Is it harder to get the grades at Oxbridge?

This thread is amusing. Some people seem to be of the opinion that getting into a good uni is all that matters. Really that is just the first hurdle, and you still have to work hard to get a good degree.

I applied to cambridge and although being perfectly qualified did not get in. My friend however did. Yet he spent his first year at cambridge doing bugger all. Missed lectures, spent half his time on the internet downloading films and music. I however went to lectures, and did the work.

So when it came round to results, I got a first this year, and he got a 2:1. Yet some people are under the impression that the 2:1 would be worth the same as my first?

This is an example of elitism at it's finest.

Reply 142

BazTheMoney

Surely the "did not get in" contradicts the "perfectly qualified" part? I do love it when students who were rejected insist that they really are good enough; I would of thought the rejection proved otherwise.

Reply 143

Baz, AMM is probably one of the two smartest people I know (the other is at Cambridge and getting firsts) and is perfectly qualified for it. In fact I find it quite worrying that somebody who runs mental rings around me got rejected from the university I want to apply to. :rolleyes:

I have heard of admissions tutors likening choosing applicants to picking one note out of a pile of twenty pound notes and throwing the rest away. There are more exceptional candidates than there are places at Oxbridge.

Shouldn't that be "would have" Baz? I suppose that shows that Oxbridge don't necessarily look for students who are perfectly qualified in relation to grammar.

Reply 144

Acaila

Out of curioisty, do you know AMM, or have you just come across him online?

nb It is well known that Baz's grammar on here is awful; it is similarly well known that he's probably the best exam results of anyone on UKL.

EDIT: That £20 comment sounds like bullshit to me. Oxbridge have an obsession with putting out the image that they always have a huge oversupply of fabulous candidates, and that this means anyone who does get in is simply awesome. This is, of course, rubbish, but it's one of Oxbridge's most powerful tools in ensuring they secure good candidates.

Reply 145

BazTheMoney

If you want to believe that then please don't let me stop you. However my original point still remains. It is not the fact that you got into oxbridge that means you are worthy of admiration, it is still about how much work you did and what degree classification you get.

It does however annoy that I know many people who got into oxbridge who now under the impression that they do not need to work that hard, because the hard part was getting in.

Reply 146

Hear hear. Once you're in, you're exposed to the elitists I suppose. :rolleyes:

What are Baz's exam results? Rahayden has great ones IIRC. He also got rejected from Cambridge. I didn't know anything about his grammar or his exam results so they can't be that well known.
Didn't you have a friend who got rejected as well? Was she not perfectly qualified?
Only 1 in 5 or so applicants get accepted and of those rejected, almost all go on to get perfect grades. Yes, some slip up on interview, but what about the rest? There just aren't enough places for them.
To answer your question, I've known AMM for over three years online. He's my oldest netfriend that I'm still in contact with. I hope you're not implying that he came crying to me saying he should have got in when that was not the case, and I merely believed him.

Reply 147

BazTheMoney

Acaila

No offence Acalia, but what you and I consider "perfectly qualified" is probable a lot different to what an admission tutor consider "perfectly qualified", and considering we're lowly students I know who I would trust. And as Oxbridge select on a subject basis, not the more general US style, a person could be seen as very smart in conversation, but not that great at their subject, meaning they will get rejected.

And I'm not doing a course in linguistics, so really by spelling and grammar is a secondary conside; thankfully I do Economics, and both Oxford and Cambridge believe I'm "perfectly qualified" to do that.

Reply 148

Oxbridge standard offer: AAA at A level
AMM meets that, and in the correct subjects, hence he is qualified.
Even if you can't write properly, I'd appreciate you spelling my name correctly.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to be going.
Good day gentlemen.

Reply 149

Whether or not I am "perfectly qualified" by some universal definition is unclear. There are many people who meet the academic qualifications that do not get in; and I know first hand of several people who have got into Cambridge and have not coped too well. That does tell us something, the system is not perfect.

But your argument technique here is poor. Please address the main issue, 'whether or not an oxbridge degree is worth more than any other degree', diverting the argument by arguing over the semantics of the phrase 'perfectly qualified' is not helpful.

My point, which still has not been addressed is that getting into a good university like Oxford or Cambridge does not automatically entitle you to a better degree, it may give you access to a better quality of teaching, but whether you choose to use those facilities is still upto you, and the final result of your degree is your responsability alone.

Reply 150

Acaila

What are Baz's exam results?

Very impressive indeed. Look around if you want, they're posted. (I'd tell you where, but I only know about them because someone once linked them to me so I don't know exactly where they are).

Acaila

Didn't you have a friend who got rejected as well? Was she not perfectly qualified?

I've several talented friends who've been rejected, but none were perfectly qualified. I've come across hundreds of applicants, some successful, others not; the number who were perfectly qualified could be counted on one hand (probably with fingers to spare). Obtaining AAA does not qualify as perfectly qualified by the way, I'm surprised to see you suggest that.

Acaila

To answer your question, I've known AMM for over three years online. He's my oldest netfriend that I'm still in contact with. I hope you're not implying that he came crying to me saying he should have got in when that was not the case, and I merely believed him.

Not at all, was just wondering how well you know him because I think it's difficult to judge someone over the net, because of the many limitations it places on your communications. If you've known him for three years, however, you can probably judge with quite a bit of confidence :smile:

Reply 151

AntiMagicMan

My point, which still has not been addressed is that getting into a good university like Oxford or Cambridge does not automatically entitle you to a better degree, it may give you access to a better quality of teaching, but whether you choose to use those facilities is still upto you, and the final result of your degree is your responsability alone.

Surely that's so obvious as to go withouat saying?

Reply 152

Quite clearly not. As the existence of this thread shows, and the opinions stated within.

Reply 153

Not obvious enough for some people it seems.

You are perfectly qualified in that you hold the qualifications that are asked for. I acknowledge that there is more to an application than that.

Reply 154

shiny

This is a tedious thread.

Reply 155

Acaila

You are perfectly qualified in that you hold the qualifications that are asked for. I acknowledge that there is more to an application than that.

The qualifications asked for are EE at A-level and 5 C's at GCSE; any A-level results which offers are made conditional upon are entirely at the discretion of tutors.

Reply 156

mobbdeeprob

AntiMagicMan

Though it would seem to entitle certain individuals (perhaps suffering from "I've arrived"-syndrome) to cock a snook at other universities, and the relative standard of the degrees which they award. Interesting...

Reply 157