CMV: One should be allowed to apply to both Oxford and Camrbdige for undergrad
Poll
Do you agree with my view?
CMV (if you have this view; otherwise, a reply of agreement would be much appreciated to reinforce the point): "one should have the optionality to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge for one's undergraduate degree.
UCAS's decision to force you to select one or the other is entirely arbitrary without any reasonable justification. Your life is on the line.
A sample size of 1 lends itself to an extremely considerable luck factor in the interview process. Hell, even a hypothetical sample size of 2 with both Oxford and Cambridge is very low and reduces that factor by the square root of 2 (mathematical approximation as IID is not a reasonable assumption). In the US, it is common for elite students to apply to approximately a dozen top universities to reduce the standard error of luck in undergraduate admissions.
Gaining admissions to either Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate will result in a much better life perpetually until death. I am 33 and can attest empirically to this fact. Status as an Oxbridge alumnus is perpetual and relevant decades after graduation. Again, we are speaking life or death.
In my case, I attended Cambridge for my undergraduate studies, initially as a CompSci in the 1st year and a Physical NatSci in the 2nd and 3rd years. I achieved 2:1/1st/1st. I then attended Oxford for my Master's to gain the "double crown". I did not apply to a Cambridge Master's because I already had the Cambridge brand, notwithstanding I could have stayed on for a 4th year if I wanted to for an integrated Cambridge Master's.
In my UCAS form, I only applied to Cambridge. I would rather not attend university than attend a non-Oxbridge UK university. Fortunately, I was lucky and was admitted. Had I been rejected, I would have reapplied the next year and the algorithm is recursive in that each reapplication is for a less selective course in a less selective college until the algorithm ends up with Land Economy at Girton. In my case, I do not doubt I would have any problems gaining admission to Land Economy at Girton. My plan (1, ∞] would be to apply to HYPS + MIT + Caltech in the US concurrently (I am American and went to a British international secondary school).
While I had top UMS scores (including a 100%), so do the vast majority of people who apply. I will admit that I was lucky in the interview process in that I interviewed abroad and the interviewers were strapped for time alongside easier competition. I quickly developed rapport with the interviewers with jokes and they low-balled me with two nearly identical mathematical questions, with the interview spanning only one hour. On another day with a different set of circumstances, I could have very well been rejected.
As a former Master's student at Oxford, the caliber of Master's students is considerably lower than that of my undergraduate cohort, with the degrees being significantly less selective (and you can apply to both, as you should!). There were plenty of Oxbridge rejects who did a Master's at Oxbridge to have the Oxbridge name on the CV. I do not consider Master's-only Oxbridge alumni to be Oxbridge alumni.
If the ability to process almost double the number of applications is a problem, money solves everything in life. One and the best solution would be to increase the application fee by whatever threshold amount required and use that money to manage the increased required throughput.
Because of the central limit theorem, inter alia, lopsidedness risk resulting from a preference for either Oxford or Cambridge for people who are accepted into both is negligible. Oxford and Cambridge are equally desirable and therefore should have hypothetically comparable cross-yields to the point of negligible difference.
To caveat, this post is not satire. The points may come across as overly elitist and dramatic, but given my life experiences to date at 33, again, I can attest to the gravity of the situation. Further, we are in an Oxbridge forum.
Summarizing, we need reform and that reform is a trivial algorithm. And to quote ABBA, "I love the feeling in the air. My kind of people everywhere."
Enjoy!
UCAS's decision to force you to select one or the other is entirely arbitrary without any reasonable justification. Your life is on the line.
A sample size of 1 lends itself to an extremely considerable luck factor in the interview process. Hell, even a hypothetical sample size of 2 with both Oxford and Cambridge is very low and reduces that factor by the square root of 2 (mathematical approximation as IID is not a reasonable assumption). In the US, it is common for elite students to apply to approximately a dozen top universities to reduce the standard error of luck in undergraduate admissions.
Gaining admissions to either Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate will result in a much better life perpetually until death. I am 33 and can attest empirically to this fact. Status as an Oxbridge alumnus is perpetual and relevant decades after graduation. Again, we are speaking life or death.
In my case, I attended Cambridge for my undergraduate studies, initially as a CompSci in the 1st year and a Physical NatSci in the 2nd and 3rd years. I achieved 2:1/1st/1st. I then attended Oxford for my Master's to gain the "double crown". I did not apply to a Cambridge Master's because I already had the Cambridge brand, notwithstanding I could have stayed on for a 4th year if I wanted to for an integrated Cambridge Master's.
