Why does Oxbridge do this? Do you know any Students like this?

[janeeire244]

Why are there so many students at Oxbridge who study competitive degrees like law with relatively low A-level grades such as anything below 3A*s but also including AAA or even AAB? Most of these people applied with inflated predicted grades but are let in when they get lower grades than they were predicted either because they still met the really low entry requirements (shockingly Oxford Law is at AAA) or if they miss it and get AAB, they are reprieved?

I don’t even think it’s fair to say that they shone at some other stage of the application process because I know of some students who got relatively low admissions test scores or mediocre GCSEs and got in as well.

This is all the while they reject people with much high admissions test scores or much better grades.

That being said I’ve never heard of anyone who did poorly on the interviews get an offer (poorly by Oxbridge standards not just them thinking they did badly).

Do you know anyone at Oxbridge studying a degree (especially a competitive one like law) with an average admissions test score or below average; or less than 3A*s at A-level?

As for now being on course for three A stars - that’s what you claimed last year when you applied to Cambridge. You haven’t actually got your results yet, so you don’t know for certain if you will get three A stars this time, but I would certainly hope you would do better than last year, having had a whole extra year to prepare and being given more time in the exams this year than most other candidates get, too. So, regardless, it’s hard for you to prove you are more naturally intelligent than people who don’t take more than one bite of the cherry.

“And being given more time than other candidates get”.

I didn’t know that according to you getting extra time is a privilege rather than a legal right.

I have already proved that though with the LNAT exam which as mentioned I scored higher than any Oxbridge applicant has since 2021!

A university's purpose is neither to collect automatons nor to train future leaders. It is to enable students to learn: not just to learn facts, but to learn to think. But universities are not there to 'curate a class of individuals ...who will move the levers of power'; or to select for 'the right personality, the right background, the right connections'..Insofar as Oxbridge has at times produced such individuals (e.g. LT and BJ), Oxbridge has at times failed in what should be its purpose. It is now making far more effort to select on the basis of ability to study and think at a high level, rather than for having or making connections, But, because so many able people are applying to Oxbridge, there are inevitably going to be some highly deserving people who don't get in. Fortunately, there are other excellent universities.

It wasn’t your legal right last year, though, was it. You legally failed to reach the expected standard.

After an extra year’s practice. And you still haven’t achieved three A stars inyour exams.

Part of the issue here is that you are only open to comments that agree with you. Getting 3As does not mean that you are ‘naturally intelligent’. It is unreasonable for anyone to think that Oxford or any other University should make accommodations/reasonable adjustments prior to a diagnosis. This isn’t an Oxford issue, it’s a issue around why your diagnosis was late. The extra time is only a legal right once you have a diagnosis, so unfortunately you weren’t entitled to it at the time. You need to process this and move on.

Maybe the issue that means the OP needs extra time in their exams is their processing speed - a year on and they still haven’t processed it.

I don't understand why OP is still fixated on what happened last time. Unless I'm missing something, she's now got her official diagnosis, so she'll get her extra time, she's on course for better A level results and is applying to Oxford. Surely time to look forward now, not back?!

It seems she thinks Cambridge should have trusted, without any proof, that the only reason she failed to get three A stars was that she was not given extra time in her exams, because she personally believes herself to be more naturally intelligent than everyone else who failed to make the grade - as evidenced by her score, not in an IQ test, but in an LNAT test that she took this year, after she had already been rejected by Cambridge for failing to meet the conditions of its offer. Or maybe she thinks Oxford should be rejecting everyone who fails to meet its grades, despite the fact that is completely irrelevant to her situation, given the fact she didn’t apply to go there.

Oxbridge is suitable for a specific type of person with enough self discipline and intellectual curiosity to manage the high degree of independence required. Grades are a good measure if intellect, but not of temperament. That's what the interview is for - not what you think, but how you think; for example whether you are able to take often minimal guidance to develop your thoughts further.

It wasn’t my legal right because I wasn’t diagnosed yet

Oxbridge really isn't the be all and end all. If you didn't get in, move on and go somewhere else.

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions. Firstly, you are assuming that people with higher exam grades are more intelligent. Not necessarily the case. Secondly, you are assuming that Oxbridge admissions processes are designed to identify the "most intelligent" students. They aren't necessarily looking for the highest IQs, they are trying to identify the students that will respond best to their style of teaching. They don't owe you a place just because you have certain grades.

There are loads of other good universities. Just go somewhere else instead.

If you are so intelligent, how did you not know you needed extra time AND fail to get extra time accomodation approved before the deadline? The others did … but you failed in regard.

Along with lots of other people who haven’t been diagnosed yet, or may never seek a diagnosis. You were judged fairly against the same standards that Cambridge applies to everyone else. You know nothing about the reasons why other candidates failed to make the grades they were predicted, you have simply assessed yourself to be exceptional and appear to expect everyone else to fall into line with your way of thinking. If Oxford and Cambridge are looking for candidates with open minds and flexibility of thought, then Cambridge is lucky you did not get the grades they asked for, because there is little evidence of that ability in the way you are obsessing over this. There are a lot of clever people in the world. They don’t all go to Oxford and Cambridge. Nobody at Oxford or Cambridge is stupid and, given the low drop out rates and excellent reputations of both universities, it seems their methods for choosing which candidates to accept onto their courses are perfectly adequate. Quit the stuck record impression and offer your intelligence up elsewhere.

Having lesser grades does not make someone less intelligent.

Why do you care?

Where are you getting this from?

And given you HAVEN’T applied this year - completely and utterly irrelevant. You can’t take the score over to next UCAS cycle.

Cambridge treated you fairly.

You chose to not apply this year either for the regular application or the foundation year.

Alevel grades are not the perfect indicator of intelligence you think they are. Everyone who gets into Oxbridge deserves their place, not everyone who deserves a place gets in.

Please, let this go. It is not healthy and you have options and this is becoming an obsession.

You've missed the point. Oxbridge are interested in students who have excelled in an extra-curricular activity while performing very strongly academically.

The ability to excel in an activity that you do purely for enjoyment says a lot about a person's aptitude and motivation, far more so than just achieving high grades.

@janeeire244 What extra curricular are you involved in? I’m a teacher at institution where many students apply for Oxford or Cambridge. This academic year only one student was offered a place despite all students applying with predicted grades of A*s. This is down to many factors - courses they applied to, the college they wanted but in my opinion I feel they most likely bummed the interview and their personal statements do not reflect well rounded individuals. Doing Silver D of E and a week’s work experience in the local care home won’t cut it.

Meh. Oxford & Cambridge don't even do the courses DD1 was interested in, so they didn't get a look in.

Are they? I know at least one current Oxbridge student with bugger all by way of actual hobbies. Just exceptionally clever and a stand out expertise and interest in their subject.

This is only relevant for US universities. I don't think UK universities place any value on extra-curricular activities over and above high grades.

I agree. Supra-curricular seems to be essential but extra-curricular not so much in the UK.

We were specifically told by an admissions tutor at oxbridge that extra curricular activities were great for the person and many bright students enjoy and excel at them but they have no impact on your application, he specifically mentioned DoE and work experience that didn’t demonstrate any value to the subject you’d study. He wanted to see you delve further into the subject you had applied to - that’s all they were interested in. Not that you’d captained the rugby team or climbed to base camp Everest.