Ah, your will power did not last then?! Congratulations once more. I imagine you are firmly set upon Oxford then?!

It's interesting that both you and Jags were not successful at Cambridge but were accepted by Oxford. One would have thought that having the calibre to be accepted into one would have carried over and we would see many obtaining offers from both. Does anyone have a theory on that?

No- I´am sometimes quite impatient...:-) In fact I can´t really believe it cause I am not working in academia and thought that oxon is admitting predominantly people who want to stay or still work in academia...

I hope the wait is over for you all tomorrow!

did anyone of you read anything about the date you must have accepted/declined your offer by ? does it depend on the date you received the (in)famous 1-line offer ?

It's interesting that both you and Jags were not successful at Cambridge but were accepted by Oxford. One would have thought that having the calibre to be accepted into one would have carried over and we would see many obtaining offers from both. Does anyone have a theory on that?

What you will probably find is that those who have been accepted into Oxford were in or around the maybe pile for Cambridge but just didn't make the cut. You have to remember that the BCL/MJur 'only' receives about 600 applications per year in comparison to Cambridge's 1200, and both ask for the same requirements. This may well be explained by the fact that the Oxford programme, for home students at least, is considerably more expensive but I don't really know. Anyway, seeing they will initially make similar offer numbers,

And anyway, what your effectively saying is that on the Cambridge form you couldn't say everything you wanted to say about yourself because the word limit wasn't long enough. Personally, I'd say it was in no way 'stringent' and, considering that Oxford request that it's applicants have a 'particular eye for finesse and economy' in their writing, it would suggest that, if anything, on the presumption that you followed a similar writing style for both apps, it would be 'easier' to get into Oxford than Cambridge because they have obviously allowed you more space to write what you want and not really paid attention to their own 'entry requirements'.

For the record, I don't happen to believe this. I believe that it is pretty much equally difficult to get into both because where you have a chance to impress on one app, you don't on another, and so on. Plus, you can have a lucky day on one and not on the other, which is something most applicants need when there is such stiff competition.

I couldn't agree more, Cicero

A

will all the applicants be informed through email? should I email Ms Malloy??????

As far as the number of applications is concerned, one has to bear this in mind too..

Oxford calls for applications from those who are in top 5% (and then says that usually those pursuing BCL would be at or near te top of their class) whereas Cambridge invites applications from the top 10%, so the number of applications is higher for Cambridge.

will all the applicants be informed through email? should I email Ms Malloy??????

will all the applicants be informed through email? should I email Ms Malloy??????

I presume so. It is perhaps best to wait until some offers, which aren't institgated by applicants, start to appear to see whether they arrive by post or email but Jagsmehn stated last week that the fortunate would be emailed so I would think so.

Sorry, I ddin't see the first reply until I'd just now.

I don't understand the point about me not discussing the CV and written work aspect. It is impliedly mentioned in my reference to one application allowing an applicant to impress where the other doesn't. Anyway, I'll deal with it in more depth...

Cambridge don't compare the academic worth of two applicants just on the basis of numbers.They rely heavily on the academic references and their quality and they look for a logical, lucid and well written statement as to why an applicant wants to study there and why they should be offered a place above and beyond anyone else.

You seem to rely too heavily on the impact of a CV and a piece of written work. I believe that you'll find that neither are examined, beyond a brief look to see whether, because of the huge amounts of international students applying for the BCL/MJur, the applicant can present a case in something approaching well written english. They certainly aren't going to look into the law because, for the very same reason, so much of the work will be from jurisdictions they know little about. If you consult other forums and view the opinions of past and current Oxbridge grad students you'll see that this is the consensus view.

A variable approach to applications merely means that one institution believes it can make a judgement on less information to another. Perhaps the Cambridge approach is more frank in saying 'Actually, we won't look at all this other stuff so we won't trouble you to send it- if it comes down to it, we will rely on the quality of your written application and references'. Notably, as far as I can see, Harvard don't ask for a writing sample (http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/gradprogram/llm/apps-and-deadlines/index.html), ( I was only skim reading the pages so I may be wrong) but, either way, shouldn't a top candidate be able to adapt to different application methods and alter their approach to suit the institution?

As far as the number of applications is concerned, one has to bear this in mind too..

Oxford calls for applications from those who are in top 5% (and then says that usually those pursuing BCL would be at or near te top of their class) whereas Cambridge invites applications from the top 10%, so the number of applications is higher for Cambridge.

After searching, I couldn't find the page where Oxford specified 'top 5%'- only a number of pages which specified that the applicant must have a first class degree. Anyway, it's irrelevant because neither invites applicants from a top percentage of each class- they attempt to simplify what a first class degree is in other jurisdictions so that international students can have a rough idea of whether they might be able to apply before looking any further into it. If you graduate in the top 8% of your class but your class happens to be awful and you end up with a 2:2, then the fact that Cambridge states '5-10%' on the website doesn't mean you can still apply.

I don't know where this all is headed. But what I meant (and the same has been written here earlier by others too) was that Cambridge tends to place a lower cut-off percentage than Oxford. This would imply a larger number of applications than Oxford, which would mean a person not making the cut at Oxford, but having strong extra-curriculars (or something else to make up the lack of marks) may have a better chance at Cambridge.

May be, in my case, Oxford might have had lesser number of applications for the subjects for which I had applied. One never knows what weighed in one's favour, but I'm sure Cambridge application didn't even carry half the information that Oxford application did (both in terms of quantity and quality).

As dranwn from my application I would say that Oxford really takes your extra curricular activities into consideration...

Jags have you been rejected by lse?

Re.

The question was indeed that, but then I disagreed with the point made about it being 'easier to get into Cambridge than Oxford'. I can see that we will have to disagree, but I am most grateful of the repetition of 'evidence' to support a claim that Cambridge is harder to get onto. lol

Of course, that is not what I believe. I believe that each are pretty much equally difficult to get into. Every candidate has the same opportunity to impress because each institution has a standardised method of application and so every candidate is in the same advantageous/disadvantageous position. As I say, in my opinion, to claim one is more difficult, when everyone is on such a playing field, is ridiculous.