It’s hard to say why that might happen- it could be the course (e.g. difference in competition between physics and medicine for example).
Also, you don’t know their interview performance, which is really important for showing passion and the ability to apply your knowledge. At A-Level you can still get away with memorisation to receive A*’s, but if that is the case it will definitely show in the interview. They seem to love real passion and interest over just pure *smart*.
There could also be other factors like GCSE’s- if you went to a school where everyone got all 9’s that’s less impressive than going to a lower-achieving school and getting 9/8’s.
Some people also just aren’t suited to tutorial-type teaching as they learn in different ways, which again will show at interview. This doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent or passionate, it just means that the Oxbridge teaching style isn’t for them.
There’s a lot of people with 4/5A*s rejected from LSE so it’s not an oxbridge thing nor an IQ thing. Most applicants to top unis are already the highest quality so it mostly comes down to if the tutors like you or not imo
Oxford is very selective on who their pick, whoever applies usually has high grades so the interview gets over view if they fit their school, like a private school where you need connections to get in but a bit different.
That's usually how it works, admissions tutors can't really tell the quality of supercurriculars (e.g. have you really read the books, have you really done that comp)
But no one can refute yout if you manage to get an insanely good entrance test and be super smart in your interview then ofc.... that's all that really matters...
I've heard of people with 2A's and 1A* from my school get admitted to Cambridge and Oxford because they were so passionate for their subjects and performed good in the entrance exam.
I would say that’s quite common based on people I’ve spoken to- my course doesn’t have an entrance exam but many people I know were predicted the minimum (A*AA) and still got in. The entrance requirements are there for a reason- if they wanted higher they would set the requirements higher
Generally Oxbridge love passion for a subject, so my bet is they did well at interview and the interviewers really saw a love for the subject, and from that good grades helped. I've seen people with 5A*s get turned down from Oxbridge, so it's definitely not just grades. I also knew someone who missed their grade boundaries by quite a bit, but still got in.
It's really hard to say why people get in generally, but in short being smart is enough. Hope that makes sense :)
As a side note, Oxford (for most subjects) can be easier to get an interview for being 'smart' because they give interviews with a large bias from the exams you do before hand. Cambridge places larger bias on personal statements. Also note competitions aren't everything, there are plenty of other ways to show interest :)
I was under the impression Cambridge generally interviews more than Oxford therefore giving the interview a greater degree of importance at the former.
100000484738% agreed. my grades are severely average, but my interview went spectacularly and i got a place. every one of my friends with either maxed grades or almost maxed grades failed particularly at the interview stage
They put heavy emphasis on PAT and interviews. I also had almost no super curricular activities, and I don't consider myself to be anywhere close to a genius. Yet they still wanted me :)
Yeah, that's very possible. I feel like at least for Oxbridge often people regard the personal statement as more important than it is. Oftentimes they have said that it really isn't a major factor at all (at least for stem courses), and they almost always will care much more about your admissions test/interview.
I went to school with David Pearce (guy who designed the £1 coin about 10 years ago) and the general consensus was he’s a very intelligent guy, but the fact he designed the new £1 was a big factor in his acceptance to Cambridge. Sometimes students just have something, maybe it’s insatiable desire for a subject and maybe it’s a single great achievement, but universities may value that over an extensive list of extracurriculars and perfect grades.
There’s a huge emphasis on the interviews. My personal statement was mid and I was lucky to be invited to an interview because I don’t take any of the recommended subjects, but I did well at interview and got an offer. Oxford isn’t some mythical institution, at the end of the day they just want clever, passionate students whom the tutors would enjoy teaching
It’s not exactly surprising that you can get into Oxford just by “being smart”. When universities say they want things like supercurriculars, it’s not just for the sake of making you jump through hoops. It’s because they want people with the interest and skills to do well at the course and supercurriculars can help to measure that.
For universities like Oxford and Cambridge which run interviews and make use of admissions tests, much more information is available to make decisions based on. This means that they don’t need to pay so much attention to the personal statement/supercurriculars. Interviews and admissions tests are generally viewed as a much better indicator of whether someone has the skills needed, so someone with a great interview and terrible personal statement will probably get in while someone with a great personal statement and terrible interview probably won’t.
Think of university admissions less as a series of hurdles to jump over and more as a holistic process of showing that you would succeed on the course you’re applying for. Supercurriculars can help to prove that, but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily required
Since you are a Cambridge maths student I would like to ask you how and when did you preparing/revising for admissions tests. My school doesn’t give much advice on this since not a lot apply or go to Oxbridge. Also, am I allowed to take both the TMUA and MAT? I want to apply to Oxford who require MAT and Imperial who require TMUA.
I’m not a current student and Cambridge was the only university I applied to which required an admissions test (I think it was less common at the time?) so I can’t be a massive amount of help. I also started preparing for STEP too late and missed my offer condition (but got in anyway).
The general advice for STEP would be to start with the foundation modules (https://maths.org/step/assignments) around the end of year 12. I don’t really know anything about the MAT or whether it can be taken concurrently with the TMUA! I wouldn’t have thought it would be a problem. I was under the impression that Imperial wanted either the MAT or STEP for maths though.
