RG unis - are they really THAT difficult to get in?

[Tasmania]

The more I read MN, the more my eyes seem to be opened up to a world I don't recognize. I guess it's true that we don't actually live in one world, but rather in smaller worlds that co-exist on one planet.

I have read, for example, that some state schools never manage to send any child to a RG uni, and a lot of people who are very supportive about state schools get very, very upset by that.

As someone who went to a RG uni, whose DH, SILs, friends (and their DHs) and even colleagues also went to such unis... are they really THAT difficult to get in? Some of those listed went to state schools. It didn't look as though they saw these unis as "out of reach".

Sometimes, I do wonder whether it is actually the nation's obsession of getting as many kids as possible into uni that makes the world seem so much more unfair. Because you have to admit that not many people went to uni in previous generations, and it is virtually impossible for everyone to attend Oxbridge (maybe in future, people can attend lectures online, etc.). So some people will HAVE to be left out. Is that really so bad?

We don't live in a communist state... but even the old Soviet Union had universities that were out of bounds for many.

Ronaldo, so in your experience the only students that did well were straight A students?

Ronaldo I do agree that it does sometimes seem as if the universities are being asked to sort out the deficiencies of the state system.

And I know that some of my colleagues (at Oxbridge) think that and are pissed off at endlessly being asked to 'make up the difference'.

They want the best students, but they don't want to have to teach them the basics when they arrive. They want them reasonably fully formed.
For this reason some incrediby bright students are turned away because the tutors just don't see that they'll be able to get up to scracth quickly enough or able to make the transition.

I teach at another establishment (much less glittering) and some of the students don't ahve evn basic essay writing skills.

Averaging it out over the years, the majority of those who did well were indeed high performers at A level.

Of those we accepted who didnt fit this profile, we could clearly see the ability even if not always in final grades. Very few though.

word factory I've posted this before, but I think this is a good insight to the process and the issues www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work

MiaowTheCat I was middle class, went to a direct grant grammar and actually thought I was well spoken until I went south to uni, just the hint of the accent was enough to get that reaction. At work though I found it accessed me all sorts of useful stereotyping, you know, blunt, careful, honest, not to be messed with.................

To answer the question, some courses at at some RG universities are difficult to get into but many are not.

Most people don't know that RG doesn't necessarily mean teaching or research quality, the club was founded as a pressure group to lobby for the interests of big (but not necessarily better) universities.

There is no overall best university, it will depend on the subject, and other than the occasional claim on mn, no real evidence that going to an RG uni will set you up in life more than an non RG uni that is good in your degree subject

ronaldo in my experience of teaching at 3 different unis, it is not the school or background of the student that makes a difference, but their aptitude and attitude, and this does not easily correlated with their A level results.

And I know that some of my colleagues (at Oxbridge) think that and are pissed off at endlessly being asked to 'make up the difference'

They want the best students, but they don't want to have to teach them the basics when they arrive. They want them reasonably fully formed.
For this reason some incrediby bright students are turned away because the tutors just don't see that they'll be able to get up to scracth quickly enough or able to make the transition

Pretty well sums it up from a university position.

Whilst one can lead a less able student through a degree - or one that has deficiencies in teaching - its time consuming. Neither is it always good for the student to be palying catvch up with the brightest.

I see it as my job at A levbel to ensure I send applicants who are up to the task of a degree. However, too many teachers IME are no longer up to that task ikt seems.

SM - "These threads turn into a yawnathon about who went where"

It's far from compulsory to participate, you know. Some might say it becomes a yawnathon if one had a chip on one's shoulder...

FWIW, I am glad I left school at 16, studied on, then quit a technical course (Navy related) and had a job when many of my peers from a good grammar school were less than half way through their second year away at uni.

I beat around 10 graduates to get my first job in programming, because none had appropriate experience (where I had spent time doing a free course and got hands on use). Sure, they achieved results in the courses they studied, but none was able to show much aptitude in computer programming (more the ability to do WP, if that). This was (fortunately) in the 70s when it was the case that few teenagers had exposure to computers (mini or mainframes were order of the day).

Did a day release course in the Polytechnic, which ended with my having an equivalent to a BSc in computing, but with perhaps more varied content, and real world examples under discussion, from different course members.

