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?

I'm concerned that if there's any truth in the OP's posts, Oxford or Cambridge would be a very difficult environment. Hear me out, OP. Although you could request extra time for exams and possibly some leniency in coursework deadlines, the terms will still be as short, intense and overloaded as ever. You can't have 25% extra term granted.

(The snipe about not making sure you were diagnosed in time is unfair. Very few ND teenagers organise their own diagnosis pathway.)

🫠

This is true, at least for Oxford where my son is a first year. Activities & interests outside your academic interests are great but they make no difference to your Oxford application. My son had some tips from a recent Oxford graduate on writing his personal statement and it was literally all about his academic work and demonstrating his level of interest by the stuff he’d done above and beyond his A level syllabus. Doesn’t even have to be anything grand, books they’ve read, podcasts or programmes they’ve listened to, etc- as long as it’s subject related it’s showing your enthusiasm for your subject. My son had nothing on his UCAS personal statement about his other interests.
Honestly, using valuable space to write about hobbies/achievements that have no relation to the course you want to study is just a waste of time. You will just miss your opportunity to stand out from the other hundreds of applicants for that course.

I'm finding it very difficult to follow the content and logic of your narrative, OP.

Is it right that you applied to Cambridge but missed out on your offer due to your A-level results? Which you're now resitting? And at some point you've sat the LNAT - was this as part of an application, so that you completed the LNAT and essay? How did you find out your LNAT MC score?

The Oxford admissions process takes place in December. The vast majority of home applicants do not have A-levels results, as they are still in the final year of school. When you talk about Oxford letting in applicants with 'only' AAA, when there are others with AAA* who have been rejected, you need to recall that the tutors do not have a crystal ball. Applications include predicted A-level results, but there is only so much weight that can be put on these. I also do not think it would be accurate to say that there are lots of students who have been let in despite not making their offer. The vast majority make their offer.

An LNAT of 38 on the multiple choice is extremely high. Your post might suggest that the LNAT MC mark correlates so strongly with academic merit that those with a high LNAT MC score should be let in almost irrespective of interview performance. But that would be to ignore relevant bits of data. There are candidates who 'only' get a 28 but who whose interview performance is extremely strong, and much better than others who achieve higher LNAT scores. When you then look at the entire picture for each candidate – their raw and weighted GCSE scores, the quality of their essay, LNAT marks, etc – you may make that candidate an offer ahead of someone who got a 36 on the MC.

One of the main aims of the interviews is to see how students perform in the Oxford learning environment, which involves a good deal of self-directed learning and participating in tutorials with only one or two other students. There are students with strong GCSEs and strong LNAT marks who struggle to answer basic comprehension questions about the legal text in front of them, or who deal poorly with follow-up questions because their thinking is too rigid, or who bring no enthusiasm to the process. One has to ask whether they would be better off at another excellent law school that runs a more orthodox lecture/seminar programme.

A final point – Oxford is also concerned about socio-economic and other forms of disadvantage. Data about background are used during the application process. This includes weighted GCSEs, which attempt to compare that applicant's performances with others. There are issues with how these scores are developed, but I'd suggest there is something in the argument that if you achieved the best or an extremely high result for your school, then that is relevant information for your university application.

Same for recruitment really. Don't get carried away with hobbies - most employers don't care - in fact we were put off someone whose hobby seemed to be more important to him than work - we wondered how he would cope when a client commitment and a match clashed - we were left feeling the match would be his choice.

They are not interested in extra curricular activities, though. They certainly won’t be asking them about anything not-subject related at interview, that’s if they get invited for one. With Oxford ( I can’t speak for Cambridge) it’s all about your academic ability & love for your subject.

I also wanted to respond to the points on hobbies/activities, work experience, and the like (at least as this relates to an application to read law).

The problem with placing any weight on extra-curricular activities is that this has the potential to advantage those with the wealth and opportunity to undertake those activities. Ditto things like work experience – the applicant whose parent is a barrister or solicitor (or whose parent knows such people) may find it easier to set up such opportunities.

The other issue with personal statements is that they can be written by or with the input of others. The LNAT essay provides a better indicator of the candidate's ability to write (and often reads VERY differently from the personal statement!).

I don't agree with this. I don't think Oxbridge admissions tutors are interested in extra curricular activities. They are interested in aptitude and motivation for the chosen subject, and in a candidate's ability to respond to their rather unique teaching style.

That’s a very good point regarding the ability to pay for and access extra curricular activities, I had never even thought about it from that perspective. As a single mum on a low income whose son was entitled to free school meals for a large part of high school, I didn’t have the money to pay for regular activities like football clubs or gymnastics or whatever. Luckily my son wasn’t interested anyway, and it had no bearing on his getting a place at Oxford. He’s just an ordinary kid who isn’t interested at all in the “prestige” of Oxford. He applied because he really liked what the course there offered after his school took a few of them there for an open day. If he hadn’t got a place there he had offers from other unis that he’d have been happy with. It’s a shame the OP is so fixated on Oxbridge, and on A levels being the be all and end all. With more and more graduate recruitment being conducted “blind” (that is, the recruitment team do not get to see what university the candidate attended) the perceived “prestige” or advantage of having an Oxford degree is diminishing and I think that’s a fairer system.

I would add that Cambridge was full of students with undiagnosed SEN when I was there. Dyslexia, ASD, ADHD etc. Some were identified and diagnosed while they were at uni, others not until years after they left. (I was in the latter category). So lots of them never got extra time or any other adjustments that might have helped them.

It's very common for SEN to be missed in kids who are highly academic because they so often overcompensate in other ways.

Are you an Oxford graduate as if so you are a not a great advert for the place?

