Oxbridge and State Schools

But without the tea and sometimes it has to take place in a coffee shop if the supervisor is too junior to actually have a study or workplace.

At least Varsity are onto the supervision gap thing.

Supervision article

The picture in the article looks very like a typical supervision, by the way.

Another useful thing to bear in mind. There are two kinds of Oxbridge person, machers and schmoozers.

Machers make things,or make things happen.

Schmoozers network, and get on that way.

Machers look like this.

Macher

Schmoozers look like this.
<a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01630/cam19_84_1630035i.jpg&imgrefurl=www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/7682276/David-Cameron-the-new-Prime-Ministers-life-and-career-in-pictures.html?image%3D5&h=467&w=620&sz=88&tbnid=YMIyWErcPkEnBM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=116&zoom=1&usg=__2g8RvbcKRJxtVxn4sMJvFXs-u5I=&docid=qir9sNSq38ld-M&sa=X&ei=qzFhUaWNEMqJ0AW45oGQBg&ved=0CEwQ9QEwCA&dur=451" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Schmoozers

BTW when we read the personal statements they look pretty scary to most of us. As academics we often were quite nerdy and spent time on intellectual tasks rather than joining clubs, doing D of E and so on. One thing we all did have in common was setting ourselves spontaneous personal intellectual challenges and seeing them through, quite separate from anything going on at school.

For example at one stage I sat down and wrote a book of Lieder translations from the German to English because I felt like it. The translations were pretty good, but the ability to do this was not recognised in my terrible A Level grades!!

Another example. DD won some money from school to do a journalistic article of her choice. Later I found she had infiltrated a group of (male) graffiti artists and basically carried their gear while they carried out their 'work'. This allowed her to gather sociological data of the type and quality of some of the early sociological urban research projects (before ethics committees!) She did this entirely by herself, not least because I would have had a fit. The article was amazing. Oxbridge were quite gobsmacked she had done this and seen it through, and analysed her findings in the way that she did - completely on her own.

That's what Oxbridge wants. Thinkers.

Anyway MN people, you have a built in network with me and other people on here who have experience of working within the Oxbridge system and/or being admissions people. So make the most of that. I have a very good idea of how to navigate the system to improve chances. Ask any questions you like.

RiversideMum, are you seriously suggesting that the privileged give away anything but the most tokenistic amount of their power?

I am of the mindset that everyone who has 3 As or higher at AL should be put in a lottery for Oxbridge places, and it should be decided on that basis. Why even attempt to distinguish between the top nano percentages of ability? If people with top grades can't cope with the 'system' then more and better supervisions need to be provided for them, rather than the students perceived as failures.

I also think all college endowments should be pooled and/or students allocated randomly by lottery to colleges.

The present system is not fit for purpose, but there are some very determined vested interests propping it up.

Propitious speaks a lot of sense.

FWIW one of those elite institutions commissioned me to carry out internal research on variations in the quality of UG teaching.

The quality varied massively so they sat on the report and certain people blocked publication.

In ancient colleges, you are often taught by professors; in young ones you are often taught by overseas postgrads who can barely speak English some of the time, let alone teach.

Yet you all pay the same fees.

State school applicants, student parents and minority ethnic groups are often herded via the pool into the younger colleges.

Many people internally are not happy about this, as you can imagine.

From own experience with state school educated dc who won a place at Cambridge, the personal statement seemed to be regarded as a way of conveying to the admissions tutors that you got 'involved' at school and took some responsibility. But above all it seemed to be about showing your commitment to your chosen subject and that you looked forward to a pretty stiff intellectual challenge over the course of the next 3 years.

Like some other posters have commented, our local state school's attitude to Oxbridge was, 'why do you want to go there?' To be fair to the teachers, they were ignorant (in the nicest possible way) about what Oxbridge offered & clueless about the difficulty of entry.

What we learned about Cambridge entry for state school applicants:

1. Choose the subject and college very carefully. Popular subjects at the better colleges are heavily oversubscribed so choose a college which offers your subject but with fewer applicants per place. (College/subject application numbers are freely available online)... Health Warning! Not all Oxbridge colleges offer you the same quality of undergraduate study experience. The better (aka wealthier) colleges attract/can afford better tutors, which translates into better supervisions/tutorials for undergrads.... We were told that by a professor of an esteemed Cambridge department who happens to be a friend.

1. Best not not to make an 'open' application. Choose your college (playing the percentages as above) then if unsuccessful you'll go into the Xmas 'pool' & other colleges then have a look at you. It's a bit like UCAS 'clearing'.