In my UCAS form, I only applied to Cambridge. I would rather not attend university than attend a non-Oxbridge UK university. Fortunately, I was lucky and was admitted. Had I been rejected, I would have reapplied the next year and the algorithm is recursive in that each reapplication is for a less selective course in a less selective college until the algorithm ends up with Land Economy at Girton. In my case, I do not doubt I would have any problems gaining admission to Land Economy at Girton. My plan (1, ∞] would be to apply to HYPS + MIT + Caltech in the US concurrently (I am American and went to a British international secondary school).
While I had top UMS scores (including a 100%), so do the vast majority of people who apply. I will admit that I was lucky in the interview process in that I interviewed abroad and the interviewers were strapped for time alongside easier competition. I quickly developed rapport with the interviewers with jokes and they low-balled me with two nearly identical mathematical questions, with the interview spanning only one hour. On another day with a different set of circumstances, I could have very well been rejected.
As a former Master's student at Oxford, the caliber of Master's students is considerably lower than that of my undergraduate cohort, with the degrees being significantly less selective (and you can apply to both, as you should!). There were plenty of Oxbridge rejects who did a Master's at Oxbridge to have the Oxbridge name on the CV. I do not consider Master's-only Oxbridge alumni to be Oxbridge alumni.
If the ability to process almost double the number of applications is a problem, money solves everything in life. One and the best solution would be to increase the application fee by whatever threshold amount required and use that money to manage the increased required throughput.
Because of the central limit theorem, inter alia, lopsidedness risk resulting from a preference for either Oxford or Cambridge for people who are accepted into both is negligible. Oxford and Cambridge are equally desirable and therefore should have hypothetically comparable cross-yields to the point of negligible difference.
To caveat, this post is not satire. The points may come across as overly elitist and dramatic, but given my life experiences to date at 33, again, I can attest to the gravity of the situation. Further, we are in an Oxbridge forum.
Summarizing, we need reform and that reform is a trivial algorithm. And to quote ABBA, "I love the feeling in the air. My kind of people everywhere."
Enjoy!
Reply 1
It is daft to suggest that going to Oxford or Cambridge is a matter of life and death. Studying at either Oxford or Cambridge is a very worthwhile thing to do (mainly for reasons which have nothing to do with jobs, money, or status). Studying at Oxford has enhanced my life immeasurably, and continues to do so. But a person can have a great life without studying at either of those universities, or indeed at any university at all.
The cult of Oxbridge is absurd. The Daily Telegraph has persuaded the middle classes that there are only two good universities in the UK. In fact, there are lots of good universities in the UK (and some bad ones, of course).
If candidates could apply to each of Oxford and Cambridge, the admission processes would become more difficult to manage, as most candidates would probably try their luck at both universities. Candidates would double their stress and angst levels. Weaker candidates would waste two UCAS slots instead of one.
The cult of Oxbridge is absurd. The Daily Telegraph has persuaded the middle classes that there are only two good universities in the UK. In fact, there are lots of good universities in the UK (and some bad ones, of course).
If candidates could apply to each of Oxford and Cambridge, the admission processes would become more difficult to manage, as most candidates would probably try their luck at both universities. Candidates would double their stress and angst levels. Weaker candidates would waste two UCAS slots instead of one.
(edited 10 months ago)
Reply 2
I add that your snobbery about postgraduate students is ridiculous. They are members of the university. Some people rejected by Oxford and Cambridge at undergraduate entry go on to be Fellows of colleges at those universities later in their careers.
Also, you are out of date. Land Economy at Girton isn't quite the doddle that it once was.
Also, you are out of date. Land Economy at Girton isn't quite the doddle that it once was.
(edited 10 months ago)
Reply 3
PS: Increasing the application fee would not be a good idea. The universities rightly aim to promote socio-economic inclusion.
In any event, throwing money at something doesn't automatically solve a problem. Oxbridge admissions are dealt with by the academic staff, and they are busy people. More money doesn't give them more time. Oxbridge Dons like carefully to choose the undergraduates whom they will teach. The process isn't automated or handled by non-academic staff.
In any event, throwing money at something doesn't automatically solve a problem. Oxbridge admissions are dealt with by the academic staff, and they are busy people. More money doesn't give them more time. Oxbridge Dons like carefully to choose the undergraduates whom they will teach. The process isn't automated or handled by non-academic staff.
