'Small fish, big pond' worries

Well, the competition is so firece in England! We stand no chance!! I really had quite a different opinion on British kids (basically it was they all don't care about work and rather play footy/drink all the time, obviously very untrue!) , but this forum has really opened my eyes! I really wish I survive!!

And that is true, someone is always at the top, doesn't matter where you are!! And btw... whats the difference between a 1st and a starred 1st? Is the latter like an A* compared to an A? Only analogy I could think of

Sort of. Except a starred First is an extreme accolade. There isn't one person in every year who gets it.

Wow... that is pretty amazing... Is that like 95% in your exams are what? And getting that in Oxford!

Brill stuff...

Only Cambridge has them. Oxford has something else, but I can't remember what its called.

I don't know what the requirements are. I know Oxford don't give anyone above 80 in essay subjects under the theory that only God could write a full marks essay, your tutor could write a 90 per cent one and a post grad could get 85 , so the maximum an undergraduate could get is 80.

SOMEONE has to be top. Why are you so sure its not him? The best guy in my school consistently gets starred Firsts at Cambridge. He left school top, and he continued to be there.

Oxford has something else, but I can't remember what its called.

A 'Congratulatory First', I think.

I heard congratulatory viva, but I could be wrong.

Being a small fish in a big pond is character building. Struggle builds character.

To quote someone I knew at school (who is, incidentally, now at Oxford), "When people say 'character-building' what they mean is HELL."

I think that's part of it, i.e. the candidate is called in for a viva and given a standing ovation or something. All sounds terribly fun.

My parents and teachers warned me as well about damage to my ego from being a "small fish" and although I'm sure there's something to what they're saying, I'm confident enough to suspect I have at least a chance of being at the top when I arrive at Oxford if I put forth my absolute best effort. I see it as a better attitude to take than the attitude of it being absolutely impossible to reach the top, and if I have my ego checked by failure, I'll at least have better marks and more of an education than if I coasted by thinking "average" was the best I could do.

At the end of the day, someone has to be the best. It's true, the people who are "only" average at Oxbridge performed just as well as any of the entering applicants, but the very top students at Oxbridge were also applicants indistinguishable from the others. To steal a phrase from my favorite Presidential candidate, I have the "Audacity to Hope."

Crazy results!!! 18 APs? How on earth did you do all of that? Hmm... Perhaps you don't need to worry as much about being a small fish as other people? Did you apply for a deffered entry?

Normal entry, Normal schedule.
8 APs Junior year, 10 APs Senior Year (this year). It's not really an increase over last year as my Latin was solid enough upon entering senior year. Many of the APs are interrelated and someone with background knowledge of a subject can do well by simply studying exam prep books.

My parents and teachers warned me as well about damage to my ego from being a "small fish" and although I'm sure there's something to what they're saying, I'm confident enough to suspect I have at least a chance of being at the top when I arrive at Oxford if I put forth my absolute best effort. I see it as a better attitude to take than the attitude of it being absolutely impossible to reach the top, and if I have my ego checked by failure, I'll at least have better marks and more of an education than if I coasted by thinking "average" was the best I could do.

At the end of the day, someone has to be the best. It's true, the people who are "only" average at Oxbridge performed just as well as any of the entering applicants, but the very top students at Oxbridge were also applicants indistinguishable from the others. To steal a phrase from my favorite Presidential candidate, I have the "Audacity to Hope."

I disagree with this. One of my friends at Oxford consistently gets Firsts but he still isn't the best. He works for 16 hours a day and his feedback from his interview was positively gushing saying he was one of the best candidates they'd seen in years, and someone entering our college this year was described as a "superstar" while I got "performed well all round and particularly well on the LNAT" and will have to work for a 2.1. The people who are really at the top are noticeably better even at interview stage.

They say that much after the interview? He must have been brill... Law as well?