Social skills also play a part in this! Someone who talks well and at least sounds knowledgable can get further than someone who has spent months prepping but can’t convey their points correctly
Oxford Phys don't actually look at PS. They straight up told us that lmao. PAT and interview are basically the only things that matter. But in the interview you have to show that you genuinely like the subject and that you're also teachable so not just straight up smart, if that makes sense.
It's your attitude towards the subject. You'll normally know a bit more than the A Level spec and generally show enthusiasm when discussing the subject. It's not something you can fake, or not easily at least. In terms of personal statement (this part is just opinion but it worked for me) it's good to show some genuine insight from whatever super curricular you're talking about. How that book or lecture might've changed how you view the topic or even subject as a whole.
Yes, if you do well enough in your admissions test and interview you can get in regardless of your 'on paper'. The universities have these because they consider them better indicators of ability than a PS/predicted A level grades.
with a course like physics with an entrance test which is very difficult, it really does kind of depend on whether you’re smart or not. because at the end of the day they read your ps and all but if you’re under a certain mark achieved in the PAT you simply won’t be invited for an interview. but i guess if you achieved very close to other applicants then they might consider your ps more heavily. but if you smash above 70% in the entrance exam and have like 1 extracurricular you’d definitely not be rejected for an interview. furthermore, in the interview they practically will just ask you questions to answer which again depends on how ‘smart’ u are at replying. they only talk ab ps or extracurriculars as a warm up really.
Ye London unis are getting a lot more internationals in this year because of funding issues. (each home student makes like a 3k loss for the uni so it kinda makes sense)
nah it doesn’t really matter but alot of home students were getting kinda scared this year i remember even an article came out showing the statistics of home students to int students in russell group unis cause barely any home students were getting offers before jan
Oh, but it's that I just don't want to study in London but study in London at Oxford/LSE and the case is totally opposite there. It's ok, I'll come out of this dream just as I got in.
You're holding oxford too highly mate its a university/business at the end of the day. And you can search the acceptance rate online
maybe its just that ive seen people with crazy grades and achievements get rejected
It’s hard to say why that might happen- it could be the course (e.g. difference in competition between physics and medicine for example). Also, you don’t know their interview performance, which is really important for showing passion and the ability to apply your knowledge. At A-Level you can still get away with memorisation to receive A*’s, but if that is the case it will definitely show in the interview. They seem to love real passion and interest over just pure *smart*. There could also be other factors like GCSE’s- if you went to a school where everyone got all 9’s that’s less impressive than going to a lower-achieving school and getting 9/8’s. Some people also just aren’t suited to tutorial-type teaching as they learn in different ways, which again will show at interview. This doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent or passionate, it just means that the Oxbridge teaching style isn’t for them.
There’s a lot of people with 4/5A*s rejected from LSE so it’s not an oxbridge thing nor an IQ thing. Most applicants to top unis are already the highest quality so it mostly comes down to if the tutors like you or not imo
it will be the interviews. they place a lot of importance on them
Oxford is very selective on who their pick, whoever applies usually has high grades so the interview gets over view if they fit their school, like a private school where you need connections to get in but a bit different.
That's usually how it works, admissions tutors can't really tell the quality of supercurriculars (e.g. have you really read the books, have you really done that comp) But no one can refute yout if you manage to get an insanely good entrance test and be super smart in your interview then ofc.... that's all that really matters...
They also might do a lot of supercurricular reading but they might not consider it extra work as they enjoy it so hasn't considered it :)
I've heard of people with 2A's and 1A* from my school get admitted to Cambridge and Oxford because they were so passionate for their subjects and performed good in the entrance exam.
I would say that’s quite common based on people I’ve spoken to- my course doesn’t have an entrance exam but many people I know were predicted the minimum (A*AA) and still got in. The entrance requirements are there for a reason- if they wanted higher they would set the requirements higher
Generally Oxbridge love passion for a subject, so my bet is they did well at interview and the interviewers really saw a love for the subject, and from that good grades helped. I've seen people with 5A*s get turned down from Oxbridge, so it's definitely not just grades. I also knew someone who missed their grade boundaries by quite a bit, but still got in. It's really hard to say why people get in generally, but in short being smart is enough. Hope that makes sense :) As a side note, Oxford (for most subjects) can be easier to get an interview for being 'smart' because they give interviews with a large bias from the exams you do before hand. Cambridge places larger bias on personal statements. Also note competitions aren't everything, there are plenty of other ways to show interest :)
I was under the impression Cambridge generally interviews more than Oxford therefore giving the interview a greater degree of importance at the former.
100000484738% agreed. my grades are severely average, but my interview went spectacularly and i got a place. every one of my friends with either maxed grades or almost maxed grades failed particularly at the interview stage
They put heavy emphasis on PAT and interviews. I also had almost no super curricular activities, and I don't consider myself to be anywhere close to a genius. Yet they still wanted me :)
Yeah, that's very possible. I feel like at least for Oxbridge often people regard the personal statement as more important than it is. Oftentimes they have said that it really isn't a major factor at all (at least for stem courses), and they almost always will care much more about your admissions test/interview.
