Why didn’t I get taken from the pool?

I received my Cambridge rejection today in the post.

I was rejected by my college (Corpus Christi) and put in the Winter Pool and ultimately rejected.

I can accept being rejected by Corpus, there were lots of applicants and it’s a small college. What I don’t understand is why I wasn’t taken out of the pool for a re-interview by another college:

I applied for Natural Sciences (Physical)
I’m a girl (don’t the all girl colleges pool a lot of applicants?)
I got 5As at AS. In Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Double Maths.
I had over 90% in all my maths modules (C1, C2, C3, C4, M1, M2)
I had 98% in two out of three of my Physics modules.
I have 5A*, 5As, 1B (English language), 1D (Art) at GCSE
I got the highest overall mark in my school for GCSEs, including the highest marks in the sciences.
I’m predicted As in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, (already completed maths) and an A in my Further Maths AS (FP1, FP2, S1).

Was this a weak application?

Has it got anything to do with the fact I go to a state school and not private?

Cambridge is where I want to spend the next three years of my life. Should I reapply next year? Or shall I get over it and go to Imperial because I know I could also do very well there?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

apd35

To answer your question about not being "fished" only one in 4 people pooled ultimately get offers. You may have not had a very good interview in the interviewers' eyes, which would explain the pool/rejection decision. The Cambridge application process is hard to fathom, only the admissions people know what they are looking for, so you could speculate forever and still not know. As for the state school vs. private school thing, that will NOT have come in to it.

With respect to reapplying, you have to decide for yourself, by (honestly) deciding the likelihood of getting in if you reapply, and working out the advantages of going to Cambridge and decide if you want to.

Reply 2

threeportdrift

Careers Forum Helper

Any time spent on these threads will show you that a successful applicant not only tends to show a high level of academic achievement, but also potential to take that academic success further, and, to a greater or lesser degree a passion for their subject.

It seems likely, therefore that one of the following occurred, probably at the interview:

1) You did not show the potential at the Cam level.

2) The interviewers did not believe that you had the potential.

3) You showed insufficient passion for your subject.

You should ask the College for feedback on your application. But if you want an immediate response from a stranger on an internet forum - your detailed list of your achievements suggests that you were not sufficiently aware of the need to show your potential, see 1) above. Your desperate and incorrect suggestion that your school type made a difference may offer evidence to 2) and your lack of any real reference to passion for your subject, indeed previous posts about a different subject altogether, might give evidence for 3).

Bad luck though, but remember that you have time now to consider your options wrt re-applying, strengthening your application or just going off and making a cracking good show of life without Cam on your CV - which is perfectly possible!

Reply 3

Who?

Well, the application was hardly strong. Additionally, Oxbridge determine their choice of whether to accept or reject you not on the quality of you application or the level of your potential, but on your family (i.e. income, influence, political position). Don't reapply, get on with life, cry your sorrows out, forget about it, go to Imperial and try to make something out of your words "I could... do very well there".

Reply 4

apd35

Alexey

Additionally, Oxbridge determine their choice of whether to accept or reject you not on the quality of you application or the level of your potential, but on your family (i.e. income, influence, political position).

WHAT? I hope that was sarcastic!

Reply 5

mom1

#rofl##rofl##rofl#

now that is funny

Reply 6

Dan=)

Ignore Alexey.
: )
I'd say you have a strong application. Probably over what the average Cambridge acceptance does have. I wouldn't worry about it s**t happens.
Imperial is an awesome place to go !

Reply 7

AisAis

Originally Posted by Alexey
Additionally, Oxbridge determine their choice of whether to accept or reject you not on the quality of you application or the level of your potential, but on your family (i.e. income, influence, political position).

You might laugh at that, but all my teachers for GCSE have our 'FFT' scores on their laptops in the spreadsheet along with our current grades and exam results etc. FFT scores, according to my chemistry teacher, take into account things like your postcode, so they can determine if you're from an affluent area etc.

It's not really that laughable.

