The Student Room Group

Cambridge college decision

I'm choosing a college - exciting stuff.

I'm currently torn between Christ's college and Trinity Hall (also considering Magdalene but preferably between the first two.) I liked them both, and they're both very welcoming. However, statistically, I think Christ's has been less competitive for my course (HSPS) but when I mention my dilemma, I've been advised to look to Trinity Hall instead as Christ's is supposedly very competitive to even interview? Any advice?

Would also be interested in any info regarding which has better accommodation etc. but mainly which would I have a better chance at an interview/getting in (lol.)
Reply 1
In terms of getting to interview, there really is no difference. If you meet the entry requirements (prediction), you get an interview. The only difference is the assessment at interview, which is what you should conisder. Don't look at statistics because they can be very misleading.
Check out http://www.applytocambridge.com - it's the alternative prospectus, written by the students. You'll find information on anything from accommdation to recently held events there.

As for choosing your college, just pick the one you would most like to be in/live in. Around 20% or so of applicants get pooled to a different college, and they're far more similar than they are different so it really doesn't matter that much. Don't bother playing the stats game because it doesn't work, and the system of selection is designed such that if you're good enough to get in in that particular year, you will (whether at your first choice college or another one).
the only thing i'd consider is christs has a rep for being very pushy about grades.
Reply 4
Original post by Sophiegraceb
the only thing i'd consider is christs has a rep for being very pushy about grades.


Nope. All colleges expect students to fulfill their potential and that usually means a 2:1+

Christ's doesn't "push" anyone.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 5
Original post by 1975
I'm choosing a college - exciting stuff.

I'm currently torn between Christ's college and Trinity Hall (also considering Magdalene but preferably between the first two.) I liked them both, and they're both very welcoming. However, statistically, I think Christ's has been less competitive for my course (HSPS) but when I mention my dilemma, I've been advised to look to Trinity Hall instead as Christ's is supposedly very competitive to even interview? Any advice?

Would also be interested in any info regarding which has better accommodation etc. but mainly which would I have a better chance at an interview/getting in (lol.)


As per Paralove, so simply choose a college you prefer. If that's Christ's then great. Or Tit Hall? Great!

All colleges generally interview approx 70% of applicants.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 6
What Cambridge don't tell you, is that their claim for number of candidates per place is actually an average of all colleges. It doesn't explicitly say this on the website, but the candidates per place is actually very different for different colleges. Yes, it's true that you won't get in with bad grades if you apply to the least popular college, but the number of people that you compete with at low-end colleges WILL affect the probability of that college accepting you.

If you've got good grades (not bad, not the best possible either), then you are better off applying to a place like Girton. If you meet the criteria, and if you they see that you have reasonably good/average grades for Cambridge offers, then you are much more likely to get an offer than if you applied to a college like Trinity. For example I heard someone (this year) applied to a very popular college (think it was Christ's college, can't remember), and another applied to Girton. The person applying to Girton was 1 of only 3 applicants for one place - and he got in. The other person applying to Christs didn't get in, because the competition was much more fierce.

People will disagree with me, and say that there is no difference, but this is the actual reality - if the college 'likes' you enough to give you an interview, then you are much more likely to get in if you apply to a lower-end college. Cambridge just doesn't tell anyone this because they want an even distribution between colleges.

And yes, the college can indeed see everyone's stats (from other colleges as well), but the college will still at the end of the day be reviewing all of the candidates applying there. Fewer direct applicants will equate to less of the 'best candidates'. When the human AT is looking at the list of candidates they HAVE to extensively consider, they will not see as many candidates (as say, Trinity), who have 98% UMS and 80%+ admission assessment scores. All candidates of a college are compared to each other. Fewer candidates means less competition.

This is why at Robinson college, it is actually 58% of applicants who get an offer (2017 data), where as for Christs it's more like 20-30%.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by forst_pa
What Cambridge don't tell you, is that their claim for number of candidates per place is actually an average of all colleges. It doesn't explicitly say this on the website, but the candidates per place is actually very different for different colleges. Yes, it's true that you won't get in with bad grades if you apply to the least popular college, but the number of people that you compete with at low-end colleges WILL affect the probability of that college accepting you.

If you've got good grades (not bad, not the best possible either), then you are better off applying to a place like Girton. If you meet the criteria, and if you they see that you have reasonably good/average grades for Cambridge offers, then you are much more likely to get an offer than if you applied to a college like Trinity. For example I heard someone (this year) applied to a very popular college (think it was Christ's college, can't remember), and another applied to Girton. The person applying to Girton was 1 of only 3 applicants for one place - and he got in. The other person applying to Christs didn't get in, because the competition was much more fierce.

People will disagree with me, and say that there is no difference, but this is the actual reality - if the college 'likes' you enough to give you an interview, then you are much more likely to get in if you apply to a lower-end college. Cambridge just doesn't tell anyone this because they want an even distribution between colleges.


