To have told my niece she won’t make it into Oxford uni?

[Awfulaunt]

Hi all,
first off sorry if there’s typos I’m typing this on my phone.
for context, I’ve been a private tutor for years, mainly English and History. Over the years I’ve helped with lots of UCAS and applications including a few oxbridge ones. My niece is at the age where she’s thinking about uni and her parents asked me to tutor her for English and History, I agreed. She is bright, gets Bs and the occasional A or C. She asked me if I think she should apply to Oxford and I said “No not for your undergrad. Maybe if you work really really hard at uni and do extracurriculars and things while you’re there and come out with a first you could try for your masters if you want to do one, but it’s not really an option at this moment in time.” All seemed fine, we carried on and she seemed okay. Fast forward to now and I just had SIL on the phone shouting at me that I crushed her dreams and that she was going to apply and get in and show me (etc). I said I’d love it if she did, I’d be absolutely thrilled if she got in to spite me.
I don’t think I was harsh when I told her, I don’t think it was cruel. I think it’s kind of my job to tell her. I didn’t rule it out in the future because I feel like once she’s at uni she will flourish academically because she will have more freedom etc and I’ve told her this many times. I feel horrible that I’ve upset her but I genuinely think it was the right thing to do.
I sent her a message saying I am sorry if I came off harsh or anything I just want what is best for her. Also spoke to DB who said SIL was just angry because niece was upset and that he thinks I did the right thing. Bit miffed that he let her speak to me like that, but also when she goes off best thing to do is stay out the crossfire.
Am I in the wrong and just blind to it?

I know two people that didn't have contextual offers and didn't get all 8,9s they had a 6 in Maths and one had a 6 in English. This is a state 6th college though not private school.

@Goldenbear But what offer were they give? Presumably As (and A*s for Cambridge?)

I do Oxbridge admissions (undergrad and postgrad). Extracurricular activities are only relevant if closely related to the subject (though those which are can make a difference).

Yes, 3 AAAs for Oxford to study Mathematics and A*AA to study History at Cambridge.

I remember a friend of mine being really upset because someone told her 13 year old DS that if he was going to make it as a professional footballer he would have been scouted by now. She thought it was cruel to crush his dreams. I was genuinely surprised she was still thinking that (and pretty glad it wasn't me who said it to her son!)

He recently applied to Oxford with three predicted A stars but did not get an interview. Happily, he got all his other uni choices so just needs to get those grades and the world is at his feet.

She'll be told the same thing soon enough by her teachers so SIL can scream at them instead!

A lot of schools have "aspire to Oxbridge" type programs, I wonder if her school does and if she is on it?

Your niece could still study postgraduate if that's what she wants at the point- my brother applied to study a Masters in Politics at Oxford, had studied at an RG at undergraduate level but he decided on law college in the end.

I'm not sure if it is the be all and end all anymore, I'm told by my niece that many RG universities are just as desirable now. My DH interviews for Architectural positions and they don't find that the best portfolio is always from those that studied at Cambridge.

YANBU to give advice in your area of expertise.
YABU to say that your DB "let" your SIL talk to you like that. She is an adult and not controlled by her husband.
YANBU to say "so apply then, i hope you get in"

I think the "letting" SIL speak like that was a bad turn of phrase and more why didn't DB back OP up if he agreed with her?
If DH was shouty and rude to my DSIS I would say something to him afterwards, especially if I thought DSIS was right. I wouldn't just quietly text her telling her I agree with her.

But I don't think that is the point. The point is to teach her what it would take to get in. Not to tell her she can't. She has dyslexia, that has only recently been accommodated, and her grades have improved. If she did three hours a day extra-curricular reading, studied essay structure for fun, joined a debating society to develop her critical thinking skills, aimed for A*s from now on, she might be in with a chance. And even if she wasn't, she'd have gained so much from the experience. Or given up - no shame in that if it is because she's learned that she truly doesn't love her subject that much, and would prefer an easier life with more time spent socialising.

Is this what I’ve seen referred to as supra-curricular, rather than extra-curricular?

That might mean it would be possible to apply after A-levels if she did get really good grades, but she just doesn’t meet the criteria to get an offer now.

@Awfulaunt you definitely did the right thing by being honest with your niece. I’m a retired tutor and it’s a difficult situation when students or parents ask for your opinion about potential university entrance. You would have got the blame if your niece was rejected by Oxford if you had been too optimistic about her academic abilities. Instead, you are being blamed for crushing her dream. Unfortunately, this is the life of a tutor!

Which subject does your niece wish to study? One of my students managed to get into Cambridge with A grades rather than A* by choosing a very unpopular degree subject!