Reply 8

Lottie

Random_person

Has it got anything to do with the fact I go to a state school and not private?

Why would it have anything to do with that? Please provide some evidence to suggest a Cambridge bias towards public or independently schooled applicants.

Edit I don't mean to be naive but what does FFT mean?

Reply 9

gwright

Alexey is a warped individual. He went to my school and let's just say he's a bit bitter about Oxbridge in general.

Reply 10

Lottie

Not saying i agree with it, but how about a 50% representation of private school pupils compared to 10-15% as a proportion of the population?

Anyway, OP you've just got to accept you weren't good enough or there weren't any places. Pure academic achievement does not equal acceptance. They look into many other factors when deciding who to give offers to and who to 'fish' from the pool, you were obviously lacking in some places.

Reply 11

gwright

It's a bit naive to claim that Cambridge biases against the state sector based on that statistic. You're completely ignoring the fact that most private schools will offer scholarships to clever people at heavily reduced, if not completely reduced, fees - most of whom will be clever enough to go on to Cambridge or Oxford. There's also the culture of applying to Oxbridge from private schools whereas I believe that a lot of state schools don't push people to apply as much as private schools do.

I'm not saying that this is the reason that there's 50% split between state/private, but I am saying that your conclusion is a bit rash and naive.

Reply 12

As i said, i don't agree with it. I was simply pointing out that someone could argue that the statistics support the discrimination; they'd fail, but all Lottie asked for was evidence. :smile:

Reply 13

threeportdrift

Careers Forum Helper

As has been quoted and referenced on this site several times, the ratio of fee paying to state school pupils here in Cambridge reflects the ratios applying. The percentage of succesful applicants is very similar. This suggests that any bias between fee paying and state students lies largely outside the Cambridge system. State school pupils stand almost exactly the same chance of getting in to Cambridge as fee-paying pupils, they simply don't apply.

It seems very strange to me that so many potential Cambridge applicants can't grasp this fact.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/statistics/

Reply 14

UglyDuckling

"lies, damned lies, statistics" - British former Prime Minister, Benjamin D'israeli ..

oxbridge admission tutors are human too, they could have make mistakes.
anyway, about reapplying, you better think twice.. sometimes you think you really want it, when you got, it could turn out that it's not what you want.

edit: 3232 was right .. typing error ..

Reply 15

psycho

"lies, damned lies, statistics" - British former Prime Minister, Benjamin Israeli ..

oxbridge admission tutors are human too, they could have make mistakes.
anyway, about reapplying, you better think twice.. sometimes you think you really want it, when you got, it could turn out that it's not what you want.

That'll be Disraeli or D'Israeli then, will it?

Reply 16

thefish_uk

Random_person

Has it got anything to do with the fact I go to a state school and not private?

If anything this would have worked in your favour, as if you went to a reputable private school your GCSEs might be considered weak.

Also I clicked on your username and clicked "View all posts" because I wanted to see whether you'd used our Personal Statement Help forum - then I might have been able to comment on how strong your PS was. But I noticed you saying your first choice is PhysNatSci at Cambridge, your second choice medicine? I take it you wrote a PS to cover both Natsci and medicine? Perhaps that was a bad idea - it would have been very very difficult to write a PS for two different subjects and still convey the amount of enthusiasm for one of them which Cambridge would expect.

Reply 17

Ditting Suck

Simple: your interview, and possibly your personal statement, weren't up to scratch, as far as your interviewers were concerned.

Reply 18

mom1

I don't mean to be naive but what does FFT mean

most likely:

http://www.fischertrust.org/performance.htm

Reply 19

groovy_moose

Have you ever considered that fact that thousands of students are rejected with the required grades/performance/money/height/silly name etc. every single year, and that perhaps you were just unlucky?

Much as i'm inclined to say that oxbridge's selection process is rather more fair than most uni's (just given the amount of evidence they gain about you before hand and time spent interviewing etc), in the end there is an element of good fortune involved too.

A