Oxford 2023-2024 BCL/MSCs/MJUR/MPHIL/MLF Applicants


238932

Unfortunately, my rejection letter came through this afternoon. I had a First in my law degree at Oxford, albeit not a very strong one.

Congratulations to everyone who was successful, and enjoy your time there!

Unfortunately, my rejection letter came through this afternoon. I had a First in my law degree at Oxford, albeit not a very strong one.<br><br>Congratulations to everyone who was successful, and enjoy your time there!
quote
law98

This group and others on this page have for the majority been a very encouraging and positive experience for many in this very stressful process. Messages such as this one and your previous one have no place in this group. So many of us are anxious as many decisions have still not been delivered. Additionally, this group should support the people that got in and not diminish their accomplishments. Any frustrations you have over this process should not be taken out on us. You should consider that maybe the person you are patronising might be a better fit for Oxford as they are not treating others as you are.





Someone else from the same background who CLEARLY has a MUCH weaker academic record getting an offer. 

It’s like someone from Yale Law being rejected in favor of someone who went to George Washington Uni Law. Plus lots of other things. That’s just for starters.


I agree that the process involves some luck (all the candidates that apply are very good and it is normal that even very very good candidates are rejected.) However, the app process is fairly comprehensive and, for example, a lot of weight is given to the piece of academic writing, to the references etc. In relation to Oxford, I would therefore say that looking at the grades (or the uni) alone is never a good indicator of someone getting in or not (as long as the applicant meets the minimum criteria). 


Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.

Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.



This group and others on this page have for the majority been a very encouraging and positive experience for many in this very stressful process. Messages such as this one and your previous one have no place in this group. So many of us are anxious as many decisions have still not been delivered. Additionally, this group should support the people that got in and not diminish their accomplishments. Any frustrations you have over this process should not be taken out on us. You should consider that maybe the person you are patronising might be a better fit for Oxford as they are not treating others as you are.<br><br><br>[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]For those of you sad with the lack of an offer, don’t be.<br><br>I just got evidence that their admissions isn’t meritocratic at all, and is absolutely different from what they claim it to be. They are a bunch of lying b*stards. Just some people using the name of a very old and reputable institution to basically select whoever they want based on some b*llshit criteria, while lying to the whole world saying they are “selective” and whatnot.<br><br>Oxford is just like any other law school. I’m just deeply mad for having applied there. I thought they were different but in the end that was just me being naïve.<br><br>After all, lawyers lying shouldn’t surprise anyone, right? Shame on me for believing otherwise. [/quote]<br><br>Don't be so mad, my friend. &nbsp;What evidence makes you that angry? [/quote]<br><br><br>Someone else from the same background who CLEARLY has a MUCH weaker academic record getting an offer.&nbsp;<br><br>It’s like someone from Yale Law being rejected in favor of someone who went to George Washington Uni Law. Plus lots of other things. That’s just for starters. [/quote]<br><br>I agree that the process involves some luck (all the candidates that apply are very good and it is normal that even very very good candidates are rejected.) However, the app process is fairly comprehensive and, for example, a lot of weight is given to the piece of academic writing, to the references etc. In relation to Oxford, I would therefore say that looking at the grades (or the uni) alone is never a good indicator of someone getting in or not (as long as the applicant meets the minimum criteria).&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br><br>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.<br> [/quote]<br><br><br>
quote
Inactive User

By the way, the process is so stressful precisely because of uncertainty, which derives from their complete lack of objectivity when evaluating candidates, as well as lack of transparency.

Were they honest about what the criteria really are, people wouldn’t need to stress out. There would be predictability. Just like a law of physics: you release something, you know it’ll fal, because that’s how the gravity, a rule of nature, works.

When they have a set of undisclosed, or misdisclosed selection criteria, people will get stressed. But when the rules are fair and square, no one needs to worry or stress that much.