Here was me thinking university was about an education, about learni.ng to think, about transcending your default setting. I don't agree that you can only get this type of learning from Oxbridge and those advising the OP that this is the case are just, 'putting the boot in'.

My post before was supposed to quote Verdansk84

Type of learning experience that should read.

Hi, OP - I know you haven’t had not had the easiest life and, IIRC, you have some contextual flags. It isn’t fair but it is far from unique, and the sad fact is that all you can do is move forward.

Presumably you can get that LNAT mark again, or close. This plus A star A star A and a great personal statement would make for a reasonable Oxford application, provided you have not started somewhere else in the meantime (which nullifies the application). You like all Oxbridge applicants need to prepare for rejection. It isn’t personal. It is in the numbers.

Writing as an academic, I am seeing a lot of defensiveness and an inability to take on board thoughts that conflict with your hypothesis. That doesn’t bode well for Oxford, particularly in Law. You are not defending your ideas well, just repeating them. This is not a good interview technique,

OP, I too think you should take one of the options you’ve got. Maybe apply to Oxbridge for a Law Conversion or Master’s later.

Bless you!

Where is your compassion for a young person that is obviously very stressed about this situation.

Agree with PPs OP, intelligence just isn’t like that. Of course there will be a broad correlation between A-level results and intelligence, but it’s absolutely not as simple as “they didn’t get three As so they’re not as intelligent as someone who did”. Extra time is an attempt to help people with various kind of SEN but it’s a blunt instrument given that exams are also affected by how you feel on the day, emotional issues, sleep quality and all kinds of things that don’t get you extra time. And for some people, extra time may not solve their problems, for example if they just find exams stressful or have horrific period pain or whatever.

As I said below I was a wreck at 17-18 and got pretty poor A-level results given my ability. I got into Oxford because their system allowed me to do an entrance exam in only one subject, my best one, and demonstrate critical thinking ability verbally in an interview. Then I got a first from Oxford and have a pretty intellectual career. Can you see that any flat-rate, blanket “exam results = intelligence” view is an oversimplification?

Am I intelligent? It’s hard to say because it’s very hard to measure and there are loads of ways you can be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged in any kind of test or indicator. But if you think exam results reliably indicate intelligence then you can see that would mean I both am and am not, which makes no sense.

Your question in your OP has been answered - it’s because Oxford admissions tutors tend to look for particular qualities which include academic ability, but also critical thinking skills, independent thought, and being a self-starter as you have to manage your own workload. It’s not just about A levels. And that is OK - it’s not wrong to choose someone with a less good A-level score over someone with a higher score, for other reasons, qualities etc.

Oxbridge isn’t the be-all and end-all and neither is going to university at all. Even if you did get in, I can tell you from personal experience that it might not suit you very well. It would be good to see if you can take a step back and ask yourself why it matters so much and what you are aiming for long-term. I absolutely understand the frustration when you feel your abilities aren’t recognised, but ultimately life is about more than jumping through hoops. It’s harder to see that when you’re young and academic, and much easier to see it when you’re looking back on it.

Your attitude is not one Oxford would want so I’m not surprised you didn’t get an offer. Get over yourself.

I disagree. Oxford has very little interest in extra curriculars unless they relate directly to your degree. There was a time when it was said that at interview for Teddy Hall, they would chuck a rugby ball at candidates. If you caught it you got in, if you passed it back you got a scholarship.
Those days are looooooong gone.

As countless people have said exam grades are NOT a measure of intelligence. There's a correlation, sure, but it's not a perfect measure. When you come to be picking apart the difference between an A* and an A, this imperfection matters.

It's fair to say the vast majority people who got an A* are more intelligent than most people who got an E. Not all, but yes, most.
It's less fair to say the vast majority of people who got an A* are more intelligent than those who got an A. It's probably fair to say most people who got 3 A are more intelligent than those who got 3 As. I wouldn't put much money on it though, because there's enough differences behind the scenes (quality of education, home environment etc) to render this one pretty marginal / possibly false.
And what that means is, among the spectrum of people who got those results, hundreds if not thousands of those who got As are more intelligent than those who got As.

So your whole premise is just not right.

And, finally, you seem to have forgotten your predicted results were all based on the knowledge of your abilities etc before you got your diagnosis which made you eligible for extra time. They were not made on the basis you'd get extra time. You didn't do as well as predicted, not because you didn't get extra time, but because you just didn't do as well.

Omg somehow I bolded text, tried to edit to unbold and it posted as italicised. All this from me, with a 1st and distinction in Masters from Oxford. Yep I'm intelligent but also a bloody fool at times!

This is my impression too. I think they are interested in people with a narrow focus on their subject of interest and high academic ability. My son has an offer - he's not a captain of a sports team, nor does he play a musical instrument to a high standard etc but he's doing very well academically in his subjects of interest and did extra curricular activities related to this (reading, a project etc)

It has fizzled out over the last 6 months with repeated posts going on about how the OP sees herself (? Not fully sure) as more intelligent than others, so someone Oxford and or Cambridge should have seen than and accepted her. Even though she hasn’t even applied this year she somehow thinks she should have gotten in.

On previous threads there has been lots of support and alternatives routes. But this has become an obsession. That and the changing story doesn’t help.

I think the OP actually alludes to the problem of lack of objectivity with the Oxford admissions system- the elitism is self-perpetuating due to their ambiguous selection criteria. You can't challenge the establishment if you are the establishment and that doesn't look likely to change, on a large enough scale, anytime soon!

The OP's condemnation of the admissions system is actually a challenge to the system but as it is not, 'how we think' at Oxford it is met with patronising rebukes from some posters.

Op hasn’t actually applied to Oxford…