Hey. I'm applying for Phys Natsci. I've visited several colleges recently and narrowed down my options to a more manageable but still problematic four (with priorities of accomodation quality, food quality and how close they are to lectures, key sites on campus, facilities etc -- I'm not fussed about alumni, reputation, cost, size or sports facilities):
Those are in order of preference, with King's as top. But I've heard several rumours and I have a couple of questions that I was hoping you could help clear up...
Is it true that King's encourages (i.e. includes as a condition) taking a gap year (particularly Natsci)? I really am not interested in a gap year and would be in a dilemma if I it were necessary for entry.
Is it true that the admission process forces you to take a TSA (Thinking Skills Assessment) (particularly Natsci)? Believe me, I've googled everywhere and found conflicting information, possibly from different matriculation years. It would be nice to know from someone who has recently applied or is behind the scenes on this...
What other assessments and the like differ it from admission to other colleges? Again, I've googled to no avail.
In the end, while it's a hackneyed question: given my priorities and my subject, Phys Natsci, which of those four colleges is suitable for me? Are these rumours about King's true? Is there anything I ought to know about these other colleges that should influence my view? Or was I right in this order of preference?
Thanks in advance!!