Applying for Cambridge: The colleges and subjects which give you the greatest chance of success

There is less than a month to the deadline for applications to Oxford and Cambridge, but many sixth-formers are still agonising over their choice of college and even of subject. John O'Leary, editor of the Good University Guide, explains how to maximise your chances...

"Competition is going to be stiff at either university – most successful applicants have at least three As at A level, or their equivalent – but it helps if there are only three candidates to the place, as there are in a number of subjects and colleges at Oxford and Cambridge.

Today I will offer some pointers to demystify the admissions system at Cambridge before moving on to Oxford tomorrow. All the figures are available on the universities’ websites, but some remain surprisingly little known.

Do schools realise, for example, that one Cambridge college took more students than it had applicants last year? New Hall (soon to be Murray Edwards College) had only 111 initial applications but eventually made 145 offers of places. More than 100 of those who received offers came via the pool, which provides a second chance for promising candidates who either make open applications or do not get into their first choice of college. T

The pool lowers the stakes for those who apply to the most selective colleges – nearly 3,000 applications were pooled in 2007 and 752 received offers of places. But the right choice of college still makes a difference. Only 44 of those who made New Hall their first preference actually received offers, but that was still more than one in three – a much more encouraging ratio than the one in five success rate at Pembroke.

The other guide to college strengths – albeit a rough and ready one - is the success of their undergraduates in final examinations. At Cambridge, this comes in the form of the Tompkins Table, which was topped this year by Selwyn College. Although the small number of students taking finals each year can make for big swings in the table, it does reflect the standard of the intake. It is (marginally) easier to get into a college in the lower reaches of the table than one at the top.

Competition for places also varies widely between subjects – from a success rate of more than half in classics in 2007, to less than one in eight for architecture. Of course, it is a bit late to switch to classics if you are taking science A levels, but the figures could still influence some decisions. More than a quarter of those who applied to read history received offers, for example, compared with less than one in five for social and political sciences.

Naturally, there is more to choosing a college (let alone a degree) than the odds on winning a place. But the schools that have a strong track record in Oxbridge admissions all have a strategy for choices of college, building up relationships with tutors and trying to spread their applications to maximise their students’ chances of success. Those who do not have such advantages would be wise to do their homework."

Cambridge Colleges: Applications, offers and success

		Applications	Offers	Success
Homerton		390	211	54
Newnham		338	168	50
New Hall		333	145	43.5
St Edmund’s		163	68	42
Girton		502	185	37
Churchill		495	178	36
Hughes Hall		149	53	36
Lucy Cavendish		159	54	34
Peterhouse		283	93	33
Fitzwilliam		527	160	30
Christ’s		505	149	29.5
Queen’s		664	195	29
Robinson		463	134	29
St Catharine’s		543	150	28
Sidney Sussex		464	126	27
Gonville & Caius		624	162	26
Selwyn		490	127	26
Trinity		898	231	26
Trinity Hall		463	121	26
Wolfson		165	43	26
Magdalene		465	116	25
Corpus Christi		385	92	24
Emmanuel		657	156	24
Jesus		687	167	24
St John’s		854	188	22
Clare		723	151	21
Downing		657	137	21
King’s		650	136	21
Pembroke		749	147	20

The Tompkins table 2008:

1. Selwyn (4)
2. Emmanuel (1)
3. Trinity (6)
4. Gonville and Caius (10)
5. Magdalene (13)
6. Churchill (15)
7. Jesus (9)
8. Christ's (2)
9. Corpus Christi (8)
10. Pembroke (7)
11. St Catharine's (5)
12. Downing (3)
13. Clare (17)
14. Sidney Sussex (12)
15. Trinity Hall (16)
16. Queens' (11)

Last year’s positions are in brackets.

Read School Gate on:

How to maximise your chances of getting into Oxford University

Is studying at Oxbridge more expensive than other universities?

How to get into university to read law - the easier way

The reality of your first term at university

The top 20 most popular places for students

Learn to cook, on a student's budget.

The soft A levels universities don't want you to take.