With B grades? I doubt it.

You can’t teach a child ‘what it would take to get in’!

They are either of the academic level where they are suitable or not (ie high grades, self starter, highly self-motivated, deeply passionate about their A Level subjects and the chosen degree subject, proven academic ability, not needing additional academic supervision).

She doesn’t have the grades to even make it through their first sweep. A friend is an admissions officer for both Oxbridge Unis - there are between 10-25 applications for every single place. The baseline policy is to dismiss anyone without high enough GCSE grades; then they dismiss those who are not predicted grades in line with the course brochure’s minimum grade requirement for A Levels; THEN then rule out on the basis of the personal statement; and finally interview. OP’s DN would fall at the first hurdle.

It’s unfair as it makes no allowances for illness, family issues etc that may have impacted GCSE grades, but if they are sifting through 2000+ applications for 80 places they cannot review every individual child’s personal stories.

OP is right - DN should consider applying for Masters if she pulls off a 1st at undergraduate level, or she could have a shot at it after A levels if she pulls out all the stops and she gets all A’s/A*s, though from the OP comment it didn’t seem as though DN was especially driven to do this or I suspect it would have been mentioned.

It’s downright cruel of DN’s mother to be pushing her child towards a path that she will simply not succeed in a this stage, that makes makes any other choice seem not good enough [for mum], and will be wasting 1/5 UCAS choices.

This is one of the myths that gets spread about Oxbridge, and has a very negative effect in terms of discouraging pupils from poorer backgrounds, and those who just aren't very socially confident, from ever applying.

I suppose some unsuccessful applicants may 'trade on' spreading the myth, because they prefer it to people thinking that they weren't academically able enough to get in; but usually it just comes from the rumour factories and too much watching of Brideshead Revisited!

I am not sure if there was ever a time when such things happened; but they certainly weren't even in the early 80s, let alone at any time since.

People involved in admissions do review special/ mitigating circumstances, and people with relatively low GCSE grades do sometimes get admitted if there are special circumstances (e.g. very disadvantaged school; serious illness/ accident/ bereavement at the time of exams); but these are unusual cases, especially if the lower grades are in maths or English.

By the way, it's often not just a matter of your exams and your interview; many subjects also set an aptitude test.

She doesn’t sound particularly bright or well-informed to me, if she’s sitting in sixth form, averaging B grades, and still entertaining ideas of Oxbridge. That’s got nothing to do with dyslexia, a casual look at the Oxford website should have put her straight on entrance requirements.

is the SiL a bit high-strung?

I'm sorry I don't think you were fair. One reason that Oxbridge has such a high proportion of private school students there is that they are actively encouraged and expected to apply. So many state school teachers are either indifferent or actively discourage bright candidates for applying, saying "it's not for us"; I've seen people on MN saying this too. It never will be unless they apply. I know this first hand as a state school kid who was discouraged ("we've never had anyone who got in there") but was successful and went to Cambridge, emerging seven years later with a PhD. She should absolutely apply, but the way I would word it is "there are multiple applications per place, and the vast majority of the people that apply will be expecting A*AA or better, so unless there are other circumstances (poverty, underperforming school, difficult family circumstances) then getting Bs at A level won't be good enough".
The colleges do take other circumstances into account, but I'm not sure if any of that is relevant in this case. Getting Bs at GCSE shouldnt necessary be a hindrance, but if she wants to go she needs to turn the wick up in sixth form, really get her head down and aim for top grades in yr12 and A level mocks.

Note: I went to Churchill College Cambridge, which has a high proportion of STEM students and a state school ratio of over 70%. It's a few years old but the link below is a fly on the wall report from an admissions review meeting, demonstrating what they seem important and how they rake applicant circumstances into account.
Admissions, Churchill Cambridge.

That last comment makes all the difference. There is a huge emphasis on equal access/ opportunities now.

Agree. It's utter tripe.

As I said above, it’s a possibly apocryphal anecdote associated with the historian AL Rowse, who sat for (and won) an All Souls fellowship in 1925. A century ago, possibly never happened and not anything to do with the undergraduate admissions process then or now.

Sorry, was agreeing with you, but sounded as if I wasn’t!

I think yours sounds closer to an original version! Without ever taking it seriously, I’d always faintly envisaged the slow ( probably quite smelly) burn of a sofa as not particularly impressive at all and something of an anticlimax! Presumably the next version added dousing it in petroleum first ( especially as candidates do tend to turn up to interview with a spare can of it. ) Fwiw I’ve never come across an interviewer who would be so rude - or so easily impressed!