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.

I think he chose too many subjects. I think he should have specialized in just the sciences if he is that fascinated by his subject.
I am just wondering how it is humanely possible to get 7 A levels. I know that this is not a thread about how hard A levels are, but I am definitely concerned about the standard of A level. When I was at school, you had to be near enough a genius to gain 4 A levels.

TBF, he did Maths, further Maths, physics, chemistry and biology so he couldn't have done any more helpful a levels for chemistry (and Maths is a bit of a "freebie" if you're doing further Maths)

It was not just Alastair exceptional but his school had outperformed national standards at A Levels, another boy in his class had 5A*s and 2 others were admitted to Oxford this year. Six of their boys had A2 Maths taken one year earlier, so there is an academic school environment. The Principal is Oxford scholar.

I am not surprised that Stanford identified an exceptional talent in the guy and offered him a place. They are leaders in offering educational programs for the gifted internationally.

Probably we will hear again about the student.

The selection process of Stanford University. In their admissions page S state as a guide academic excellence. But they emphasise that ?nor is there any specific number of AP or honors courses you must have on your transcript that will secure your admission to Stanford?. S wants intellectual vitality, dedication and genuine interest in expanding your intellectual horizons. And they also take account of personal context, background and environment.
And it is much harder competition to get to Stanford than to Oxford.

Still I d like to know whether the boy had been interviewed

Perhaps it is because he appears to have achieved those grades only by a ridiculous amount of studying. Clearly very bright and studious but not gifted.

Maris, why are you so interested in whether he was interviewed or not? What do you think it will show either way?

I would like to know at what stage was Alastair rejected. If candidates are rejected without interview it might indicate a number of things such as they had not done well at aptitude tests - if there are such in chemistry - or there was something in the UCAS form that made admissions not consider them, a PS for example or a reference. If Alastair had gone through interviews then it is clearly an academic judgement internal to Colleges. The guide provided by Stanford University site on the 3 criteria of their selection is clear; in this respect Oxford does not give such details.

DC has studied at Oxford and found interviews quite reasonable and interesting though varied between tutors. We have friends who got into Stanford with just Stanford?s Online High school diploma, and no AP.

You might find this interesting, OP:

www.merton.ox.ac.uk/admissions/feedback/chemistry.shtml

The average intake for chemistry at Merton is six. If the cross-Oxford average applies, then there were 21 applicants for those six places. Given that it was Merton, I'd've thought all 21 of those would have been predicted A* in at least two sciences and Maths. I'd be surprised if a similar article couldn't be written about at least 5 of those not offered a place, and about hundreds of other applicants to other colleges or subjects.

working link

It is very uncommon to find 7As. Many candidates do get As after been turned down at interview and even without been offered one. Many candidates go on to get A*s in their A Levels after been turned down by Oxbridge.

Stanford has a different system of selection than Oxford. People applying to Stanford send their SAT I and Sat II results.

Some candidates are better communicating and organising verbally rather than in writing. They would do better in interviews and might get offers. But a candidate who is better in organising written presentation might not perform as well as at an interview. If this is the case he will not have the opportunity to show what grades he achieves at an exam. If candidates were interviewed after the results, it could have turn out different for many. There have been unconditional offers to some applying post results.

So some candidates don?t do as well in interviews as they do at written exams. It is possible for some person to have an interview and not perform so well but then go on to an exam and do brilliantly. I am not Educational Psychologist but have read reports.

TheDoctrineOfJetlag thanks for the link. This process as outlined by Merton requires intellectual strength but a rather a different kind of skill and ability than a written exam. So each of those, interview and exam might cause different outcomes for the candidate. An exam requires amongst other traits of strong memorisation capacity and excellent working memory skill but not all candidates have those in equal quantities. but a problem solving interview requires different skills.

I don't follow the point you're making about different intelligences?

I assume Oxford and Stanford both know the situation you're talking about - it is well understood, isn't it, that some people are better in interviews and some in exams, and indeed that different kinds of exams suit different people.

Oxford teaches largely by tutorials, so obviously an interview is a pretty good way to tell how well someone will take to tutorials, and it's probably a less good measure of how someone will do in exams.

The question you seem to be skating around asking is, is it unfair for Oxford to try to select people who will do well in their system, instead of people who will do well in exams - is that right?

(Not to imply 'exams' are monolithic, btw.)

It's not just about grades - although obviously they are a component - the interview at Oxford and Cambridge is hugely important to see if you will respond well to the teaching style there. If it doesn't look like a candidate will thrive in a tutorial environment it makes more sense to offer the place to someone who is also very able but will get more out of the teaching style. Or someone who actually has more drive for the subject.