Have you looked at the Cambridge Admissions Stats? You can clearly see college admissions info, there's no secret mystery to it.

However your analysis of it is entirely wrong and completely ignores a major aspect of the process : the Winter Pool.

TL;Dr: your chances of getting a Cambridge offer are NOT affected by the college you apply to.

NB. There are many other flaws in your post but my overall summary remains the same.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by 1975
I'm choosing a college - exciting stuff.

I'm currently torn between Christ's college and Trinity Hall (also considering Magdalene but preferably between the first two.) I liked them both, and they're both very welcoming. However, statistically, I think Christ's has been less competitive for my course (HSPS) but when I mention my dilemma, I've been advised to look to Trinity Hall instead as Christ's is supposedly very competitive to even interview? Any advice?

Would also be interested in any info regarding which has better accommodation etc. but mainly which would I have a better chance at an interview/getting in (lol.)


As other people have said in different ways before me, college choice should be about identifying a place you like, and think you'd feel at home, rather than trying to play the odds. But please be reassured, we interviewed just over 80% of our applicants at Christ's last year (a little above the cross-collegiate average), and I can't imagine that will change this year.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 9
Original post by Doonesbury
Have you looked at the Cambridge Admissions Stats? You can clearly see college admissions info, there's no secret mystery to it.

However your analysis of it is entirely wrong and completely ignores a major aspect of the process : the Winter Pool.

TL;Dr: your chances of getting a Cambridge offer are NOT affected by the college you apply to.

NB. There are many other flaws in your post but my overall summary remains the same.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Where do you think I got my claim of "58% of applicants", if I didn't look at the Cambridge Admissions stats? Would you care to explain how I am "entirely wrong", and why you're so right (with any actual evidence)?

And no I have not ignored the winter pool. I am very much aware of the fact that they only take the best candidates, hence why I said that they can see all other college's applicants. But the fact remains, the college admissions process is overseen by humans. Humans are not perfect. A place like Girton or Robinson will have not nearly as many applicants as a college like Trinity. Assuming that you are a GOOD candidate (with GOOD grades), you are still more likely to get in to a college as such, because there will be less candidates that are directly compared with one another. Simple. If a college wants to take only a few candidates from their direct applicants, they can (most likely due to lower-quality candidates), and then take more from the winter pool. But if you have a GOOD application, then you will probably be one of the few that were given offers to. More applicants means a greater number of good applicants per place that they can offer. Hence why there is some quite large variation between candidates per place stats per college.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 10
Original post by forst_pa
Where do you think I got my claim of "58% of applicants", if I didn't look at the Cambridge Admissions stats? Would you care to explain how I am "entirely wrong", and why you're so right (with any actual evidence)?

And no I have not ignored the winter pool. I am very much aware of the fact that they only take the best candidates, hence why I said that they can see all other college's applicants. But the fact remains, the college admissions process is overseen by humans. Humans are not perfect. A place like Girton or Robinson will have not nearly as many applicants as a college like Trinity. Assuming that you are a GOOD candidate (with GOOD grades), you are still more likely to get in to a college as such, because there will be less candidates that are directly compared with one another. Simple. If a college wants to take only a few candidates from their direct applicants, they can (most likely due to lower-quality candidates), and then take more from the winter pool. But if you have a GOOD application, then you will probably be one of the few that were given offers to. More applicants means a greater number of good applicants per place that they can offer. Hence why there is some quite large variation between candidates per place stats per college.


"Careful ongoing analysis of our admissions statistics shows that, for equally well-qualified applicants, making an open application or applying directly to a College does not affect your chance of being made an offer of a place. This is because we have rigorous procedures in place to compare all applicants for each subject before selection decisions are finalised. Strong applicants who’ve been squeezed out by the competition at their original College can be made an offer by another College through the pool. Colleges would rather admit a strong applicant from the pool than a weaker applicant who applied directly to them.*"

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
"Careful ongoing analysis of our admissions statistics shows that, for equally well-qualified applicants, making an open application or applying directly to a College does not affect your chance of being made an offer of a place. This is because we have rigorous procedures in place to compare all applicants for each subject before selection decisions are finalised. Strong applicants who’ve been squeezed out by the competition at their original College can be made an offer by another College through the pool. Colleges would rather admit a strong applicant from the pool than a weaker applicant who applied directly to them.*"

Posted from TSR Mobile


This quote in itself only supports what I said:

"Strong applicants who’ve been squeezed out by the competition at their original College can be made an offer by another College through the pool".

Like I said, if you're a good/strong applicant ('good' and 'strong' are both referring to the same type of candidate in their appropriate context of use), then you will simply be more likely to receive an offer, because there is less competition. Again, less competition at the college they have applied to means that there are less strong applicants, and therefore less suitable direct applicants to compete with. This is implied with the above quote. At a very popular college, there will be many more "strong"/good applicants - hence why they are less likely to get an offer from their college, and why they would have been more likely to get an offer from a less-popular college.

