A-Level Results: Student ... Gets Seven A*s And REJECTED From Oxford University

[MariscallRoad]

here
Can somebody explain?

I understand the boy was was rejected by Oxford admissions tutors; after the rejection the he went on to get 7 A*s in A Levels. But is not clear to me - and i d like to know - whether the rejection was after an interview. ... and whether he attended a state school.

God...I'd rather Stanford than Oxford

What conclusions am I drawing too fast?

I don't know if they guy had been interviewed, I responded to you asking if he'd been to a State school.

I'm pretty certain you're wrong that this news doesn't put students off. It may, of course, encourage some people, but I know that this is the sort of thing people mention when they say why they didn't apply, or why they don't think their children would be sensible to apply. It is a really big problem.

A lot of people will read this, and think, shit, that shows you need to have some special magic qualification. Lots more will think 'well, it's clearly unfair anyway'. And some will believe it must demonstrate that it isn't about exam grades but about stuff like whether you can play the flute to grade 8.

These stories aren't primarily saying 'it's ok, folks, it's not all about being super-great at getting lots of A Levels', although it's possible to deduce that message if you try hard. These stories are about 'shock horror, what went wrong and how unfair was it'. That's why they're written the way they are.

The only message I get is that the tutors felt the boy wasn't the best fit given limited space. No more and no less. The fact that he took a crazy number of A levels supports that, on balance.

as long as Oxford dont take the students with the highest grades there will be suspicion that something arcane is going on and/or that it's an old boys network. Students from Northern Ireland are under-represented at Oxford and stories like this wont encourage them to apply. I wouldn't assume he had an interview either as Oxford sometimes seems to make quite surprising decisions about who to interview.

This young man sound dedicated and highly devoted to his academic studies. He'll do very well somewhere else. It's Oxford's loss, pity he didn't apply to Cambridge.

Why should they take students with the highest grades, already? They'd have to require everyone to take a year out, wouldn't they, and they'd also have the issue that it's perfectly possible to get high grades and still not be particularly good at a subject at university, or to get lower grades and be excellent.

It's ridiculous to pretend that everyone learns the same way. This lad sounds as if he wanted to do a broad range of subjects. That's great and will work well at a US university.

Do we actually know that his Chemistry grade (ie., the relevant one, not like Latin or Greek) was any higher than the students who were accepted?

Oxford rejected two of the smartest girls I know - one my peer group 15 years ago, one last year.

Both were straight A students with a wide range of extra-curricular activities, confident and articulate, and from selective but not top-drawer schools with a strong record of sending good candidates to Oxford (so not over-predicting grades etc).

Both were surprising at the time, but with hindsight not so much: when a tutor is interviewing dozens and dozens of candidates for just 8 or so spaces in that college year intake, obviously a few really outstanding candidates will be unlucky.

On the other hand they let me in, despite me stuffing up and not getting my predicted grades, because I phoned and begged. Literally, begged and cried. I still don't know if that was the right decision or not! (Got a 2.1 and met my lovely husband, so I suppose it was!)

A very grey and pedestrian view from alreadytaken, that the highest grades at A level equates to the most intelligent student, or the student with most potential.

Opposite for me :)

I like Stanford too v much.

Strangely enough: I looked at the undergrad admissions stats of Oxford by region of domicile for 2010 - 2011 stats exist and are similar but there are no not later figures. Well, Northern Ireland has comparatively the tiniest % of applicants and acceptances - it is disproportionately small. The guy studied at a Grammar school, selective state school, dating 1810, which produced celebrated alumni, and has had a very varied curriculum, so my question is whether he had been interviewed and if this had been a case his potential could/should have been have been assessed.

his chemistry grade was A* as he got the same grade for all subjects. Can't do better than that. You can study a range of subjects and still have as much passion for one of them as other students of less ability, (or a wider social life, or both).

If you don't select on objective measures of academic ability then you substitute the subjective and possibly biased view of the interviewer.

I know it was an A, already*, but I would imagine so were everyone else's.

You can, however, get a range of marks within that. So, what I'm asking is, do we actually know his was a better grade than anyone else's?