You see, everyone sees the randomness in their selection. What you fail to realise is that this randomness is not a result of some transcendental force: it is just how an external observer perceives the consequences of a prejudicial and biased admissions committee.



This group and others on this page have for the majority been a very encouraging and positive experience for many in this very stressful process. Messages such as this one and your previous one have no place in this group. So many of us are anxious as many decisions have still not been delivered. Additionally, this group should support the people that got in and not diminish their accomplishments. Any frustrations you have over this process should not be taken out on us. You should consider that maybe the person you are patronising might be a better fit for Oxford as they are not treating others as you are.




I agree that the process involves some luck (all the candidates that apply are very good and it is normal that even very very good candidates are rejected.) However, the app process is fairly comprehensive and, for example, a lot of weight is given to the piece of academic writing, to the references etc. In relation to Oxford, I would therefore say that looking at the grades (or the uni) alone is never a good indicator of someone getting in or not (as long as the applicant meets the minimum criteria). 


Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.

Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.



By the way, the process is so stressful precisely because of uncertainty, which derives from their complete lack of objectivity when evaluating candidates, as well as lack of transparency.<br><br>Were they honest about what the criteria really are, people wouldn’t need to stress out. There would be predictability. Just like a law of physics: you release something, you know it’ll fal, because that’s how the gravity, a rule of nature, works.<br><br>When they have a set of undisclosed, or misdisclosed selection criteria, people will get stressed. But when the rules are fair and square, no one needs to worry or stress that much.<br><br>You see, everyone sees the randomness in their selection. What you fail to realise is that this randomness is not a result of some transcendental force: it is just how an external observer perceives the consequences of a prejudicial and biased admissions committee.<br><br><br><br>[quote]This group and others on this page have for the majority been a very encouraging and positive experience for many in this very stressful process. Messages such as this one and your previous one have no place in this group. So many of us are anxious as many decisions have still not been delivered. Additionally, this group should support the people that got in and not diminish their accomplishments. Any frustrations you have over this process should not be taken out on us. You should consider that maybe the person you are patronising might be a better fit for Oxford as they are not treating others as you are.<br><br><br>[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]For those of you sad with the lack of an offer, don’t be.<br><br>I just got evidence that their admissions isn’t meritocratic at all, and is absolutely different from what they claim it to be. They are a bunch of lying b*stards. Just some people using the name of a very old and reputable institution to basically select whoever they want based on some b*llshit criteria, while lying to the whole world saying they are “selective” and whatnot.<br><br>Oxford is just like any other law school. I’m just deeply mad for having applied there. I thought they were different but in the end that was just me being naïve.<br><br>After all, lawyers lying shouldn’t surprise anyone, right? Shame on me for believing otherwise. [/quote]<br><br>Don't be so mad, my friend. &nbsp;What evidence makes you that angry? [/quote]<br><br><br>Someone else from the same background who CLEARLY has a MUCH weaker academic record getting an offer.&nbsp;<br><br>It’s like someone from Yale Law being rejected in favor of someone who went to George Washington Uni Law. Plus lots of other things. That’s just for starters. [/quote]<br><br>I agree that the process involves some luck (all the candidates that apply are very good and it is normal that even very very good candidates are rejected.) However, the app process is fairly comprehensive and, for example, a lot of weight is given to the piece of academic writing, to the references etc. In relation to Oxford, I would therefore say that looking at the grades (or the uni) alone is never a good indicator of someone getting in or not (as long as the applicant meets the minimum criteria).&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br><br>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.<br> [/quote]<br><br><br> [/quote]
quote

Thanks for a good laugh! Do you have any other evidence apart from a single anecdote of an applicant who is allegedly 'worse' than you getting an offer to suggest the application process is completely unfair, prejudiced, unjust, biased, or misdisclosed? Perhaps they saw this level of analytical ability in your written application and thought it left much to be desired as opposed to that of the person you're patronizing.

It's true that life isn't all positive. It's also true that things don't always go the way we want it to go. Instead of attacking a system you have no control over or other applicants, maybe try just being better next time?

