Education WAHOO! Got into uni!

OMFG, why did I not do that?

Although I bet it's not as cool as it sounds.

 

Commiserations dude What was your fifth option? If it was Bio-Med, you might be able to transfer after a year...

I reckon I'll go for Imperial, Birmingham, Leicester and Sheffield... Though Manchester and Kings are two others I'm considering... better make ny mind up soon...

 

Congrats to all of you guys who got in!

 

My fifth was biomed at Kings, but I declined, and have decided to take a gap year and work in a hospital or something, and reapply. At least ill have some money before I go 2 uni tht way

 

Yeah, best to take advantage of the opportunity I suppose... a friend of mine did that and went abroad, and got accepted almost instantly the second time round...

I don't suppose clearing is any help in medicine?

 

From what I can gather no, cos with medicine at the good unis (FY1/2 placements are v. competitive so u really need 2 go to 1) almost everyone gets straight A's easily, and if not, the unis usually have waiting lists as welll, so clearing is about as much use as a cock flavoured lollipop

 

I did think it was probably too subtle to notice

 

Guys I know at my uni did Disaster Management, they had an exam paper on ASTEROIDS and METEOR IMPACTS! How much more awesome is that?

 

Whoah, what the hell did I do physics for? Disaster management?! Fire and Explosions?!

 

Was playing Sim City part of the course?

 

gratz man. I can't wait for my self to go into university next year

good luck

 

I wouldn't say that uni has got easier to get into, just that there are a lot more random/media-type subjects and as such more places than there used to be. Universities, like any business, are driven by money. More students means more money.

The thing is though, there is much more ephasis on which university you went to than grade (assuming you get at least a 2.1 which most do). Many of the high profile employers (read: city jobs) only look at the top 4/5 universities and when an applicant from another one applies one of the first things they check is the league position in the subject they did. Of course, a good candidate will still get in and wont get disregarded off hand; but it does make it harder.

 

From personal experience, Cambridge gives offers based on ability alone. I'm not sure what you mean by snobbery, can you please clarify?

In short, "Newer and less well-known/less prestigious Unis" are easier to get into because they have lower standards for students they are willing to accept than the older, more well-known/more prestigious unis.

 

May be the case most of the time, but you can be damn sure they're willing to let their standards slip if daddy can donate.
Any university would be guilty of doing the same.

 

Oh come on.. Oxbridge are well known for thinking they're better than everyone else just because of their tradition/history. It is true that those universities are good universities, but there are PLENTY of universities which offer better courses, depending upon your subject choice. Because of this, though, employers WILL take an Oxford attained 2-1 over say an Edinburgh 1st.. And the universities would be far quicker to send someone home if they didn't meet their ridiculously high standards.

Both universities are definitely seen as incredibly snobbish by pretty much everyone.. Don't tell me you were ignorant of this image?

 

Agree to a certain extent Ramble. I guess it would depend on the college and the subject. Of course it's impossible to say its fair 100% all of the time, but then again no university can guarantee 100% fairness. Also, due to the Collegiate system, the actual university has no say to whom the offers are made to - the colleges choose. Candidates are chosen by the specific academic fellows of the college, who have no major interest in the financial running of the college (they are paid by the university afaik). On the other hand, the master of each college is usually pushing for a good performance in the Tompkins Table, which is based on academic performance of the students at Tripos. This means it's to a college's advantage to select by performance rather than "donations", as most of the colleges are ridiculously rich anyway. Although I guess large donations may change this, but this again brings me back to your point, how would this be any different at a different university?

Firstly, it's not "because of their tradition/history". Rather than giving opinions, I'll give you facts. Oxbridge think they're better than everyone else (in the UK) because according to most university rankings done by research, they are. There, you may call me arrogant, but you can't really argue against facts. Of course, you may point out that "those are unreliable", but don't be quick to discredit them. I'm sure those guys who did the research know a little more about this than you do. Also, be aware that this is not just 1 review, there are several afaik.

Do you think employers are idiots? If they realised that an Edinburgh 1st was better than an Oxford 2-1, they would have changed their ways. Also, all of Cambridge Tripos exams for 1A Natural Sciences are scaled internally, and I'm sure they're that way for 1B, II and III, as well as for other subjects. How can you judge between Cambridge and a different university if this is true? How do you not know a Cambridge 2-1 is better than an Edinburgh 1st (I'm not saying it is, I'm saying you don't know, whilst you ASSUMED it wasn't)? The fact that employers chose that way suggests that an Oxbridge 2-1 IS better than an Edinburgh 1st (just from this evidence). And expanding further on this point, please don't insist a 1st is the same at every university, because as I mentioned, Cambridge exams are graded almost completely internally, thus making that impossible.

And you mention they are quick to send home those that don't meet their "ridiculously high standards". It's call basic supply and demand, dude. Its just they can be more choosy because they have higher demand. I can't see how you can complain about this?

I'm aware of the image, but I'm not sure why if I be honest with you. Most people who think this way are usually incredibly ignorant, and usually do not know what they're talking about. I hope you aren't one of them, because to be frank, what they say is false, unjustified and incredibly insulting to the vast majority of those who busted their balls to get in and stay in.

 

Yeah, I say some dumb **** when I'm tired...

 

I'm going to cry myself to sleep tonight

 

That's cool, people are entitled to their opinions. On the other side of the argument, there are some of those in the university who truly believe that their 2.1 is better than a 1 from any other university, regardless of anything. Which is incredibly insulting to those who busted their balls off getting a 1 in other universities.

Apologises for getting somewhat ranty , you have no idea how many times I've heard people putting Cambridge students down. From how the admissions process is "pure luck", how everyone there are complete snobs, the fact that everyone must be elitist (used in a sweeping generalisation of the whole body), the fact that the courses offered are "just as easy/require the same work" as any other university (as a side point, when I hear this one, it's funny how all the rest of the universities in the country all seem to have the same level of difficulty/work). Usually given without evidence or experience in the university itself. I had a couple of other guys on a different forum telling me that I'd lucked it in, and also claimed that their course covered more material and was more difficult than mine, despite having never been to one of my lectures or seen my exams

 

I got a 2.2 from uni, best experience of my life EVER.

But the grade means SFA in life, a friend of mine got a first and couldn't get a job, I have a job with IBM