Oxbridge 2021: another 6 months of fretting

[DahliaMacNamara]

Will they make the grades? How will grades be awarded anyway? What the hell are Cambridge up to with that nasty little clause?

*People could do (not who do)

Are you not the parent of an offer holder then Goodbye?

Goodbye, your comments are quite patronising and offensive to offer holders. At the Churchill open day today, the senior tutor said that the clause was unhelpful and unnecessarily stressful to offer holders. People interpreted it as written, as many lawyers on here have said. You may disagree, which is fine, but there is no need to subtly insult others.

Our daughter and we didn’t panic, and we weren’t frantic, but we were mildly concerned and confused. It has now been clarified, which is great.

The fact that you didn’t worry doesn’t mean others shouldn’t. Our DD is still debating between Cambridge and UCL, so is not particularly invested in Cambridge, and neither are we, but we were still confused by the clause.

Not sure what you hope to achieve by being unpleasant. There is really no need.

Goodbye, unfortunately, the point about clauses is that they are only there for corner cases and extreme circumstances. That's the only reason they are ever included. And as such, I think it is reasonable to look at something that says 'if you get the grades, there is a circumstance in which you won't get a place' and worry.

As detailed before on this thread, admission policies, clauses and the like have to be two things - absolutely crystal clear about 'what will happen if....' and absolutely easy to understand. This clause was neither, and that is why Cambridge needed to clarify, and dare I say, backtrack! The 4th option on their list was against UCAS' rules, and should never have been there in the 1st place.

RaskolnikovsGarret my being patronising is simply mirroring NotJackieWeaver's patronising of Cambridge and its lawyers.

Also, I interpreted it as written too, using the obvious context that the clause never said or implied that any of these options would be imposed. Others interpreted it in a different way, imputing things which were never there.

I really am not going to be in awe of anyone on MN who claims to be 'a lawyer'. there are good lawyers (such as Cambridge University lawyers) and there are dull lawyers and there are woefully bad lawyers. I've no idea where all these MN lawyers fall on that scale; I simply read what they say about things like this clause and think some may not be as hot shot as others.

Have I read this wrongly - has it not always been the case ( maybe Oxford ) but either Oxford or Cambridge can give a place at the univerisity , but not at the particular college applied for . I can get - opting for a deferred place - but not sure what the hoo ha is here ( but very probably my fault. I think ( according to DS's friends - Cambridge have oft over allocated ) & yes I agree with @goodbyestranger in my singular experience - Oxford rely on their own tests and interviews. Well - Very very happy to be contradicted

Bilberry the fourth option wasn't against any rules because it would never have been imposed. It meant that if a student chose to go elsewhere, that student would get support from Cambridge.

Well I won't be contradicting you Basilisk :) And hello :)

goodbye - correct - if the student agrees. Unfortunately what the clause said was that Cambridge would 'try to offer one of the four options' without the clarity of what would happen if they were unable to, or if the student did not like one of the 4 options.

UCAS rules are that if the course runs, the student MUST be offered a place on that course at that university, if they get their grades.

Hence the UCAS statement that all options (except moving college) must remain the decision of the student.

That's what Cambridge should have said, that the final decision rests with the student.

I have no idea why I’ve got under your skin on this Stranger as you seemingly aren’t the parent of an offer holder so unless by some weird coincidence you are the in-house lawyer involved my passing opinion on this now-resolved matter is surely something of no concern to you.

Anyone saying anything absurd concerns me if I want it to.

Also, to be fair to myself, I've had enough DC holding Oxbridge offers to have been around this particular block a few times (eleven in total? seven undergrad and four grad.... I think.... it gets a bit blurry.... like remembering the DCs' current ages etc :))

Bilberry if Cambridge had wanted to say that then they would have said it but they didn't so they didn't.

I can remember the years of their birth it's just at any given point in time their current ages can be a challenge.

Hmmm, You sound like you miss those days and I think this leaping to the defence of the institution is somehow part of that.

Yes I'd like to say good reply but I currently have three DC at Oxbridge with my youngest a fresher having not taken a gap year .... Possibly psychology not your forte either, along with law, NotJackieWeaver!

I'm leaping to the defence of sensible thinking rather than the institution.

Stranger, I don’t have a problem with you, I don’t mind if we disagree about clauses or how good other lawyers are.

But I do think there is something going on here with you.You are gunning for me on a thread that’s only in existence to support parents of applicants (people like me). Another poster has commented on your attacks.

You are not getting to me - I don’t allow myself to be bullied. You need to stop please. I have a right to be here.

NotJackieWeaver I have no intention of 'getting to you' . That poster also misinterpreted the clause as far as I remember (I haven't checked back) so has ticked me off a couple of times for allegedly not getting the point, or being rather brusque, or something like that. Perhaps the poster is miffed about getting it wrong (if I'm correct that she did). All I'm doing is responding to your posts, nothing more and nothing less. As I said, I did find your looking down on the lawyers Cambridge uses quite funny as I said, so I called it out and then you responded and I responded to your response etc. It's really all fairly benign. It certainly can't constitute a personal attack to say hey, that's just ridiculous tbh. That's what these boards are about - conversation - although I agree that anything personal should be struck out (or rather not said in the first place).

Whereas I think it's just about possible that your post about my state of mind vis a vis Cambridge and a hankering for the days of Oxbridge offers for my DC is personal!

But since that too is nonsense (get back to me in twenty years when all graduations are a fleeting memory!) I'll let it go :)

goodbye and I have different views on the clause. I know I am right - that the clause says they could break UCAS rules in a disgraceful and probably illegal way. Whoever drafted it needs to be told off and sent to redo it. However I have no skin in the game. I didn't try Oxbridge and nor did my children although my siblings went. I don't think I am the poster being referred to but I did above out of interest post the clause and it said they could exclude you rather than merely asking if you would mind deferring etc.

I hope Cambridge have revised the clause and I have not checked if they have but if someone points me to the current version I can check that.

I only came on this thread because my children didn't try Oxbridge nor did I and a good few of us have had good City legal careers so I just wanted to say just about nothing is excluded from your career chances if you go somewhere similar.

But I'm right too Xenia. I think you're simply reading it wrong :)

Also, in my view the clause does exactly what Cambridge wanted it to do and it's a bit off if they read the riot act to their lawyer for fulfilling the brief. Also, as the client, it will have read the clause and accepted it before committing it to the offer bumph.

Anyhow, I think I'd win on the interpretation in court but there you go, agree to differ etc, since we're short of court :)

One of us is right and one of us is wrong. It cannot both say that Cambridge is allowed to force someone not to go if they meet the criteria and say the opposite. It is one or the other. I know I am right but am happy for people to have different views and Cambridge have now said they would not do what the clause said although I doubt they will be handing out £500 for pain and suffering caused to each student through their incorrectly drafted clause.

Surely the fact that Cambridge were forced to backtrack/clarify their clause means that they did want the flexibility to cancel offers after grades were achieved. That is certainly how nationwide media and also their local Tab interpreted it. If that isn’t what Cambridge meant then their wording was sloppy at best.

I expect many people are relieved to have it confirmed that Cambridge are in fact bound by the same UCAS rules as every other U.K. university.

Xenia I'm happy for your view to differ from mine too. I don't think you're correct.

Flyonawalk clarifying the most sensible interpretation of the clause isn't backtracking. It's perceived to be backtracking only by those like Xenia who misread the clause.

Sometimes loose wording can be a benefit to the person who draws up the contract.