Exeter offers : incompetent or arrogant?

[TalkinPeace]

DD submitted her form last October
Exeter have still not had the courtesy to send an offer (the other four Unis all have)
when phoned they said

• no offers have been issued (bollocks as DDs friends have theirs)
• offers will be made by end of December (bollocks as its now late march)
• offers will be made right after the UCAS cut off date (bollocks as it was in January)
• offers will be made by the end of March ........

Exeter are arrogant liars
the word needs to go round

I don't reckon that's the case Bert. Grades are only part of the story which is why some parents get apoplectic if their 4A kid doesn't get an offer from a top interviewing uni and someone else's kid with only one A does. I reckon ron is absolutely right about the hinterlands of intellectual imagination, lateral thinking, logic etc.

Eric I don't think it's an issue of positive or negative i think the point is that the school - which should recognise potential for Oxbridge when it sees it - over represents that potential when it isn't there, although the grades and the debating and the rugby and other stuff is all there

quit I agree.

School references are what they are. Why would a school play down an applicant with excellent grades and predictions who has generally been a good pupil in school? Just because there are lots of them?

I reckon ron is absolutely right about the hinterlands of intellectual imagination, lateral thinking, logic etc.

I also agree with this. I'm not sure that schools/teachers are always able to differentiate between pupils on that dimension.

bobo I'm not sure you can generalise about what the most selective universities are looking for.

Different departments will want different things.

And most tutors will want a mix of students. Particularly those who will be involved in small work groups (where dynamics have an impact).

molio I suspect the reason person X gets and interview when person Y doesn't is due to their aptitude tests and the work submitted by the applicants in question.

Also when push comes to shove, it sometimes comes down to small margins as to who gets an offer and who doesn't. The idea that successful applicants always stand out as having something very special to offer, in comparison to their unsuccessful counterparts is overplayed IMVHO. Though naturally the successful applicants and their parents have a vested interest in believing otherwise.

I think Eric talks sense.

If you go to a university that interviews then they do like to see yuu have read around the subject. That's easier to really show in an interview vs personal statement though. If you can demonstrate that in a meaningful way it will be more important than extra curricular stuff.

I was looking at archaeology personal statements on the student room the other day (don't ask) & you could really tell which students were from a wealthy background - and their personal statements did stand out more because they'd been on millions of digs abroad rather than having to do a saturday job or work in the holidays. But which would be the better student?

I agree entirely that a mix of students is crucial. But I don't think that is in contradiction to the idea that strings of A*s and lots of extra curricular prowess do not always capture the exceptional qualities that make a really good university student.

Oh, right. I forgot that I'm on Mumsnet, where "university" and "Oxbridge" are synonyms!

Crikey, it's an undergraduate degree...no one is expected to shake the world .

When I'm doing my rounds trying to whip up increased access to our place, I spend a lot of time pointing out that you don't need to be a genius.

Funny that, Eric. I was talking very recently to an old BF of my sister's who does admissions at your place and he was complaining that he saw far too many hopeless cases at interview ;). He wondered how they could filter better so that he didn't have to waste his time on no hopers.

And any university using extra curricular activities as a selection criterion should be ashamed of itself.

I think part of the problem is that teaching (and learning) has become overly focussed on the narrow curriculum. It doesn't encourage enough reading around the subject. Or learning about unrelated subjects just for the interest.

Eric the tutor in question was a Cambridge tutor so aptitude tests aren't relevant for the most recent cycle.

Also, the point is not about not being a genius; the point is about not being in any way up to the course and what supervisions require, despite completely star stricken references from the school.

bobo yiu always get the old guard who spend their time bemoaning how things are going down hill and the applicants are all rubbish. In their day everyone was exceptional yadda yadda.

I think you have to take what they say with a pinch of salt.

TBH we don't interview that many. Very few 'hopeless' ones get through to that stage. T'other place is less picky in the initial stages.

bert the most selective universities don't really take ECs into account (the least selective ones do BTW, where some activities attract UCAS points that they will take on board) but schools do include them in their refs. TBF I can see how teachers find it hard to say much of any substance, particularly in sixth form colleges where they may hardly know their students.

That's good to know that it's not likely to be parental influence disquit but there's very clearly a sense that certain schools are being cheap with their praise and are undermining their own credibility.

we had quite a bit of input into the DDs school references - DD1s need to be completely rewritten as her tutor didn't really know her, but DD2s was written by the head of sixth form as he does for all Oxbridge/medicine applications, plus DD2 needed additional info to put her results into context (medial stuff). Her Oxbridge rejection did confirm that the school was right to have put her forward though, so no over-inflation with us .

Eric you're stereotyping with the 'old guard'. I can think of a good number of 'old guardsmen' academics who are incredibly street wise and sage.

I didn't say otherwise molio.

The old guard are not categorised so much by their years on position, as by their attitude alongside those years.

Some stay fresh, optimistic etc. Some do not.

Agree with Eric that it is the schools who "waste" a paragraph on extracurriculars in their references. (EC are always a waste of a paragraph for my subject.) And for my subject the vast majority of applicants are interviewed at Cambridge - the cutoff for interview is done almost entirely using AS scores, with reference playing very little role.

Even schools with considerable experience of Oxbridge admissions can be poor at judging whether a pupil is a strong candidate i.e. there can be "honest" mistakes. Similarly I have received letters of strong support for graduate applications from colleagues at other universities, interviewed the candidates and felt that they weren't strong candidates at all.

Given that the applicants which were being discussed all had the requisite AS scores but were still incredibly weak, I expect a lot of Cambridge tutors are looking forward to the advent of Oxford style aptitude tests quit (I guess in your subject it will make less difference, given STEP).

Ha ha at "old guard", Eric. He's definitely younger than you ;)

As I say, the Old Guard is less to do with age than years service plus attitude.

I am a veritable infant in terms of terms of admissions cycles.

I guess it's just like any job. People get jaded. Can't blame 'em really when funding is being slashed at every turn and the world and his wife think they know better about how you should do your job.

TBH, this particular person did his undergraduate degree and PhD in a subject that is not the subject he teaches now and I suspect that his current subject is less picky, out of necessity, than his original subject. He's a very popular prof, though, not a jaded old fogey :)

And to be fair Eric I guess the people Bobo and I are referring to are academics, judging applicants from that point of view whereas you're coming at it from a different, non academic, perspective. The point made to me was exclusively about academic merit.

Quite Bobo, I think it's a fair guess that these people are all younger than Eric, even the most senior. The most junior is a babe - and super fresh :)