This thread is closed

Oxbridge Rejection

EnglishNomad

Well, I applied to study Mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge, and quite frankly, I suppose, Mathematically, I did not stand up to the brilliant minds that apply there.

What ticked me off, though, was that I was planning on playing my personality card rather strongly. I didn't even have a chance to talk with the interviewers, though. It was straight to the Maths test, a sneer at the 'unheard of' exams I was taking (American AP's) and a bit of a laugh on their side: 'So you think you're a home student, eh? *snigger*'

Yes, I'm a bit sore about it, but alas, 'twas not to be. :biggrin:

That sounds pretty harsh but that's Trinity all over I suppose.

Coming from a different system myself, I found that you have spend a minute to explain what your subjects mean. In my case it wasn't too hard since Advanced Highers correspond more or less directly with A2s.

Reply 21

Negin

1

well, my story is pretty much the same, I had a really bad interview and felt sooooooo stupid after it, I had all the grade requirements but not the necessary educational background, i.e. i didnt go to a grammer school in England but I must admit my BMAT scores werent as good as the other applicants who got in for medicine.

Reply 22

--

3

Negin

well, my story is pretty much the same, I had a really bad interview and felt sooooooo stupid after it, I had all the grade requirements but not the necessary educational background, i.e. i didnt go to a grammer school in England but I must admit my BMAT scores werent as good as the other applicants who got in for medicine.

Don't be silly, you've admitted your BMAT scores weren't up to scratch, so why try and blame it on your educational background? You were rejected because you weren't good enough, not because of where you went to school.

Reply 23

parkerpen

Negin

well, my story is pretty much the same, I had a really bad interview and felt sooooooo stupid after it, I had all the grade requirements but not the necessary educational background, i.e. i didnt go to a grammer school in England but I must admit my BMAT scores werent as good as the other applicants who got in for medicine.

Almost everyone who applies has the grade requirements (at least 3As for the most part). They didn't reject you because of your schooling but becuase there were better candidates. Just out of interest what kind of school and whereabouts did you go to school?

Reply 24

A SoapBubble

I was incredibly nervous in the interviews, said that the description in the French passage I'd had to read was descriptive (I'm a genius...) and couldn't remember a word of Spanish when she asked me something. I just stuttered a bit and apologised. I'm not studying Span. A-level tho, and had said that I would be starting from scratch.
Also I'm taking a gap year, which I know affected my application to other unis...and then there's the fact that I'm sure the other candidates were simply better at their languages than I was.
What was worse than the Cambridge rejection was the rejections from all but two out of my six choices :mad:

Reply 25

Dionysus

15

Weak GCSEs and the fact that one of my politics interviewers was a complete prick with a silly flower in his jacket, and kept asking the same question again and again however I answered it, just doing so increasingly loudly. Other than that, the interviewers were fine. I guess I was just outclassed.

Reply 26

*River

15

I assume that I really mucked up the HAT, because I didn't get an interview (there's nothing wrong with my grades).

Reply 27

ellierany

My friend got rejected, despite impressive grades, because he didn't have the sense to spellcheck his personal statement on an application for an English degree.

Not too bright a move.

Wait no, he got rejected because he's white, middle class, male, and his beard looks like a dead rat.

(Call me prejudiced, but I'd reject anyone to came to interview with a dead-rat beard :P )

Reply 28

AJC3387

EnglishNomad

Well, I applied to study Mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge, and quite frankly, I suppose, Mathematically, I did not stand up to the brilliant minds that apply there.

What ticked me off, though, was that I was planning on playing my personality card rather strongly...

Just thought I'd add my two cents to this debate- I'm a current Oxford undergrad and have worked quite extensively in admissions and access schemes since I arrived, and one thing that is stressed quite heavily is that personality doesn't matter, only academic strength- worth bearing in mind for anyone here thinking of applying (the same goes for Cambridge as for Oxford). Just thought I'd say... :smile:

Reply 29

EconLou

12

^^ well, okay personality may not be the only thing, but to say it doesn't matter seems a little far fetched. Are we not told over and over again that they want someone who they would like to teach, and inevitably that kicks off the boring farts and arrogant sods from the list...

Just from my own experience of looking at the 40 applicants from my school, and the 20 who were accepted, with a few exceptions, those who were excepted are the sociable, gregarious, pleasant people, who are of course also very good at their subject.

Reply 30

parkerpen

Louise_1988

^^ well, okay personality may not be the only thing, but to say it doesn't matter seems a little far fetched. Are we not told over and over again that they want someone who they would like to teach, and inevitably that kicks off the boring farts and arrogant sods from the list...

Just from my own experience of looking at the 40 applicants from my school, and the 20 who were accepted, with a few exceptions, those who were excepted are the sociable, gregarious, pleasant people, who are of course also very good at their subject.

There are plenty of people who are far from charismatic to put it lightly.

Reply 31

AJC3387

Or far from tolerable... I know a few who fit this category yet still do very well in exams, which I think proves that this is how the system works. Besides, what's to say that once you get an arrogant sod or a boring fart into a tutorial, they don't act differently to when they're in social situations?

Reply 32

Craghyrax

17

ShadowCatz

Coming from a different system myself, I found that you have spend a minute to explain what your subjects mean. In my case it wasn't too hard since Advanced Highers correspond more or less directly with A2s.

