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?

Well that comment alone proves you don’t have the depth of thinking Oxbridge require.

Liz Truss father was a professor of pure mathematics - not that humble

Do they or is it more down to luck and structural reasons that certain young people roam the Oxbridge plains!

Exactly! 🤣 This thread is really quite embarrassing for you, OP.

This is such good advice. And kinder than some of the posts.

That was me! An EE offer landed on the mat just before Christmas 1979.

I’m sure it’s hard. But OP needs to accept that they didn’t make the cut instead of obsessively posting on Mumsnet about it.

OP You have been told again and again that grades aren't everything. Believe me, the difference between ticking the A* boxes to a mark scheme and defending your research and writing to a don who is the world expert, are night and day. Oxford knows this too which is why grades are only one part of an in depth process.
My son is a fairly recent graduate from a good Russell group uni and I cannot believe how little work he had to produce and had absolutely minimal direct teaching contact. The pace of work at Oxford is intense and again, A level grades are not a good predictor of how a student will cope with this. Oxford has a lower drop out rate than most other unis which shows that their admissions are working well. My old college makes massive efforts at out reach and financial support for those who need it so that anyone regardless of background can attend.
The daughter of a good friend of mine was rejected from Oxbridge, is now in her final year at UCL studying law and has got a job with a magic circle firm.
Either reapply or move on OP. This bitterness will suck the joy out of your life.

This is from a while ago but is fairly interesting. I would be surprised if the admissions process had changed very much over the last decade or so.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work

Some of the responses on here have been rather unkind. If the OP is who they claim to be (never a given) then they are a really young adult who is extremely disappointed. Perhaps they have been told to aim for Oxford / Cambridge from a young age. Having said that, I have not seen any other threads from them.

One post did jump out at me - the idea that a law would be put in place to govern top universities’ admissions processes. I think I say this rather often but how involved do you want the government to be in your life? Governments are short term beasts and the law is such a blunt tool - I have no faith that the government (Labour or Tory) will be better at choosing candidates than admissions tutors.

Is the OP only a teen so 19, if so I think people are being incredibly harsh and irresponsible.

I am not sure it helps the OP to double down on the idea that Oxbridge can infallibly separate the wheat from the chaff.

What I would like to mention is Malcolm Gladwell's take on elite institutions and the way human beings gravitate towards such places like moths to a flame. He calls it Elite Institution Cognitive Disorder and says that we place a higher significance and value on them than they truly deserve - and more than that ignore the potential cost of getting there and feeling outsmarted by peers.

I don’t agree, and I have an Oxbridge degree. Some of the most brilliant scientists (including medics) had very few outside interests as their chief interest in life was their subject. They have gone on to achieve great things in their field. Of course if you’re talking about getting an Oxbridge degree while being captain of the rugby team, you are probably thinking about what the Big Four firms think is more important for recruitment 🙄

Yes, @CruCru and @Goldenbear the candidate is only 19 and they have had some unlucky breaks. I do feel a lot of sympathy.

But they have a concurrent thread asking whether Oxford could detect an applicant applying from another university, against regulations. This is unethical. And in a candidate who proposes to read Law, a bit troubling.

We may charitably treat that thread as a flight of fancy but it reveals a worrying level of desperation.

There are other threads as well, not all under this name. The candidate seems to care more about the Oxbridge brand than any particular subject. That is the opposite of what Oxbridge want.

The candidate already has an outstanding LNAT mark. They will be admitted to a good law programme if they just pull themselves together. Look how far Sir Keir Starmer has come from his start at Leeds (an excellent law programme, btw).

Most well qualified Oxbridge applicants are rejected. It can be difficult but you do need to pick yourself up and move on.

By no means am I writing off the possibility of Oxford for this candidate, if they follow the rules (not least because I don’t think any plans for dping otherwise will work). However I think it’s far from a sure bet.

Upthread Scottish ‘unfair’ postcode admissions system mentioned. How is this different from rest of UK?

This. My grandfather was a well-known scientist and Physics professor. His main interest was his subject (and everything around it). He certainly never excelled in Rugby or swam the Atlantic, but I've never met anyone with a more in-depth knowledge of science.

I think it's the US universities that place a great importance on extra-curricular activities as university sports are so huge in the US and make the universities a lot of money.

Not from Scotland: As I understand it, broadly speaking you get the school that is tied to your postcode. (I think class sizes expand or shrink as needed, no class size limit as such??). No parental listing of preferences. You can make 'placement requests' for a different school, but that seems harder to be accepted.
(Is that correct?)