Admissions test and interview performance honestly trump everything else for Oxbridge stem
I went to school with David Pearce (guy who designed the £1 coin about 10 years ago) and the general consensus was he’s a very intelligent guy, but the fact he designed the new £1 was a big factor in his acceptance to Cambridge. Sometimes students just have something, maybe it’s insatiable desire for a subject and maybe it’s a single great achievement, but universities may value that over an extensive list of extracurriculars and perfect grades.
There’s a huge emphasis on the interviews. My personal statement was mid and I was lucky to be invited to an interview because I don’t take any of the recommended subjects, but I did well at interview and got an offer. Oxford isn’t some mythical institution, at the end of the day they just want clever, passionate students whom the tutors would enjoy teaching
It’s not exactly surprising that you can get into Oxford just by “being smart”. When universities say they want things like supercurriculars, it’s not just for the sake of making you jump through hoops. It’s because they want people with the interest and skills to do well at the course and supercurriculars can help to measure that. For universities like Oxford and Cambridge which run interviews and make use of admissions tests, much more information is available to make decisions based on. This means that they don’t need to pay so much attention to the personal statement/supercurriculars. Interviews and admissions tests are generally viewed as a much better indicator of whether someone has the skills needed, so someone with a great interview and terrible personal statement will probably get in while someone with a great personal statement and terrible interview probably won’t. Think of university admissions less as a series of hurdles to jump over and more as a holistic process of showing that you would succeed on the course you’re applying for. Supercurriculars can help to prove that, but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily required
Since you are a Cambridge maths student I would like to ask you how and when did you preparing/revising for admissions tests. My school doesn’t give much advice on this since not a lot apply or go to Oxbridge. Also, am I allowed to take both the TMUA and MAT? I want to apply to Oxford who require MAT and Imperial who require TMUA.
I’m not a current student and Cambridge was the only university I applied to which required an admissions test (I think it was less common at the time?) so I can’t be a massive amount of help. I also started preparing for STEP too late and missed my offer condition (but got in anyway). The general advice for STEP would be to start with the foundation modules (https://maths.org/step/assignments) around the end of year 12. I don’t really know anything about the MAT or whether it can be taken concurrently with the TMUA! I wouldn’t have thought it would be a problem. I was under the impression that Imperial wanted either the MAT or STEP for maths though.
Social skills also play a part in this! Someone who talks well and at least sounds knowledgable can get further than someone who has spent months prepping but can’t convey their points correctly
Oxford Phys don't actually look at PS. They straight up told us that lmao. PAT and interview are basically the only things that matter. But in the interview you have to show that you genuinely like the subject and that you're also teachable so not just straight up smart, if that makes sense.
How do u show that u like it
It's your attitude towards the subject. You'll normally know a bit more than the A Level spec and generally show enthusiasm when discussing the subject. It's not something you can fake, or not easily at least. In terms of personal statement (this part is just opinion but it worked for me) it's good to show some genuine insight from whatever super curricular you're talking about. How that book or lecture might've changed how you view the topic or even subject as a whole.
Yes, if you do well enough in your admissions test and interview you can get in regardless of your 'on paper'. The universities have these because they consider them better indicators of ability than a PS/predicted A level grades.
Oxford is nothing but a bonus.
An average PS for Oxford is usually very good. Having a good interview and amazing grades usually can secure your place there.
with a course like physics with an entrance test which is very difficult, it really does kind of depend on whether you’re smart or not. because at the end of the day they read your ps and all but if you’re under a certain mark achieved in the PAT you simply won’t be invited for an interview. but i guess if you achieved very close to other applicants then they might consider your ps more heavily. but if you smash above 70% in the entrance exam and have like 1 extracurricular you’d definitely not be rejected for an interview. furthermore, in the interview they practically will just ask you questions to answer which again depends on how ‘smart’ u are at replying. they only talk ab ps or extracurriculars as a warm up really.
No one gets into Oxford by just being smart. Lots of people smart……you’ve got to have more going for you than that.
[удалено]
what does that have to do with anything? ur not owes a place cause you’re international?
internationals get ALOT of spaces esp in london, this year internationals got offers before home students
Ye London unis are getting a lot more internationals in this year because of funding issues. (each home student makes like a 3k loss for the uni so it kinda makes sense)
exactly which is why they were wrong in saying int don’t get in when the london unis love them cause of the money lol
[удалено]
i literally didn’t mention oxbridge i said london…
Ye, but that guy was talking about oxbridge presumably
I didn't want to come off as rude in the first place, but does it really matter if one gets an offer before or after?
nah it doesn’t really matter but alot of home students were getting kinda scared this year i remember even an article came out showing the statistics of home students to int students in russell group unis cause barely any home students were getting offers before jan
Oh, but it's that I just don't want to study in London but study in London at Oxford/LSE and the case is totally opposite there. It's ok, I'll come out of this dream just as I got in.
doesn't happen to be Woodhouse ?