The new universities: Ebbsfleet and Accrington anyone?

Is it good or bad for universities to be named after big donors?

Comments

[Z]

My husband and I both went to Cambridge. Me - All grades at A-Level and GCSE. Him? 4 GCSEs, only one grade A and 2 A grades at A Level. Who got the first class degree from Peterhouse? Not me.

[NH]

And Julie - you needed 'who', not 'whom'.

[NH]

Dear Julie,

My mistake for assuming Ebner wrote this.

But: my points still stand. I am infuriated when I see articles such as these, which make the admissions process look like a minefield.

At my school, there was an Oxbridge admissions coordinator to tell us all that this stuff is nonsense. Many people do not have that guidance and are anxious enough about what is in actuality a fair and simple admissions process.

[Anne]

I got pooled for Cambridge this year and then rejected for engineering at Pembroke. I have four A levels with an UMS average of 95%, relevant work experience and other extra curriculars (grade 8, DOE etc). I love engineering and going to cambridge would really mean a lot to me.
I am going to take a year in industry and try again next year.
I didn't play the number game first time around but I am thinking now that maybe I should have!

[JulieP]

Dear NH (whom I assume did go to Cambridge),
Sarah Ebner doesn't appear to have written this piece - or didn't you read it properly (did they teach you how to read things at your university?). I can see that you have posted a couple of disparaging comments. Maybe it's you who has a chip on his/her shoulder? The blog seems, to me at least, to be there to help people, and present information which people can take anyway they want to. I found all these comments interesting - everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to being rude!

[NH]

Why is Sarah Ebner perpetuating the myth that there are all these secrets and strategies to be mastered before one can apply to Oxbridge?

If you apply and are good enough, you will get in. If there's not space at your first choice college, you will get into another.

I know many people who were rejected by Oxford and Cambridge, and only in one case does the rejection seem to have entailed a real injustice.

Perpetuating these myths is not helpful to those people you claim to help, and exhort to 'do their homework.'

[NH]

I second all 'P' says.

Varsity or TCS, I can't remember which, published an article on pooled candidates and Tripos marks. There was no significant different between candidates who'd been pooled and those who hadn't.

Sarah Ebner's talking rubbish. I assume she didn't go to Oxbridge.

[P]

Candidates selected from the pool can hardly be called rejects. Of course some deserving students slip through the net but for the most part, the people who should get into Cambridge do.

I was pooled - I went on to get a first and come in the top 20 in my year in English. 7 other 'pooled' English students in my college also got firsts. Likewise, 3 of my 'pooled' friends who read law at my college got firsts (two of whom came 4th and 5th in the entire year).

[C]

It took me a while, looking at these numbers, to realise just how idiotic the data presented here are.

In the first table 'Success' should read "% Success". The idea that, for example, success in applying to Trinity, Cambridge is "26" (which is naturally misread as "26 people", out by a factor of 10) leads me to worry about whether any editing is applied to the website before content is released.

After realising that this should read "% Success", I understood with a mild feeling of horror that it was merely the percentage of people who, having applied, received an offer. What, pray, is the success rate of people *making* their offers? Without this fact you've told us nothing!

[Richard Lloyd]

Two points:
1) Where's Kings College?
2) "Getting into Cambridge is not enough - you have to stay there and keep up with the courses." I was top of my school (a Welsh comprehensive in the 70s)in most subjects but couldn't keep up with the sheer volume of work. In Natural Sciences it's ENORMOUS. Somehow I still managed a degree and I would still recommend anyone to try to get in.

[Annon.]

If you choose to apply, choose to apply because you love your subject, not because you want CV points.

I studied Natural Sciences at Jesus and it was brilliant, because not only did I have a great time, the work was brilliant too. I could have had more "fun" going elsewhere perhaps, but I chose to accept my offer because I knew that Cambridge would give me such an amazing opportunity to learn under some of the most amazing academics in the world.