Personally, I'd not be looking at someone from an RG uni (or any uni) as an employee based on what they had achieved academically, but in work experience, or in willingness to start at the bottom (not as an intern, I don't believe in that kind of exploitation).

Word - that article though, and the league table derived from Gove's little list, is highly misleading, since some academic subjects which are accepted by RG universities (and Oxbridge) are ignored.

DS1 did PPE at Oxford, he had an A at A level in maths ( pre A* days) and had always been good at the subject ( and he had had a job writing sample maths exam questions at GCSE and A level for an on line tutor site) He found the maths he had to do as part of the economics section of his course very very difficult indeed- but there was not much support, they were supposed to be showing not only the best of A level knowledge but how to improve on their own. He did cope, but was very worried. I'm not sure this would have been possible for someone less well versed in the subject if the university was supposed to help them as it seems to be against their ethos.

Russians yes.

He found the maths he had to do as part of the economics section of his course very very difficult indeed

DS2 applied for PPE, higgle, & he wasn't even doing Maths A Level! He had been told that Maths was essential for the Economics bit, but I didn't realise it was that tough

Good job they turned him down

He has a very strange brain, was about 16 before he could even work out how to use a cheese grater properly, so it might just have been him. Like most of his friends he dropped the economics bit at the end of the first year.

I know a fair few people with offers from RG universities who I don't think are very bright at all

It's the econometrics part of economics, I guess. I didn't do high level Maths (not to British A-levels standards), but I think when you have a natural ability, it's OK. At middle school I did certain calculations a certain way simply because I believed it was a logical thing to do. I thought nothing of it, until the teacher took notice and told the class what I did... apparently, what I was doing was based on a proper theorem or something that even has a name attached to it - which I don't remember - but to me, it just seemed a natural thing to do.

Similarly, when I was doing econometrics at uni, there were a lot of exercises that former AAA students (Maths was compulsory for British students) could not solve in tutorials. I could. Without doing as much work as them either (I regret having been a bit on the lazy side at uni)! I wasn't spoon-fed the info of how to calculate the stuff, I just "felt" it was the right thing to do...

That said, unlike DH, I didn't really like Maths and Sciences at school, which is the reason I didn't choose any of them as my "major" subjects at school (not UK). DH thinks it's a bit of a shame... but oh well.

Frankly, back in my day (eighties) there were a lot of rather Sloaney people who went to certain RG universities who weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Tim nice but Dim types. They then went into the City. This was pre-Big Bang and a lot was done on knowing the right people/going to the right school/regiment. The collapse of Lloyds and then the arrival of the big US and other foreign investment banks and all the deregulation put a stop to that.

Although, my FIL still claims there was less fraud and bank scandal then because although some of them were a bit dim, they were honest. They probably couldn't get up to as much before trading was done electronically.

They are accessible to anyone with good enough grades. AAB is certainly a possiblility - based on my son's experience 2 years ago.
Personal statement needs to be strong in that it should reflect candidate's interest in the subject and demonstrate ability to succeed on the course - I was surprised that they weren't interested in work experience ( unless hugely relevant) other interests and hobbies etc. Good reference from school obviously essential. It also depends on the course - the more over-subscribed courses will be more stringent in their requirements.

What I don't understand is why SO MANY young people are desperate to study English and History at RG Universities... I mean, English and History are not the most exciting subjects in the world, I understand that some young people might be passionate about them but I just cannot see why they are THAT much more popular than other subjects.
If you REALLy want to get into 'any RG University' for it's RG-status, then why choose one of the two most popular subjects. Why not choose something less popular and then look at exactly which University is best for that subject and then whether you can meet their entrance requirements.

I can't think of many subjects that would be more interesting than English and History actually.

Me either russians.

And I do think that students who study those subjects at good universities have a good chance of getting employemnt in all manner of fields - from banking, to the law, from publishing to the diplomatic service.

Employers like history/english grads.

English and History are actually good subjects to study. Much better than loads of mickey-mouse subjects. You need quite a lot of ability to digest material and analyze them in those subjects. Not just learning formulas and applying them.

History is more biased towards public school peeps, but that might be because it's hard not to be interested in it when you're walking down the same halls as the greats.

English and history would have ben a dream come true for me. I did Law ( many years ago) because my parents would only support me if I did a subject that led to a job.

History is not more biased towards public schoolers Tas. Why do you say that?