Oxford offers have been received by a large proportion of candidates now, and obviously congratulations are extended to those holding offers. However, is it me, or does the whole process seem to be not as successful in identifying the best as it may be hoped?
When I started considering an application to Oxbridge, I truly believed that I was dealing with institutions which wanted to get the best students. I passionately believed them when they said that whichever college I applied to, if I was good enough I would be found- even if my first choice college couldn't offer me a place. I believed them when they said every aspect of my application would be carefully considered, and that they would place everything I had achieved into its rightful context. Even more than that, I believed that the objective of interviews was to provide a fair playing field for all, and that interviewers would look past rehearsed responses and find the real you.
I believed all this, and became caught up in the excitement of Oxbridge. I dreamed of Ivory Towers and places were excellence was celebrated and academic achievement pushed and propelled to higher levels.
Yet, I now feel completely conned. I know my decision from Cam [rejection], but I feel I will never be able to gain closure from it because my interview was so appallingly set up- there was no scope for me to show my ability to construct an argument. Worse, I have found out from various sources, that many candidates knew exactly what to expect through ex-pupils of their school currently at the college. This situation has been commonly identified by many I have spoke to.
So my questions to the people ofTSR, are:
Does Oxbridge identify the best students?
Is the admissions process fair?
Do you feel that you have been treated fairly by Oxford/Cambridge?