The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
CAAH, Oxford (AAA - starting in October :smile: )
CAAH, Warwick (ABB - Insurance)
Ancient History, Durham (Rejected)
Ancient History, Bristol (BBB)
Ancient History, Manchester (BBB)
Ancient History, Reading (BBC...or BCC, can't remember now)
Reply 81
Undergrad: Oxford (rejected after interview), Bristol (rejected without interview), Exeter (offer BBB), Sussex (offer BBB), Nottingham (ABB), Manchester (ABB). All were for English and Classics or English and Philosophy.

Postgrad: Oxford (offer, high 2.1), York (offer, 2.1), UCL (offer, 2.1), Cambridge (rejection)
Angelil
Undergrad: Oxford (rejected after interview), Bristol (rejected without interview), Exeter (offer BBB), Sussex (offer BBB), Nottingham (ABB), Manchester (ABB). All were for English and Classics or English and Philosophy.

Postgrad: Oxford (offer, high 2.1), York (offer, 2.1), UCL (offer, 2.1), Cambridge (rejection)


What is a 'high' 2:1? Do they want an average percentage or something?
Reply 83
I'm going for Cambridge, LSE, UCL and Warwick. 2 courses at LSE.
I'm applying for History 08 entry to Cambridge, Durham, Bristol, Exeter and Southampton.
Reply 85
Excalibur
What is a 'high' 2:1? Do they want an average percentage or something?

Pffft, who knows - it was a rubbish offer anyway, being deliberately vague on their part (I suspect so that if they got an overwhelming number of people with firsts they could chuck anyone with a 'high' 2.1 off by saying it wasn't 'high' enough).

All universities ask for a transcript anyway to prove that you've met their conditions, so I sent Oxford mine, hoping that they would have fun with it seeing as it's an absolute nightmare to look at. Mine says at the top that I got a 2.1 followed by listing every single module mark. At the bottom it lists my average for each year, but not my overall average. I didn't bother sitting down and working it all out because a) maths is not my strong point and I'd have likely got it wrong and b) even if I had sat down and worked it out correctly, the result would have been useless seeing as Oxford never specified what a 'high' 2.1 was (above 65? above 68? who knows?). Each year was worth a different amount too, so it wouldn't be the easiest thing to work out (i.e. my second and third years were not each worth 50% of my overall degree mark).

So I wrote under all the averages what each of them contributed to my overall degree mark and sent it off. They spent a whole month pondering over it before telling me 'the guy looking at your application didn't understand it, therefore on the basis that you got a 2.1 of some description, we're letting you in' :s-smilie: To be fair, it was Exeter's fault (for not including the overall average for my degree on the transcript) as much as Oxford's, but still, it smacks of a sheer lack of organisation.
Angelil
Pffft, who knows - it was a rubbish offer anyway, being deliberately vague on their part (I suspect so that if they got an overwhelming number of people with firsts they could chuck anyone with a 'high' 2.1 off by saying it wasn't 'high' enough).

All universities ask for a transcript anyway to prove that you've met their conditions, so I sent Oxford mine, hoping that they would have fun with it seeing as it's an absolute nightmare to look at. Mine says at the top that I got a 2.1 followed by listing every single module mark. At the bottom it lists my average for each year, but not my overall average. I didn't bother sitting down and working it all out because a) maths is not my strong point and I'd have likely got it wrong and b) even if I had sat down and worked it out correctly, the result would have been useless seeing as Oxford never specified what a 'high' 2.1 was (above 65? above 68? who knows?). Each year was worth a different amount too, so it wouldn't be the easiest thing to work out (i.e. my second and third years were not each worth 50% of my overall degree mark).

So I wrote under all the averages what each of them contributed to my overall degree mark and sent it off. They spent a whole month pondering over it before telling me 'the guy looking at your application didn't understand it, therefore on the basis that you got a 2.1 of some description, we're letting you in' :s-smilie: To be fair, it was Exeter's fault (for not including the overall average for my degree on the transcript) as much as Oxford's, but still, it smacks of a sheer lack of organisation.


God that sounds pretty awful! But you got there in the end, which is what matters I suppose. :smile:
Reply 87
Maths:

offers : Cambridge(i am about to start there),Imperial,Warwick,UCL,York

rejected : Durham
Reply 88
Excalibur
God that sounds pretty awful! But you got there in the end, which is what matters I suppose. :smile:

Indeedy :smile:
It was just the fact that after I sent them my transcript they kept me hanging for a whole month, then sent me an email with 'confirmation of offer' in the subject line, which got me all excited thinking it was an email saying yes. It was in fact an email saying they'd never received my transcript when they in fact had...
Still, all's well that ends well :smile:
Reply 89
last year's app:

history & english
oxford -- rejected post-interview
cardiff -- AAB
glasgow -- ABB
english
ucl -- rejected
warwick -- rejected post-interview
king's -- rejected