That it used to be easier to get to Cambridge or Oxford than it is now??

[countingdownagain]

I know a few people that went to Oxbridge in the 70/80s that I struggle to imagine they'd have a hope of getting in today.

It strikes me that it if you were male, fairly well spoken, it was much easier to get in than it would be now??

Reading with intrigue

I think this wouldn’t be such a bun fight if everyone accepted that Oxbridge does not have the best students, but rather, they have some of the best students.

This article mentions that St Andrew’s intake had higher grades this year than Oxbridge. I wouldn’t be surprised if Imperial could say the same, as well as the LSE.

www.theguardian.com/education/2022/sep/24/stoxbridge-st-andrews-overtakes-oxford-cambridge-guardian-university-guide

I appreciate that grades aren’t everything, but they are a relevant measure.

Oxford and Cambridge are harder to get into than ever. And it is harder than ever for Oxford and Cambridge to be sure they are getting the best students.

There are definitely some eye-watering standard offers elsewhere - I would add Manchester and Warwick to those mentioned. (For some subjects, not all.)

Agreed Empress. Also there is no neat line ranking students. I’m sure when I got into Oxford there were better all rounders than me but I did genuinely love my subject (ended up doing a PhD in it) and I am sure that is why I got in. I had read extensively around the subject area at 18. Nowadays you probably need to be an all rounder & have read extensively around - but a genuine love of a subject will likely still give an advantage to otherwise equal candidates.

Oxford & Cambridge are stuffed full of academics who are passionate about their areas of research, it’s not just a City or politician’s training ground. They aren’t just interested in the best all rounders, they want people who will love their research as well.

These incredible stories of people getting in with low grades just because they are state school and lower grades being accepted because of parents divorcing etc are indeed incredible.

State or private, you need to get at least one A for humanities, 2A for STEM plus entrance exams, CMAT/BMAT and STEP exams. There are no exceptions or lower offers.

State school education has improved massively since schools have been held accountable for their students' grades. If you have a grade 9 kid, you don't need to go private anymore; state schools are churning out 9s and A*s

As for "feigning enthusiasm"? Yeah right. That's gonna work at an Oxbridge interview.

bold type fail: you need 1x A star for humanities, 2x A star for STEM for Cambridge. I think Oxford will accept A grades

I think DDs Oxford offer for STEM subject would have been A star, A,A. But she only got an interview
Her contextual offer for another RG was BBB and AAB for non contextual offer.
She hit the target for Oxford but went for the University with the BBB offer in the end along with many other Oxbridge applicants.

The thing is the offers aren't that hard to make for your clever all rounder A level student. Even our crappy comp produced a hatful of sets of full A stars at A level in both DS and DD's years (them included) as well as full compliments of A Stars under the old GCSE system. It's the other hoops - entrance papers and interviews etc - that put them at a disadvantage over their private rivals who'd had proper preparation at school. Bright state pupils don't need contextual consideration for exams; they need it for the extras. Of course they may be getting this; I have no idea if interviewing academics thing 'hmmmm this chap comes from a place focussed on getting kids over the line rather than polishing them from oxbridge, let's dig a bit deeper here..'
Both my children exceeded the offers needed for their subjects (desirable, competitive subjects at that) but only one managed the hoops. In hindsight we should have got DD some help with the MAT. But no matter because she went elsewhere, had fun, did brilliantly and is now zipping ahead of her Arty Cambridge brother!

Yes @faffadoodledo I think thst is where DD had a disadvantage. She wasn't properly prepared fron early on for the interview but she is happy where she went.

Several people have made points earlier on in this thread that I completely agree with, including there being only 3 colleges in Cambridge before 1972 which took women (I’m not sure about Lucy Cavendish), giving a ratio of about 1:10 female:male students, and that in general there were fewer top A level grades awarded, and no A stars.

Something I haven’t seen mentioned is 7th term entry for Cambridge and probably Oxford. This was where students took the entrance exam in the term after their A levels, and then had 2 terms “out”, doing paid work or having a gap part-year. I think that must have favoured students whose schools were able to continue teaching them for another term, and those whose parents could afford for them neither to be earning in that term nor receiving a grant to be at university - oh, the days when university education was free to students and the government gave them money to live on, if their parents’ income was low enough.

There was 4th term entry, too. I don’t know what the relative merits were of each.

