The fairness of an Oxbridge application

I really don't like the tone of a lot of the posters on here...It's just that from what people are saying, many people seem to think getting in has proved 100% that they are better than other people. And that's not a healthy mentality.

neglect the clearly nervewracking experience of living away from home for a few days in a very tense environment with people you don't know.

My point about fairness was a pretty sweeping statement, I really shouldn't make them on here because I do it in jest and people assume I mean it! I've done it, everyone's does it - if you're not successful at something, it's easier to blame the thing in order to try and protect your ego just a little bit. It's a pretty basic defence mechanism. You're seriously telling me you've never done badly at something then gone: "Oh it was rubbish anyway." Everyone I know has done it at least once. Is that enough Psychology for ya, kizer?

I like to think that my carefully cultivated superiority complex is just a product of a healthy mind. Am I right?

I think that's all much closer to the truth. It's just that from what people are saying, many people seem to think getting in has proved 100% that they are better than other people. And that's not a healthy mentality.

If it were true that people who don't deserve to get in don't, why do a substantial amount of people (about 25% - the same ratio as get in generally) get in on reapplication? Just because they are more acquainted with the system? Clearly not.

Maybe it's just because I know many people who were rejected by Oxbridge who are cleverer than most people there, and people who were rejected and came back and got in easliy on reapplication, that I don't immediately assume that people at Oxbridge are all a cut above the rest.

I presumed that Cambridge would look for people with ideas rather than more formulaic workers. In my experience that was not the case. I know 3 people who applied for straight Oxbridge history. The two who got in were teacher's pet types, do all the reading and regurgitate but not people you'd want to get stuck on a train with. The third who didn't is one of the charismatic people I know and far more his own man but got rejected. I would think he'd do an amazing interview but I reckon if anything hurt him it was a C at AS French which really has no relevance.

As consie pointed out there may be other factors at play. I go to a private school and while I know everyone says the system is biased against them I have one anecdote which seemed to indicate that. There were three extremely good potential medics from my school, all the total package: hard workers and very intelligent. None of them got in. Yet someone who was at our school until 16 and a pretty nondescript guy then went to a state school and got in for Oxford medicine. No way was he in the same league as the three who stayed on. I understand that medicine is extremely competitive but that’s all the more reason why the fourth guy shouldn’t have got in.

While I agree that just because someone is rejected does not automatically mean they weren't "good enough" and getting in doesn't make you "better," there are reasons why reapplicants tend to have a higher success rate 2nd time round. Firstly, they've already got their grades, so are unlikely to apply if they don't have at least AAA, therefore the university is taking less of a risk in offering them a place. Secondly there's a lot you can learn in a year and you can develop intellectually a lot - maybe they actually ARE better second time round. And of course having been through the process once before is going to make it less of an alien concept, which does help. Though I suppose it could be argued that if you've been through the interview and attached to it the stigma of being rejected, it could be just as scary.

- I already made my point about coping with stress and conversing with adults. Oxbridge (from what I have heard, having not been up yet obviously) is a pretty much constantly stressful environment. I could be wrong and they might not even think about this, but it's a possibility.

My point about fairness was a pretty sweeping statement, I really shouldn't make them on here because I do it in jest and people assume I mean it! I've done it, everyone's does it - if you're not successful at something, it's easier to blame the thing in order to try and protect your ego just a little bit. It's a pretty basic defence mechanism. You're seriously telling me you've never done badly at something then gone: "Oh it was rubbish anyway." Everyone I know has done it at least once. Is that enough Psychology for ya, kizer?

In my experience that was not the case. I know 3 people who applied for straight Oxbridge history. The two who got in were teacher's pet types, do all the reading and regurgitate but not people you'd want to get stuck on a train with. The third who didn't is one of the charismatic people I know and far more his own man but got rejected. I would think he'd do an amazing interview but I reckon if anything hurt him it was a C at AS French which really has no relevance. Obviously it's hard to comment on the 'fairness' of that because the two who got in will probably be diligent and successful but I would choose the guy who was rejected everyday of the week. .

But my biggest fear about Oxford is probably finding myself surrounded by people who are now more convinced than ever that they are the best, without a doubt, period.

Get used to it - it's without a doubt the worst thing about Oxford. You won't be surrounded by such people by any means, but it's difficult to go long without encoutering them. The sort of people who think the world really does revolve around them have a nasty habit of cropping up in Oxford, behaving in all sorts of appalling ways.