If you do sue Oxford, please make sure you do it in open court!

By the way, the process is so stressful precisely because of uncertainty, which derives from their complete lack of objectivity when evaluating candidates, as well as lack of transparency.

Were they honest about what the criteria really are, people wouldn’t need to stress out. There would be predictability. Just like a law of physics: you release something, you know it’ll fal, because that’s how the gravity, a rule of nature, works.

When they have a set of undisclosed, or misdisclosed selection criteria, people will get stressed. But when the rules are fair and square, no one needs to worry or stress that much.

You see, everyone sees the randomness in their selection. What you fail to realise is that this randomness is not a result of some transcendental force: it is just how an external observer perceices the consequences of a prejudicial and biased admissions committee.



This group and others on this page have for the majority been a very encouraging and positive experience for many in this very stressful process. Messages such as this one and your previous one have no place in this group. So many of us are anxious as many decisions have still not been delivered. Additionally, this group should support the people that got in and not diminish their accomplishments. Any frustrations you have over this process should not be taken out on us. You should consider that maybe the person you are patronising might be a better fit for Oxford as they are not treating others as you are.




Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.

Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.



Thanks for a good laugh! Do you have any other evidence apart from a single anecdote of an applicant who is allegedly 'worse' than you getting an offer to suggest the application process is completely unfair, prejudiced, unjust, biased, or misdisclosed? Perhaps they saw this level of analytical ability in your written application and thought it left much to be desired as opposed to that of the person you're patronizing.<br><br>It's true that life isn't all positive. It's also true that things don't always go the way we want it to go. Instead of attacking a system you have no control over or other applicants, maybe try just being better next time?<br><br>If you do sue Oxford, please make sure you do it in open court!<div><br>[quote]By the way, the process is so stressful precisely because of uncertainty, which derives from their complete lack of objectivity when evaluating candidates, as well as lack of transparency.<br><br>Were they honest about what the criteria really are, people wouldn’t need to stress out. There would be predictability. Just like a law of physics: you release something, you know it’ll fal, because that’s how the gravity, a rule of nature, works.<br><br>When they have a set of undisclosed, or misdisclosed selection criteria, people will get stressed. But when the rules are fair and square, no one needs to worry or stress that much.<br><br>You see, everyone sees the randomness in their selection. What you fail to realise is that this randomness is not a result of some transcendental force: it is just how an external observer perceices the consequences of a prejudicial and biased admissions committee.<br><br><br><br>[quote]This group and others on this page have for the majority been a very encouraging and positive experience for many in this very stressful process. Messages such as this one and your previous one have no place in this group. So many of us are anxious as many decisions have still not been delivered. Additionally, this group should support the people that got in and not diminish their accomplishments. Any frustrations you have over this process should not be taken out on us. You should consider that maybe the person you are patronising might be a better fit for Oxford as they are not treating others as you are.<br><br><br>[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]For those of you sad with the lack of an offer, don’t be.<br><br>I just got evidence that their admissions isn’t meritocratic at all, and is absolutely different from what they claim it to be. They are a bunch of lying b*stards. Just some people using the name of a very old and reputable institution to basically select whoever they want based on some b*llshit criteria, while lying to the whole world saying they are “selective” and whatnot.<br><br>Oxford is just like any other law school. I’m just deeply mad for having applied there. I thought they were different but in the end that was just me being naïve.<br><br>After all, lawyers lying shouldn’t surprise anyone, right? Shame on me for believing otherwise. [/quote]<br><br>Don't be so mad, my friend. &nbsp;What evidence makes you that angry? [/quote]<br><br><br>Someone else from the same background who CLEARLY has a MUCH weaker academic record getting an offer.&nbsp;<br><br>It’s like someone from Yale Law being rejected in favor of someone who went to George Washington Uni Law. Plus lots of other things. That’s just for starters. [/quote]<br><br>I agree that the process involves some luck (all the candidates that apply are very good and it is normal that even very very good candidates are rejected.) However, the app process is fairly comprehensive and, for example, a lot of weight is given to the piece of academic writing, to the references etc. In relation to Oxford, I would therefore say that looking at the grades (or the uni) alone is never a good indicator of someone getting in or not (as long as the applicant meets the minimum criteria).&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br><br>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.<br> [/quote]<br><br><br> [/quote] [/quote]</div>
quote
Inactive User

