Turn on thread page Beta

Why can't I apply to both Oxford and Cambridge undergrad? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I am Oxbridge material so why do I have to exclude one of these unis.

    My choices are:

    1. Cambridge
    2. LSE
    3. LSE again
    4. Warwick

    I don't have a 5th Imperial don't offer my course.

    Therefore seeing as there are no other universities worth going to why can't I apply to Oxford too.

    Please serious responses.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The only reason I can possibly come up with is they're going to make you the same offer IF you were going to get one, you would be crazy to firm and insure both so, but if you could most people would apply to both. At some point you have to cut 1 out so why not save them the hassle, as they have very rigorous applicant procedure, save them time looking at applicants rather than half deciding after they have offers to turn them down.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    My understanding of it is that it's due to tradition. Not quite sure, though.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Coz you're not a potential organ scholar :nah:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Because they are the only real competitors for each other, and they don't people to apply to them just to not go in the end.

    You have to remember that with the extensive face-to-face interviewing of applicants, it costs both a lot of money to process undergraduate applications.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I feel with this one that people too often answer the wrong question, parsing it as "why does it serve these institutions' interest to allow candidates to apply only to one of them?' rather than 'why are they allowed to do it?'

    Certainly there'd be popular uproar if, for example, Bristol and Warwick and Durham said that from now on you could choose only one of these three.

    The answer anyway is that they've got UCAS over a barrel. Their pulling out and managing their own applications would be the beginning of the end for it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Because they are the only real competitors for each other, and they don't people to apply to them just to not go in the end.

    You have to remember that with the extensive face-to-face interviewing of applicants, it costs both a lot of money to process undergraduate applications.
    This is what I tried to say but much better put
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I feel with this one that people too often answer the wrong question, parsing it as "why does it serve these institutions' interest to allow candidates to apply only to one of them?' rather than 'why are they allowed to do it?'

    Certainly there'd be popular uproar if, for example, Bristol and Warwick and Durham said that from now on you could choose only one of these three.

    The answer anyway is that they've got UCAS over a barrel. Their pulling out and managing their own applications would be the beginning of the end for it.
    I don't think so. If Oxbridge pull out of UCAS, they'd not be that different from in the past European universities or oversea universities British people can apply to. Whilst there will be significantly more people who forgo a UCAS offer in this case, they are still two universities, and it doesn't affect anyone who isn't applying to Oxbridge at all (ie the vast majority).

    If Bristol, Warwick, and Durham said you can apply to one of the three, UCAS will likely oblige - there's little reason why they wouldn't. But it won't serve the institutes' best interests because there they are not in a league on their own. They will lose out on many applicants who would not apply to them because of this, and still lose out many applicants to other school at a similar level, eg UCL, Imperial, etc.

    Of course to Oxbridge, they also risk losing out on better or rather, better-suited candidates, but their risk is a lot lower, the cost is a lot higher.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flather)
    The only reason I can possibly come up with is they're going to make you the same offer IF you were going to get one, you would be crazy to firm and insure both so, but if you could most people would apply to both. At some point you have to cut 1 out so why not save them the hassle, as they have very rigorous applicant procedure, save them time looking at applicants rather than half deciding after they have offers to turn them down.
    So this is possibly done to stop people from doing:

    Firm: Cambridge
    Insurance: Oxford

    I do see what you are saying it is only just that since they are acclaimed to be the best uk applicants by dwindling down their selection pool in half they are theoretically turning their backs on roughly 50% of potential applications (I am aware that that is probably a bit less though).

    (Original post by Jasaron)
    My understanding of it is that it's due to tradition. Not quite sure, though.
    Oh right, I didn't know this.
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    Coz you're not a potential organ scholar :nah:
    This isn't true right?
    I assumed that if I became an organ scholar lol that it would only let me apply for scholarships so in the end I still wouldn't be able to apply to both?
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Because they are the only real competitors for each other, and they don't people to apply to them just to not go in the end.