What makes you think A Level grades are more 'objective' than whatever measure Oxford is using, btw?

Seems rather naive to me.

I talked to an Oxford tutor about the interview process. He freely admitted it was impossible. At least three candidates for every place, each of them qualified. A few minutes with each one, these days usually following a written test. They do their best. What can you do? They have to choose somehow, and an interview is ostensibly the best indicator of how someone will perform in the tutorial system, which to be fair, is central to their happiness and success as a student there.

I too am irritated by talking about individual cases, anyway. Any prejudice, and it may well be there (though if I were an Oxford tutor, I'd be fuming at being expected to magically produce parity overnight, from a two speed school system, fgs) should be analysed and addressed at an institutional / systemic level. I was under the impression that Oxford accepts state and private school students in roughly the same proportion as apply, though I may be out of date. The problem is getting all bright kids to apply and stories like this don't help.

The thing is, what your mate is calling 'impossible' is still a heck of a lot more rigorous than most universities have the facilities to do.

Most places judge on the predicted grades and personal statement only, because they couldn't begin to think about interviewing most of the candidates who apply.

Yet the stories are always about why Oxford/Cambridge didn't magically know that the student was going to get straight A* grades and why they didn't choose that student, not about why any other university turned down equally qualified students.

Loads of students with straight A/A* grades are rejected from Russell group universities every year - yet the implication is that Oxbridge is somehow different and more unfair. It's total bollocks.

It's sounds as if he isn't bothered and understands the reasons why. The interviewer, Stephen Nolan, is a big headed gobshite, who loves the sound of his own voice. He's only happy when he's trying to stir up controversy, whether there is any to be stirred up or not.
I wouldn't give Oxford anther thought if the Ivy League Colleges were after me. Good for him.

a distant relative of mine was accepted at Oxford with 3 A*s to study English. She turned Oxford down because her mum didnt want her to leave home and she studied in home city university. Now I think that is sadder because she was accepted and not allowed to go!

It might be cheaper in the US too - I think you can get scholarships to cover it.

If this applicant was interviewed and, in any way, gave the impression he would not consider Oxford his first choice (and had a preference for the USA) . It might have only been a subtle difference in attitude but that might have been enough, given the calibre of students they interview and the number who would clearly have Oxford as their dream - when passionate like that, that comes across!

coco why wouldn't you give Oxford a second thought if any Ivy League college was after you? Given that on all the world university rankings, Oxford is higher than all Ivy League colleges except Harvard and MIT? Including Stanford?

As someone comments, the student in question sounds completely not bothered (to the point of arrogance) about it all. He also seems unaware that almost all US colleges have lesser reputations than Oxford. These factors (plus the probable written test oart of his interview) are likely relevant to his lack of an offer from Oxford.

Standford does have an almost unbeatable reputation for silicon valley billionaires though...

It discourages people from applying because they think, oh well, I only did 3 A levels, so if someone doing 7 can't get in I haven't got a chance, or I'm from NI, and they clearly don't like us. Worse sometimes teachers and parents will draw those conclusions and tell their kids not to bother applying.

The man issue with admissions to the best British universities is that bright kids don't apply at all because somewhere along the line they are given the impression that they won't get in and if they do they won't fit in.

I believe the top universities are for people with perfect grades from GCSEs up myth is part of that.

Not my 'mate', my tutor. And there is nothing to suggest that interviews are rigorous. Quite the opposite, some people believe. It introduces personal relations, prejudices, an enormous element of luck. But it may still be the best blunt tool to use, not least because it roughly mimics a tutorial.

My point - in response to the OP's question - was merely that they are people, they do their best, and don't claim to be infallible.

I got rejected by Stanford
Um, about the boy with 7A*, so what? The boy got something he wanted badly. He didn't get something he didn't want. Not much, anyway.
Hooray for him. Why is this news, again?

But Oxford can't give extra credit for the seven a levels specifically because many candidates wouldn't have the opportunity to take 7. So they'd probably view the Latin and Greek a levels as evidence of a "hobby", if anything.

People from Norn Iron are difficult to understand...their strange accent coupled with a giant clutch of A* A Levels grades was possibly too much for tired old Oxford