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?

How are you going to know if someone is 'lower middle-class'?

We review the personal data and referee report just before each interview.

The referee discusses the socioeconomics of the school cohort and any relevant particulars about the applicant. Being in England we have accents and word choices as well as the many class markers frequently discussed on MumsNet. Not perfect but reasonably good.

The WC and LMC applicants are a big source of concern: ineligible for many programmes aimed at those with flags, less assured and comfortable in the academic environment than MC peers , easy to overlook. This is now generally recognised.

Are mistakes made? Of course. But things are moving in the right direction.

no no @Goldenbear says we have to be compassionate!

As the OP appears to have a rigid fixation on Oxford and Cambridge and an inability to see shades of grey, I’m not sure anything other than blunt responses are likely to get through, are they?

As for the Oxford and Cambridge admissions systems, they definitely result in far more emotional investment from candidates, which is unhealthy if you are not mentally and emotionally robust, but I don’t think it makes sense to argue that their selection system is somehow more opaque or unfair than any other university’s. Imvho, it’s opaque and partially subjective that the same candidate should appeal more to any university than another on the back of no more information than what goes into their UCAS form and what their postcode is - same candidate, same information, different response. It is, basically, clearly not the case that other universities’ selection criteria are 100% objective, although the less popular the university, the more likely it will be that it can just make offers to 100% of people meeting set statistical criteria, none of which are based on subjective references from teachers, partially subjective grade predictions, or another human’s subjective opinion on any part of their personal statement.

Oxford and Cambridge provide far more information on how they assess candidates than any other universities in the UK, and gather far more information about the candidates in order to do it. There is also detailed information provided in what they are looking for at every stage of the application process, and scores of example Oxbridge college interviews on YouTube for anyone to watch, should they be wondering what to expect from that part of the process.No system is perfect or free from all bias, but there is something badly wrong with the notion that unless you can’t see or hear the candidate, and can’t read anything they’ve written, you are creating a subjective and unfair selection system because any evidence you receive you might not treat wholly “objectively.” And, tbf, it’s not possible to be objective about truly original thought, anyway, because there’s no pre-agreed marking system for something you’ve not yet thought of, is there? And it seems perfectly fair to me, if your teaching method is based on oral, face to face discussion, that you should want to test out that process with someone before deciding whether or not it is an appropriate method for them, because it’s not a common way of teaching pre-university and it doesn’t suit everyone.

And finally… as with any university, job, or other kind of application, you win some, you lose some. It’s far better to try and fail than not to try at all, if it’s something you think you want, and regardless of the result, it will have been a useful learning process. It’s really not the end of the world if you don’t succeed at it, it’s just more likely to feel like that for a while if you know how close you got, “yet no cigar.”

No, but then I didn’t say that, did I?

One of the key matters an interview enables a tutor to assess is a candidate’s ability to make an argument, to defend a point of view, the address a scenario.

Yes an interviewer needs to be aware of unconscious bias and know how to score answers and rank candidates. But the interview is much more valuable to them in terms of assessing candidates than a wholly objective test.

Wow, deleted and more importantly reported for that accurate comment talk about pathetic!

Curious about what I have missed

That's the point - nothing!

I think the issue goes beyond mere Oxbridge entrance which is neither here nor there but to a more fundamental issue - that in many jobs the quick thinking, ability to hear arguments from both sides, assess facts, have a wide kind of intelligence and debating skills are very useful and a fair thing to measure and desire in candidates (and indeed in a spouse and friends). Nor do I think it is a class issue - I have known loads of people from all kinds of classes who are "bright" like that - fast, sharp, incisive with arguments etc. It is almost insulting to suggest it does not exist if you are working class.

I agree. And some forms of "education" seem increasingly to create individuals who are closed to some positions and modes of thinking. The "less educated" can be the "less brainwashed".

Yes, it is one reason I try to read material from all sides (and why my father always got the Observer and Sunday Times on Sundays to see both points of view) and why I deliberately go online to some places where people have completely different views from mine - just to try to see all sides and be open minded if I can be.

Hmmm not sure I believe that wholeheartedly. For example if we look at fundamental Trump supporters they are broadly less educated. Their main issue is lack of critical thinking on the whole (countered by some of the uber rich who stand to gain from his position).

The higher you take your education the more you are expected to think for yourself. Further down the educational scale you are expected to take what is said as gospel.

Or they can just be conspiracy theorists who believe everything they see on Facebook/X and have little capacity for critical thinking whilst believing that only they know the ‘truth’

Oh mate. I am very intelligent, hence why I got into Oxford, but I'm also very lazy, hence why I got very average A-Levels.

In DS experience, this is true. He went to summer schools and participated in several extra STEM classes run by Oxford and Warwick unis. His personal statement has nothing extra curricular on it at all and his interviews were all about Physics.
They want people with a passion for the subject and, unless it's Olympic level rowing, they aren't interested in sports and hobbies.

There is a purpose to interviews OP. Obviously.

Some universities sadly have one view point on a range of issues and students can find it hard to express a contrary view (even in my day with the Federation of Conservative Students in the 1980s when MPs we brought to speak were pelted with eggs as the left does not like free speech). However I do think that once people are out the left wing straight jacket of school and then university both of which tend to have left wing staff they can use their critical facilities to adopt the view point they choose whether that be left or right or anything else. I am still happy most universities do allow students to have different views. I asked my son (at Bristol then) once if he would be allowed to offer a different point of view from the ones in all the recommended materials and he said yes - he was allowed to use other sources so that was quite reassuring to me.

I meant how so many students apply with grades predicted like 3 A-Stars but then don’t achieve that and end up achieving AAA, A AA, A A* A etc.

There are also a number of students who get A* AB or AAB and still get accepted.

Then with the LNAT there are many students who have appallingly low scores like in the 20s and get offers.

Yet your son didn’t get 3 A-Stars in his a-levels.

For your own sake let it fucking go. They gave you a conditional acceptance, you didn’t meet the conditions. Other people might have other things going for them or reasons why they did get in. That’s between them. Try again at your exams and try again at applying or for the love of god go study somewhere bloody else.

Jesus wept, you must be real fun at parties.

What is it about these two universities that has such significance to you, @janeeire244 ?

They actually aren't all that special. They have good reputations, yes. They attract applicants with solid academic achievements and additional achievements, yes. But so do many other universities. So, what is it about them that matters so much to you?

Realistically OP if you took all the time and energy you put into this post and obsessing over who did or did not get into Oxbridge and why they were wrong, why you were shunned etc. and put it into studying for your resits you’d probably get those A*’s you keep drivelling on about being capable of.

You need to move on. Oxbridge is not the be all and end all, you can go to there and not amount to much or go to a different uni or no uni and be come hugely successful. One of the biggest things you can do in life to help yourself and be successful isn’t going to Cambridge, it’s picking yourself up when things go wrong or don’t go your way and cracking the fuck on. Which you’re not doing, this obsession will bring you far more problems then just cracking on at a university you can get into.

It will be because those are still good grades and they absolutely will have scored exceptionally on the written work that they submitted and performed well in the interview. I know you are young and you had your heart set on this, but you really have a poor attitude and are coming across as very ill informed considering how long you have spent going over and over this.