Durham Applicants 2008 Thread

Hopping Mad Kangaroo

Nope, because they have something called A-levels. Though if anyone wanted to, they could take the test and send the results off to Durham to look at. Or do an AEA.

hmmmmm, good comeback I must say.

Tell me then what they use when they have so many applicants with so many good grades with so many good p.statements. At least at oxford, if you don't perform in the HAT they have a genuine reason for rejecting you, it's a much more rigorous system that sorts the men from the boys. The geniuses from the intelliegent people. Do Durham interview History apps? Nooooooooooo
I think we are seeing a trend here.

Reply 3002

lol_wut

What makes you think Oxbridge have better admissions than Durham, or better courses. In lots of cases it is probably the other way around.

i dont think so

Reply 3003

lol_wut

i dont think so

2 hell with durham lol-wut, your in one of the best universities in the world doing an extremely well respected course. what college you accepted to? You must have absolutely outrageosly good grades. Its durhams loss

Reply 3004

Aula

18

Yay, HMK and kevster are together again :biggrin:

mde_of_fail, sorry about my comment, I was in a bad mood and didn't mean it the way I wrote it.
what I meant was more that the people doing the admissions probably decided that there were other applicants who would be better suited than you. Of course it's possible that you just slipped through the gaps, though that's unlikely.

Reply 3005

LieDown

Ugh I hate the 'Oxbridge is better than everywhere else' mentality. But whatever, we'll just all sit back and wait for the day when somebody opens an Oxbridge prospectus and like one of those stupid happy birthday cards it sings 'We are the Champions, we are the champions!'

kevster/

2 hell with durham lol-wut, your in one of the best universities in the world doing an extremely well respected course. what college you accepted to? You must have absolutely outrageosly good grades. Its durhams loss

Where you off to in september?

Reply 3006

kevster

hmmmmm, good comeback I must say.

Tell me then what they use when they have so many applicants with so many good grades with so many good p.statements. At least at oxford, if you don't perform in the HAT they have a genuine reason for rejecting you, it's a much more rigorous system that sorts the men from the boys. The geniuses from the intelliegent people. Do Durham interview History apps? Nooooooooooo
I think we are seeing a trend here.

So you have a bad day on either the HAT or the interview and get rejected out of hand. I would much rather people got rejected on the grounds of their PS, as opposed some poorly designed tests that favor the privately educated.

Reply 3007

Aula

mde_of_fail, sorry about my comment, I was in a bad mood and didn't mean it the way I wrote it.
what I meant was more that the people doing the admissions probably decided that there were other applicants who would be better suited than you. Of course it's possible that you just slipped through the gaps, though that's unlikely.

The first answer was more honest, you should stick with it.

Reply 3008

Hopping Mad Kangaroo

So you have a bad day on either the HAT or the interview and get rejected out of hand. I would much rather people got rejected on the grounds of their PS, as opposed some poorly designed tests that favor the privately educated.

favour the privately educated?

care to expand on that.

Reply 3009

kevster

favour the privately educated?

care to expand on that.

They ask questions that are a lot easier if you know a certain set of extra facts. Of course state schools dont run classes on how to get into Oxbridge, but the private ones do...

Reply 3010

made_of_fail

1

What makes you think Oxbridge have better admissions than Durham, or better courses. In lots of cases it is probably the other way around.

you really do have a knack for making yourself look like a fool.

So you have a bad day on either the HAT or the interview and get rejected out of hand. I would much rather people got rejected on the grounds of their PS, as opposed some poorly designed tests that favor the privately educated.

I could give a full treatment to show just how misguided you are, but I know it's not worth the bother. You are bitter, much more than I am about my Durham rejection. Like you, I felt disappointed by my interview, and rather aggrieved that my rejection was probably due to what was basically a short (if academic) chat with a tutor. But, crucially, there is more at stake than the interview. And in the case of the physical sciences I don't see how you can complain to much. Unlike PPE, there isn't much scope for impressing the interviewer with your easy public school charm and immaculate appearance. You can either have a go at the problems or you can't.

And whatever the flaws in the Oxford system, I don't see what could make it inferior to Durham's.

Ugh I hate the 'Oxbridge is better than everywhere else' mentality. But whatever, we'll just all sit back and wait for the day when somebody opens an Oxbridge prospectus and like one of those stupid happy birthday cards it sings 'We are the Champions, we are the champions!'

No one's crowing about Oxbridge superiority in here. The fact is, though, that it is in most respects better than Durham, although admission is almost equally competitive in a couple of subjects. And for the record, I was rejected by Oxford; it's not as if I have much of an interest in bigging them up.

