Would a person need to be officially GnT to consider Oxford?

There is no way we'd qualify for a bursary Punkin but thanks for the advice. DS just gets his rent paid by us like many students - but again I think maybe at 'top' universities parents can tend to be slightly older and wealthier.

DS is just very tight and wary of too much debt so works full time in holidays

NotanOtter, has he looked into the full range of bursaries etc available? My understanding was that they aren't really supposed to work during term-time - maybe you mean during the hols though? - and the colleges are so wealthy that they will thrust money into the hands of any student who needs any.

This thread v helpful btw even for a second timer like me - thank you all for taking the time to contribute it really helps

Punkin thanks for the concern I agree with hou on so many levels... I've told ds to grow a thicker skin.

He claims a conversation was had when two housemates expressed shock at him working for minimum wage and one added 'my time's worth more than that' - his is too but needs must!

His accent is barely northern btw but his college is renowned for beibg a little 'poncey' and right wing! His choice- think he secretly likes the challenge

your childrens' school is relevant because it would not be surprising if offers made at a high performing school were higher than to those at schools who traditionally send less pupils to Cambridge. As you have more than one child, and they all appeared to be at the same school, you may have been to more than one talk over the years. However it would be odd if you'd been to talks elsewhere unless you had a child/children elsewhere or worked in education. If you worked in education it would probably only be one more school so considerably less experience than someone actually interviewing for the university.

I had a look at Kings's since a quick glance suggested it had a high ratio of applicants to places. No mention of GSCE on the requirements page, only of A level. Yes offers will normally be A* AA.

I don't doubt that most applicants will have strings of A*s at GSCE but there will be some who only come into their own after GSCE or are really gifted in one area. It seems Cambridge are happy to consider them if they are truly keen on their subject and doing very well after GSCE.

fearful - because the colleges aren't fully separate institutions. Teaching is shared across the whole university.

In principle, if you are good enough to deserve a place but do not get one at your first choice, you should get one in the pool. It'd be immensely more time, money and paperwork for you to apply and be interviewed at 30-odd places, only for those 30-odd places to all agree you're good, or all agree you're bad.

I know in practice it is not perfect as there's an element of human variation in an interview, but I can't see them changing the system when it's theoretically fine and much, much cheaper than the alternative.

I assume the reason you can't apply to both Oxford and Cambridge (except in rare cases, eg. if you're an organ scholar) is also primarily to do with the amount of extra paperwork and time it'd involve if people did.

But why can't you apply everywhere if you want?

Actually the fag of locating it and typing it out. It's replicated all over the official website under each college heading.

ellisbell my experience is not only of one school and I'm not sure what entitles you to think that . I have not attended a single talk and those that I have attended have been very recent and extend back over a number of years. Not all MNersbare their credentials on the forum, so perhaps don't jump to conclusions. I defend my DCs' school against silly and bigoted attacks, no more, that's fair (but not relevant).

Anyhow, this is silly too. The Special Access scheme is entirely laudable but not relevant to most applicants.

Taking the Trinity College Cambridge website page which all on here (including my detractors) can probably agree is a sound source of official information:

'..competition for places is always severe and the majority of our applicants do come to us with 8 or more GCSE grades of A or A of which about 6 or 7 are A.'

'Most successful applicants have average AS module scores of more than 90%'

'For 2012-13 Trinity's standard A-Level offer will be A*AA..'

'In 2010, more than 95% of those holding Trinity offers achieved at least AAA....post A-level applicants should be aware that they would normally need an A in at least two subjects to be competitive'.

I was trying to save myself the fag of typing that lot out.

Interesting, Ellisbell. My impression is that the Cambridge admissions system is better for applicants with a less than perfect clutch of GCSEs.

peteneras universities are entirely about social engineering. The selection of an elite starts at birth (or even before) and the whole school system is designed to teach acceptance of your role in a particular social system. Making a show of an allowance for disadvantage is simply a bit of window dressing, it makes very little difference. Foreign students have a different school experience.

Yellowstone I imagine your experience is only of one school, and one you often claim to be one of the best state schools. BoffinMum's is of one university, that makes outreach visits to a lot of schools. Even if you have remembered what was said perfectly (how long ago was your talk?) it may not be relevant elsewhere.

What I am taking from this is that a child who doesn't have a lot of A* grades may be better choosing Cambridge than Oxford because they place more emphasis on the AS results/A level predictions.

'Little wonder British universities and educational standards are slipping down the world league tables'

Cambridge beat Harvard to the top spot this year. Do you know how much more funding Harvard has?! I think we Brits should be very proud.

pete a very large number of universities use contextual data; Oxford is very far from alone. Not everyone has the chance to go to an Eton. It's absolutely appropriate to adjust.

pete please don't start your quarrels again :). I think you have experience of Cambridge applications; you know very well how high the grades are.

BoffinMum may well wish to encourage applicants from disadvantaged areas or who've suffered illness but the grades required for those applicants are different from the norm.

The reality of the vast majority of grades and offers at Cambridge is very different from 5A 's at GCSE and AAB at A2, I'm not sure why that should be in dispute. Check out the info for Medicine on the university website for example.

I find the information given by the outreach officers completely consistent with the practice Boffin, I never said I didn't: 7A, 4 A's at AS of over 90%, AAA . Possibly that's at the higher end, I agree. It would be good if you'd tell us what the average offer is in your department across the university, it won't be 5A's or AAB (I did ask before, it would be helpful).