    You have to remember that with the extensive face-to-face interviewing of applicants, it costs both a lot of money to process undergraduate applications.
    But it reduces the choice of the applicant. It's based on the assumption that if a student isn't accepted at one, they wouldn't be accepted at the other. Each university should assess the merits of each student who applies to their university, without restricting their choices. Why shouldn't I be able to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge? They have different courses, both of which may appeal in their own ways. And let's face it: of all the universities to be concerned with how much applications cost them, it should not be Oxford or Cambridge.

    And another point is that why shouldn't Imperial and LSE team up with each other or Oxbridge? It would save them money, wouldn't it?
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I feel with this one that people too often answer the wrong question, parsing it as "why does it serve these institutions' interest to allow candidates to apply only to one of them?' rather than 'why are they allowed to do it?'

    Certainly there'd be popular uproar if, for example, Bristol and Warwick and Durham said that from now on you could choose only one of these three.

    The answer anyway is that they've got UCAS over a barrel. Their pulling out and managing their own applications would be the beginning of the end for it.
    But couldn't one say that those unis Bristol and Durham are inferior to the top 6?
    Aside from the medicine/veterinary etc. courses those unis don't serve as well as the top ones.
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I don't think so. If Oxbridge pull out of UCAS, they'd not be that different from in the past European universities or oversea universities British people can apply to. Whilst there will be significantly more people who forgo a UCAS offer in this case, they are still two universities, and it doesn't affect anyone who isn't applying to Oxbridge at all (ie the vast majority).

    If Bristol, Warwick, and Durham said you can apply to one of the three, UCAS will likely oblige - there's little reason why they wouldn't. But it won't serve the institutes' best interests because there they are not in a league on their own. They will lose out on many applicants who would not apply to them because of this, and still lose out many applicants to other school at a similar level, eg UCL, Imperial, etc.

    Of course to Oxbridge, they also risk losing out on better or rather, better-suited candidates, but their risk is a lot lower, the cost is a lot higher.
    Is this the cost of just interviews though?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Moordland)

    This isn't true right?
    I assumed that if I became an organ scholar lol that it would only let me apply for scholarships so in the end I still wouldn't be able to apply to both?
    Organ scholar applicants can (and usually do) apply to both Oxford and Cambridge undergrad at the same time. The two unis then fight/talk it out to ensure everyone has an organ scholar as necessary! :yep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    Organ scholar applicants can (and usually do) apply to both Oxford and Cambridge undergrad at the same time. The two unis then fight/talk it out to ensure everyone has an organ scholar as necessary! :yep:
    So literally if I become an organ scholar and have enough current ability/potential I can apply to oxbridge undergrad at the same time?

    Thanks for the reply
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I was told directly by an Oxford tutor that the reason for only choosing one is due to the intensive and laborious amount of time and effort both universities put into evaluating their applicants. He said if people were to apply to both then they'd get twice as many applicants and their system simply would not be able to handle it and would essentially 'crash'.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moordland)
    But it reduces the choice of the applicant.


    (Original post by Moordland)
    It's based on the assumption that if a student isn't accepted at one, they wouldn't be accepted at the other.
    Who said that?

    It's more based on the assumption that ever if they do get accepted, half of them might just go off to the other one.

    Of course there would be people who would be accepted by Cambridge but rejected by Oxford, and vice versa; but not only are they usually marginal in this case, but the extra costs also outweigh the risk of losing out of some better suited applicants.

    You also need to remember that neither university has trouble filling up their places despite the high minimum requirements.

    (Original post by Moordland)
    Each university should assess the merits of each student who applies to their university, without restricting their choices.
    This 'should' business is just your personal opinion and assertion without an argument constructed or evidence to support it.

    If they want to be assessed based on their merits, then maybe they should apply. This is only one of many restrictions: You also can't apply for courses they (or the colleges) don't offer, you can't choose which year to pop into, you can't choose whether or not you'd like to skip a bachelor's altogether, you can't choose to have exams in your way, etc.

    They are businesses, these are the products they are offering. If you don't like the product, don't buy it; they have every right to set whatever restriction there is. The fact that some people can get in whilst some can't is a restriction on its own.

    (Original post by Moordland)
    Why shouldn't I be able to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge? They have different courses, both of which may appeal in their own ways.
    Because you can study at one of the courses only in a given time.