Stanford will probably suit him better as he will be able to take a wide range of courses, possibly even do a double major in a science field and classics.

A friend of mine does admissions for her subject at her college in Oxford. You get a lot of training before you are let loose on admissions, and an extraordinary amount of energy and time goes into making the process as fair and carefully considered as possible. But you've got to reject excellent candidates at the end of the day no matter what you do.

Stanford selects with different method than Oxford. The application Essays count a lot there. I am not saying that one is better than the other. Some students do better in interviews than in exams and some others quite the opposite. Some have better auditory skills and some others have better visual skills.

Students at Oxford are selected on the basis of their ability. If the student can interview well it would be an advantage, but not all do. Some might not organise so well verbally. Students do not respond always to the tutorial system - student surveys have shown that - but this is not the most imporatnt because the student has to hand in work sheets and they have to learn to work independent. At the end only the final exams count at Oxford.

Whether interviews are the best vehicle to see who is the best I do not know - an Ed Ps could tell.

I agree grades do not always show who is suitable.

I have never heard of Oxford students doing 'work sheets' and don't know what these are (and I've known several Oxford chemistry students).

Yes, students are selected on the basis of ability, but 'ability' is just as multi-faceted as intelligence - I think the tutors have a fair sense of how well those interviews will tell them about what they care about.

Student surveys are a, well, interesting measure of how well students do in any system. I know not all students respond to tutorials (or any other mode of teaching). But student surveys tend to tell you more about how students feel than about how well-suited they are to the mode of teaching, which is as it should be.

Oxford has its own fair share of ed psychs - they do have a psychology department just like most other universities. Who do you think comes up with the research ed psychs use, if not researchers into educational psychology?

I'm sorry if I sound combative or obtuse (or both), it's just that I cannot work out why you are so shocked by this lad's example and why you keep making out Oxford admissions is some enormous mystery that excuses constant scaremongering media stories about it.

OP might be talking about the problem sheets that science and maths undergrads at Oxford do in preparation for a tute. But problem sheets are what are used as a jumping off point for the tutorial in the same way essays are just the starting point for a tutorial - they are not the end point in the learning process. If you think that it's about ticking off problem sheets you don't understand what the tutorial system is meant to do.

Yes, Oxford is mostly about the final exams. But the tutorial system + lectures are the teaching method that help you get there ...

I, er, have actually taught in an Ivy League university and I can say many of the undergrads there wouldn't have coped with the tutorial method - it's about being able to think laterally and being willing to show some intellectual independence and not everyone is ready for that at 18. I can actually think only of a handful of kids I've taught who wouldn't have struggled in the Oxford system even though they are in one of the top US universities.

*But you've got to reject excellent candidates at the end of the day, no matter what you do."

This.

Most Oxbridge rejects will go on to get straight As. Generally only straight A students apply. They can't all be accepted.

OP, if you're that desperate to know whether the young man was interviewees why don't you ask him? If you can't find his direct contact details then I am sure a letter c/o the school would reach him. He is far more likely to know than posters here.

I don't know why there has to be such a media fuss about these stories (well, I suppose I do but it only serves to increase my contempt for journalists). Lots of bright people apply to Oxbridge, more than there are places, so lots will be rejected. Twas ever thus.

interviewed

I was rejected by an Oxford college after interview. For a number of reasons probably, not least that I was poorly advised and applied for a very popular course at a college with only one place for it. Added to which that actually I would have hated Oxford in hindsight, or at least I would have hated that college. I suspect that they recognised that, like they recognised it in this kid.

I went to a Russell Group Uni and spent time at the Sorbonne in Paris. As it happens, that was the wrong choice too, but that's what happens when you're 18 and they think they're invincible

OP you seem incredibly overinvested in this whole business......

He was rejected after interview according to this. He's also represented Ireland in the International Chemistry Olympiad this year - I'm sure he would have suited Oxford just fine but messed up his interview somehow and didn't appear to be quite as good as the other applicants. They do have many more excellent candidates than they can take, but he certainly seems a cut above the usual rejectees.

That says he applied to study maths. It also seems from his comments that he would have rejected Oxford once he got an offer from the US (although that might just be bravado). If it's not a typo and he genuinely applied to study maths, then you have to ask yourself, (a) why did he apply to Oxford which isn't the top place to do maths in the UK nor even the second, (b) why isn't he doing maths at Stanford then?

Te article describes him as very shy which I'm afraid I'm a bit about. Very shy high achievers do not get themselves in all the papers and on the radio. They say no.

This seems rather manufactured. But, whatever. You can't trust anything you read in the papers anyway.

Sheesh, only 10 students are accepted each year to the course he applied for. Not surprisingly at all that he didn't get thru.