.

    I'm not sure why I'm getting all these hostile "you just don't get it, man" type responses when I asked really quite a simple question.

    (Original post by Minerva)
    Yes.

    Applicants put in a huge amount of extra effort for an application to Cambridge, compared with any other university except, possibly, Oxford. Attending for interview costs money, which some people may find difficult. The LEAST the university can do is to ensure that their communications are properly sequenced so that pooled applicants receive their rejection letters well before Track is updated. End of, frankly.
    So the fact that you put in more effort makes the medium by which you find out more important? Somehow getting a piece of paper -- a total waste of resources, by the way -- saying "rejected" rather than some pixels on a screen saying "rejected" becomes fundamentally more important a distinction because you've attended an interview?

    It's not "end of" because you say so. You can't declare by fiat that the practice merits all these charges you're laying against it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarah-madeline)
    Has anyone else not heard back from reinterviews yet...? Loads of poolees seem to have and I havent
    Minerva- Does this mean I should give up hope and await the rejection letter?
    I had my reinterview at robinson on saturday and they said I would hear back within a week, still waiting
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was there on friday morning, so there's a chance Manchester, if I get the grades, what about you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I originally applied to Selwyn for History, was pooled and then re-interviewed by Murray Edwards. I know a considerable amount of people received rejection by Selwyn yesterday via Track, however, I've heard nothing from either college. Should I give up hope now ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You're suggesting that no-one should ever question whether others' complaints are valid or justified?
    No - I'm really not. Re-read your posts and my response. You weren't questioning, and I'm not saying that no-one should ever question. I'm saying that I have come to understand that the fact that I don't feel a certain way doesn't mean that other people are being ridiculous if they do feel that way.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You and most people may prefer paper all you like, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism of the Cambridge system. Not when the standard medium across other unis is Track. Unless there's some specific reason why paper should be required in this context -- which is what I'm looking for.
    People have asked for an email of their response to be delivered shortly before/along side their Track update. Paper is irrelevant.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I'm not sure why I'm getting all these hostile "you just don't get it, man" type responses when I asked really quite a simple question.
    You disguised a criticism in the form of a rhetorical question. Don't play the 'I was only asking... ' card, it's disingenuous.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    So the fact that you put in more effort makes the medium by which you find out more important? Somehow getting a piece of paper -- a total waste of resources, by the way -- saying "rejected" rather than some pixels on a screen saying "rejected" becomes fundamentally more important a distinction because you've attended an interview?
    Medium does not equal physical medium. I'm using medium as in:

    "An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred."

    (Number 3 on this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/medium)

    In this instance the medium people would prefer is a contextualised communication from the college itself with a sign off from a human being involved in the admissions process, rather than a 3rd party statement of fact (UCAS Track). Most would prefer that in the pixel form of an email.

    I can see that if you thought that people were asking for paper, when actually what they were asking was that the college make contact with them directly, you might find it ridiculous. But paper vs pixels is not what people are bothered by.

    ---

    p.s. In the definition of Medium, 'Agency' also does not mean institution or organisation, it means "The means or mode of acting". Though the subject undertaking the action is certainly relevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopscotch23)
    I originally applied to Selwyn for History, was pooled and then re-interviewed by Murray Edwards. I know a considerable amount of people received rejection by Selwyn yesterday via Track, however, I've heard nothing from either college. Should I give up hope now ?
    I thought that if you are reinterviewed by another college then it is that college that rejects you so just because lots of people seemed to get rejected by Selwyn yesterday doesn't mean you will!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pressureoverload)
    Still nothing from cambridge today.
    same here
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    11 long days of waiting, and still no news. :confused:

    To add to the discussion, I really couldn't care less in which form I receive the decision at this point. I just want to know, already! And besides, it might take ages to get a letter internationally.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stray)
    No - I'm really not. Re-read your posts and my response. You weren't questioning, and I'm not saying that no-one should ever question. I'm saying that I have come to understand that the fact that I don't feel a certain way doesn't mean that other people are being ridiculous if they do feel that way.



    People have asked for an email of their response to be delivered shortly before/along side their Track update. Paper is irrelevant.



    You disguised a criticism in the form of a rhetorical question. Don't play the 'I was only asking... ' card, it's disingenuous.



    Medium does not equal physical medium. I'm using medium as in:

    "An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred."

    (Number 3 on this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/medium)

    In this instance the medium people would prefer is a contextualised communication from the college itself with a sign off from a human being involved in the admissions process, rather than a 3rd party statement of fact (UCAS Track). Most would prefer that in the pixel form of an email.

    I can see that if you thought that people were asking for paper, when actually what they were asking was that the college make contact with them directly, you might find it ridiculous. But paper vs pixels is not what people are bothered by.
    No, sometimes people really are being ridiculous. If they are -- and I'm not taking a stance on whether that word applies here -- it is not because their reaction differs from mine, but is rather because their reaction is irrational. If someone knocks their drink off the table and gets angry at the table, that is ridiculous, because there's no understandable reason for such anger. I'd like to see you argue that that's not a proper characterisation of that emotion in that circumstance. It wouldn't be ridiculous because I wouldn't feel that way if I knocked my drink off the table (perhaps I would, though I'd recognise at the time I was being stupid). It would be ridiculous because there's no rational cause for anger.

    The distinction may as well be paper/ internet. The basic complaint here seems to be that you're being told by someone who doesn't know you and had no involvement in making the decision via track, rather than being told by such a person via email. You know that no tutor ever sits there thinking up personal emails for applicants, right? Their secretaries shove your name into a template. Email in this context is no more personal than track.

