This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is it me, or do Oxford reject more people without interview than Cambridge?

If he got 600, and didn't apply to Cambridge that seems a bit silly really. (Trin College, for example would almost certainly given him an offer as they rank UMS equal to interview, and you can get in with a bad interview, but NOT with a UMS below 90%).

Cambridge only interview more people to satisfy the media. The fact - as above - that Trinity College academics admit they do not give places to people below the 90% UMS line indicates that:
(a) a lot of people are interviewed unnecessarily
(b) the interview is not actually that crucial

Indeed, it has been mooted that Cambridge might get rid of the interview.

Reply 41

Glutamic Acid

17

^ Do you have a source, because I'm thinking bull excrement.

Reply 42

coldfish

12

Surely if they were going towards getting rid of the interview, they'd interview fewer than the 95% odd that they do? :rolleyes:

Reply 43

Echolife

15

mr_lawyer

If he got 600, and didn't apply to Cambridge that seems a bit silly really. (Trin College, for example would almost certainly given him an offer as they rank UMS equal to interview, and you can get in with a bad interview, but NOT with a UMS below 90%).

Cambridge only interview more people to satisfy the media. The fact - as above - that Trinity College academics admit they do not give places to people below the 90% UMS line indicates that:
(a) a lot of people are interviewed unnecessarily
(b) the interview is not actually that crucial

Indeed, it has been mooted that Cambridge might get rid of the interview.

You can't be serious! Can you :biggrin:

Reply 44

thetoothfairy

OP

lol bull excrement....

Reply 45

city_chic

13

I've noticed this as well.

Reply 46

mr_lawyer

3

Echolife

You can't be serious! Can you :biggrin:

Which part?

I know for a fact that one of the top candidates for History at Trinity was rejected - despite the tutors protests - because she did not have the requisite 90% UMS. This was despite her ranking highest in the interview.

Abolition was mentioned in the Sutton Trust hoo-ha, though I understand it would be unlikely to happen at present.

Reply 47

friedman

6

By 90%, do you mean the average of three subjects or the average of all the subjects?

Reply 48

FranklyMrShankly

13

Just to clear up all this shindiggery (Cambridge wise) may I refer all of you to Bumblebee's post in the 'Just an observation, correct me if i am wrong...' thread.

Reply 49

dm55

mr_lawyer

I know for a fact that one of the top candidates for History at Trinity was rejected - despite the tutors protests - because she did not have the requisite 90% UMS. This was despite her ranking highest in the interview.

Abolition was mentioned in the Sutton Trust hoo-ha, though I understand it would be unlikely to happen at present.

If she was an amazing student, why not pool her and if the tutor thought she was brilliant ? i think they would have taken her anyway despite not getting 90%. She was applying for history after all, wasn't she?

Reply 50

thetoothfairy

OP

hmm i was thinkin the same thing as the post above....I mean, fair enough, if you dont get 90%+ in the subject uve chosen for uni, then maybe u dont deserve to get in....but in something completely irrelevant....does make much sense to me....In the end, they should choose the person whose gonna do well on that course, so a dude who got 300/300 in History at AS shows hes a good student in History, irrelavant of the fact that he 'only' got 265/300 in, i dunno, Biology or sum equally distant subject....

Reply 51

--

3

Actually, getting 300/300 in History shows that he knows the exam specification and marking scheme and what is required. It doesn't necessarily prove that he's good at History.

Reply 52

Chess Piece Face

holla_at_ya

if you dont get 90%+ in the subject uve chosen for uni, then maybe u dont deserve to get in

I can convey my response to that statement in only three letters: W, T and F.

Reply 53

thetoothfairy

OP

^

lol, what I meant was, if you've chosen to do History at Uni, and you dont get 90% in History at AS, then perhaps you dont deserve to get in (to uni, for history)

Reply 54

thetoothfairy

OP

3232

Actually, getting 300/300 in History shows that he knows the exam specification and marking scheme and what is required. It doesn't necessarily prove that he's good at History.

Well, what your saying is that no matter what, the candidate loses. If he gets 300/300, then he just memerized the markscheme, but if he got 200/300, hes not good at the subject

Reply 55

madima

holla_at_ya

Well, what your saying is that no matter what, the candidate loses. If he gets 300/300, then he just memerized the markscheme, but if he got 200/300, hes not good at the subject

and THAT'S why the interview counts :smile:

Reply 56

--

3

madima

and THAT'S why the interview counts :smile:

Well, interview/written work/PS/references/pre-interview tests.

Reply 57

Lidka

13

holla_at_ya

Well, what your saying is that no matter what, the candidate loses. If he gets 300/300, then he just memerized the markscheme, but if he got 200/300, hes not good at the subject

But that's precisely what he's saying: A-level History (or any A-level, really...) marks are an inaccurate way of gauging how suitable a candidate is to study the subject at degree level. Why do you think candidates often have to sit college- or university-based entrance exams? It gives admissions tutors a fair chance to see how students might manage when in a university environment. I most probably wouldn't be here without my entrance exam - perhaps my interviews combined with my PS may have swung it, but my grades were relatively poor, my reference probably only as good as other people's, and my written work unread. So I'm glad I didn't apply to Trinity...

Reply 58

Chess Piece Face

holla_at_ya

^

lol, what I meant was, if you've chosen to do History at Uni, and you dont get 90% in History at AS, then perhaps you dont deserve to get in (to uni, for history)

I understood what you meant.

Reply 59

Chess Piece Face

holla_at_ya

Well, what your saying is that no matter what, the candidate loses. If he gets 300/300, then he just memerized the markscheme, but if he got 200/300, hes not good at the subject

That is a misrepresentation of the main argument. A more accurate way of saying it would be to say that if you get 300/300, you may have just memorised the mark scheme. Some people who are genuinely good at their subject get 300/300; I'm sure there's quite a reasonable correlation. However, it by no means necessarily means that the individual is good at his or her subject. Perhaps the individual is not good at the subject if he or she got 200/300 - that is a bit low even for a dodgy module, certainly too low to apply to Cambridge with, but even so there may be mitigating circumstances which were the reasons for this bad mark - but someone getting 255/300 may be still be fantastic at their subject.

Please stop setting an artificial threshold for judging whether someone is good at a subject; a lot of exams, whether for history or other subjects, require the individual to respond in a mechanical manner which the examiners look for. A young individualist might write a fantastic answer for an exam question but it may get a low A or even a B because it does not devote the correct amount of space to the relevant assessment objectives.

Is it me, or do Oxford reject more people without interview than Cambridge?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you