Oxford Snobbery(Part 2) - The Other Side Of The Coin

I've come to the conclusion that broadsheets love stirring things about Oxbridge. Do they really have nothing more important to write about?

No offense, but you talk a lot of crap yourself regarding the oxbridge issues. Whenever you hear of someone getting rejected, you automatically come out with "it simply because they weren't good enough", which is complete nonsense.

Well, why else would people be rejected? With the sheer numbers of straight A students applying to Oxbridge, they obviously have to reject a lot of candidates who are very able, but not as good as other candidates. I just think when people are rejected, they should accept it and move on, not slag off the unis and cry 'elitism'. It's just pathetic and childish.

They were rejected because there is heaps of great candidates, so not everybody can get in! You simply have some crazy idea that every candidate rejected was not good enough; you don't realise, despite the phrase "lottery", that it's not just about ability, but lucky plays a part for a lot of candidates. What's also pathetic and childish is the way you brand people who were rejected as not good enough, every single time you come across the subject. A lot of people who were rejected were good enough, and a lot re-apply 2nd time round, get in, and even get firsts.

My letter told me I was a very good applicant who was close to an offer and considered good enough for a place; but I didn't get one. Doesn't mean I wasn't good enough, does it?

Guys, have you read the entire article? It's actually a rather well-written, balanced piece IMO. Thanks yeep.

Sometimes tells me that u might be a bit bitter. And forgive me for being blunt but obviously u werent good enough , because if u were u wud have an offer. That does make u stupid- far from- it just means u werent up to oxbridge standard- theres nothing wrobng with that and still means ure a good candidate

It is a good piece...it's just slightly pointless as it doesn't reveal anything that everyone didn't already know.

They were rejected because there is heaps of great candidates, so not everybody can get in! You simply have some crazy idea that every candidate rejected was not good enough; you don't realise, despite the phrase "lottery", that it's not just about ability, but lucky plays a part for a lot of candidates. What's also pathetic and childish is the way you brand people who were rejected as not good enough, every single time you come across the subject. A lot of people who were rejected were good enough, and a lot re-apply 2nd time round, get in, and even get firsts.

My letter told me I was a very good applicant who was close to an offer and considered good enough for a place; but I didn't get one. Doesn't mean I wasn't good enough, does it?

Sometimes tells me that u might be a bit bitter. And forgive me for being blunt but obviously u werent good enough , because if u were u wud have an offer. That does make u stupid- far from- it just means u werent up to oxbridge standard- theres nothing wrobng with that and still means ure a good candidate

The reason a lot of people get in second time around could be because less people applied that year to that college for that subject, so in that respect it is slightly down to luck, but the fact still remanins that the candidates who are rejected are not as good in comparison to those who get accepted.

Ah ha, I had a feeling you might be a bitter rejectee! Your letter proves that you were a strong candidate and that if there had been more places available, you might have got an offer; but the fact that you were rejected shows that you weren't quite good enough compared with the other applicants.

Not exactly. It depends on what you consider a 'better candidate'. I'm sure that Oxbridge admissions tutors do have a criteria in their minds for what a succesful candidate should be like - but not for the life of most people can anyone seem to understand what this is. If you don't believe that admissions tutors have made some very strange decisions in the past, then you've simply got your eyes shut. This problem exists particularily regarding very competitive subjects like Law (have a look at the Law forum and you'll see what I mean).

Furthermore, there is ample evidence to suggest that the admissions process at Oxbridge (as well as all other universities) is completely ineffective at selecting the candidates with the potential to do the best. A lot of students from other top Law Schools in the country that were rejected by Oxford and Cambridge go on to achieve much more academcially than what an average 2:1 student at Oxford or Cambridge achieved - even though those average students were deemed 'better' than the top students from other Law Schools.

This is a problem common to all university admissions selections, not just Oxbridge. I'm just trying to prove that any who seriously believes the Oxbridge admissions procedure is effective in selecting the best candidates is talking nonsense.

No offense, but you talk a lot of crap yourself regarding the oxbridge issues. Whenever you hear of someone getting rejected, you automatically come out with "it simply because they weren't good enough", which is complete nonsense.

No, it proves that I wasn't accepted. It doesn't mean that all the decisions are correct. I'm not saying I deserved an offer over someone else who got one, but not for a second do I think that every person who got an offer is better than me. You really do seem naive enough to think that 20mins worth of interview time is fine and all decisions are perfect.

And to Richy Rich - You of all people, got rejected by Bristol and then an offer from Cambridge and then proceed to imply that all decisions are correct and perfect!

And to Kellywood:
The end bit of my letter says:

"We realise that we do make mistakes and that we do not always select those that turn out to be the best Physicists. Which is of course, our aim."

Agreed in that criteria for selection is mysterious, as it isn't something disclosed to the public. You are also right in that many brilliant candidates, for one reason or another, 'slip through the net' when they should have been offered places. However, doesn't the fact that most of the students at Cambridge and Oxford (90.1% and 86.4% respectively according to 2004 assessment by the Times) get Firsts and 2:1s indicate that in most cases, the interviewers DO get it right? Surely if they didn't -on the whole - pick the best candidates, percentages like that would be a lot lower? It's in their interests to get the best remember. They do admit to making mistakes though, as Nima's letter shows us.