Fab exam results and predictions but not even an interview from Cambridge Uni.

[nandio]

12GCSEs only 2As and the rest top grades.4A* and A predicted at A level - no interview from Cambridge. Not BME but white working class.

Why would Cambridge not interview a student of this calibre?

When you said Physics Olympiad team, did you mean the actual UK Olympiad team that competed at the IPhO. If that was the case then it is a very odd decision. This calibre of candidate is almost impossible to ignore.

As a school we normally can ask for feedback and it is very detailed so it is worth checking and your DC might decide to re-apply next year based on the feedback.

We were at a Cambridge Year 12 open day recently where we were categorically told that the college don't know which are applicants to that college and which are open applicants. I was surprised by this but the Admissions Tutor was very clear .

They also encouraged having a second go after results , apparently they shred all non successful applications due to data protection laws so its a clear field again.She did say it might be wise to change college if you don't want the same interviewer again!

They were also very clear that it was not just about academic achievement to date , it was a lot about who would benefit and enjoy form the particular type of teaching that Cambridge offers.

Try Harvard.

user149799568

What you've said would be exactly what I'd expect and what I found the year I did admissions at Oxford. The tutors making admission decisions will be teaching these students for the most part of their time at university. They want students who are academically capable and committed to doing the course. They don't care about whether they also play piano or do rowing (it was actually a gripe that some students over committed to their sport/music and didn't spend enough time on their actual degree subject).

The pretest will be the most significant factor prior to interview. A-level grades are merely a cut off (anyone with predictions below what they require won't usually be considered at all).

It's very difficult for students to gauge how the pretest went. It also depends how well the cohort did in general. Some years the cut off is higher if more people performed well for example.

Sorry about that . Their grades and predicted ones are good enough so most likely the pretest .

I think decisions about who to interview are now largely down to the entrance exam. Predicted grades and the PS are less important.

Back in the day I did an open application to Cambridge. Got an interview - the personal one went brilliantly and the academic one went awful. Suffice to say, no offer (and no begrudging from me.) However in the academic interview they asked me why I picked that college. I answered 'open application' which went down like a lead balloon. I don't think that's why i didn't get a place but it felt like the wrong answer to give. So anyone getting an interview through open - swot up on the college and have a reason for wanting to be at that specific one!

I have found this thread useful for finding out how admissions work. However, I am now confused. Quite a few posters have said the test scores prior to interview make a big difference as to who is called to interview and who is offered a conditional place. Yet, from the link to the 2017 /2018 data, quite a few of the "Offer Holders" had really low scores. (10 or below).

Are some students more likely to be called for interview and given offers than others. (eg students from state comprehensives)? I'm just trying to find how it works.

Was there an aptitude test of some kind? In some subjects play a significant role in selecting between a large number of highly qualified applicants

I've now read the follow up. I bet it was the pre-test. Just because he said it went well, doesn't mean it went well enough.

For example in PPE Oxford we interview less than one quarter of applicants. Every applicant is predicted at least AAA or equivalent. The vast majority have at least a handful of A* and the rest virtually all A. Therefore the TSA is by far the most important element.

It is correct that at Oxford we do not know who is an open applicant. It is entirely invisible to tutors. We do know if they are reallocated later in the process to even put numbers and quality. But we do not give a damn. I promise.

Any good work experience/extra reading around the subject/outstanding personal statement? Pretty much everyone who applies has outstanding GCSEs and excellent A level predictions.

I suspect the pre test too, if they do one at Cambridge (I'm fairly sure that the maths test is after A levels).

Tutors came to DS's school and pretty much said that. Every student that applies is one of the best in their school so they need to filter out those that can deal with the Oxbridge teaching method and be quite self sufficient.

FWIW DS made an open application and is just finishing his first term at Oxford. We went round about 10 colleges on the open day and all had positives and negatives. Obviously made no difference.

Friends of my DC took the admission tests in October. These are very difficult, I believe. A few have been called for interview following this.

@JustRichmal My info is for Oxford not Cambridge but the test scores were massively significant. The average score for all candidates was something like 55 the average for candidates called for interview was 65 the average for accepted candidates was 75.