It's a 2023 black comedy/drama about a boy from an 'ordinary' family who gets into Oxford in the 1990s and befriends a student from a wealthy family who invites him to stay at the family estate, "Saltburn" during the holidays. The parts of the film that take place at the uni make it seem as if it's full of snobby Hooray Henrys who are there because of their money and who belittle the main character.
It's a good film and obviously there's much more to it than that, but it makes Oxford Uni look like an awful place to be if you're not from money. I cringed watching those bits when my son was applying for uni and I always want to tell people that Oxford's not like that at all, because I honestly do worry a bit that it will put off kids like mine, from ordinary state school. It's a bit of a bugbear of mine!
Oxford have put a lot of effort into widening participation in an effort to encourage bright kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds to apply, it's just a shame that the film perpetuates the stereotype that it's only for 'posh' people. I know it has to portray it like that for the story to work, but still.

I think it might be this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-64247475.amp

Well, that just sounds like the other side of the same coin as the OP - one who only wants Oxbridge and the other who won’t even consider applying, both down to rather silly-sounding beliefs about the sorts of candidates Oxford and Cambridge are really, or should be, looking for and what student life might be like if a person actually applied and got in.

@cassandre It may vary between colleges but my dc1 had the option to request feedback about aptitude test and interview scores.

And fwiw, did not have 3 A* (just one in fact, and not even in their degree subject)

Exactly. It's not stuffy/ elitest any more but that outdated stereotype still persists, despite all the work Oxbridge have done, and still do to encourage kids from all backgrounds to apply. Yeah, there's still room for improvement; whilst only about 8% of children in the UK are privately educated they still make up about 30% of students at Oxbridge. But that's partly down to not enough kids from ordinary state school or disadvantaged backgrounds actually applying, and that in itself is partly because of these outdated ideas that it's not for them/too intense/no fun/ etc.
The terms are shorter than most other uni's, so yes it's 'intense' in the sense that they're cramming in the same amount of work into a shorter space of time. But it's not unrealistic, my son's expected to spend about 40 hours per week on his uni work- that's like a normal full time job and a lot less than some jobs! He seems to have a decent work/life balance and says as long as he organises his work time effectively, its fine, it's not like you have no time to relax or socialise.
It's the teaching style that can feel intense as Oxford's system involves a lot of tutorials that are one-to-one discussions with your tutor,or tutor and one other student. That style certainly doesn't suit everyone as that's when you'll discuss your written work, the ideas you've expressed, maybe get your thinking challenged, and you ll need to be able to think on your feet, be flexible and willing to take on other peoples' points of view. My son absolutely adores discussing his subject (he has bored me to death with it on numerous occasions over the years!) but it doesn't mean he's any more intelligent than the vast majority of very bright students that don't go to Oxbridge. He just happens to be academic and is the type of student that they know will thrive under their system.

“Acceptable “ - who gets to judge that? Universities are entitlement to set their own admission criteria, you may not think it “fair” but life isn’t and if you can’t get on board with that law is not the career for you. Maybe work on letting this go nd moving on with life. You will certainly be happier and less bitter.

At least in most subjects, the interviews are NOT to assess 'personality and presence' but to assess the ability to reflect on a novel question, related to their subject, for which the interviewee has not been prepared as they are for exams. And perhaps their 'teachability' in an individual or small-group setting.

While the cases of Liz Truss and her immediate predecessor do show that Oxbridge has not always been successful in selecting the genuinely thoughtful and intellectually curious student at the expense of the confident 'bullshitter', doing so is certainly the aim. Unfortunately, the mistaken idea that Oxbridge want people with a particular personality has too often deterred shy or awkward students or those from non-traditional backgrounds from applying.

But in any case, Oxbridge is not the be-all and end-all. There are many excellent universities. And when a lawyer is pleading their client's case in court, their success in doing so is not judged on the basis of which university they attended as an undergraduate!

Not really, down to inside intel from one of the friend's older siblings that is studying Maths at Oxford and feels he made a mistake. Equally, the article linked above sketches the Cambridge Admissions panel as oblivious to the structural and cultural issues that prevent many state educated children meeting the mark. The whole article just appears to demonstrate a superiority through the constant display of disengaged disapproval — a joke, a smirk about someone's hair style, t-shirt, childlike appearance, tbh all quite cringe worthy to read!

@janeeire244 , I’m a lawyer of nearly 20 years standing, a partner of over 10 years standing in city and regional firms, didn’t get into oxbridge, went to a Russel group and didn’t get any of the training contracts I applied for in 3 years. I’ve also recruited trainees nd grads for over a decade. I then got an opportunity that was totally random and have flown from there. If you genuinely have as much potential as you say then it really won’t matter , you can be successful anyway, and all you are doing with this obsession is making things harder for yourself. Trust me, no one in the law will be impressed, or even sympathetic, about whinging like this. They may smile, murmur sympathies and then privately think you a bit sad and pathetic. You need to be incredibly resilient to do this job, if you can’t get past this and use the experience to develop a strong personal narrative you really are on to a loser. Sorry, but that’s the truth.