I didn't get offered a place because I'm a genius. I went to a normal state school, I don't have an outsandingly high IQ or a milion A's at A-level. I got in becasue in the interview I could show that I was passionate about my subject and about the college that I'd chosen to apply for.

If you want to apply then do it because you love what you study, and pick a college that you love! That's the point. Not just so you can have "Cambridge" on your CV. It's not worth it.

There's no playing the game - you're being interviewed by people who have been interviewing Cambridge applicants for donkeys! They'll see straight through you. Just show your passion and willingness to learn. If you get in, it means it's right for you too, not just that you're right for them.

[A]

"Attitudes like yours have disheartened my daughter, who was evidently of a high enough calibre to be offered an unconditional place at Cambridge for Medicine"

Unless applying after A level results have been obtained, Cambridge would never give unconditional offers.

I am at Cambridge and wouldn't want to be anywhere else. However, the interview process is much overanalysed. The interviewers are the lecturers and supervisors; the people who are going to have to teach the student sitting in front of them. If they like the student and are given the impression that they are going to want to sit and talk about the subject for an hour each week, listen to the ideas of others and be prepared to research and develop ideas on the subject then the likelihood is that they will receive an offer.

If the student is too big-headed to realise that they are being challenged at interview (shock horror, the interviewers don't actually want you to know the answer) and instead presume that they know everything, the interviewers are not going to want to supervise them for the next 3 years.

The answer is much more simple than scaremongers imagine: arrogant and annoying students are unlikely to get the place.

[Ben]

you've spelt Queens' incorrectly

[S]

This really is a very sensible way of analysing how to get in. I went to Christs (in the days when it was top of the league table). I chose it because a) it did 2E offers (although I didn't get one, I got a fair offer), b) it was average for law, c) it was quite male dominated (my logic being that they might want more girls) d) there was no written exam. I got in anyway. The most important thing to remember is just be yourself and think before you blurt out any old answer to a question. I got asked nothing about law in my academic interview and instead discussed Duke of Edinburgh Award. My interview with the Senior Tutor only had one killer question "Who makes the laws, the majority or the minority".

[Greg]

The relative success levels at college are actually a function of the relative amount of students they take in for subjects. For instance the acceptance rate at Homerton is caused by the fact that a large proportion of places there are reserved for education studies that has a low application to success rate.
Imagine a new college is founded that decides to take in a lot of medics. Medicine is a 'harder' subject to get into than Education by ratios alone. Therefore this college would appear harder to get into.
Therefore if looking at colleges you should look at the relative success rate for your particular subject. This information is published and demonstrates that there is a huge variation of applications, places offered, pooled candidates etc etc. Thus making a lot of information on this page completely bogus I'm afraid.

I was lucky enough to go to Cambridge. I studied in a university I loved and I studied a subject I loved. I would not have enjoyed studying medicine or natural sciences or classics. I would have rather gone elsewhere than simply switch subjects to get in. And if I had decided to apply for an 'easier' subject I wouldn't have got in. I spent lots of time studying my subject and reading around it because I enjoyed it. Trying to learn something else would simply to play the game is often caught by admissions tutors who won't offer you a place!

Choose what you want to study, and then choose the appropriate universities.

[Fiona]

I take real offence to Al's comments regarding the calibre of students according to their subject choice.

Attitudes like yours have disheartened my daughter, who was evidently of a high enough calibre to be offered an unconditional place at Cambridge for Medicine. The fact that she eventually chose to study for an Arts degree does not diminish her academic ability, although the persistent sneers of arrogant university tutors and students diminished her self-confidence. In the end, she outperformed them all.

Perhaps it would be wise to avoid sweeping generalisations, especially of the students in an establishment which accepts only the brightest minds from ALL academic walks of life.

My advice to applicants? Believe in yourself and pay no attention to silly statistics exercises such as these, and especially to the comments of those made bitter by your evident committment and diligence!