Also, if you don’t believe me, if you think unis selections are based on merit, go see the data on Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

You’d assume that a household name such as Harvard, with a magnificent brand, would only select the best and brightest, right?

Well, unless you’re Asian, as that data shows.

Apparently Oxford is just a similar kind of crap; at least Oxford Law.

Also, if you don’t believe me, if you think unis selections are based on merit, go see the data on Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard.<br><br>You’d assume that a household name such as Harvard, with a magnificent brand, would only select the best and brightest, right?<br><br>Well, unless you’re Asian, as that data shows.<br><br>Apparently Oxford is just a similar kind of crap; at least Oxford Law.
quote
draemon

Also, if you don’t believe me, if you think unis selections are based on merit, go see the data on Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

You’d assume that a household name such as Harvard, with a magnificent brand, would only select the best and brightest, right?

Well, unless you’re Asian, as that data shows.

Apparently Oxford is just a similar kind of crap; at least Oxford Law.


we don’t have their level of affirmative action in the UK. I know what you mean, yes, some students in America are racially prejudiced against for their skin alone rather than their social economic position, but in the UK it’s completely different. I’m not sure Oxford even directly see your race and gender on their application. Maybe they pick a few internationals deliberately over domestic students with “better” academics but it’s also a financial decision because they pay more and the marketing Oxford earns from having the very best students from multiple countries rather than many very good students from the UK.

[quote]Also, if you don’t believe me, if you think unis selections are based on merit, go see the data on Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard.<br><br>You’d assume that a household name such as Harvard, with a magnificent brand, would only select the best and brightest, right?<br><br>Well, unless you’re Asian, as that data shows.<br><br>Apparently Oxford is just a similar kind of crap; at least Oxford Law. [/quote]<br><br>we don’t have their level of affirmative action in the UK. I know what you mean, yes, some students in America are racially prejudiced against for their skin alone rather than their social economic position, but in the UK it’s completely different. I’m not sure Oxford even directly see your race and gender on their application. Maybe they pick a few internationals deliberately over domestic students with “better” academics but it’s also a financial decision because they pay more and the marketing Oxford earns from having the very best students from multiple countries rather than many very good students from the UK.
quote
Selective ...

Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.
Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.
If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:


- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one
- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer
- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)

- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules

With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.

I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.

But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.


You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?


You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?


I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application for next time.

[Edited by Selective Memory on Mar 18, 2023]

<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br><br></div><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br><br></div><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application for next time.
quote

Also, if you don’t believe me, if you think unis selections are based on merit, go see the data on Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

You’d assume that a household name such as Harvard, with a magnificent brand, would only select the best and brightest, right?

Well, unless you’re Asian, as that data shows.

Apparently Oxford is just a similar kind of crap; at least Oxford Law.


Complaining because you think someone’s law school is inferior is a bit weird. Remember they grade you based on your own results and how you ranked compared to people in your own class, and how the person ranked compared to people in his own class. They also consider your references (how well your referees know you and how comprehensively they can speak of you counts a lot more than how famous they are). And they consider the quality of your written piece. You can’t simply dismiss all that based on how low you think of someone’s background.

Heal ????