Essentially all the candidates were ranked according to some very specific criteria (previous exam results were included but almost all candidates maxed out on these) essentially it was mainly the pretest.
The top X% then got an interview.

There are some "flags" (for example having been in care or at a failing school) which meant a student would get an interview despite a poor score. At interview if they felt they would be capable of doing the course they would get a place but obviously not accept a candidate who would just fail prelims.

After interviews the candidates were ranked again essentially based on their interview score and pretest. Some colleges were more competitive to get places in but the top X% of candidates would get a place (if not at the first choice college one of the other colleges would snap them up). A college could take a candidate who was ranked less highly in place of a higher ranked one but would have to justify it (the fact that they went to a state school would be a possible factor in this).

Other factors (e.g. extra curricular) really had no effect. Reading around might have some small effect on the interview score but almost all candidates gave a similar impression in this regard so there was little to distinguish them. The main factor in interviews was how well the candidate could solve the unfamiliar problems.

Just to add a lot of the admission tutors are only at one specific college because that is where a post was available. They have no strong feelings of loyalty towards it (often if they went to that university at all it was at a difference college). So even if they were aware of the open application they really won't care less.

'Admission test went well according to the student' alas doesn't mean much! The test is 98% likely where the issue was. Passion for subject is mostly tested at interview, and very few admissions tutors actually give a damn about extracurricular activities.

Unfortunately, metrics (as in, giving marks for each section of the admissions process in order to whittle the numbers down before interview) are nominally meant to make the process more transparent. In practice, they disadvantage non-standard candidates who don't know how to play the game, and tie the hands of admissions tutors who would like to give a promising 'non-traditional' candidate who does badly in one part of the process a chance but can't because 'the numbers say no'. It's disgraceful, but an unintended consequence of the (rightful) public scrutiny the Oxbridge admissions process comes under. The same old schools still come out on top because the rules of the game still put them at an advantage, but now they can claim it's all won fair and square.

(Ex-admissions tutor here).

My friends daughter is doing Nat Sciences at Cambridge, she has12 A star Gcses and 4 A star A levels inc Physics, Maths and Further Maths so sadly it may be the grades that are the problem.

I short list for uni interviews and it's certainly not all about grades. Some people will be selected for interview with weaker grades than others who aren't selected because of a stronger personal statement.

As others have said, they need to stand out.

DS had self taught another A Level maths mechanics module with a friend and had got A* there too. Demonstrated independent learning.

He went on Physics taster courses at local Universies having found and applied for them himself. No help from school or me. So he was able to talk about what he'd learned in his PS.

@NicoAndTheNiners

Can you tell me what makes a good/strong personal statement in your view?

UserName31456789, thank you for taking the time to explain. I have also found that there are 2 parts to the test and perhaps the scores I was looking at were only for part 1.
It is good to know there is some positive selection. In Nat science at Cambridge are the private schools still disproportionately over represented, or does this just tend to be in the Classics. That is to say, because it is science, does it depend more on merit than having gone to a school which teaches Latin, IYSWIM?

holidayshopping

Very much will depend on the course applied for. But if it's a course strongly aligned to a profession then I would expect PS to demonstrate an understanding of that profession as well as passion for the general subject/area. Why they think they'd be well suited.

Nico you are at Oxbridge?! It doesn't sound like it, because while the odd A more or less won't make a difference, overall you are exceedingly, exceedingly* unlikely get in to any degree at Oxford or Cambridge without a string of top grades. Maybe in the past, not any more!

Also, IME of oxbridge admissions, the personal statements were a useful starting point for asking questions at interview, and some drew me in more than others. But on the whole, there was really very little to choose between them and they counted for zero in the metrics that did or didn't get you to interview.

The distinguishing factors between candidates, at least in the humanities, were entirely down to the submitted essay, the pre-test, and (once whittled down from there), the interview performance. Personally I have strong doubts how far interview is a good measure. It tells you the very top, and the very bottom. For the mass in the middle (all of whom, remember, have top grades, stellar submitted essays and excellent marks in the pre-test, as well as exceedingly glowing references), I think a lottery would be the fairest way...