Doubling the workload of the already expensive and staff-hour intensive admissions process at Oxford and Cambridge, when students can only accept one offer anyway as a firm offer, just to "spare" students from having to make an informed decision about the differences in the courses between the two (which even for the same subject can be significant) to enable them to just blindly apply to both seems completely pointless.
Reply 5
Original post by oxbridgeorbust
CMV (if you have this view; otherwise, a reply of agreement would be much appreciated to reinforce the point): "one should have the optionality to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge for one's undergraduate degree.
UCAS's decision to force you to select one or the other is entirely arbitrary without any reasonable justification. Your life is on the line.
A sample size of 1 lends itself to an extremely considerable luck factor in the interview process. Hell, even a hypothetical sample size of 2 with both Oxford and Cambridge is very low and reduces that factor by the square root of 2 (mathematical approximation as IID is not a reasonable assumption). In the US, it is common for elite students to apply to approximately a dozen top universities to reduce the standard error of luck in undergraduate admissions.
Gaining admissions to either Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate will result in a much better life perpetually until death. I am 33 and can attest empirically to this fact. Status as an Oxbridge alumnus is perpetual and relevant decades after graduation. Again, we are speaking life or death.
In my case, I attended Cambridge for my undergraduate studies, initially as a CompSci in the 1st year and a Physical NatSci in the 2nd and 3rd years. I achieved 2:1/1st/1st. I then attended Oxford for my Master's to gain the "double crown". I did not apply to a Cambridge Master's because I already had the Cambridge brand, notwithstanding I could have stayed on for a 4th year if I wanted to for an integrated Cambridge Master's.
In my UCAS form, I only applied to Cambridge. I would rather not attend university than attend a non-Oxbridge UK university. Fortunately, I was lucky and was admitted. Had I been rejected, I would have reapplied the next year and the algorithm is recursive in that each reapplication is for a less selective course in a less selective college until the algorithm ends up with Land Economy at Girton. In my case, I do not doubt I would have any problems gaining admission to Land Economy at Girton. My plan (1, ∞] would be to apply to HYPS + MIT + Caltech in the US concurrently (I am American and went to a British international secondary school).
While I had top UMS scores (including a 100%), so do the vast majority of people who apply. I will admit that I was lucky in the interview process in that I interviewed abroad and the interviewers were strapped for time alongside easier competition. I quickly developed rapport with the interviewers with jokes and they low-balled me with two nearly identical mathematical questions, with the interview spanning only one hour. On another day with a different set of circumstances, I could have very well been rejected.
As a former Master's student at Oxford, the caliber of Master's students is considerably lower than that of my undergraduate cohort, with the degrees being significantly less selective (and you can apply to both, as you should!). There were plenty of Oxbridge rejects who did a Master's at Oxbridge to have the Oxbridge name on the CV. I do not consider Master's-only Oxbridge alumni to be Oxbridge alumni.
If the ability to process almost double the number of applications is a problem, money solves everything in life. One and the best solution would be to increase the application fee by whatever threshold amount required and use that money to manage the increased required throughput.
Because of the central limit theorem, inter alia, lopsidedness risk resulting from a preference for either Oxford or Cambridge for people who are accepted into both is negligible. Oxford and Cambridge are equally desirable and therefore should have hypothetically comparable cross-yields to the point of negligible difference.
To caveat, this post is not satire. The points may come across as overly elitist and dramatic, but given my life experiences to date at 33, again, I can attest to the gravity of the situation. Further, we are in an Oxbridge forum.
Summarizing, we need reform and that reform is a trivial algorithm. And to quote ABBA, "I love the feeling in the air. My kind of people everywhere."
Enjoy!
UCAS's decision to force you to select one or the other is entirely arbitrary without any reasonable justification. Your life is on the line.
A sample size of 1 lends itself to an extremely considerable luck factor in the interview process. Hell, even a hypothetical sample size of 2 with both Oxford and Cambridge is very low and reduces that factor by the square root of 2 (mathematical approximation as IID is not a reasonable assumption). In the US, it is common for elite students to apply to approximately a dozen top universities to reduce the standard error of luck in undergraduate admissions.
Gaining admissions to either Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate will result in a much better life perpetually until death. I am 33 and can attest empirically to this fact. Status as an Oxbridge alumnus is perpetual and relevant decades after graduation. Again, we are speaking life or death.