[mumoftwo]

What a load of old rubbish. My school was so misinformed (and underconfident that anyone from our comp could get in) that they wondered if I could apply straight to the pool...In the event, I picked a great college, went for the interview and got a below-average grade offer. I wouldn't go to the all girls colleges just to get into Cambridge unless you genuinely like that type of atmosphere, it wouldn't have suited me at all. Plus if you are having difficulty getting in now and having to pull every trick in the book, it will only get worse when you are in a hot-house competitive environment afterwards wondering if you really deserved it...go for where you want, and hold your head up high if you don't get in as most don't (after all, better to be rejected by a great first choice than rejected by a not so good college!)

[SAM]

I'm goin to Durham, all the other uni's suck, go Durham!

[ben rigg]

yeah i agreed with the weirdo below, leeds met all the way. wooooooo!

[charles mitchel]

go to leeds met its well easy to get in

[Harry-Tigger]

My daughter has just started her second year taking Classics at Cambridge. Classics might look the easy option for entry, but at my daughter's school only the best Latin students - about 10 of them - were allowed to try Greek, and only 3 in her year carried through to 'A' level. All three got into Cambridge but even before university it is a subject that only the most capable would contemplate studying - the grammar and vocabulary are frightening!

[Wendy V]

I agree with those who are saying visit the university: see the colleges, talk to the tutors, and if it feels right for you, apply to read a subject you love at a college you like. This was what my daughter did (state school background with no coaching). She happened to choose a college that was highly competitive for her subject, was accepted and flourished there. If you make an application based on numbers you're likely to be disappointed.

[NEEKAM KUMAR]

Hi Sir,My self Neekam Kumar,From INDIA,Now continueing 12th,And also im sure that.I will get above 60%of marks.Can i read there engineering.tel me.

[Kev]

Basically, there are still people believe in this article and still want to play the number game.

But in fact, if you compare the subject and the college year by year, you will see that the number fluctuate. Like one year few apply for Homerton for Economics, next year you will see a huge rise in this subject for Homerton cause everyone thought this college is easier to apply. However, the total number of SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES remain the same.

To those who want to apply Cambridge--choose one you like, dont worry of the statistics. Only those which are less confident (and more likely to be weaker candidates--if you are strong why worry?) would waste time reading this article and actually believe it.

Spend more time do some side readings would help you even more on getting in.

[Mary]

I'm not sure where AL gets his ideas about Classics from... but he (she?) obviously hasn't been in touch with a Classics Department and certainly not the Cambridge one for a good many years.

I can assure him (her) that no propping up is being done -- and the success of students coming out when judged against their peer group in other arts subjects (in getting eg competitive scholarships to the US, or arts research fellowships in UK universities) strongly suggests that the Classicists are at the very top of the pile (even if self selected at entry).
I hope that no potential applicant gives too much weight to the 'statistics' marshalled for this post; they are terribly misleading (as many others have pointed out).

[Geoff Parks]

In response to Al's 12:18 comment:

My earlier posting was in no way "intended as a defence of the claim that all colleges are roughly equal". It was simply pointing out that the analysis in the article is flawed.

The reality is that, while the chances of being admitted to a given College obviously depend on how popular that College is, to all intents and purposes the chances of being admitted to Cambridge are independent of College choice.

If we are any good at selecting, which obviously as Director of Admissions I like to think we are (!), then you would expect those admitted through the pool on average to be slightly less good than those admitted in preference to them, and therefore the Colleges higher up the Tomkins table to be the more popular ones. Reassuringly this is by and large the case.

As Victoria rightly points out students admitted through the pool are not 'rejects' they were simply squeezed out by the competition at their original College.

[JS]

Honestly, just pick the right subject and college for you. If you're good enough you'll get in.

[Jo]

re. Ms. Collett

In my case the only interviews were from college members, as the tutors for the subject interview were college fellows as well as faculty lecturers.

[Nigel]

Interesting that architecture, medicine and law are among the most over-subscribed subjects, with Classics and Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic among the least. Contrary to a certain segment of popular opinion, it seems that most students are interested in a job after university.

