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?

Add: which is why over my career I’ve taught several students where their other subject teachers have been convinced they wouldn’t get in but they do. Passion for subject and ‘teach ability’ matter. It’s by no means a perfect process, I’ve loads I though should have got in that didn’t (there are limited spaces after all) but never in over 20 years as it been the reverse!

Perhaps they realise that picking students who would benefit from the training they will give is not an exact science? If they were training people for a lifetime of being expert exam takers, grades and admission test results might be a good filter but there are other qualities that come into play - being receptive to the style of teaching on offer, curiosity, passion, and many other aspects that are difficult to quantify.

They had that back then though. I did the LNAT as well as wrote personal statement. Not sure I did an essay though.

Curious if the interview process itself has changed?

I don’t think op is intentionally being goady.

She didn’t make her Cambridge offer last year and is resitting but seems to have become really fixated with Oxbridge and has posted quite a few threads under different usernames recently.

They don't care about the results beyond getting the minimum, they need to have people that will fit their teaching style. I don't know about other courses but DS's involves a lot of collaboration and teaching through tutorials.
In our limited experience, the entrance tests and predictions get you to interview but then they also have to want to teach you. You have to show enthusiasm for your subject and prove in interview that you can take on new concepts quickly.

DS really enjoyed his interview because he could tell he was going to be a good fit with the professors and he learned some interesting things. He still talks about the cup of tea Physics question that somehow introduced a new concept in thermodynamics to him.

If you didn't get in first time then you'll have even more to prove so the odds aren't good. Your post seems a bit immature.

Literally who cares?! Why is this even eating you up? The brightest and best don’t all necessarily go to Oxbridge anyway. Life and excellence is much more than your grades

Unis that only select on grades want the best grades they can get.

Unis that selects on grades, additional tests and interviews, select on a balance of all 3.

Back in the day if you did '4th term Oxbridge exams' you could get an EE offer. That didn't mean they took normal E grades students though!

I read somewhere that they’re trying to find exceptional students during the admissions process. Not just students who’ve been coached to within an inch of their life, but the truly naturally gifted (in several ways) student who will not just fit in as it were but who will elevate. The next Stephen hawking / Bertrand Russell / (insert famous academic) will not necessarily come from privilege and may indeed come from disadvantage so they need to find ways to uncover the diamonds in the rough, so to speak.

Sorry I was specifically asking about how the interview has changed to account for the fact that many children are only exposed to English at school (immigrant parents) vs kids from affluent families surrounded by articulate, well spoken adults. Just curious about how interviews are adapted to pick up on this. The previous poster mentioned this so I wanted to know more. I understand the whole selection process and how that works, it’s similar to how the US system works as well and as went to school there so familiar with this. Just interested in what the PP mentioned with regards to the interviews.

It's difficult to get clothes that compliment the skin colour envy...

Well, who would you rather take a chance on? Someone you’ve met, interviewed, whose work you’ve assessed yourself, who has exam results good enough to confirm sufficient academic ability and potential; or someone you’ve never met, just because they got three A stars? If you are going to have to be face to face with this person every week in tutorials/supervisions, debating points with them, why would you opt for the faceless stranger? It’s all very well if you’re just choosing people who will most of the time just be bums on lecture seats, but less so if you have to talk to them face to face all the time.

Then how come when you ask them that they say “No, it’s not more important than any other aspect of an application”?

They are allowed to choose the candidates they want to have. There are so many inputs to the selection process, they know which combination works best. Time to let go and move on OP.

My son had an interview for engineering. They just asked him to do physics problems and talk through the process/his reasoning. The didn't ask a single thing from his personal statement and definitely weren't looking for all rounders who are captains of rugby teams.

I got in 20 years ago from a state school, which I didn't even attend much. It was a lot easier to bunk in those days. They were much, much more interested in the interview than the grades. I did have the grades, but mostly because I have an audiographic memory - this is not intelligence and I didn't earn it, I just have sound-text synaesthesia and can replay written information in my head in auditory form at will. All we talked about was the books I read in my own time. They want passion, interest and curiosity. That said, I don't personally know anyone who got in without the grades.

Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all OP. There are lots of good universities in the world.

When I say English here, I meant English Literature. They would be talking about Literature.
We do get international boarders in to Oxbridge every year (in other subjects - primarily STEM). These universities do know what they are doing. However, they have to choose somehow. The grades are somewhat of a distraction tbh. People who apply will have had top level predictions. Exams are merely one piece of the necessary information.

Because it’s not acceptable that less intelligent people as measured by having lesser grades are taking Oxbridge spaces from more intelligent people.

Are you asking this because you think you yourself are going to get ’shockingly low grades’ and you want to know if you still have a chance of getting in?

You don’t come across as one of these “more intelligent people.” Maybe that’s the problem?

Grades don’t measure intelligence. They’re a snapshot of how you perform under pressure. An interview allows a more rounded picture and your other activities and achievements flesh that out. OP, as others have said, you sound bitter, jealous and a bit obsessed. It’s not going to help even if everyone on this thread joined in your outrage - ‘your’ place wasn’t taken from you: you didn’t get offered one because they didn’t think you were good enough.

I'm amazed you both know loads of people who got in with "poor" A level grades and know exactly how the interviewers think people performed at interviews.

All unis in results day have the choice to take someone who missed the grade. Oxbridge may be slightly more likely to accept someone than some because the college tutor will be the one that interviewed them and have to make the decision so that means they're making an informed decision rather than one purely on results.

But most will take some who haven't got the grades.

Ps no one tell the op that when I did it the offer for those who did the exam was EE she'll expire
Pps no one actually got that though

No, from previous posts she sees herself as more intelligent but, for many reasons, didn’t get in. This is not her first post and I suspect it won’t be her last. It has become a complete obsession.

But who are you to judge this?

it’s not your university. And it seems quite successful. They can admit on whatever they want to.

You do know that Oxbridge isn’t one place, right? That you apply to a college, not to the uni? And that they all have different entrance criteria?

I know who she is, I’m still wondering if she thinks her lower grades won’t matter.