[quote]Also, if you don’t believe me, if you think unis selections are based on merit, go see the data on Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard.<br><br>You’d assume that a household name such as Harvard, with a magnificent brand, would only select the best and brightest, right?<br><br>Well, unless you’re Asian, as that data shows.<br><br>Apparently Oxford is just a similar kind of crap; at least Oxford Law. [/quote]<br><br>Complaining because you think someone’s law school is inferior is a bit weird. Remember they grade you based on your own results and how you ranked compared to people in your own class, and how the person ranked compared to people in his own class. They also consider your references (how well your referees know you and how comprehensively they can speak of you counts a lot more than how famous they are). And they consider the quality of your written piece. You can’t simply dismiss all that based on how low you think of someone’s background.<br><br>Heal ????
quote
Inactive User

Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.
Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.
If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:




- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one
- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer
- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)



- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules

With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.

I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.

But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.


You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?


You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?


I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance.


I perfectly get your point.

And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.

But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions system based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic. People worked hard to get into a Columbia Law or something like that, it’s unfair to ditch them for other who didn’t dedicate that much.

What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play.

[quote]<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br><br>
</div><br><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br><br>
</div><br><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance. [/quote]<br><br>I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions system based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic. People worked hard to get into a Columbia Law or something like that, it’s unfair to ditch them for other who didn’t dedicate that much.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play.
quote
draemon

Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.
Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.
If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:



- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one
- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer
- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)


- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules

With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.

I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.

But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.


You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?


You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?


I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance.


I perfectly get your point.

And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.

But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.

What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play.


Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still.

[quote][quote]<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br>
</div><br><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br>
</div><br><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance. [/quote]<br><br>I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still.
quote
Inactive User

If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:



- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one
- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer
- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)


- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules

With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.

I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.

But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.


You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?


You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?


I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance.


I perfectly get your point.

And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.

But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.

What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play.


Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still.


That’s definitely not true for law.

[quote][quote][quote]<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br>
</div><br><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br>
</div><br><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance. [/quote]<br><br>I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still. [/quote]<br><br>That’s definitely not true for law.
quote



I perfectly get your point.

And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.

But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.

What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play.


Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still.


That’s definitely not true for law.


If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all

[quote][quote][quote][quote]<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br>
</div><br><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br>
</div><br><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance. [/quote]<br><br>I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still. [/quote]<br><br>That’s definitely not true for law. [/quote]<br><br>If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all
quote
Inactive User



Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still.


That’s definitely not true for law.


If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all


Coming from someone who apparently doesn’t reason at all, I see your comment as a compliment.

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br>
</div><br><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br>
</div><br><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance. [/quote]<br><br>I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still. [/quote]<br><br>That’s definitely not true for law. [/quote]<br><br>If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all [/quote]<br><br>Coming from someone who apparently doesn’t reason at all, I see your comment as a compliment.
quote
Pmoonie

I understand the anger and disappointment but its important to understand that aside from the marks its highly subjective, it is very difficult for us to understand the decisions without having the full application before us to compare and even then we can't be sure. 

I understand the anger and disappointment but its important to understand that aside from the marks its highly subjective, it is very difficult for us to understand the decisions without having the full application before us to compare and even then we can't be sure.&nbsp;
quote



That’s definitely not true for law.


If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all


Coming from someone who apparently doesn’t reason at all, I see your comment as a compliment.


*Cough* only one of us couldn’t get into Oxford mate. Stay well :)

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br>
</div><br><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br>
</div><br><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance. [/quote]<br><br>I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still. [/quote]<br><br>That’s definitely not true for law. [/quote]<br><br>If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all [/quote]<br><br>Coming from someone who apparently doesn’t reason at all, I see your comment as a compliment. [/quote]<br><br>*Cough* only one of us couldn’t get into Oxford mate. Stay well :)
quote

I perfectly get your point.

And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.

But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.

What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play.


I suggest that your view of 'merit' is rather narrow if you define 'merit' as 'going to a top law school'.

I go to Cambridge. I've met Cambridge (and Oxford) students who wouldn't be able to reason their way out of a paper bag even if their life depended on it. Likewise, I've met and interacted with many students from many other universities around the world — some of which I daresay are quite a bit less 'prestigious', if you will — who are amazingly competent and would absolutely put me to shame.

