how can I fulfill my dream of going to Cambridge?

I assume you mean 'divulging'...

I read that the average now is 6A*. Personally, I'm a little skeptical about this. But I think it's Cambridge themselves that wrote it somewhere. I can't recall where though; be it a prospectus, website, whatever.

Well the average is the same now as it was a few years ago, then, because it was definitely 6A* when I applied in 2006 for 2007 entry.

For someone who harps on about only talking about subjects you know, that line was somewhat hypocritical.

Medics do not need a lot of work experience. They need to do enough to show that they understand what they are getting themselves in for. In itself that does not take a lot of time, it could easily be accomplished in just a couple of days shadowing.

The difference is that a lot of medics want to do more work experience, because they find it fulfilling and get a lot out of it. Hence a lot of medics have a lot of work experience, but it isn't something they need.

Well said. Funny thing is he knows **** all about maths admissions either. There should be some rule stopping people who only have offers from talking with any sort of authority about admissions.

Well, uh, they should know about admissions processes, having played the game and won.

How much do they know about admissions in their subject from a couple of half hour interviews. All they really know is that they got an offer. They know **** all about what admissions tutors are looking for or what you need to do/say/look like to get in to Cambridge. People actually at Cambridge have a slightly better idea since they know a larger sample of people who got into Cambridge.

Besides, having an offer in Maths scarcely constitutes winning at admissions. All it means is you haven't lost at interviews.

Pedantry, and depends on how you view it - 'winning, or not losing'

I think he was actually factoring in STEP, as well.

Well said. Funny thing is he knows **** all about maths admissions either. There should be some rule stopping people who only have offers from talking with any sort of authority about admissions.

People at Cambridge know more than those who have got an offer, but those with an offer are not stupid. They know what they have been told by their school, by the tutors, by the website, and the experiences of the actual interview.

I agree it can be the same for actual students, but hopefully we're less likely to confuse 'successful applicants in general' and 'ourselves' since we tend to know many more people who've been successful in the admissions process.

(P.S. Even if you don't think you're stupid now, I guarantee you will after six months of Oxford :P)

Sorry but I don't really think there's that much difference between offer-holders and students. I don't think time at University necessarily improves your knowledge about the system. In some cases people will have chatted to Fellows or senior department members in some social context and have learnt some useful facts, but probably not have gained any drastically increased knowledge. Particularly as nobody cares about it anymore once they're here, nor do they really discuss it. I won't go mentioning any names, but myself and a few others have had arguments with current students in the Oxbridge forum about a detail that the person obviously had a strong bias about. Access helpers, sure. But frankly I think none of us really know much at all. As you say, most of the important info is public domain. Its mostly about trying to bash people's heads against a wall long enough for them to believe the University-sourced information rather than urban legend

I completely agree. I don't think we all learn the secret formula for getting into Oxbridge or anything. Just we're hopefully less likely to give advice that is actually wrong. I just get annoyed by people who've just received an offer lecturing applicants on what Oxbridge is looking for.