[J]

When I was applying for a college, I based my decision partly on which one had the higher grade requirements (Selwyn, at the time). I have no idea whether these 'easier colleges' gain such a reputation on the basis of lower entry requirements, or on 'easier' interviews. I found my interviews very entertaining, and I actually enjoyed them. I received an offer, but unfortunately I didn't meet the high grade requirements. It seems, to me, counter-intuitive to want to go to a university which will really challenge you, yet not to want to take up the challenge of showing you're worthy of a place.

[Victoria Collett]

Firstly can I say how good it is to hear (read) about New Hall rather than the not yet (or ever) approved Murray Edwards College.

Secondly, what's with the New Hall bashing Al? Did you get knocked back by one of my independently minded college buddies?

The reason that New Hall does not do as well in the Tompkins table is because it is an all girls college and girls routinely under perform at Oxbridge due to the teaching environment. This is not a criticism per say. This is also not to say that New Hall should become mixed to boost its Tompkins rating as I suspect that its girls do better than those across the university due to the specialised college environment.

I'd also point out to charming Al that the pool is not where rejected candidates are dumped. It is where over-subscribed colleges place people who were good enough to make the cut and who other undersubscribed colleges would be glad to take. If they were not good enough for Cambridge they would have been TURNED DOWN outright not pooled. You haven't been through a Cambridge interview if you think that the average Cambridge don would think twice about crushing someone's hopes by rejecting them immediately. They aren't going to pool stupid people just to let them down gently!

Another important point is that it is not only the college that interviews a candidate. Someone from the chosen subject also interviews that candidate and the subject interviewer may favour a candidate that isn't right for the college that they chose and recommend that they be pooled.

Finally.. anyone who objects to New Hall losing its identity, independence and alumnae support, please join Save New Hall, Cambridge on Facebook or visit our website (www.savenewhallcambridge.org.uk).

[NS]

JS' contention that "entry to Oxbridge is, at the graduate level, less competitive" seems debatable.

Surely, the ease (or otherwise) of graduate entry will hinge on the quality of the department to which the candidate is applying.

As such, it's impossible to say - carte blanche - that "grad entry is easier than undergrad entry"; though that may well be the case for lesser departments, at leading research departments (such as Oxford's Dept of Politics and IR) that's certainly not the case: at least at the DPhil level, you're instead competing with an international pool of very capable wannabe doctoral students and, given that an academic is, in effect, signing up (for a three year stint) of supervising your work, the level of scrutiny is, understandably, intense. Moreover, the department cannot "afford" to allow entry to all but the best grad students; after all, if it allows entry to students who aren't capable of completing their research project, the Department risks being stripped of some of its government research funding.

[Sue Doughty]

Getting into Cambridge is not enough - you have to stay there and keep up with the courses. If you could not get in under your own steam you will not keep up either so best go somewhere else where you would fit in better.
(I am Cambridge mum, so have seen fallouts happen among her peer group!)

[Jo]

I don't see how such as system works as you are only interviewed by members of the college you apply to.

[Sarah]

And of course the fact that the bottom two are girls colleges is vitally important.

It has been said that girls are more likely to be pooled by other colleges, because it is expected that they will be picked up by New Hall, so boys would be given preference as it's perceived as their only chance.

And it doesn't have to be viewed as tricks. I applied to Newnham because I thought I wasn't good enough for the other colleges. It turned out I was just as intelligent as others - although admittedly the boy from Trinity was outstanding.

The question of girls underperforming post-A level applies to all universities. So poor results doesn't automatically mean poor candidates.

[j]

You're not really getting into to college, you are getting a place to read subject x or y. Most faculties will have a system to make sure that they take overall the top x% of applicants to that subject, so that a good student who cant fit into the college she applied to will get another offer. That- and the fact it's girls-only- is probably behind the Newnham figures.

This bugs me, married to an oxbridge admissions tutor for the past 25 years, because if only one young person reads this and takes it seriously, that's one too many.

This is an industry that preys on the insecurity and love of parents trying their best for their kids. Ignore it. Dont pay a penny for some dodgy "secrets of Oxbridge" course. Go the the official admissions office of each place and get free advice that is actually correct. Go to the local outreach events they'll be running near you. Go to the open days.