Yes you could get an offer from another college, if you are pooled, and you are a "strong"/good candidate, but then it's even more of a gamble. Only 28% of ALL pooled applicants received an offer. The evidence is there. One just has to simply check for themselves in order to see the reality/truth.
Reply 12
Original post by forst_pa
This quote in itself only supports what I said:

"Strong applicants who’ve been squeezed out by the competition at their original College can be made an offer by another College through the pool".

Like I said, if you're a good/strong applicant ('good' and 'strong' are both referring to the same type of candidate in their appropriate context of use), then you will simply be more likely to receive an offer, because there is less competition. Again, less competition at the college they have applied to means that there are less strong applicants, and therefore less suitable direct applicants to compete with. This is implied with the above quote. At a very popular college, there will be many more "strong"/good applicants - hence why they are less likely to get an offer from their college, and why they would have been more likely to get an offer from a less-popular college.

Yes you could get an offer from another college, if you are pooled, and you are a "strong"/good candidate, but then it's even more of a gamble. Only 28% of ALL pooled applicants received an offer. The evidence is there. One just has to simply check for themselves in order to see the reality/truth.


So weaker candidates apply to Girton (or wherever), get rejected and Girton fishes its entire cohort from the pool.

This happens all the time.

Honestly this is debated every year. You haven't discovered a hidden trick.

Your chances are not affected by college choice.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
So weaker candidates apply to Girton (or wherever), get rejected and Girton fishes its entire cohort from the pool.

This happens all the time.

Honestly this is debated every year. You haven't discovered a hidden trick.

Your chances are not affected by college choice.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Once again you've missed my point. I've never said that if you are a "weaker candidate", you will have a higher chance of getting an offer at a less-popular college . I've said that if you're a "good candidate", and if you "meet the criteria" (i.e. predicted grades), and show evidence of possible success (which is what any college is looking for), then you will have a higher chance of getting an offer at a less-popular college. Simple. And for the last time, the evidence is there. I am not just randomly saying that you will have a better chance for no reason, I am saying it because the evidence is there. Anyone can check it for themselves. A 58% offer rate for a less-popular college, with therefore less "strong applicants", will give you a better chance than if you try to compete with many more "strong applicants" (e.g. at Trinity), and then get winter-pooled.

Also you speak like you are some sort of Admissions tutor for Cambridge. You seem to make statements like "your analysis of it is entirely wrong" but lack any evidence whatsoever. I, on the other hand, am simply pointing out the evidence and supplying a perfectly reasonable and likely explanation alongside it. I'm not claiming to have discovered a "hidden trick".
For what it's worth, I don't think that you can reliably influence your chances of getting in through college choice (applicant numbers and relative strength of applicants are too variable) but I also don't think that the pool is infallible -- due to the limited number of places it's all too easy for good candidates to just miss out on an offer after being pooled, and I think it's absolutely fair to say that things might have worked out differently had they applied elsewhere in the first place.
Original post by forst_pa
X".


You know that all the admissions tutors at all the colleges can see the entire cohort of applicants from day one right?

The system works so that if you are good enough to get an offer, you will. Plenty of people also get in on the second try too.

Perhaps the point you're trying to make is that applying to oversubscribed colleges increases your chance of being a poolee offer-holder rather than a direct one? In which case, sure. But it doesn't affect overall chances of getting in to the university as a whole...
Go hard or go home. Apply Trinity.
Reply 17
Original post by forst_pa
This is why at Robinson college, it is actually 58% of applicants who get an offer (2017 data), where as for Christs it's more like 20-30%.


Which course? Maths?

Why do you assume all the applicants to Christ's were of equal standard to those at Robinson? Christ's is frequently relatively oversubscribed, not least because it is the first in the list of Cambridge Colleges.

Even if we assume the cohorts are of a similar standard you need to remove Open Applicants, and also account for Pool Offers.

In 2017, Christs had 53 direct applicants, and made 13 direct offers*, plus 1 pool offer by another college = 26.4% offer rate
Robinson had 30 direct applicants, and made 9 direct offers, plus 1 pool offer by another college = 33% offer rate

Not as big a difference as you presented it. And almost certainly accounted for by the oversubscribing cohort at Christ's including a higher proportion of less able applicants.

*Just for completeness, direct offers may include Open applicants.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Forecast
....... but I also don't think that the pool is infallible -- due to the limited number of places it's all too easy for good candidates to just miss out on an offer after being pooled, and I think it's absolutely fair to say that things might have worked out differently had they applied elsewhere in the first place.


I tend to agree with this. But I think it'd only affect minority of people who really are on the borderline.
I think the most important thing is not to spend so much time and energy on studying and analyzing those statistic to try to find a magic strategy to choose a college to make your application very marginally more successful.
Time is much better spend making sure you don't become a borderline applicant.
And, as with all statistical data, you can't really analyze it properly and correctly unless you know every details of behind-the-scene selection process from which the data was produced. If you don't know it, you're most likely misinterpreting it.

Quick Reply

Latest