    If you like both apples and oranges, of course you can buy them both; but in this case, you're only buying one of them, at the meantime pretending that you might the other one.

    (Original post by Moordland)
    And let's face it: of all the universities to be concerned with how much applications cost them, it should not be Oxford or Cambridge.
    Mr Oxbridge material, can you please provide elaboration and support to your claims and arguments, instead of leaving them as supposed statements of fact?

    Whether they are rich does not matter - are you saying Bill Gates would just drop his money on the street all the time, put his bank account codes online, etc anyway since money is his least problem? This is without restating the point above that they don't need applicants to fill up their places. They already have enough applicants - there's no incentives to attract more undergraduate applicants.

    Also, Oxbridge are the only universities that do extensive face-to-face interviews in a limited amount of time. Apart from that, there's also the space issue - there only are a fixed amount of college rooms available for applicants, meaning they cannot increase the number of applicants they interview every year if they abandon this rule. This means they will need to double the number of offers make every year for fear that the offer-holders would go off to the other place, and to take great risks that many of them would come to them instead of the other place.

    (Original post by Moordland)
    And another point is that why shouldn't Imperial and LSE team up with each other or Oxbridge? It would save them money, wouldn't it?
    First of all, they can do that if they want to. That they aren't doing it is not in itself a proof of anything.

    Secondly, Oxbridge would be less able to cope with an unexpectedly high turnout. If they have an unexpected high amount of applicants going to them in the end, they don't have to house them, and London is big enough of a city to take in those extra applicants. They can also easily rent out rooms somewhere else in the city if they have a very high turnout and not enough space for lectures. You cannot do this is small cities like Oxford or Cambridge. This is without mentioning the fact that for Oxbridge, the unexpectedly high turnout could be a few thousands more than LSE's or Imperial's, both being way smaller institutions with smaller targets.

    Thirdly, I don't think they interview physically to that extent, and I don't think they provide food and accommodation to those applicants.

    And of course, the teaming up, whatever the combination, wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense - LSE and Imperial are specialist institutions, and focus on different specialism. At the same time, LSE plus Imperial also don't cover all the disciplines Oxbridge offer. Not to mention if it's either Oxbridge or LSE+Imp, the latter team will likely lose out on a huge amount of Oxbridge rejects, benefiting primarily the likes of UCL and KCL.

    Lastly, changing the system now would create chaos and too much uncertainty for both universities, so they definitely won't be doing that unless they are clearly suffering from it. If anything, they would improve on the collegiate application system before this, if ever.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moordland)
    I do see what you are saying it is only just that since they are acclaimed to be the best uk applicants by dwindling down their selection pool in half they are theoretically turning their backs on roughly 50% of potential applications (I am aware that that is probably a bit less though).
    The 50% who would either reject them or not be able to get in.

    So what's the problem?

    They would only, theoretically, lose out on people who is accepted by one but rejected by the other, because the applicant is a better fit in one but not the other, not due to their academic ability (or said applicant will likely be rejected or accepted by both).

    I can't think of a potential scenario for this, but if this does happen, it will only be with very few applicants, with most of them likely marginal cases, all while neither university has trouble filling up their spaces.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moordland)
    I am Oxbridge material so why do I have to exclude one of these unis.

    My choices are:

    1. Cambridge
    2. LSE
    3. LSE again
    4. Warwick

    I don't have a 5th Imperial don't offer my course.

    Therefore seeing as there are no other universities worth going to why can't I apply to Oxford too.

    Please serious responses.
    They only allow you to apply for one because if they allowed people to apply for both, each would get roughly twice as many applicants per year. This would overstrain the interview system. It would take too much in the way of unnecessary resources to allow people to apply for both.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for your replies.

    So it is the issue of money, again!

    (Original post by simbasdragon)
    I was told directly by an Oxford tutor that the reason for only choosing one is due to the intensive and laborious amount of time and effort both universities put into evaluating their applicants. He said if people were to apply to both then they'd get twice as many applicants and their system simply would not be able to handle it and would essentially 'crash'.
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    They only allow you to apply for one because if they allowed people to apply for both, each would get roughly twice as many applicants per year. This would overstrain the interview system. It would take too much in the way of unnecessary resources to allow people to apply for both.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Moordland)
    I am Oxbridge material so why do I have to exclude one of these unis.