Now what is much more interesting is cambridge's new foundation course system- a much better helping hand for kids from poorly performing schools. Take a look at that instead.

[Sarah]

There is something to be said for college based prejudice affecting students' performance. I very much felt that a pecking order was established from the beginning on the basis of who was from what college - from staff (in my faculty, not college, based subject) which affected confidence and ultimately results. The results could also be said to be a reflection of the cultures of the individual colleges, the top colleges put enormous amounts of pressure on students, have a system of the best marks get the best accommodation etc. My college Newnham is very consciously about a supportive community as well as the academics.

[AL]

Geoff Parks' criticism is correct so far as it goes. But it is hilarious if intended as a defence of the claim that all colleges are roughly equal. By his own admission, more than two thirds (101/145) of the students admitted at New Hall were rejected from other colleges. And none of the other colleges touched the New Hall rejects. Some great college!

Anyone reasonably familiar with Cambridge knows that the average one of those 145 New Hall students is weaker than the average student at say Trinity or King's. This means that it's easier on average to get into New Hall than Trinity or King's. Geoff Parks knows this too but his job doesn't allow him to admit it.

[Mandeep]

Can I just recommend to any prospective applicant reading this article to please read the comment from Geoff Parks. Geoff is Cambridge University Admission Director and he rightly points out the serious flaws in this article!

[Ezmeralda]

If you're applying for Cambridge, pick the college which appeals to you the most, and the subject you most like! As others say, it's the 3 years you spend there which count. I was encouraged by my state school to apply to Cambridge in the 1990s, I didn't think I had a hope of getting an offer. I read through the alternative propectus and applied to Kings because it sounded relatively full of state school people, informal, and fairly left wing, all of which mattered to me. I had no idea at the time that it was one of the harder colleges to get into. I got a place and had a brilliant time doing a subject I really enjoyed. So apply to the college and course which inspires you, and hope that your passion shows!

[Gareth]

Go Sidney!

[Geoff Parks]

The major problem with this article is that the analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Much is made of the New Hall (aka Murray Edwards) statistics but the 44 offers to New Hall applicants were not made exclusively from among the 111 applicants who chose the College but also from among the 222 open applicants who were allocated to the College. Thus the success rate of applicants initially considered by New Hall was 44 in 333 = 13.2%. The other 101 students made offers by New Hall applied to other Colleges. No New Hall applicants were made offers by other Colleges.

Conversely Pembroke made 143 offers to applicants who applied to that College and 45 Pembroke applicants were made offers by other Colleges. So the success rate of Pembroke applicants in getting offers to study at Cambridge was 188 (143 + 45) in 749 = 25.1%.

Thus Pembroke applicants were almost twice as successful as New Hall applicants in securing Cambridge offers.

Why is this? Because New Hall gets more than its fair share of weaker applicants who are targeting the College because they think it will be easier to get into. As the above analysis of the figures shows, this tactic does not work.

[W]

I have to say that I agree with most of the other people who have posted here. This is simply not true! The pool makes sure that (almost) all those who deserve to get a place do get a place.

The way I always thought about it was that if I was good enough to get in, Cambridge (and hopefully my college of choice, Emmanuel) would take me. However, if I didn't get in due to the fact that there were others who were more able than me, that would mean that I wasn't "good enough" - I could do better, and fulfill my potential at another university. This gave me comfort - if I didn't get in, it was probably for the better in the long run. So, I decided to apply honestly as myself - not to use any "insider info" or to dress myself as something more acceptable, as something I'm not. That way, if I got in, I knew they had accepted me, and not some phony who belonged elsewhere. I would know that I belonged there.

