What has gone wrong with Maths at Westminster?

Sorry to correct you TP but all schools get the 16-19 Bursary though I think its administration can differ. All schools also get the Pupil Premium for the relevant kids but again its administration can differ. What would be indefensible about allocating funds designed to help those from less well off homes travel to a university interview or open day? I think you may need to look at the rules.

Small point. Four A levels are standard at Westminster so if 90% of results are Grade A or A considerably more than 85% of pupils are likely to have at least 3 A levels at A or A.

So, let me get this straight, all but the W parents accept that a school like Tiffin is in fact 12 x as selective because it includes

• girls
• those who cannot afford fees

Galling as it is to you with kids at the Top schools, get over it
you being rich does not make your kids brainy
it just means that your kids have access to schools the rest of the world has to ignore.

It does not make your kids dim, or weird, but does not prove that they are the results of "the most selective school in the country"

and the fact that nearly every child at WinCol was though good enough for Oxbridge
begs the question
where are the girls?

I often have to get my DC tickets to Scotland. I've just typed in Aberdeen/ Oxford and Inverness/ Oxford with one week's notice (travelling down next Monday and back next Thursday, so roughly the time frame of an interview) and both come in at £106 with a YP Railcard. Easyjet flights to either Luton or Bristol from Glasgow are around £80 return for the same dates. It's expensive enough, but not the several hundred quid which was quoted. Another place they often travel from is Penrith, which you can down South from for a snip.

Going back to the 17.5% applied for a course Oxford doesn't offer - just wanted to check what they means.
When I read it in the report, I took it to mean those candidates applied for courses ELSEWHERE - ie they were excluded from applying to Oxford by their choice of course - took it to be highlighting that able students (it was talking about those with AAA or above) don't always apply for academic courses.......could be poor advice from schools, or just they prefer to do something else.
However others on this thread take it to mean they mis-applied - can it really be true that so many applied without realising which courses are actually on offer?

Anyway, going back to Westminster and the discussion about if they success rates for Oxbridge are impressive given their intake, I certainly think they are.
Yes, all of the boys (and later girls) are able, but not all are Oxbridge material. The 10%ish of results not being A/A* reflects this. This might mean only 85% of boys have AAA or above. As we know, an A is not the sign of a genius pupil these days, but an be obtained through careful preparation and a bit of hard work if someone has a modicum of intelligence. Some of those 85%of boys will be in that bracket - they have a modicum of intelligence and get a good clutch of A Levels, but they are not Oxbridge material. They don't have a genuine interest in the subject, an enquiring mind or the capacity to think broadly, narrowly and abrstractly, but to learn from their teachers.
Why I think W does a fantastic job, is that they still mange to get over 40% in, which means they must manage to teach and cajole a good number into displaying those skills on paper and at interview - far more than would get in if they were elsewhere and not receiving the fantastic preparation W offers. So yes, roughly half who apply from W don't make it. The school cannot totally judge who will and who won't and because they know that some of those who aren't the elite will still make it, they don't prevent many (except those who have very little/no chance applying). To get this many in, some of whom whilst bright were not exceptional, is the amazing thing.
And the comparison with Tiffin makes the point well. Those kids are very clever. In numbers terms, they have beaten off more competition to get their places at Tiffin.....and yet fewer get Oxbridge places as a percentage. So it is the work done by W which is making the difference - I see 40%+ and I am hugely impressed! not critical because no school, however selective at 7/11 or even 16 (although at 16 it might be easier) only brings in Oxbridge candidates - i think posters confuse a string of A* with being an Oxbridge candidate and see the two as absolutely the same thing.

There will be subjects and years when certain subjects are more or less successful. Perhaps we need to see the figures for W as a whole school, as well as seeing maths across several years.

I remain impressed by Ws success rate. It must be a well-oiled operation to be so successful, but it cannot guarantee success for all of its clever boys, however well oiled it is.

molio
Your school is clearly amazing as are you and your DCs
BUT
bursary funds do not exist at any school round here
and would be indefensible if used for that purpose

needmoresleep
I know. One of my siblings went to Durham and if she chooses it, cool, but its a blerdy long way to go for a visit.
Top choice is currently imperial with Cambridge a close Second - stresses me as I have too many family in London
I regarded Uni as a chance to break free and define myself

Off topic completely but there is a train that takes you directly from Southampton to Durham.

Sablepoot.

. I read it wrongly. I thought it meant they had applied to Oxford but not a course that exists so e.g. applied for straight Economics.

I feel incredibly foolish , but thanks for straightening me out

Shuffles out quietly.

TP this is a state school. All of my eight DC have attended it or attend it so I know it well. What you said about 'the 93%' is in complete ignorance of my own financial situation, not that I have any intention of sharing it with you. Rude nonetheless. Admittedly one of the bursary schemes is a school funded scheme, with funds to help the less well off generated by an electricity producing scheme however it is strikingly forward thinking and perhaps fairly unique. But the 16-19 Bursary is government funded. Also, the school guidance for pupils entitled to the Pupil Premium specifically allows funds to be drawn down for university open days/ interviews etc. You see there are people out there who think about this stuff and then do something about it, unlike armchair pontificators. I refer you back to Word's post about the square root etc.

Your comment about interviews is a red herring and miles away from the original thread.

the 17% of AAA+ state educated candidates that apply for courses not offered by oxbridge don't apply to Oxbridge. All that statistic is saying is that Oxbridge don't offer all the courses that bright candidates are . attracted to (don't know what these might be, but Oxford doesn't offer vet med or straight economics for example...). Without knowing what proportion of bright privately educated students make the same choice its a bit meaningless anyway.