1. There are a lot of wealthy/privileged/independent school educated students at Cambridge which can make social life limiting for shy/insecure state school types. Of course, a lot depends on what dc is like.

1. The undergrad workload is huge at Oxbridge and comes as a great shock to some. One approach is to treat Oxbridge like a hectic/demanding 8am to 5pm six day a week job where you fit in a social life around work (and not the other way round like in many other univs).

1. In preparing for entry/interview: network furiously. Find Oxbridge friends who studied a similar subject and get them to do mock interviews with dc. (The school should of course be doing this but most don't have the time/inclination/resources.) Luckily, we had a really co-operative friend who was more than willing to do this. DC came out of these hour-long sessions ashen-faced and exhausted but fully prepared the real interview.

1. As a parent, network. It seems to be a common theme for those who succeed in gaining entry. Ask Oxbridge friends for advice and direction. We were lucky in that I have a background in ed and have several Oxbridge connections of various different sorts.

1. The sacrifices and hard work are worth it in the end. Our dc struggled to fit in at first and we wondered whether it was the right choice but after graduating dc breezed in to a top profession with barely a ruffled feather. The professions and best employers all seem to understand the worth of an Oxbridge degree and gaining employment, for these fortunate graduates, presents few problems.

Bloody hell!

If it's any comfort to anyone, I didn't get in as an undergrad. I completely panicked at interview and spoke rubbish, I had no clue what was expected. Later I went there for postgrad degrees, won lots of prizes and things, and did fine. I also ended up working there! I think that's what makes me sympathetic to the whole undergrad admissions thing. I have seen the situation from both sides.

God knows how I ever got in, Boffin!

I can remember my interview: it started, 'Come in. Sit down. Tell me the difference between an aldehyde and a ketone.'

Hahaha just asked DD that last one (she went to Cambridge) and she started off by saying she'd drill a sample all the way down to the core, weigh that and multiply it by the total surface area of the earth. She is not taking the resultant teasing well.

Do you all get the thought processes required to do well in the interview now?

Another:

How would you weigh the earth?

And another: if you wanted to design an education system that ensured it would fail as many pupils as possible, what do you think it would look like?

And another:

Why do you think Oxbridge designed this particular degree course in the way that it did? Is anything missing that should be there, in your opinion?

Another typical question: how would you develop a scientific experiment to test that concept, and how would you make sure it was a fair test?

Typical question: Take a story on the news, you choose which one, and explain how your chosen subject might offer insight into this issue.

Need beginning, middle and end to answer, and about half a dozen correlations or examples of synthesising information to form some sort of analysis. All shows higher order thinking.

In the Oxbridge admissions teams I have worked with, we have been looking for proof of students enjoying mulling over intellectual problems, thinking out loud and being able to structure an intellectual argument while they are doing it. Those students score 8 or 9 out of 10 in interviews and go through to the next round. Students from less selective schools who have had little contact with intellectual peers to practise these skills might be given the benefit of the doubt.

I get that slipshod, of course. But I wouldn't want any of my DC to hang on to the idea except as a very loose possibility, since I think too hard a focus on that might spoil their enjoyment of their undergraduate years, which fly by so fast.

For some of us, I guess pointing out to students / sons and daughters that postgraduate study is a possibility is a way of reducing pressure or assuaging disappointment after a rejection. Many will soon feel like Copthall's daughter once they have settled into their chosen institution and will fortunately believe the path they are on is the best one for them.

Nor is it anywhere. I feel for current undergraduates since a 2.1 seems to be the minimum for getting any sort of job / postgrad. Welovegrapes and I may have emerged in another recession (possibly the same one?) but then a 2.1 / First was rare enough to guarantee you some sort of job / postgrad, even for me . All of my friend's DCs who have graduated, Oxbridge or not, are back home competing hard for unpaid internships to build up the sort of CV that would even put you in with a chance of a job. Out of all DDs peers due to graduate this year one has an internship organised by Daddy and DD has her MSc sorted and that is it as they head into Finals.

My only point Copthall was that getting an offer is not a foregone conclusion by any stretch.

Yellowtip What you don't know is where those applicants are coming from. The Professor's comments rested on his despair that so many of the superbright undergraduates would be going off into banking etc. and be lost to Science whilst they might be losing in the scrum of entry some really good serious Scientists. It isn't even such an issue at postgrad level as there is so much good research going on at other unis and in partnership with companies and research foundations. It is more of a case of where to go to persue your interests than seeking the Oxbridge brand. In fact that is true in Humanities too. I have several peers who are Oxbridge graduates.