In my case, I attended Cambridge for my undergraduate studies, initially as a CompSci in the 1st year and a Physical NatSci in the 2nd and 3rd years. I achieved 2:1/1st/1st. I then attended Oxford for my Master's to gain the "double crown". I did not apply to a Cambridge Master's because I already had the Cambridge brand, notwithstanding I could have stayed on for a 4th year if I wanted to for an integrated Cambridge Master's.
In my UCAS form, I only applied to Cambridge. I would rather not attend university than attend a non-Oxbridge UK university. Fortunately, I was lucky and was admitted. Had I been rejected, I would have reapplied the next year and the algorithm is recursive in that each reapplication is for a less selective course in a less selective college until the algorithm ends up with Land Economy at Girton. In my case, I do not doubt I would have any problems gaining admission to Land Economy at Girton. My plan (1, ∞] would be to apply to HYPS + MIT + Caltech in the US concurrently (I am American and went to a British international secondary school).
While I had top UMS scores (including a 100%), so do the vast majority of people who apply. I will admit that I was lucky in the interview process in that I interviewed abroad and the interviewers were strapped for time alongside easier competition. I quickly developed rapport with the interviewers with jokes and they low-balled me with two nearly identical mathematical questions, with the interview spanning only one hour. On another day with a different set of circumstances, I could have very well been rejected.
As a former Master's student at Oxford, the caliber of Master's students is considerably lower than that of my undergraduate cohort, with the degrees being significantly less selective (and you can apply to both, as you should!). There were plenty of Oxbridge rejects who did a Master's at Oxbridge to have the Oxbridge name on the CV. I do not consider Master's-only Oxbridge alumni to be Oxbridge alumni.
If the ability to process almost double the number of applications is a problem, money solves everything in life. One and the best solution would be to increase the application fee by whatever threshold amount required and use that money to manage the increased required throughput.
Because of the central limit theorem, inter alia, lopsidedness risk resulting from a preference for either Oxford or Cambridge for people who are accepted into both is negligible. Oxford and Cambridge are equally desirable and therefore should have hypothetically comparable cross-yields to the point of negligible difference.
To caveat, this post is not satire. The points may come across as overly elitist and dramatic, but given my life experiences to date at 33, again, I can attest to the gravity of the situation. Further, we are in an Oxbridge forum.
Summarizing, we need reform and that reform is a trivial algorithm. And to quote ABBA, "I love the feeling in the air. My kind of people everywhere."
Enjoy!
A lot of UK-based students apply to the "needs blind" universities and colleges in America!!! 🙂
I will apply for Spanish if I don't get into Oxford.
•
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
•
Harvard University.
•
Princeton University.
•
Yale University.
•
Georgetown University.
•
Dartmouth College.
•
Bowdoin College.
•
Amherst College.
•
Brown University.
Hardly anybody studies a language?! 😧
(edited 10 months ago)
Reply 6
I must admit that I stopped reading at “Gaining admissions to either Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate will result in a much better life perpetually until death”.
Original post by oxbridgeorbust
CMV (if you have this view; otherwise, a reply of agreement would be much appreciated to reinforce the point): "one should have the optionality to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge for one's undergraduate degree.
UCAS's decision to force you to select one or the other is entirely arbitrary without any reasonable justification. Your life is on the line.
A sample size of 1 lends itself to an extremely considerable luck factor in the interview process. Hell, even a hypothetical sample size of 2 with both Oxford and Cambridge is very low and reduces that factor by the square root of 2 (mathematical approximation as IID is not a reasonable assumption). In the US, it is common for elite students to apply to approximately a dozen top universities to reduce the standard error of luck in undergraduate admissions.
Gaining admissions to either Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate will result in a much better life perpetually until death. I am 33 and can attest empirically to this fact. Status as an Oxbridge alumnus is perpetual and relevant decades after graduation. Again, we are speaking life or death.
In my case, I attended Cambridge for my undergraduate studies, initially as a CompSci in the 1st year and a Physical NatSci in the 2nd and 3rd years. I achieved 2:1/1st/1st. I then attended Oxford for my Master's to gain the "double crown". I did not apply to a Cambridge Master's because I already had the Cambridge brand, notwithstanding I could have stayed on for a 4th year if I wanted to for an integrated Cambridge Master's.
In my UCAS form, I only applied to Cambridge. I would rather not attend university than attend a non-Oxbridge UK university. Fortunately, I was lucky and was admitted. Had I been rejected, I would have reapplied the next year and the algorithm is recursive in that each reapplication is for a less selective course in a less selective college until the algorithm ends up with Land Economy at Girton. In my case, I do not doubt I would have any problems gaining admission to Land Economy at Girton. My plan (1, ∞] would be to apply to HYPS + MIT + Caltech in the US concurrently (I am American and went to a British international secondary school).