Going to a 'top university' isn't everything, and viewing someone's application more favourably on the basis that they went to a top university (or vice versa, as you propose) sure as hell isn't meritocratic either.

[quote]I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>I suggest that your view of 'merit' is rather narrow if you define 'merit' as 'going to a top law school'.<br><br>I go to Cambridge. I've met Cambridge (and Oxford) students who wouldn't be able to reason their way out of a paper bag even if their life depended on it. Likewise, I've met and interacted with many students from many other universities around the world — some of which I daresay are quite a bit less 'prestigious', if you will — who are amazingly competent and would absolutely put me to shame.<br><br>Going to a 'top university' isn't everything, and viewing someone's application more favourably on the basis that they went to a top university (or vice versa, as you propose) sure as hell isn't meritocratic either.
quote
Inactive User

I understand the anger and disappointment but its important to understand that aside from the marks its highly subjective, it is very difficult for us to understand the decisions without having the full application before us to compare and even then we can't be sure. 


That’s what I said, we see them as random because that’s the external observer’s view of a biased and prejudicial system which misrepresents the rules… If the stated rules were the true rules, we wouldn’t have that perception

[quote]I understand the anger and disappointment but its important to understand that aside from the marks its highly subjective, it is very difficult for us to understand the decisions without having the full application before us to compare and even then we can't be sure.&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>That’s what I said, we see them as random because that’s the external observer’s view of a biased and prejudicial system which misrepresents the rules… If the stated rules were the true rules, we wouldn’t have that perception
quote
Inactive User



If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all


Coming from someone who apparently doesn’t reason at all, I see your comment as a compliment.


*Cough* only one of us couldn’t get into Oxford mate. Stay well :)


Joke’s on you mate, I got into Oxford and Cambridge too. See you on campus this autumn!

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]<div>[quote]Bro, you have no ideia what you’re talking about. I am absolutely certain that I am better qualified than a person who got in *by every possible and imaginable metric*. You have no ideia of the recommendations I got, the glaring difference between our law schools, and many other metrics. I wouldn’t be so pissed if it were a “hard case”, but this situation absolutely isn’t. I am gonna file a request for data and I will absolutely sue these liars.<br></div><div>Their selection has NOTHING to do with academic merit. That’s complete and utter bullsh*t. It’s shameful. I really should sue them for prejudice and bias, because that’s the only explanation for this outrageous decision.[/quote]If we examine a few metrics, you probably are more qualified than me to do the BCL/MJur! For example:<br><br>
</div><br><div>- I failed my LNAT. Like I literally got below the national average for the law admissions test for the UK. That's a terrible omen to one's legal career ambitions if there ever was one</div><br><div>- I flopped my Cambridge undergrad interview and didn't get an offer</div><br><div>- I failed to even meet the A Level requirements for the university I ended up going (they let me in because they softened the requirements lmao)<br>
</div><br><div>- I got a 2:2 in one of my first year modules</div><br><br><div>With your assertions, I should be another one of your case studies for why the admissions system is rigged because there's no way an incompetent bumbling idiot like me could ever get into Oxford.</div><br><br><div>I can understand why you're really upset and quite angry right now. I've been in your situation before and I've been there more than once. If you applied to the MJur programme, you probably have the same dreams and aspirations as all of us – to get into Oxford (and/or Cambridge). And it can be heartbreaking and devastating when we're told we're not good enough to get in.</div><br><br>But it's really unfair for you to diminish the achievements of others because you are in no position to make an unbiased and impartial academic judgment on who is more qualified to get into the MJur programme and who isn't. If you only knew me by the four things I listed in this post, you would think I am grossly unqualified to be an offer holder. But you know, and I know, that those four things aren't the only things that underpin my qualifications and skills. Likewise, you don't know all of the cards that this other person holds.<br><br><br>You go to a better law school? So what? Do you think Oxford admission tutors should start yeeting all applications from ex-poly applicants simply because they can't compare to your superior LMU München, Sorbonne, or Columbia University and so these ex-polys should not even bother?<br><br><br>You got superior recommendations? So what? Not everyone has had an equal opportunity to study at a top university like you and so not everyone will have references from superstars of the legal world. Should all applicants who don't have references from top LSE, National University of Singapore, or Tsinghua professors just give up there and then because they'll never be good enough for Oxford?<br><br><br>I'm not saying you can't feel sad about being rejected. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. But being this toxic isn't going to help you improve your application or academic performance. [/quote]<br><br>I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>Oxford is probably the most meritocratic University in the world, still. [/quote]<br><br>That’s definitely not true for law. [/quote]<br><br>If this is how you reason, then not only am I not surprised you didn’t get into Oxford. I’m surprised you went to any law school at all [/quote]<br><br>Coming from someone who apparently doesn’t reason at all, I see your comment as a compliment. [/quote]<br><br>*Cough* only one of us couldn’t get into Oxford mate. Stay well :) [/quote]<br><br>Joke’s on you mate, I got into Oxford and Cambridge too. See you on campus this autumn!
quote
Bandicoot

