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?

Exactly. Using extra-curricular activities as an admissions criterion would discriminate against people from disadvantaged, or even just not-highly-advantaged backgrounds; students from under-resourced state schools; disabled or chronically ill students; young carers; etc. To openly prefer the rugby team captain would nowadays be seen as unethical..

It is true that, if all things were equal (which they aren't) getting good A level grades while at the same time seriously pursuing an extra-curricular activity might be evidence for good organizational skills and time management. But in practice it's likely to be stronger evidence for opportunities to pursue an extra-curricular activity, and for a lack of competing responsibilities for a sick parent/ younger siblings/ one's own children as a mature student/ etc.

And: we are definitely NOT looking for 'well-rounded-ness'. University selectors and interviewers are, after all, academics: i.e. what many would consider as un-rounded nerds ourselves! That doesn't mean that we'd reject someone for having hobbies, any more than the other way around: just that it's not relevant to our decisions one way or the other.

I for one don’t feel the least bit patronising.

I have become concerned about OP’s simultaneous thread suggesting the likelihood of getting away with fraud (by taking a place at another university now and applying to Oxford Y1from there. Oxford forbid this).

I was much more sympathetic previously when OP highlighted their own belated learning about extra time, lack of earlier opportunity, etc. These are genuine obstacles. The posts here focusing on a very narrow definition of intelligence don’t show them at their best; or if these posts do, they don’t show a particularly promising lawyer.

FWIW I think OP has more promise than shown here but not necessarily a great willingness to learn from others. It’s hard to know how that would play out in the Oxbridge environment or indeed in a legal one. OP is not too old to change.

Yes and what does that say about the archaic system that is the Oxbridge admissions system!

That having a discussion about your subject in an interview is more useful than simple exam results.

You have a chip on your shoulder about what you think you know.

Also, the OP did get a Cambridge offer for last year but fell significantly short of the required grades in her exams. That’s not a failure of the admissions system.

As I recall she was stressed and missed the Oxbridge application deadline this cycle and can’t take another year out (family reasons). Hence it seems contemplating starting somewhere else this Autumn then applying again to Oxbridge, possibly fraudulently.

I’m sympathetic to the op who has done really well academically in the face of significant challenges. Her manner of expressing herself sounds arrogant but I think in fact she’s just being factual and literal. But the fixation with Oxbridge feels like a “special interest” and is being pursued to the detriment of better options.

I don't know about the fraud as I'm responding to this thread.

Posters are definitely outright belittling the OP, which is pretty pathetic of them, considering how old they must be or demonstrating faux concern that is really a boast on their part, suggesting other universities would be more suitable for her learning style i.e rote learning in seminars; I find it hard to believe that no other universities engage in critical thinking or wanting their students to move beyond their default settings, that is surely the point of a university education! Perhaps if the OP was made aware of the minimal differences between some other universities and Oxbridge, she wouldn't be so fixated on attaining an education, that most have so kindly pointed out to her, is never going to happen!

Eh, I'm in my mid forties, you don't know anything about me, my education or my contacts. I know quite a bit, people are allowed to question the status quo you know, apply those critical thinking skills and question the system in place.

Also, that has made me laugh, the old, 'chip on your shoulder', such a intellectual rebuke for a challenge you don't like!

You’re right that some posters have been arses and enjoy sticking the boot in to a vulnerable young person.

But many have tried to engage with the points being made constructively and have supported the op with detailed suggestions on this thread, and honestly on a number of others.

Well so far your view seems to be based on the experience of one maths undergrad.

An interview is a better way of identifying good candidates than A level results alone. Not sure why that is archaic?

It isn’t just interview and exam results either. It’s
1: UCAS application ( exam results, personal statement )
2: submission of 2 pieces of marked written work from school
3: subject specific aptitude test
4: one or more interviews.
In my son’s case he had two interviews which involved being sent a text on political history from the college and given 30 mins to digest it before discussing it at interview, because he’s a History & Politics student.