Molio
TP a parent in financial difficulty could apply for help at our school under the 16 -19 Bursary scheme or under a separate school based scheme.
Please, look that up for a state school
and then remember how the 93% of us live

senua
Once a term with all their luggage, after the age of 18 is much less of an issue than one a week for seven weeks.
DD has Durham on her list - we live in Southampton .....

I don't see that logistics for admissions are so much a problem. If it is difficult for interview then consider how much more difficult it will be getting to/from on a regular basis, laden with luggage!
I let the DC do the initial recce themselves and the travel problems they encountered were a deciding factor in some cases.

I think "bursary funds" are surely private schools. Any spare money the school has for payments like this would, at my school, have been raised by parents and the community.

Oxford by train approximately 14 hours from here! Just reminding those of you in the Home Counties just how vast the UK is and how far some people travel. Not sure, however, I would take a teenager to an interview. Surely, at 17/18 they would travel alone? Mine will have to as no time off for teachers to take their own offspring to universities, only other people's.

Talkin - believe me, they are an impediment for those on above median incomes too. Especially if you live somewhere like I do. :(

TP a parent in financial difficulty could apply for help at our school under the 16 -19 Bursary scheme or under a separate school based scheme. No need for capital letters and I'm not sure what ASDA has got to do with it. That would be an interview for employment purposes, not educational purposes.

In my day you had interviews at all universities so I think that was six (I can't remember if we had five or six options). Anyhow I went all over the country to them and in those days bursary and state help was far more restricted. I don't think one should rail against Oxford and Cambridge for their audacity in holding interviews. They probably get it right far more often than the universities which now have to make do with a paper exercise.

Medics also have interviews. And as GB has pointed out, so do musicians. So do a few other subjects and then there are quirky ones, such as York for law. Are you going to rail against those too?

Aren't you something financial TP? I may well have that wrong as I'm not sure how you calculate that a car journey from Scotland to Oxford with two nights accommodation (three for some subjects) for a parent at a booked up time of year would be cheaper than an off peak train. The colleges are very accommodating about arrival time, so an applicant has an opportunity to select off peak trains or coaches to save money even if their situation is such that no help is available from school. The Oxford Tube from London also costs nothing like £30 and is more convenient for a great many colleges.

Gently
DD is currently looking at her options. She has already ruled out Oxford. I'm lucky in that I have family and friends all over the country but the logistics are definitely an impediment to admission for those on less than median incomes.

Talkin - lots of universities (and other places) require interviews (and auditions). As someone who lives in a stupid place and who, as it happens, has a very good job way way way outside any 'assistance' threshold, the likely cost of DD1's adventures in obtaining a degree place are seriously worrying me (to the extent I have sleepless nights about it). All her likely interviews/auditions except one (possibly) will require at least one overnight (hotel) stay, plus expensive train travel for her and me given that she won't be staying in a hotel on her own at her age. Luckily I will probably be able to organise things so I don't miss much work (I hope) but even so - the expense will be considerable. She's applied to a subject open day at Cambridge in March, that'll be minimum 1 maximum 2 nights in a hotel for both of us. Worth doing but...I don't see how someone in an ordinary job who lives where we do could possibly regard the whole business as anything other than prohibitive.

Dare I suggest it, but perhaps the reason no-one got offers, is that there were other candidates who were better...

Molio
There should be money in a school's 16-19 bursary funds for such expenses.
In their What?

On what basis is a State school allowed to pay the travel expenses of a pupil to an Interview?
And if Oxbridge, why not Asda?

Molio...or a lack of imagination about pupils who don't fit the 'standard template' (which will vary from school to school - some schools value vet med above ALL else, others see something else as that which defines worthwhile)?

There should be money in a school's 16-19 bursary funds for such expenses.

No transport costs would not be an issue for us as I have a good job (teacher). But, for many of my very, very able pupils, it is a huge bar. Also, the late notification of exact interview dates means that people cannot take advantage on booking trains / planes etc far in advance. However, my own experience suggests that an able applicant for whom this was a bar might get a sympathetic hearing from a college. Not sure. I had one pupil, years ago, who got offered an interview for Cambridge and turned it down because "My Mum will want me home in weekends and she didn't realise I had applied".

molio
No TP they don't pay transport costs but they do offer accommodation and all meals free of charge.
So for a Londoner, the kid hops on the train for a £30 return fare and its done.

For somebody from Cumbria or even the Scottish Highlands, either its a train fare in the £200 range or a parent has to take two+ days off work to get them there and back.

Other universities take applicants without demanding attendance at interviews beforehand.

The geographic distribution of Oxbridge applicants starts to make more sense.

I never said "most" schools prep that well, I said many grammars and "top" comprehensives.

I don't know the answer to your question, Molio.

I think there is an element of both. One particular student who was considered a cert for Oxbridge (one of the most bankable in years) got NO offers from any university one year. She took a year out and got a full set the following year, including Cambridge, which she accepted.

There is an argument that some teaching staff (maybe even those who went to Oxbridge) are more rigid in whom they perceive as good candidates, ie looking for students who remind them the most of themselves at 17. There was a male student whom the Head and his academic tutor were surprised to see a Cambridge offer for, but I wasn't. I spoke to him a lot (extra curricular related) and considered him extraordinarily articulate, passionate and intelligent, just in a narrow (arts) field.

And an argument that admissions tutors can get it wrong sometimes.

And that oftentimes it's the luck of the draw.

A bit of all three.