Rejected, so Cambridge it is.

The button theory seems to have held true this year but in reverse - Tuesday/Wednesday rejections, Thursday/Friday acceptances.

Best wishes to you all, whether successful or otherwise! 

Rejected, so Cambridge it is.<br><br>The button theory seems to have held true this year but in reverse - Tuesday/Wednesday rejections, Thursday/Friday acceptances.<br><br>Best wishes to you all, whether successful or otherwise!&nbsp;
quote
Inactive User

I perfectly get your point.

And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.

But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.

What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play.


I suggest that your view of 'merit' is rather narrow if you define 'merit' as 'going to a top law school'.

I go to Cambridge. I've met Cambridge (and Oxford) students who wouldn't be able to reason their way out of a paper bag even if their life depended on it. Likewise, I've met and interacted with many students from many other universities around the world — some of which I daresay are quite a bit less 'prestigious', if you will — who are amazingly competent and would absolutely put me to shame.

Going to a 'top university' isn't everything, and viewing someone's application more favourably on the basis that they went to a top university (or vice versa, as you propose) sure as hell isn't meritocratic either.


Listen, I don’t wanna go into detail here, but of course it’s not just the law school. There is class rank, recommendations, extracurriculars, and many other factors that I know that all point to same conclusion, and even reinforce it.

[quote][quote]I perfectly get your point.<br><br>And they can do that. It’s their Uni, they decide.<br><br>But they just shouldn’t claim to have an admissions sustém based on academic merit if that’s how admissions unfold. If you’re gonna cut some slack for applicants because they didn’t go into top law schools, that’s alright, just not meritocratic.<br><br>What bothers me is the lying. The falsehood about the selection criteria. The lack of intellectual honesty on their website and the whole pretending to be serious and decent act they play. [/quote]<br><br>I suggest that your view of 'merit' is rather narrow if you define 'merit' as 'going to a top law school'.<br><br>I go to Cambridge. I've met Cambridge (and Oxford) students who wouldn't be able to reason their way out of a paper bag even if their life depended on it. Likewise, I've met and interacted with many students from many other universities around the world — some of which I daresay are quite a bit less 'prestigious', if you will — who are amazingly competent and would absolutely put me to shame.<br><br>Going to a 'top university' isn't everything, and viewing someone's application more favourably on the basis that they went to a top university (or vice versa, as you propose) sure as hell isn't meritocratic either. [/quote]<br><br>Listen, I don’t wanna go into detail here, but of course it’s not just the law school. There is class rank, recommendations, extracurriculars, and many other factors that I know that all point to same conclusion, and even reinforce it.
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Oxford, United Kingdom 922 Followers 875 Discussions

Hot Discussions