At Oxford there are lots of students with Northern accents (although the north south divide and ribbing is centuries old, Wales is part of the North BTW), there are also lots and lots of state school students. My old tutor used to say he preferred State school pupils as if they got A's he knew they were bright.

Not going to comment on grade requirements as I have no clue what they need these days, but I just want to comment on the experiences of state school applicants to redress the negative comments on this thread, as I would hate anyone to be put off.

I went to a state school and studied at Cambridge in the mid -90s. I had a wonderful time, met some great people from all backgrounds and really can't recommend it enough. Certainly, I never experienced any snobbery from other students or dons and I think the college system really encourages a friendly atmosphere.

Before I went I had all the usual worries that I wouldn't fit in, but really, it was never an issue. I did struggle academically in my first year mainly because A-level really didn't prep me for a degree in my subject (and my school taught to test- non-selective 6th form) but I got a 2:1 in the end, so I managed.

You can only apply for a certain number of colleges?

As for Oxbridge, can there be anything more ridiculous for a current Cambridge admissions interviewer for ?one of the most oversubscribed subjects at Cambridge? and ?at the most popular college for the subject? to be told that her advice is ?completely out of touch??

Please don?t duck out BoffinMum, you are one of the most refreshing breath of fresh air that has ever blown this way.

Universities are academic centres of learning and research. It is not their job to embark on social engineering ? that?s best left to other (governmental) institutions. It follows therefore, that the best and most suitable candidates are admitted to their respective courses irrespective of their backgrounds or postcodes. I stand corrected but I cannot think of another university anywhere in the world that operates a flagging system in admitting students.

Little wonder British universities and educational standards are slipping down the world league tables. Emerging nations such as China, India, Korea, Singapore etc. have universities filled with some of the poorest students I know doing the most demanding science/maths/engineering courses. And yes, even Oxford and Cambridge today are beginning to be flooded with these students from the East and they didn?t get there on charity or postcodes or head starts. Admittedly, many of them are on scholarships because they are poor which goes to prove you can still make it whatever your background.

Yes, OP like I said before, please encourage your DD ? at least for a visit at the Open Day. A few years ago that?s exactly what I did when I took my DD there but she decided she didn?t like the university but loved the city.

Everyone who applies, their application is read.

There is not a computer that says "no" based on GCSE results.

Every personal statement, every extra piece of information regarding schools or illness or disability or SN or extenuating circumstances is read, by an actual human being.

NotAnOtter, I?m really about your ds being given a hard time at Cambridge for having a Northern accent, coming from a state school and having to work to pay his way. That?s awful for him.

If they recruited a higher proportion of state school students it would help no end. At my dc?s huge state school, just about every race, religion and political tendency is represented. From day one they have it dinned into them that intolerance is completely unacceptable, that difference is to be celebrated, that community is all, and that social justice is essential. If they didn?t hear that day in, day out, there would be chaos.

Also, by the sixth form, probably a majority are doing serious work for money ? and are respected for it. They are certainly hard-headed realists where economics are concerned; and motivated to work.

I?m glad for him that NatSci gets better in the second year, and I hope things go much better for him from now on. Sadly I know a few former state school pupils who got into Oxbridge and then were utterly miserable, but I had hoped that it had become a thing of the past.

I don't interview for Oxford. I interview for Cambridge. So comparing it to Keble is a bit pointless. And the subject I interview for is one of the most oversubscribed at Cambridge, at the most popular college for the subject.

I am being very patient with you ... our advice is always if applicants think they might benefit from the course, and they are amongst the top candidates in terms of GCSEs and A Levels in their school, they should always apply. Please everyone, there is no need to get completely hung up on exam results. It's the love of the subject and the intellectual engagement with it that is the top priority. Obviously you need to have proven a good degree of intellectual stamina, and this is usually done via GCSE and A Level results, but even with a complete set of A stars you are not guaranteed a place unless the rest is there.

I am going to duck out of this thread now, as it's getting a bit circular. Thanks to everyone who has sent me supportive messages, especially my colleagues. I will raise the conflicting reports about advice from the Outreach people when I get chance, though, as I'd like to clarify whether there's any kind of gap between theory and practice in admissions at the moment.

"Spotless"

I'm glad that what the outreach people are saying is different. I understand the line, but it is very daunting, nonetheless.

yellowstone is right, it is subject dependent, but even so Boffinmum clearly works in one of the less fussy subjects. Keble College (Oxford) provide admissions feedback by subject on their website and below are some quotes Link Here:

Economics and Management (one of the very most oversubscribed courses). In the list of reasons why candidates might not be invited to interview it said:
"Results in official examinations, especially GCSE, which are not at the highest level ? candidates should have virtually spotless GCSE results to secure an interview."

For Engineering: "Almost all candidates have all or mostly A* at GCSE and predictions of straight A grades at A level"

Law: "Almost all candidates had all or mostly A at GCSE and were predicted a run of A or A grades at A level."

Theology: deselection if: "results in official examinations, especially GCSE, that fall significantly short of the minimum achieved by successful candidates in recent years, virtually all of whom show a run of consistent A or A grades at A level and predominantly A at GCSE."

MFL - No mention of GCSEs talks only about language abilities.

Physics - deselection based entirely on PAT results (ie: GCSE independent)

and so on - pretty much the full range of GCSE results needed from perfect to doesn't matter, but very dependent on the subject chosen.

I understand as well that it's about showing an upward trajectory - so, adequate GCSEs (whatever that means ), followed by promising AS levels, with really good A level predictions.

And onto a first...