    My choices are:

    1. Cambridge
    2. LSE
    3. LSE again
    4. Warwick

    I don't have a 5th Imperial don't offer my course.

    Therefore seeing as there are no other universities worth going to why can't I apply to Oxford too.

    Please serious responses.
    Wouldn't it be wise to rather than choose another incredibly competitive university as your 5th, choose a university with slightly lower requirements (like AAB at another Russell group) as an insurance....

    I know many people from the year above me that went crazy and applied to all 5 big universities Oxbridge, UCL, ICL, LSE etc. And in the end had no insurance and missing their offer by like one grade so had to go through clearing to a not to great university.

    It's worth looking into it, and then you have covered all bases.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moordland)
    why can't I apply to Oxford too.
    The simple truth is that, when UCCA (as it was then) started in 1962/63, it did not handle the Oxbridge admissions. They joined a couple of years later (for 1966 entry), once the system was working properly and with the proviso of applicants being allowed to apply to only one of them. They would not have joined in other circumstances.

    From their point of view, the chief issue is that they would not be able to deal with double the number of applicants and would also lose nearer half their offer holders rather than 5% to 10%.

    This would have a knock-on effect along the line, with other top universities losing higher proportions of offer holders, injecting chaos and doubt into the system.

    So literally if I become an organ scholar and have enough current ability/potential I can apply to oxbridge undergrad at the same time?
    Yes but being an organ scholar involves offering A level music, having enormous organ-playing ability (not just potential) before you apply, and committing to the demands of the role (it is not a sinecure).

    I'm guessing you would fall at all of these hurdles, given your application profile. The exception is only there to enable the colleges to find people to play college chapel music, possibly train the choir, and carry out other jobs that facilitate college music. You also have to apply for the role before the normal applicant, which gives them a chance to weed out mickey-takers at the September auditions before the October deadline for normal applicants. My understanding is that only those still in the process can apply for an actual undergraduate place at both universities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Natalierm2707)
    Wouldn't it be wise to rather than choose another incredibly competitive university as your 5th, choose a university with slightly lower requirements (like AAB at another Russell group) as an insurance....

    I know many people from the year above me that went crazy and applied to all 5 big universities Oxbridge, UCL, ICL, LSE etc. And in the end had no insurance and missing their offer by like one grade so had to go through clearing to a not to great university.

    It's worth looking into it, and then you have covered all bases.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No not at all.

    I have 10 A* 2A at gcse/igcse level.

    I am doing 6 AS subjects.

    Stellar EC's related to subjects, e.g. olympiads, work experience, maths competitions etc.

    I would rather not go to uni then not attend a top 5 in my eyes.

    UCL is a poor man's LSE.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The simple truth is that, when UCCA (as it was then) started in 1962/63, it did not handle the Oxbridge admissions. They joined a couple of years later (for 1966 entry), once the system was working properly and with the proviso of applicants being allowed to apply to only one of them. They would not have joined in other circumstances.

    From their point of view, the chief issue is that they would not be able to deal with double the number of applicants and would also lose nearer half their offer holders rather than 5% to 10%.

    This would have a knock-on effect along the line, with other top universities losing higher proportions of offer holders, injecting chaos and doubt into the system.



    Yes but being an organ scholar involves offering A level music, having enormous organ-playing ability (not just potential) before you apply, and committing to the demands of the role (it is not a sinecure).

    I'm guessing you would fall at all of these hurdles, given your application profile. The exception is only there to enable the colleges to find people to play college chapel music, possibly train the choir, and carry out other jobs that facilitate college music. You also have to apply for the role before the normal applicant, which gives them a chance to weed out mickey-takers at the September auditions before the October deadline for normal applicants. My understanding is that only those still in the process can apply for an actual undergraduate place at both universities.
    Thank you for your reply, I understand.

    I won't take up being an organ scholar then since it would have little effect.

    Thank you for your response, very detailed.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Moordland)
    So literally if I become an organ scholar and have enough current ability/potential I can apply to oxbridge undergrad at the same time?

    Thanks for the reply
    What Good bloke said :yep:
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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

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