While I had top UMS scores (including a 100%), so do the vast majority of people who apply. I will admit that I was lucky in the interview process in that I interviewed abroad and the interviewers were strapped for time alongside easier competition. I quickly developed rapport with the interviewers with jokes and they low-balled me with two nearly identical mathematical questions, with the interview spanning only one hour. On another day with a different set of circumstances, I could have very well been rejected.
As a former Master's student at Oxford, the caliber of Master's students is considerably lower than that of my undergraduate cohort, with the degrees being significantly less selective (and you can apply to both, as you should!). There were plenty of Oxbridge rejects who did a Master's at Oxbridge to have the Oxbridge name on the CV. I do not consider Master's-only Oxbridge alumni to be Oxbridge alumni.
If the ability to process almost double the number of applications is a problem, money solves everything in life. One and the best solution would be to increase the application fee by whatever threshold amount required and use that money to manage the increased required throughput.
Because of the central limit theorem, inter alia, lopsidedness risk resulting from a preference for either Oxford or Cambridge for people who are accepted into both is negligible. Oxford and Cambridge are equally desirable and therefore should have hypothetically comparable cross-yields to the point of negligible difference.
To caveat, this post is not satire. The points may come across as overly elitist and dramatic, but given my life experiences to date at 33, again, I can attest to the gravity of the situation. Further, we are in an Oxbridge forum.
Summarizing, we need reform and that reform is a trivial algorithm. And to quote ABBA, "I love the feeling in the air. My kind of people everywhere."
Enjoy!
UCAS's decision to force you to select one or the other is entirely arbitrary without any reasonable justification. Your life is on the line.
A sample size of 1 lends itself to an extremely considerable luck factor in the interview process. Hell, even a hypothetical sample size of 2 with both Oxford and Cambridge is very low and reduces that factor by the square root of 2 (mathematical approximation as IID is not a reasonable assumption). In the US, it is common for elite students to apply to approximately a dozen top universities to reduce the standard error of luck in undergraduate admissions.
Gaining admissions to either Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate will result in a much better life perpetually until death. I am 33 and can attest empirically to this fact. Status as an Oxbridge alumnus is perpetual and relevant decades after graduation. Again, we are speaking life or death.
In my case, I attended Cambridge for my undergraduate studies, initially as a CompSci in the 1st year and a Physical NatSci in the 2nd and 3rd years. I achieved 2:1/1st/1st. I then attended Oxford for my Master's to gain the "double crown". I did not apply to a Cambridge Master's because I already had the Cambridge brand, notwithstanding I could have stayed on for a 4th year if I wanted to for an integrated Cambridge Master's.
In my UCAS form, I only applied to Cambridge. I would rather not attend university than attend a non-Oxbridge UK university. Fortunately, I was lucky and was admitted. Had I been rejected, I would have reapplied the next year and the algorithm is recursive in that each reapplication is for a less selective course in a less selective college until the algorithm ends up with Land Economy at Girton. In my case, I do not doubt I would have any problems gaining admission to Land Economy at Girton. My plan (1, ∞] would be to apply to HYPS + MIT + Caltech in the US concurrently (I am American and went to a British international secondary school).
While I had top UMS scores (including a 100%), so do the vast majority of people who apply. I will admit that I was lucky in the interview process in that I interviewed abroad and the interviewers were strapped for time alongside easier competition. I quickly developed rapport with the interviewers with jokes and they low-balled me with two nearly identical mathematical questions, with the interview spanning only one hour. On another day with a different set of circumstances, I could have very well been rejected.
As a former Master's student at Oxford, the caliber of Master's students is considerably lower than that of my undergraduate cohort, with the degrees being significantly less selective (and you can apply to both, as you should!). There were plenty of Oxbridge rejects who did a Master's at Oxbridge to have the Oxbridge name on the CV. I do not consider Master's-only Oxbridge alumni to be Oxbridge alumni.
If the ability to process almost double the number of applications is a problem, money solves everything in life. One and the best solution would be to increase the application fee by whatever threshold amount required and use that money to manage the increased required throughput.
Because of the central limit theorem, inter alia, lopsidedness risk resulting from a preference for either Oxford or Cambridge for people who are accepted into both is negligible. Oxford and Cambridge are equally desirable and therefore should have hypothetically comparable cross-yields to the point of negligible difference.
