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.

Do they do the Extended Project Qualification in NI? Wouldn't his efforts have been better going into that instead of non-chemistry-related classical languages.

There simply isn't room at Oxford and Cambridge for all the students who get these kinds of grades. I didn't get in to Cambridge, got an interview but woefully under prepared for it. I was so happy at Bristol I really can't regret not getting in.

I'd rather go to Stanford because it's in the US

Every year every tutor has to turn down brilliant candidates. That's just how it is.

And Oxford places as much emphasis on the interview as on grades. Because of the system, tutors have to be as sure as they can be that they can work at close quarters with a candidate.

Perhaps this young man and his admissions tutor didn't hit it off?

Better get over it. That's how it is in the work place!!!!

Sorry, rooty, your tutor.

But there is plenty to suggest admissions are rigorous. I know people who do them and I know how hard they work. I think there's someone on here (though I expect she's extremely busy right now) who does them, too - what they describe is amazingly careful. I do see what you're saying about luck, and personal relations, but it is still hugely more than other universities have the facilities to do.

Sure LRD. I think my posts are pretty supportive of Oxford's admissions. Perhaps I should have emphasised the care taken too. I didn't mean to make it sound slapdash - nor did my tutor feel it was. Just trying to explain to the OP, I don't know, I suppose how many good candidates there are and that they do their best.

You need to be predicted A*s to apply.

Who says Lanceolate?

Sorry, rooty, I can see you are being supportive, and I do agree. And admire people like your tutor who comment honestly on how they find the process.

I just find the whole thing depressing, because there are so many myths about and so many good students who won't apply.

lance - not true.

Well, you could apply with Bs but you'd have about the same odds of getting in as winning the Euromillions lottery.

I think officially it's AAA.

I got into Oxbridge from a Northern Ireland school, with lower grades than that. There isn't (or wasn't - can't speak for now) such a culture of applying to Oxbridge. Many of the brightest pupils from my year went to St Andrews, and my grammar school averaged one pupil to Oxford and one to Cambridge each year. AFAIK this hasn't changed much.

It depends which college you apply to, as others have said, and I definitely had the impression that they were looking for something beyond all top grades. Looking back at my own interview, I think the crucial point was my enthusiasm for the subject. I didn't know about something the interviewer wanted to talk about, which made me decide I had no chance. But after he explained, the discussion was so fascinating that I forgot I was even in an interview.

Most of their applicants will have all/nearly all top grades, so it's logical that they need to distinguish. After all, if they just creamed off the highest grades from all their applicants, then they'd also be accused of bias towards small-class independents or grammars with a middle-class intake. Damned if they do, etc.

Officially it is not, Lanceolate, certainly not for a Y13 applicant.

Can you cite the source for those odds, then? They're fascinating.

There's a grade in the middle - A - and besides it's only one choice. If someone fancies applying, why shouldn't they give it a go?

Stanford will suit him very well. It's a broader base of education and still an excellent school.
He can go to Oxbridge for further or future study/employment
It isn't the end it's the beginning for him and starting in Stanford sounds fantastic

Anyone can give it a go. www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/apply/requirements/

Not everyone will get in. Hundreds of A* students will be rejected.

I got the offer the wrong way round! A*AA.

The source for the odds is my head. It's based on the fact that the vast majority of those turned down every year won't be predicted anything below an A.

That sounds more like it!

Of course plenty of people will be rejected. But I think if you were predicted, say, A* AAB or AABB, you really wanted to try and you thought you had good reason for low predictions, there's no reason why you shouldn't.

If you had exceptional circumstances, you might try with lower predictions.

I think the problem with citing grades is, I don't think Oxbridge (or any other university for that matter) believes that a student with an A* is automatically going to be more brilliant than a student with an A or B. Of course it's a good predictor. And things get even hairier when we're talking predicted grades, not grades actually gained. So it isn't straightfoward.

We talk far less about non-Oxbridge universities, which is ridiculous, but if you look at the Russell Group, you will see standard offers posted on websites that might be AAB or AAA or whatever, and you'll also find students who get in who end up with much lower grades. And some of those will do excellently, and some with AAAA will do badly.

\link{http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking\Stanford beats Cambridge (& Harvard & MIT & Princeton) & ties with Oxford for 2nd place in THE world rankings}

I think it's fair to say Oxford most likely made a mistake here and underestimated his potential (most likely he didn't impress at interview for some reason, or underachieved in the admissions test if there is one for chemistry or both). It's also possible that his school have over stated previous applicants abilities and so the admissions tutors were wary of believing his predicted grades.

As for US vs oxbridge, that's personal preference and having been rejected by one it's easy to see why you would turn to the other. Lots of good reasons to study in the US imo, not least keeping studies broad, networking and getting a less parochial view of the world.

LRD agreed

lance for A level you do not need to be predicted A for an offer. In fact Oxford set little store by A at A level and few offers made require them. Oxford will look at GCSEs (these need to be excellent, but not a straight flush) and PS etc etc then ask a number in for interview. A lot of store in those. Offers made will be reasonable because at that point they've decided if they want you or not.

Cambridge is different. They don't worry quite so much about GCSE (these things being relative) and will interview the majority of applicants. They make more offers than Oxford but a lot will be A* offers which is their extra safety net IYSWIM.

For many Oxford degrees there is an admissions test to help determine which students are called for interview - \link{http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/applying_to_oxford/tests/\details here}

DS2 applied for PPE (3 years ago) so he took the TSA - he was interviewed, but was rejected (but didn't like the set-up anyway so I can only imagine how badly his interviews went )

\link{http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/apply/tests/\I think Cambridge do it the other way round} - they decide who to interview & then where appropriate the candidate is tested either before or after interview

There isn't a pre-interview test for Chemistry at Oxford though, & I think we still don't know if the Norn Iron one was interviewed or not?