[AL]

The admissions tutors and others who have commented that admissions standards from college to college and subject to subject are the same are obviously deluded. The figures reveal huge variations. For example, you might argue that New Hall has a much higher than average success rate because it receives much higher than average quality applicants. But anyone who has been to Cambridge knows that is not true; in fact, quite the opposite is the case since New Hall invariably comes near the bottom of the Tompkins table. If you care to crunch the figures, you will in fact notice that there is a correlation (not perfect, but nevetheless strong) between how well a college does in the Tompkins tables and how difficult it is statistically speaking to be accepted there. You don't have to be a Cambridge professor to work out the explanation: more competitive colleges accept brighter applicants.

The figures also explode the myth that there is rough parity between subjects at Cambridge. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the top 51% of applicants for Classics, 48% for Education and 43% for Music are of the same intellectual calibre as, say, the top 21% of applicants for Mathematics? Of course a subject like Classics is somewhat self-selecting, but the truth is that the dons are propping it up artificially, for historical reasons and because a lot of Classics posts in the university would go if they didn't. The reality is that this is 2008, not 1908, and no one apart from a tiny number of public school applicants has any serious competence in Classics. For God's sake, most of today's Classics graduates can't read two pages of the Aeneid or Odyssey in one sitting. What's the point of a Classics degree if you can't even do that?

So, what is the answer? Some sort of IQ test for all applicants, supplemented with the usual admissions tests and interviews. That way the disparities between applicants across colleges and across subjects will at least show up starkly.

[P, John]

Finally the truth is out! It's about time that someone wrote about this situation. I read education at Homerton and it's not a college held in high accademic regard, it is a superb college for aspiring teachers though. My offer was AAB and I was accepted with AAC - 26 UCAS points. Basically more than a few students applied to Homerton as an easy way in - say for a BA in Education and Math - or they were pooled and accpeted with no intention of reading education. Once in, students could apply to change their degree so they, say, read Math at the Math faculty just as they would had they been a member of any other Cambridge college.

[John Scott]

As a former admissions tutor - THIS DOES NOT WORK. Colleges have relatively objective standards. If someone does not meet them, they will not gain admission one way or another. If an applicant is strong, a College will try very hard to either offer them a place or support them in the pool so that another college may take them.

(This is to ignore the fact that if many applicants seek to play the numbers game then any perceived advantage will cease to exist and an applicant would have been better off applying to a college with a high number of applicants to places which, in the next year, will have fewer)

As with other guides for Oxbridge entrance, this one seems to have no basis in experience of what actually occurs. Having read all the books on the market, NONE of them give an accurate portrayal of the decision-making process.

As for the idea that schools have relationships with Colleges - this is at least twenty years out of date. The only schools which have an advantage are those which do not produce the bland pro forma references for applicants. Such references are entirely worthless.

[SW]

A note to all prospective applicants:

This article isn't worth the server space it is hosted on.

Due to the pooling system, any attempts to 'play the game' when choosing colleges won't work.

The best advice? If you're good enough for Cambridge, apply to either a college that you really like, or a college with a good reputation in the pool.

[JS]

As a former college fellow, admissions tutor, undergraduate and postgraduate supervisor and lecturer in Cambridge, I can reassure anyone who wants to increase their chances of studying at Cambridge and being successful, to be counter-intuitive; do a first degree in another (non Oxbridge) university (aim to get a 2.1 or above) then apply for one of the many Masters or PhDs on offer in Cambridge. This route in is less competitive, will end up being much more relaxed, fulfilling and financially easier, and importantly will open so many more doors professionally. This extraordinary advice is not what most parents want to hear, but well-rounded, down-to-earth, self-motivating, proactive and focussed graduates who have had their career development from the likes of Cambridge are exactly what industry, business, finance and research sectors are demanding.

[D]

I had a friend from New Hall who applied because "It's the easiest college to get in." She then spent the next 3 years wishing she had gone somewhere else. She also felt inferior to most of her friends, because they didn't use that trick to get into Cambridge.

Another New Hall friend of mine applied there because she actually likes the place. She is a very happy and active member of the college.

When I applied, I did all those stats for college, like the above article. My school teacher wanted to apply a certain college that I was not keen about, because he knows someone there. At the end, I didn't use these tricks. It's not just the 'getting-in Cambridge' part that is important; it's the 'three-years at Cambridge' part that is. So I went for the one I really liked and got in. It felt great to know that I got in because of my abilities, not what kind of tricks I used.