STEM applicants are expected to undertake maths/ physics/whatever calculations/problems (whatever they’re called!) in their interview. Modern Foreign Language students will have to translate things in their interview. Each interview is tailored to what that student wants to study.

I think it’s a fair system and it’s certainly better than relying on just A levels as a measure of suitability. A child from a run down failing comprehensive with multiple teacher/staffing problems, who is still on course for AAA has arguably the same, if not more academic ability and potential as one who’s predicted 3 or 4A stars from a private school or super-selective grammar. That’s why Oxbridge don’t rely on A levels as the sole indicator of ability.

I am a former admissions tutor (STEM subject, highly ranked School) and I don’t think there is anything archaic about the interview system.

My School is large and the admissions team recruit a large pool of colleagues to interview. We always consider the source when evaluating interviewer feedback; in close cases we look carefully at the whole picture beyond the requirements of contextual flags; we advise applicants who relate mitigating circumstances on how to submit evidence for consideration, etc.

One does no favour to admit candidates who cannot succeed but we are acutely aware that applicants with societal disadvantages are likely to present less promising profiles than more advantaged peers of equal ability and we try our best to minimise the distortions this causes.

We can also interview online when necessary.

Not hugely different from the Oxbridge interview system, in fact. How is any of this archaic?

I did post my thoughts on this previously but It seems they have not been read so... the methodology of the Oxbridge interview is untested, it is an elusive spark the Academics are looking for and like any unobjective process is vulnerable to personal bias and whims. Given that is mostly how they choose students for colleges, it is open for interpretation how 'fair' this process is.

And really, it is also questionable how much the interview process is about how you think, more, "do you think like us".

But 'societal disadvantage' is quite an obvious marker to be accommodated, regular lower middle class but no advantage is not and results in a uni of extremes.

But you said that about last year? You were on course ……..but didn’t get the grades. You were predicted those grades on not needing to xtra time so why didn’t you get those grades?

you can’t say last year you were on course, but didn’t make the grade, but this year you are going to

you really can’t say you would have got the grades with the extra time

and you don’t seem to get it that intelligence is not down entirely to exam results can you? Even academics are telling you this?

‘Legal right’ show me this law?

and you do know that getting extra time at school doesn’t mean you’ll get extra time at university? You have to be tested all over again and then they decide if you qualify under their rules (not laws, rules)

Why are you revelling in taunting a teenager who is seemingly vulnerable- Seriously.

Ok so Oxford didn't work out, move on! It's not the be all and end all. Life is too short to spend such large chunks of head space " looking back". There's a great future waiting for you, grab it and get on with the rest of your life.....

So would you like all students to sit and be admitted on the basis of a multiple choice test? Highest marks get the places.

Im not sure it’s going to give much information about a candidate’s ability to make an argument and might be rather limiting, particularly for Arts subjects, but it’ll be wholly black and white.

Where did I state a preference for anything, I'm an observer of the thread and actually could see some of where the OP was coming from. I am also trying to reassure them that there are other universities that don't base their choices on interviews - LSE for example so don't despair and think about how life could be different not worse just different.

You’ve claimed it’s unfair despite no knowledge to the contrary.

You evidently prefer an offer process based solely on predicted grades and a personal statement. No more objective though.

Do you honestly think that only Oxbridge under graduates can form an argument?

I have very close family that are Partners in a City law firm they didn't go to Oxbridge. DH has family that lectures at Oxbridge they are bright and passionate as about their subject which is marvellous.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact, interviews aren't objective.

’Regular lower middle class’ is exactly what I am talking about. Serious disadvantage is flagged.

Oxbridge tutors do try to assess how much someone will benefit from the tutorial system. That’s very different from saying they are looking for stereotypical ‘bright sparks’ or clones. IME almost all admissions tutors recognise and deeply appreciate original and quality thinking and know that it comes in many guises.

Everyone on Earth and on this thread has biases. Most admissions tutors have strong consciences, be they social or intellectual, and interrogate their own and their team’s decisions. We all want to put together the strongest cohorts possible.