I didn't have to explain what my qualifications meant, happily. Although that might be because HIGCSEs are actually invigilated by Cambridge, so if anyone should know it they would. I think I fell foul of a few other unies on that though..I came over and did A levels on top of that anyway :dontknow:

My first time round I applied for Natsci at Trinity Hall. Having been assured I'd get extra time in my TSA test, they managed to forget to assign it and I found my time cut short with only two thirds of the problems answered :banghead:

I know the TSA result is not particularly significant in their assessment, but it was a rubbish way to start. It totally threw me off and neutered my confidence. I found the interviews incredibly intimidating. They weren't interested in me or my opinions at all. Natsci interviews are a progression of hurdles you jump through that seem to be identical for all candidates. My nerves meant I slurred and stalled and froze, forgetting some very obvious fundamental facts that I obviously remembered the moment I left the room :rolleyes:

Also.. I think the competition was stronger. There were so many of us going in for the same course.. probably giving very similar answers to the same questions. The others would have had better grades (My ASs at that point were A,B,E) It was only fair enough.

SPS interview this time round was such an enormous contrast! The interview was far more conversational, and I felt at ease and relaxed. The interviewers also managed to raise quite a few subjects that I was very interested in.

In retrospect I must agree with the general consensus that they're not prejudiced. You're assessed on your suitability academically, and your interview performance.

I went to a rubbish college, had poor grades, I'm disabled, was going on a gap year, I grew up in another country, I'm a mature student and I'm female. I don't think any of that made any difference at all!

Reply 33

EconLou

12

AJC3387

Or far from tolerable... I know a few who fit this category yet still do very well in exams, which I think proves that this is how the system works. Besides, what's to say that once you get an arrogant sod or a boring fart into a tutorial, they don't act differently to when they're in social situations?

okay, i was stating a general trend, not an unfallible theory.
I'm well aware of the existence of undesirables at oxbridge, as there are anywhere, but I still think it is somewhat of an extreme to say that personality doesn't matter to atleast some extent in an interview. Is intelectual curiosity not a component of your personality?
And it is something that seems to have been harped on at me by various dons ect, that at interview it is wise to come across as someone whom they would like to teach, after all, why not just make the applicants sit an exam and not bother with the interview if it is going to play no part...

Reply 34

AJC3387

Okay, point taken. When I said personality doesn't count I meant the sort of stuff that usually goes into a personal statement that shows you to be a well-rounded person, to have a broad range of experiences academic and otherwise, and so forth. All that I think the Oxford tutors are looking for is your attitude towards academia- that is, the 'academic' side of your personality (which includes all the stuff you mentioned before, like being teachable and intellectually curious). Generally, however, in this context, 'personality' is often taken to mean the other aspects which go into the personal statement, which I mentioned above.

Hope this makes sense! Sorry if I caused confusion/controversy with earlier posts...

Reply 35

EconLou

12

heck, i was about to write the same type of post... i think we misunderstood each other! anyway, you are the one with more specific experience in the field and so it is probably wiser to listen to you
I do agree with the misunderstanding of the importance of 'well-roundedness' stuff like extra curriculars, people seem to weigh them very heavily, whenever i speak to people younger than me who are applying. Most of the time I tell them not to bother if they are only doing it for the personal statement. I don't think i'm alone in saying I wasn't asked anything about mine at interview. All i had in my PS about them was "alongside my acacdemic studies I've continued a keen interest in Jazz piano and have represented my county at cricket"

Reply 36

LatinMachine

1

Louise_1988

^^ well, okay personality may not be the only thing, but to say it doesn't matter seems a little far fetched. Are we not told over and over again that they want someone who they would like to teach, and inevitably that kicks off the boring farts and arrogant sods from the list...

Are you at Oxford yet? Half the men I've met so far have been arrogant sods.
:p:

Reply 37

anonymous1985

Is the HAT test really hard?

Reply 38

DFranklin

18

Louise_1988

^^ well, okay personality may not be the only thing, but to say it doesn't matter seems a little far fetched.

I suspect it depends a little on the subject. I was explicitly told "we don't really care about your personality as long as you can do maths" and I'd say that's a fairly common attitude for the science subjects.

Just from my own experience of looking at the 40 applicants from my school, and the 20 who were accepted, with a few exceptions, those who were excepted are the sociable, gregarious, pleasant people, who are of course also very good at their subject.

Again, from my own experience, there was a complete cross-section; we had some very sociable people, and some not so. (My supervision partner one term seemed to do literally nothing sociable at all! I never saw him out of his room other than for lectures, supervisions and exams).

Reply 39

redwarp

There are many people at Oxbridge who just don't seem to leave their rooms. I'd say about half my year disappeared in the first few days of the year. So I'm not sure that a sociable, gregarious personality is what they're looking for at all. It's about academic achievement as well as potential. Interviews tell them how you respond to being pushed and to suggestions.

I personally thought my interviews (I had eight) were terrible, apart from my last one when I had reached the point of giving up. It wasn't all on the interviews - that plays a part, but it isn't everything. The fact that I had perfect grades (11 A*s, 4 high As at AS etc) certainly buoyed me along and in fact I was told that was a large part of the reason I was pooled to begin with - I was very strong on paper but choked in my first few interviews.

What really gets me are people who complain about anti-public school discrimination. The fact that there are about 75 boys in my year from Eton, 50 from Westminster and 40 from St Paul's tells you that that just is not true.

Oxbridge Rejection

Related discussions

Trending

Latest