Who is the best applicant you have known to get rejected?

It is well known that oxbridge is so competitive that every year a lot of brilliant applicants get rejected but is there anyone you know who is such an amazing applicant that it seems a crime that they have been rejected? What is it about them that would make them stand out so much? (I don't mean just people who have straight A's all through school cos almost every1 applying to oxbridge will have them anyway)

Reply 1

emzie

they can't be that amazing off-paper if they got rejected

Reply 2

BossLady

emzie

they can't be that amazing off-paper if they got rejected

that's a silly way to think of it, kind of hmm narrowminded.
i mean they could be very bright and yet totally mess up the interview (due to nerves or whatever) and since so much does rest with the interview, you could be the cleverest person in the world and still not get in because the interview went badly.

Put it this way....Einstein failed some exams to get into some electrical engineering course (not oxbridge), and although he failed to attain a place where-ever it was, he's clearly still amazing wouldn't you say? :tongue:

. The point is, even the most amazing person can fail something.

Reply 3

emzie

i dont want to get into an argument, an I do aggree with you to an extent, but being amazingly intellegent in one area of study is not everything, able to communicate with someone under pressure is very important and have a wide range of skills, most of which can be assessed in the interview situation, the tutors are VERY experienced and know how to pick the ones they think will go furthest, however, of course this is not full-proof and yes many amazing people do slip through, but how amazing these ppl are cannot be assessed purely on paper.

Reply 4

Katie J

10

My sister current boyfriend was rejected. He had the full UMS marks in his entire Physics, Maths, Further Maths and Chemistry and near the full for Biology A-Levels. He has a ridiculous amount of work experience stacked up but Oxbridge was never his aim; physics was! They asked him why he'd done an open application; he told them he didn't care much for the colleges only the course and uni wide facillities/teaching etc. He didn't think the interview was that challenging over all...he said it was quite random with bizarre questions not really related to anything in particular but still 'answerable'! He didn't care too much about his rejection but our head teacher did, he kicked up a right stink. (but no one likes Mr Coady anyway...) He's now in Imperial and is going to Australia for the summer working with some big research/business thing, he's happy!

I still hold to the fact I don't think interviews are the be all & end all of the process, mine were odd and I blagged my way through my social anthropology one! I made it quite clear Archaeology is for me, the other stuff is just a nice broad introduction! Enthusiasm I think is the important bit, if you can get that accross on paper then there's less pressure for the interview and (in my case) seemed to be less important.

Reply 5

Unregistered

Some amazing people get rejected.
Some not so amazing people get offers.
It happens, get over it. By exalting oxbridge to such an extent it downgrades other unis who may be as good or better for certain courses is ridiculous and can make people who are rejected feel even worse; there's a random element to the entire process, but remember than wherever an amazing person goes they will do well, its the uni that is missing out not them.

Reply 6

thinktwice

1

A Chinese boy who had six As but get rejected

Reply 7

Big P

My friend got rejected from medicine at nottingham.
10a*s and an A
4 predicted A's

300/300 in chemistry and close to full marks in his other subjects and a lot of work experience. Rejected without an interview.

Reply 8

emzie

Big P

My friend got rejected from medicine at nottingham.
10a*s and an A
4 predicted A's

300/300 in chemistry and close to full marks in his other subjects and a lot of work experience. Rejected without an interview.

that's not unusual, quite common actually, three of my friends have the same grades and have ahd work experieince every weekend for 2 years (plus holiday work) and were rejected without interview.

Reply 9

androidkiller

It just seems that there isn't enough prevision for some universities and courses, Medicine being the obvious one because of the quotas. And yet this government still wants more to go to uni?

I think it can be just luck, and also remember at Oxbridge they also go on whether they'd like to teach you, so if you are too good (ie. absolutely amazingly brilliant) they may think that they couldn't teach you too well because of you knowing most of the syllabus already.

Needless to say I'm definately not in that situation!

Reply 10

Saxman

I have a friend who went to Winchester who is probably the cleverest person I know (he won a scholarship to Winchester which takes some doing). He got a nice set of A*s at GCSE and all As at AS level and played a lot of music at school and was in the chess team. He had also been prepped extensively by his school and had done all the reading. Having said that he is very shy and quiet and probably did not come across very well at the interview (he was applying for PPE).

Then another guy I know from the same school who is not that bright (he is barely scraping a 2.1 despite working hard at my uni), who got an offer at Oxford for PPE (only to be stupid enough to reject it!!).

My personal theory (and I will probably get flamed for this) is that the tutors choose candidates that they would enjoy teaching. All the candidates look more or less identical on paper so they can justify any choice they make. The candidates which are the most fun to teach tend to be the ones who do well in interviews and are enthusiastic, interesting and good communicators. A lot of the people who have all starred GCSEs and 6As do not fit into this category-prime example Laura Spence.