    You keep appealing to "most people", but I've not seen any real evidence that "most people" feel that way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anybody re-interviewed at Magdalene and heard anything yet? :/ Sigh
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, sometimes people really are being ridiculous. If they are -- and I'm not taking a stance on whether that word applies here -- it is not because their reaction differs from mine, but is rather because their reaction is irrational. If someone knocks their drink off the table and gets angry at the table, that is ridiculous, because there's no understandable reason for such anger. I'd like to see you argue that that's not a proper characterisation of that emotion in that circumstance. It wouldn't be ridiculous because I wouldn't feel that way if I knocked my drink off the table (perhaps I would, though I'd recognise at the time I was being stupid). It would be ridiculous because there's no rational cause for anger.
    Resorting to absurd counter-examples is a weak way to argue a point.

    It's clear that you're not willing/able to have empathy with those who wanted to hear from their college directly, and you haven't even attempted to take on board the psychological reasons why that might be the case.

    If you read back through around the previous 30-40 pages of this thread you will find numerous occasions where people have compared getting rejected from Cam on Track to being dumped by someone changing their Facebook relationship status etc.

    Minerva has managed the pool thread on TSR for 4 years, so has formed their impression on the basis of many, many comments.

    ---

    Edit: I just realised you're a law applicant. I'm going to assume that you're arguing for 'sport'. As the people you're criticising are already somewhat stressed out and upset, it would be sensible not to continue this - they probably don't need to be told that they are irrational or ridiculous as well. After all, it's somewhat more important to them than a spilled drink - something which you also seem to have failed to realise. (Or perhaps they would be irrational for thinking you were insensitive in comparing getting rejected from Cambridge to spilling a drink?) Anyway - good luck at Cam, you seem well suited to your chosen course!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nessie133)
    I thought that if you are reinterviewed by another college then it is that college that rejects you so just because lots of people seemed to get rejected by Selwyn yesterday doesn't mean you will!
    I was under the illusion that it was your original college that sent out the final rejection ? I do hope you're right, thank you
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stray)
    Resorting to absurd counter-examples is a weak way to argue a point.
    Actually resorting to extreme examples is a perfectly valid way of demonstrating logical conclusions. If you'd like to point out some principled distinction between my counter-example and those situations in which you think judging irrational anger as "ridiculous" is wrong I'd be happy to hear it.

    I'm not particularly interested in responding to the rest. I'm yet to hear any sensible reason why Cambridge should be condemned for (sometimes) letting people know the outcomes of their applications by the exact same medium as does every other university.

    (Original post by Stray)

    Edit: I just realised you're a law applicant. I'm going to assume that you're arguing for 'sport'. As the people you're criticising are already somewhat stressed out and upset, it would be sensible not to continue this - they probably don't need to be told that they are irrational or ridiculous as well. After all, it's somewhat more important to them than a spilled drink - something which you also seem to have failed to realise. (Or perhaps they would be irrational for thinking you were insensitive in comparing getting rejected from Cambridge to spilling a drink?) Anyway - good luck at Cam, you seem well suited to your chosen course!
    I'm actually a second year.

    I'm not really sure why I'm arguing. I inititally made a brief post that maybe it wasn't so disgusting a practice sometimes to let people know via track -- since that's all other universities do -- I guess because Oxbridge gets a lot of criticism on these forums for no good reason and it's become instinct to respond to it. I didn't set out to insult people. There's no reason why I should want to.

    Thanks, anyway. Good luck to you too
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Actually resorting to extreme examples is a perfectly valid way of demonstrating logical conclusions. If you'd like to point out some principled distinction between my counter-example and those situations in which you think judging irrational anger as "ridiculous" is wrong I'd be happy to hear it.
    My principed distinction is: Emotional load.

    Some things really matter, other things really don't. A spilled drink is at the opposite end of the spectrum to being rejected from your first choice university.

    In emotionally charged situations, people often experience things on emotional axes, not 'logical' ones.

    This comes up in relation to bad news extremely frequently. Whether a person is being dumped, fired, told they have a serious illness, not given a promotion they wanted, dropped from the football team - they almost always appreciate that being communicated by the person they feel is most appropriate, with some element of human kindness wrapping it (even if it is from a template), rather than just a printed statement of fact.

    If you genuinely believe this is not the case then I don't really know what else to say.

    Also - it's wrong to frame this as 'irrational anger'. And Cambridge isn't being 'condemned'. Minerva has, in my opinion rightly, stated that it wouldn't be hard for Cam to nearly-always get this right. Their own guidelines for admission officers emphasise that they should try to do so, and it may be worth drawing to their attention that they aren't living up to that aim.

    I have no doubt you're turning into a fine lawyer - just don't forget that human beings are fragile at times!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've finally received my rejection letter from Caius. At this stage though I've found that i'm more relieved than anything since I can finally focus on going to UCL. Best of luck to all who haven't heard yet and commiserations to my fellow rejects

    Edit: forgot to mention that I was an English applicant so that Minerva can update her stats.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopscotch23)
    I was under the illusion that it was your original college that sent out the final rejection ? I do hope you're right, thank you
    You were right - it is your original college that is responsible for sending out a rejection if the college that re-interviewed decides not to make you an offer.

    The rejections that came out from Selwyn yesterday are likely to relate to the decisions made while the Pool was running.

    (Original post by Nessie133)
    I thought that if you are reinterviewed by another college then it is that college that rejects you so just because lots of people seemed to get rejected by Selwyn yesterday doesn't mean you will!
    See above -but your final remark is still true
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Just saying, if anyone wants to get feedback, would you mind posting here? not in this thread, but at TSR

    i'll post mine
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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