Getting into Oxbridge for Postgraduate Study

But to my memory, where most Master's application forms ask how you plan to fund, almost all students tick the 'applying to AHRC' box, and don't actually have to prove they can self-fund unless they fail to get AHRC funding. So I don't see how a university could take a student's ability to self-fund into account, when they don't really have that information until the summer, which is well after most offers have been made.

But to my memory, where most Master's application forms ask how you plan to fund, almost all students tick the 'applying to AHRC' box, and don't actually have to prove they can self-fund unless they fail to get AHRC funding. So I don't see how a university could take a student's ability to self-fund into account, when they don't really have that information until the summer, which is well after most offers have been made.

If you should happen to have the funding ready to go at application time, and they have lets say, 20 places, they'll make offers to the five or so in that position then and there.

Yes but the offer is given before they ask for proof that you've got the money in the bank. It's a conditional offer on the basis of showing via bank statements/letter from a savings account bank to university x that you've got enough money to fund yourself.

At Glasgow and I believe Oxford, they can ask for it as part of 'supporting documents' before any offer is made.

Perhaps they can, but do they actually do it?

Perhaps they can, but do they actually do it?

At Glasgow and I believe Oxford, they can ask for it as part of 'supporting documents' before any offer is made.

Perhaps they can, but do they actually do it?

You're correct, yes. However, the point I was making was, if you should happen to have the funding ready to go at application time, and they have lets say, 20 places, they'll make offers to the five or so in that position then and there, because of these financial pressures, and conditional the rest off. It's mainly to do with the sad fact that the best 20 students might not get on the course, but the self-funders are able to with perhaps lesser grades. On Glasgow's form last year, if you ticked 'self-fund', they asked for evidence, which from what I've heard I've been led to believe was enough to gain you an offer of a place before someone with potentially better grades but no funding. Said person might later get an offer, and then go on to get funding and thus get on the course, but it does highlight a supposed tendency to put the 'safe' students down first.

I still don't understand this, because no-one would have their funding 'ready to go' before the offer is made, because you need the offer before you can apply to funding bodies; and even those students who would be able to self-fund would be trying for AHRC money first. I applied to Oxford, York, and Glasgow, and all made me offers without asking for proof. When I got my college offer from Oxford, they gave a deadline for me giving them proof, which I gave them in the form of my AHRC letter when it came through. Only if I hadn't got the funding would they have realized that I couldn't afford to self-fund, after which they would have withdrawn the offer. Maybe I'm just being thick, but unless the rules have changed drastically since then (2006), I still don't see how the funding issue can affect initial offers.

Then again, I can't imagine many people tick the 'no, definitely don't consider me for any money, I've got 30k tucked under the sofa...' box when they've got little to lose by having a shot. So I would have thought that those intending to definitely self-fund with no backup option would have to be fairly confident in their ability to cough up. Extrapolating somewhat, but I can see why a university would consider the avowed self-funders a sufficiently safe bet to edge out marginal candidates seeking funding.

my first year counts for 0

Assuming i get 70%+ in my second year

if get a 2:2 in the first year... to what extent would this affect my application to oxbridge for MSc in finance for example?

Thanks

Also responding to Playas question (I couldn't find the post to quote)

I know people doing the MPhil Finance who had to get a triple first as their academic condition.
Also, regardless of whether it counts towards your degree or not, any exam you take is seen as an indicator of your ability.

Surely, it cant be seen as an indicator of ability if you dont put anywhere near maximum effort in 1st year exams?

Also, do you know if my work exp in finance, banking and my outstanding ECs would be of any relevance to my application?

No, but the grades you achieve (with maximum effort or otherwise) will be taken as an indicator of ability. That's why universities ask for transcripts in the first place. Which isn't to say it'll be impossible to get an offer with a first-year 2.2 on your transcript, of course, but universities won't altogether ignore it either. Aiming for a 2.2 in first year and a first in second year doesn't sound like a very good plan to me.

Yes, of course they would. But they'll be a relatively minor part of the application.*

*Unless the course description specifically says otherwise, obviously.