To caveat, this post is not satire. The points may come across as overly elitist and dramatic, but given my life experiences to date at 33, again, I can attest to the gravity of the situation. Further, we are in an Oxbridge forum.
Summarizing, we need reform and that reform is a trivial algorithm. And to quote ABBA, "I love the feeling in the air. My kind of people everywhere."
Enjoy!
The issue isn't the cost of processing twice as many applications as otherwise, it's that many candidates would apply to both so all that would happen is the strong applicants get split between the two.
Cambridge and Oxford currently only slightly over-offer as they know most applicants who get an offer, especially home students, end up accepting it. If applicants could apply to both, all that would happen in that they would have to give out far more offers as applicants would be split. They wouldn't suddenly have more places if candidates could apply to both so it wouldn't mean more people would go.
Also Oxbridge is not the be all and end all.
Reply 8
Reply 9
My thoughts:
-If your username isn't a joke that's seriously worrying for a 33 year old.
-"Your life is on the line." No, if you really think this way you don't have a life at all and should worry about getting one.
-There is a lot of luck involved into getting into top universities, yes (especially for oversubscribed courses like computer science). But it's not only an Oxbridge thing.
-It's funny you mention the system of applying to lots of unis in the US as if that's a better alternative. If anything, the significantly lower admissions rates further exacerbate the issue of luck in the application system.
-The "much better life" thing is frankly a joke. I doubt your life is that great if you're posting these kinds of things online.
-You not considering any non-Oxbridge UK uni worth attending is laughable considering some of them are at the same level when it comes to both educational quality and graduate outcomes (with some universities even outclassing them in certain areas).
-A lot of the professors at Oxbridge didn't even attend Oxbridge for undergrad. I wonder how you feel about being taught by them.
-You are correct that the points come across as dramatic and elitist, because they are.
<3
-If your username isn't a joke that's seriously worrying for a 33 year old.
-"Your life is on the line." No, if you really think this way you don't have a life at all and should worry about getting one.
-There is a lot of luck involved into getting into top universities, yes (especially for oversubscribed courses like computer science). But it's not only an Oxbridge thing.
-It's funny you mention the system of applying to lots of unis in the US as if that's a better alternative. If anything, the significantly lower admissions rates further exacerbate the issue of luck in the application system.
-The "much better life" thing is frankly a joke. I doubt your life is that great if you're posting these kinds of things online.
-You not considering any non-Oxbridge UK uni worth attending is laughable considering some of them are at the same level when it comes to both educational quality and graduate outcomes (with some universities even outclassing them in certain areas).
-A lot of the professors at Oxbridge didn't even attend Oxbridge for undergrad. I wonder how you feel about being taught by them.
-You are correct that the points come across as dramatic and elitist, because they are.
<3
Reply 10
14
So let me get this straight
You want to apply for 2 unis that are ridiculously hard to get into, both which have very long-winded and strenous application process and could potentially reject you despite you being a good candidate leaving you with only 3 options left?
I don't know but that sounds kind of ignorant to me
You want to apply for 2 unis that are ridiculously hard to get into, both which have very long-winded and strenous application process and could potentially reject you despite you being a good candidate leaving you with only 3 options left?
I don't know but that sounds kind of ignorant to me
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- English Lit at Uni (Oxbridge)
- Part time jobs at Oxbridge
- Where should International student apply - GEM?
- oxford senior status application
- Oxford or Cambridge best in uk for law? Direct answers if possible.
- Oxford or Cambridge graduate entry medicine?
- Advice for Oxbridge Foundation Year
- physics (undergrad) at oxford!!!
- Have an offer but want to apply to oxford
- Biology PhD at Oxford with 2:1 and Merit
- HELP!! International student applying to biochem or nat. sci or chem
- Oxford or Cambridge for medical school?
- ppe vs law
- Has anyone gotten into Oxbridge with a 2:2 & High Masters?
- Desperate to Study Physics at Oxford
- Getting into Oxbridge for Postgraduate Study
- choosing what to do after undergraduate degree?
- Law Conversion Routes
- Commuting to Cambridge University?
- Cambridge law - do I have a chance
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
Astrophoria Oxford Foundation Year 2025(Official Thread)University of Oxford
69
1014
Last reply 1 month ago
Is it possible to Reapply to Oxford after being rejected?Last reply 2 months ago
St. John's College, Oxford should be the most popular?