Reply 3011

Hopping Mad Kangaroo

They ask questions that are a lot easier if you know a certain set of extra facts. Of course state schools dont run classes on how to get into Oxbridge, but the private ones do...

classes on the interview process yes, we are talking about the HAT. U say that some one could have a bad day, well why cant you just say that about any exam you ever sit. Oxford want people who can work under pressure, if you cant do well if an admissions test that needs no extra knowledge and involves no studying, then how will you ever succeed at the university. If by chance, an excellent candidate wings the HAT, then they have the interview to fall back on. At durham, they have nothing.

Reply 3012

Wez

14

made_of_fail

resources the government is providing most of the funding for, fyi. it's a publically funded institution, so there is no reason to treat it the same way you would a job interview at a private company. it would hardly be the most disgusting waste of resources imaginable too. are other universities so much more impoverished than oxford?

Durham has 20+ applicants for its popular courses. Oxford, generally, doesn't. Take History. 3-4 applicants per place at Oxford, 20+ at Durham. And even with only 3-4 applicants per place, Oxford still doesn't [generally] give specific feedback.

Oh well, I think we should probably just agree to disagree. :smile:

Good luck with your exams and other uni applicants!

Hopping Mad Kangaroo

So you have a bad day on either the HAT or the interview and get rejected out of hand. I would much rather people got rejected on the grounds of their PS, as opposed some poorly designed tests that favor the privately educated.

I think the HAT is a far better measure of historical ability than A-levels. For a start, it actually vaguely resembles university level History, unlike A-level History which, while not exactly easy, bears little resemblance to studying undergraduate level History. Secondly, unlike a personal statement, at least what is written in the HAT is virtually guaranteed to be written by the candidate.

Hopping Mad Kangaroo

They ask questions that are a lot easier if you know a certain set of extra facts. Of course state schools dont run classes on how to get into Oxbridge, but the private ones do...

This is simply not true. How well you do in the HAT has virtually nothing to do with how much you know. You need a very basic knowledge of virtually any historical time period.

Reply 3013

kevster

classes on the interview process yes, we are talking about the HAT. U say that some one could have a bad day, well why cant you just say that about any exam you ever sit. Oxford want people who can work under pressure, if you cant do well if an admissions test that needs no extra knowledge and involves no studying, then how will you ever succeed at the university. If by chance, an excellent candidate wings the HAT, then they have the interview to fall back on. At durham, they have nothing.

Well to be fair you have several months to get the PS done, and you can resit A-levels/ do an extra subject, so there is no bad day problem.

Really you have hit the key problem with Oxford, they still dont appreciate the difference between working hard and working smart. They certainly dont take on people for being the brightest...

Reply 3014

made_of_fail

1

By the way, the Oxford PPE test is not subject based. It's about as pure an aptitude test as you can get, although of course there are still some things you could do to prepare for it.

Also, the admissions tests are primarily used as a pre-interview selector. That is, you have to score over a certain level to progress, but your specific score is not so important. I could link you to some reports on the predictive validity of the TSA if you're really not convinced that it is a useful indicator.

Reply 3015

Wez

I think the HAT is a far better measure of historical ability than A-levels. For a start, it actually vaguely resembles university level History, unlike A-level History which, while not exactly easy, bears little resemblance to studying undergraduate level History. Secondly, unlike a personal statement, at least what is written in the HAT is virtually guaranteed to be written by the candidate.

Anything that is different from A-levels has the problem that teachers are going to spend little or no time helping students in the vast majority of comprehensive schools. That immediately puts them at a disadvantage, when it comes to the HAT and so on.

As for the PS, good ones have a nice set original ideas in. Thats how the admissions tutors know if people have written their statements themselves. Asides, how do you that teachers etc dont wonder around helping people through the HAT in the actual exam, in some schools?

Reply 3016

made_of_fail

By the way, the Oxford PPE test is not subject based. It's about as pure an aptitude test as you can get, although of course there are still some things you could do to prepare for it.

Also, the admissions tests are primarily used as a pre-interview selector. That is, you have to score over a certain level to progress, but your specific score is not so important. I could link you to some reports on the predictive validity of the TSA if you're really not convinced that it is a useful indicator.

You mean in effect an IQ test, which tend to be very dodgy and disputed. Plus, even on IQ tests, there are ways you can improve your score etc...

Reply 3017

Anatheme

18

(Agreed. I have such a low IQ according to these tests. I'm just totally illogical.)

Reply 3018

made_of_fail

1

no, it's not an IQ test. I mean, it's about as pure an aptitude test as you will find being used for university admission. All the others are subject specific, although they require only a small amount of existing knowledge, whereas the TSA is used for a range of different subjects because it is a test of your generic problem solving and verbal reasoning ability. I think the intention is to eliminate candidates who are statistically unlikely to do very well, which has the added benefit of making the interviews more manageable.

Plus, I can tell you don't know anything about IQ tests.

Reply 3019