Reply 11

BazTheMoney

I've seen students with 10A*s at GCSE and 5 As at A-Level get rejected, and student with a couple of A*s at GCSE and AAB at A-Level get in. There is a lot more to a students application than grades: personal statement, written work, references, interviews, tests; they all count.

Reply 12

Unregistered

Saxman

My personal theory (and I will probably get flamed for this) is that the tutors choose candidates that they would enjoy teaching. All the candidates look more or less identical on paper so they can justify any choice they make. The candidates which are the most fun to teach tend to be the ones who do well in interviews and are enthusiastic, interesting and good communicators. A lot of the people who have all starred GCSEs and 6As do not fit into this category-prime example Laura Spence.

Of course thats true, because of the tutorial system the tutors have to be confident that they will enjoy teaching you, and perhaps people that do well (AAB)but not amazingly fantastic (AAAAA) are more fun to teach and may even work harder because their successmay be due to a lot of hard work rather than gifted genius. No tutor will want to teach an amazing genuis it would only show them up and they might be arrogant = not much fun for them.

Reply 13

F. Poste

Also, grades are not necessarily an indicator of brilliance. I'd hedge bets on the fact that the majority of people with five or six A grades (perhaps even four) come from good schools with healthy budgets, with great teachers and facilities. I could go even further and say that I bet many of the parents of these candidates have a good income and can afford all the books, extra tuition and all the other supplies that the student desires. Not that any of these things detract from a pupil's base abilities, of course, and I'm certainly not trying to say that their intelligence is not a factor, but they certainly help!!!

Reply 14

Lucy

F. Poste

Also, grades are not necessarily an indicator of brilliance. I'd hedge bets on the fact that the majority of people with five or six A grades (perhaps even four) come from good schools with healthy budgets, with great teachers and facilities. I could go even further and say that I bet many of the parents of these candidates have a good income and can afford all the books, extra tuition and all the other supplies that the student desires. Not that any of these things detract from a pupil's base abilities, of course, and I'm certainly not trying to say that their intelligence is not a factor, but they certainly help!!!

This is why I like the idea of the 'aptitude' tests they are setting for quite a few subjects now as they are supposed to test ability/skills rather than outright knowledge. It's a good idea for trying to distinguish fairly between candidates without previous education/opportunities being such a large factor.

Reply 15

F. Poste

Lucy

This is why I like the idea of the 'aptitude' tests they are setting for quite a few subjects now as they are supposed to test ability/skills rather than outright knowledge. It's a good idea for trying to distinguish fairly between candidates without previous education/opportunities being such a large factor.

Sounds like a good idea to me too! Although I have to say that I think Oxford is fairly good for that already. I haven't had as many opportunities as some other Oxford students, and I got a few funny looks from other candidates when they heard the A-levels that I'm studying.. but the tutors obviously placed a lot of importance on the interview and essays submitted 'cause I got a place :biggrin:

Aptitude testing will hopefully make it even fairer for future students.

Reply 16

Lucy

F. Poste

Although I have to say that I think Oxford is fairly good for that already.

Yeah true, the fact that many applicants who don't fit the usual "all A*s/As" criteria receive offers show that potential rather than simply qualifications (because they understand that they may not be truly representative of a person's intelligence) is much more important to Oxford.

Reply 17

BazTheMoney

Both Oxford and Cambridge are fairly good at finding potential in student and looking beyond the 3 or 4 letters on the first pages of their UCAS form. Of course there is the odd cock up, but 95% of the freshers that walk into Oxford every October deserve to be here in my opinion.

On aptitude testing, as long as it is carried out in the correct manner, it should be a another step forward for Oxbridge admission. Bring it on.

Reply 18

BossLady

emzie

i dont want to get into an argument, an I do aggree with you to an extent, but being amazingly intellegent in one area of study is not everything, able to communicate with someone under pressure is very important and have a wide range of skills, most of which can be assessed in the interview situation, the tutors are VERY experienced and know how to pick the ones they think will go furthest, however, of course this is not full-proof and yes many amazing people do slip through, but how amazing these ppl are cannot be assessed purely on paper.

I never implied it was ANYTHING to do with how you look on paper though or being good in one area of study, basically no interview and test for anything will ever be full proof, there are so many factors that may change for example interviewers may take an instant dislike to you or you may not be performing at your best for a whole host of reasons, even if you don't usually get affected by pressure....we are all human after all.

Reply 19

EconLou

12

Sometimes if you have 7As a As it could be looked on as slightly unnecessary, as though you are trying to prove something so may count against you. They would prefer 4or5 As and someone who has a life beyone work and can converse with another human.

Who is the best applicant you have known to get rejected?

Related discussions

Articles for you