[LR]

I tried gaming the system like this when I applied. I went for a minority subject at a college at the bottom of the Tompkins table that had only had three applications for three places in the subject the previous year.

What happened? I got there on interview day to discover there was only one place on offer that year, and fourteen applicants for it... I wasn't the only one to have done the math and tried to game the system.

Yes, I got the place. But I hated the course and ended up switching to something else after just two weeks - arguably I would have been much better off at a bigger, less cliquey college.

I'd recommend you pick a subject you feel passionate about, that you've properly researched, at a college you feel most comfortable at.

[Kev]

I completely agree with all of you. Ages ago I worked out the success rate by the application number in 05 and 06, when Homerton and Girton were seemed 'easier (more places than actual applicants)' to get in. I ignored those information cause I hate those colleges' locations, and applied the one I like. Then I saw recently that these two colleges suddenly seem to be the 'hardest (many applicants for one place)' to get in.

To sum up, I believed those who do have the potential to be an oxbridge should just choose whichever they like. This article is quite futile and there is very little point to believe in what it says. TO THOSE WHO WANT TO APPLY OXBRIDGE: Just shows those interviewers that you are an interested person. BE YOURSELF.

The real star would always shine through the crowds.

[T]

It's such a shame that, under the guise of "demystifying" applications, potential Cambridge students are bombarded with confusing so-called secrets which in the end can only serve to discourage potential applicants. It is clear from the figures from previous years that the reporter's idea that they can predict competition for a particular college or subject is shoddy at best - a student who's really done their homework will have noticed that there are huge variances and swings from year to year. That alone makes second-guessing nearly pointless, and from my experience working in Cambridge admissions, an increasing willingness of Admissions Tutors to use the Intercollegiate Pool deals with any remaining chance that a student could find a weakest link. The best candidates will get a place, and they will be distributed across colleges as necessary. I think this is probably evinced by the Tompkins table itself - look at the last year's positions given in brackets, and you will see the degree to which it has shuffled year-on-year, underlining the fact that there is no Thickies College, Cambridge.

My advice to anyone wanting to apply then, would be to do so, and to ignore all this nonsense. Picking a course and a college should be down to passion and gut feeling. Go to an open day, find a place you like, and apply. There is nothing to gain by trying to cheat the system, and ultimately, you'll only be cheating yourself out of what you want the most.

[Sarah]

Firstly, maybe you should state that New Hall is a college only for girls...

And it's Queens' with the apostrophe after the 's'. An apostrophe before the 's' is Oxford's Queen's College.

[S]

While the statistics in this article are (I think) true, the perspective lent is misleading. Simply because there are fewer applicants for a subject or college, doesn't necessarily make it "less competitive": the average standard of applicants can still be very high indeed, even if there are very few of them, as in Classics. And who really benefits from discovering that one subject is more or less competitive than the other?

Moreover, as a Cambridge student myself, I should stress that choosing your college by what's least competitive is potentially foolish. Despite what you may have heard, not all colleges will suit everyone perfectly: there are many variances between colleges, including the Fellows' areas of expertise; you have to do your research to find out what (and who) suits you.

And anyway, who wants to spend three years of their lives at a college they chose because it seemed easier to get into? Where's the integrity in deliberately not going for what you feel is the best?

[j]

Oh dear.

Another person selling his take on the supposedly secret knowledge behind getting to Oxbridge.

The reason why it more candidates get in to do history than social sciences may be that history is undersubscribed. Or it may be that the people applying to do history really want to do history and have got good scores at the right A levels. A bright student who is perfect for economics isnt magically going to improve her chances by applying to do history, if she has no interest in history and cant show a spark.

Improve your chances? go to the open days yourself (not your mum), talk to the tutors, do the A levels they tell you to do and learn to love your subject.

And dont waste any of your hard earned cash on any course that promises to sell you insider knowledge.