DH did 7th term entry to Oxford from a crap comp and said it made all the difference. Said it was really useful for someone of his background, and in fact says he doubts he'd have gotten in in our children's generation. He describes a tutor who interviewed him and really saw his potential. He did indeed end up with a double First and the overall prize for his subject on graduation. Then a Phd and career in his subject. That tutor got it right!
It's one of the reasons our DS applied post results for Cambridge. He leapt the offer, spent more time reading and thinking about his subject (and earned money and had life experiences). I would encourage all state school applicants to do the same in fact. It helps make up for the lack of prep their schools give them

I applied to Oxford from a comp in the late 90s. Didn't want to do the entrance exam because there was no-one to prepare me for it. I can't remember whether my offer was AAA or AAB, but I got 4 As, so got in. I also had 9 A*s at GCSE. This was not normal at my school (but I was lucky in that I had a primary school teacher mother).

I do remember that, in my college year, there was an unusually high number of state school pupils doing my subject (Law). My law cohort got the best results in the university and the state school kids did better than the independently educated kids. I think 5 or 6 of us got Firsts. Purely anecdotal, but I know, because of my experience at interview, which was very nearly a disaster, that even back then the law tutors at my college put a lot of effort into working out who would do well on the course. It can't have been easy to spot potential in amongst those who had been properly trained for an interview. I don't know whether the standardised tests they use now help with that differentiation or whether they can also be prepared for by schools with more resources.

The elite universities may now be missing out on top students who have quite narrow talents eg stem students who have difficulties with the poetry and fiction needed to get high grades at GCSE, literature and language students who struggle to get the maths GCSE. The older post A level 7th term entry will have been able to by pass this.
I believe you can train for interview - my niece at a private school had interview practice from early year twelve plus help in finding a niche topic as their "love" another niece at a middling comprehensive had a ten minute mock interview with a local businessperson.

My Head of Sixth Form tried to do a mock interview with me. He asked me whether I'd had a good journey and what the weather had been like before we both realised it wasn't going to work 😂

This ^
Easier back then if you were from privileged background. Easier now if you are state educated.

They're still way off being equally open to everyone and privilege still counts but better than they used to be.

It's only harder now if you are an academically average white male public schoolboy who has been handheld through your A levels and helped to get them. I was state educated and saw a lot of these people crash and burn at uni. But daddy still got them the city job afterwards with the right uni on the cv, never mind the grade. The legacy of this is that government and company C-suites are full of these 50 yo underperformers, look at Boris!

Hilarious.
This happens at DD's school, most of those nice MC parents are horrified at the standard of teaching and have to spend on tuition and some withdraw. The difference between the local private school and ours during Covid was absolutely staggering. That was the first time it was so obvious, the local private school isn't even up there in rhe league with top independents.
Most of the parents of privately educated kids that we know, have no clue about the difference between independent and state.

YANBU- I think the Miliband’s said they didn’t have straight As in the 80s and they still got in. I think the college admissions tutor was friends with Ralph Miliband or something like that.

I remember back in the day I had to be a bit selective with my application. I went to a “mediocre” state comp (been trashed by OFSTED on a good few occasions, has gone in and out of special measures over the years). At the time, I seem to remember they liked you to do things like either S levels or further maths (neither of which were an option at my school),so I remember looking round for colleges that would go easy on that sort of thing.

I had a great time at Cambridge, though I experienced impostor syndrome the whole time I was there. I had had a comfortable and supportive upbringing, but was painfully aware that most of my peers seemed to have had rather better schooling than I had (or they’d just made better use of what they had :) . If Oxbridge have made inroads into levelling the playing field a bit more - and I hope they’re levelling up not down - then that can only be a good thing.

@Abra1t

SO EE offers are conversely like a real gold standard because it means you have done so well at interviews and their test that they want you regardless of actual a level grades?

There are different quotas for Home and International students. In general, the number of International students at undergrad level has very little impact on the number of Home students.

And International students subsidise Home students, to an increasingly considerable extent.

@CinnamonJellyBeans

What do you mean by "since state education has been held accountable for their grades" please.

@Floofyduffypuddy

Ofsted, league tables and academisation for schools and performance management for teachers means that schools and teachers need to ensure that their school leavers meet their individual and collective minimum thresholds for achievement (AKA target grades).

I believe this has raised achievement across the board in state schools. I didn't have to pay for DD1 to get into Cambridge (which is just as well, as I can't afford private school fees). DD2 also got into a russell group with minimal effort, due to superb teaching which she got for free. I am very grateful.

It's easier I thought...alot of my friends children seem to be going ..the bright ones at the same comp I went too. None went to Oxford or Cambridge from my comp in the 80s even the bright ones.

Easier from state school harder from private school.

However the standard at Oxbridge is and has always been overplayed. The majority of the intake get a 2.1 and probably would have got a 2.1 at a red brick.

@nightwakingmoon which uni.

What can make a history student stand out?
/
Would head girl /boy dote matter in this thank you