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?

The most intelligent people actually learn quickly op. Not to put you down, but you don't seem to be grasping what you are being taught here and could seek out for yourself elsewhere.

Also, no, life isn't fair.
Anecdotally, the most intelligent person I know didn't go to Oxbridge and is hugely successful, and the actual most successful person I know is very very intelligent but also an extremely hard worker. And went to UCL. Both are very resilient.

Focus on what you can change op. Good luck.

Why the obsession with Oxbridge? Do you realise, @janeeire244 that this is comprised of 2 different universities, both of which in turn, are comprised of several separate colleges.
Are you trying to tell us that every college is discriminatory?
Do you have evidence of this from every college?
Have you raised this 'unfair practice' with each of the 74 colleges that make up Oxbridge?

This is spot on.

Intelligence isn’t grades, though. Grades is someone has had learned something sufficiently, off by heart, and repeated it under exam conditions. Intelligence is reasoning, passion, ability to extrapolate information from conversations (interviews) and so much more. Also, AAA is not ‘ shockingly low’ grades, get into a real world OP.
Oxbridge wants students who aren’t robots, who are personable, passionate and educated. Qualities which, based on your posts, you seem to lack.
If you didn’t get in, is because you weren’t a good fit. Move on, OP.

That isn’t what’s happening. You need to stop dwelling on it.

Having recruited literally thousands of law graduates, almost exclusively with high a levels, I can absolutely promise you that a levels are not a sign of intelligence. They are a sign that you have remembered course material.

Oxbridge graduates and those with first class degrees aren’t necessarily the most intelligent or the best lawyers either.

My child got an offer of 3As which is lower than their other offers.

But they had to sit a test and then had three interviews.

I think those are the measures Oxford use to decide who they want which is why they aren't so obsessed with grades.
Other universities don't interview all their candidates so have to go more on the grades which is why they ask for higher ones.

Does Oxbridge still make EE offers? This happened to a brilliant guy in my school back in the 90s.

My friend did law at Cambridge with AAB in the early 00s, before the A* grade was introduced. First of her family to go to university, state school. She was offered AAA (standard at the time) but dropped a grade and they took her anyway. She is a very curious and quirky person and I can imagine she will have interviewed very well.

And you didn’t get the grades! That’s why you are resitting as an independent candidate.

It’s you who they are keeping out as less intelligent based on your own bonkers criteria.

Can’t wait to hear the circumstances behind this post.

*Don’t worry, just ASed. 😬

I didn't get the predicted grades (dropped one in a subject I wouldn't be going on to study) and they let me in - but I did come from a school that hadn't sent anyone there for years and had no help with interviews or coaching for STEP papers. If I had gone to a private school or a school with a history of sending students there, I am sure I wouldn't have been accepted. I had massive imposter syndrome to begin with, but ended up getting better grades than many others that had been to private schools - usually because they hadn't learned to work independently.

I have some experience with Oxbridge admissions:

(1) Most subjects do NOT require three A stars at A level. AAA or A*AA are typical requirements, At Oxford, the only subjects that require three A are, I believe, Mathematics and Chemistry.

(2) As regards Law specifically, the requirements are AAA at Oxford and A*AA at Cambridge. Not three As,

(3) Many subjects, including Law, set an aptitude test prior to interview, in addition to school exam grade requirements.

(4) It is very unusual for people to be accepted without three A grades. If it does happen, it is usually because of exceptional mitigating circumstances, such as serious illness or major bereavement at the time of the exams.

Grades demonstrate that you fit nicely into the school system and can pass exams. I know plenty of people with excellent grades (usually from schools that are extremely academic with parents that throw a lot of money at education) that can not demonstrate the ability to think critically or have any knowledge of subjects outside of the syllabus. And quite a few people that don't have the greatest of grades but do have enquiring minds and the ability to think beyond the confines of the narrow box that is the UK school education system.

The British government could pass a law to force Oxbridge to act accordingly. Even Liz Truss (when vying for office in 2022) suggested forcing Oxford and Cambridge to interview all students who had achieved 3As (so applying post A-levels) and to give preference to those with 3As over lesser grades.

The whole Oxbridge 'thing' has become something of a social construct. People are desperate to get in because, well, people are desperate to get in - and admission is seen as an absolute measure of intellectual prowess.

I hope that in the future we will have a more sophisticated understanding of human intelligence in all its diversity, and accept that doing exams well under time pressure is just one measure. The fact that ChatGPT (with zero actual understanding) is already able to do as well on an Oxford admission test as some of the human candidates that got in (see Oxford University's Dr Tom Crawford's 'experiment') suggests that we haven't quite managed to pin down human intelligence yet. Nobody should attach too much significance to 'failing' to get in.

For clarification, I was predicted to achieve 3A*s in my A-levels which I was on course to achieve but didn’t achieve because I didn’t get the extra time that I should have got due to a late SEN diagnosis. It’s not like I didn’t have the ability to do well.

Also, bear in mind, that a lot of Oxbridge students get extra time in exams so if they had been in my position they’d have done poorly too.

Now that I’m getting extra time I’m on course to achieve 3A*s in my resits.

Also, I took the LNAT this year and I got 38/42 (which is higher than any Oxbridge student has got since 2021 at Oxford according to data) and way above the Oxford average of 28. So, my resentment is not because I failed to get into Oxbridge of my own merits but because I was disadvantaged when I feel I had much potential.

Right…

Maybe it’s time your son (or is it you?) let the Oxbridge dream go.

Op, you're still missing the point. Exam grades are not the only indicator of 'intelligence'.

The universities choose people they believe will best take to the demands of an Oxbridge degree, and that includes many other aspects. Not just academic brilliance.

I assume from your bitterness, that either you or your child did not get in. If it was you who was rejected, your inability to adapt to that circumstance and move on, is one good indicator why you were not chosen.

If you had failed a first year exam, they would have needed a student to be able to put that to one side, accept their tutor's advice and focus on their resits. I don't think you would have been very good at that, do you?

You’re really not understanding this.

In short, there’s more to good students than high grades. Excellent academics, aren’t always the ones performing the best under exam conditions.

That should be: the only subjects at Oxford that require three A stars are Mathematics and Chemistry.

Op, do you think you'd do well in the interview?

If true as written, it's a shame you didn't get your time. But there are so many factors to an application and successful student. If it wasn't that it would v likely have been something else which meant you weren't chosen, much like the majority of applicants. High achievers do well anywhere and only look forwards...

This.

Oxford & Cambridge teach differently. When they interview candidates they are basically looking for someone who will be able to hold their own in hour long ,often one on one, supervision sessions.

You could have amazing grades and ace the tests but not be great at conversing, constructing an argument or thinking on your feet.
It's not just all about exam grades.

A law?!?

Wow.