Am I being naive re.private school entrance?

[canny1234]

Dd is doing an 11+ type entrance exam for a private school in January.The top few are offered a Scholarship and exam is anecdotally meant to be easy.
Dd is bright but has recently starting coasting and concentrating on her social life ( at 10!) and many other sporting activities.Her current school are entering her into level 6 papers in Maths and English.
I have just ordered some Letts 11+ papers so she is familiar with the concepts.We will also practice and maybe have a few tutorials from an external teacher.But have I left it too late?I am utterly shocked by the level of tuition some children have.Surely the 11+ is a mark of intelligence not learned ability?

"Evidence is that universities look for something extra beyond exam results"

Really? Link, please!

A well rounded education is absolutely essential for a happy, fulfilled life. But universities want grades, not extra curriculars!

Yes obviously you have to satisfy the exam criteria first before even being considered.Popular universities are also looking for something beyond just academic results as everyone is presenting with a row of A*'s these days.But dd1 ( doing exams this year)and working with great intensity has said how does anyone actually have the time to do anything 'extra' when you have all this work to do( school gives a massive amount of homework and constant tests).

I thought universities made it clear that extra curricular activities make no difference to your chances of getting a place unless they are very closely related to the course you want to study. If you think about it, it would be deeply unfair if it were any different.

My older 3 children have all graduated and whilst I accept that universities first and foremost want someone really interested in their subject who has very high grades it does help if you have some other interests too. Also employers like a rounded person. I have definitely seen that with my older children. They obviously got their day's assessments for jobs (not short interviews in some places these days) and passed the on line application tests./ had enough UCAS points etc but once on there things like ability to talk, give a presentation, know how to speak well and have some interests helpf. My daughter was picked for the England team for a sport last year and her company announced that round the institution world wide. The other had a hobby in common with someone on her work assessment which probably helped. She also went once a year for 2 years on a work/client ski trip which she also helped organise - so her gap year work in a ski resort and ski ability help with that. And I am not saying it has to be expensive hobbies like skiing. It might just as easily be something else. I am on a legal committee and a huge number of us sing in choirs for some reason.

Mind you the average teenage hobby is this order- masturbation, long lies in, chatting to friends on whatsapp, watching films, clothes and watching sport. Never mind various addictive substances for some. Not the best things to put on your CV.

Voluntary service, Saturday and evening jobs, being a carer for a sick relative, playing musical instruments, participating in sports, taking part in school plays - why wouldn't a university consider things like this, which can help mould a person's attitude to life, work and commitment? If I hadn't been able to take part in anything outside of academic school work, I would expect to be given the opportunity to explain why not, and if I had taken part, I would expect anyone thinking of accepting me onto a course or employ me to take an interest in what makes me tick.

Taken from a close family member who is on the Medical admissions panel at a popular Southern university.Very oversubscribed so that they have to look at other attributes that differentiate from the crowd.

But they don't, rabbitstew, unless it is directly related to the course or can be worked into a personal statement as supporting an application for that particular course. This has been confirmed by admissions tutors on previous threads.

I am talking only about university entrance. Obviously,personal satisfaction, job applications and so on are a different discussion.

Greengrow.

You can lead horses to water..... my younger lot not going to to D of E silver having got bronze, one saying was the worst experience of his life.

I agree with Hak that in fact universities want to know you are devoted that subject. Also it depends where you are applying. My daughter had to make a separate application for her university Hall first choice and that wanted to know your hobbies what you do etc. The fact she went there helped her make some really good friends for life which helped her in all kinds of practical ways thereafter so again I felt the hobbies helped. My son is currently a post man and having his driving test for example (all our older children passed their test at 17) has been important there.

A lot of people only think about university entrance. In life it's your ability to cope with difficult things, strength of character, grit and all the rest which will help you not just at work but out of work and having a range of hobbies and skills helps.

I'm at a loss, then, as to how a university would differentiate between two candidates from similar schools with identical subjects and grades, which given the number of applicants for university places, must be quite a regular occurrence, especially if you are only supposed to be interested in the results the candidate got in exams relevant to the degree subject for which they are applying. Although I agree with Greengrow - you only have one life, you should make the most of it and try to develop a range of skills and interests that can give you a sense of self-worth, not limit yourself to exam results.

rabbit I think for a lot of courses at a lot of places, the admissions process is done very clinically.

The admissions office send out offers to those who have the right academic profile. End of.

For the very selective courses, where far too many apply, where the process is more difficult, admissions might take into account things shoe-horned into the PS. There might be something highly unusual or impressive that catches the eye.

So, all these parents who are working hard to push their children to gain a couple of grade 8's in music and similar in dancing, speech, drama etc in order to gain places in RG uni's are wasting their time then?

That would be so funny as I hear it all the time and have read it on here.
It often sounds like the dc are doing these things to please parents, who believe it will give them an advantage.

Do the parents think the advantage is purely in university applications, or in life in general?

I think the unhelpful answer to that morethan is it depends .

It depends on the course, the university, the person reading the application.

But ultimately, academic ability is what most applications are judged on.

That said, these things may not help for university aplications but they certainly help in life .

Are crossed post rabbit .

Interestingly, I think UK universities are becoming more like US universities these days, in that the students see their time there as not only to garner an academic qualification but to build up a decent CV.

It used to be that you could go along, get a 2.1 and spend the rest of the time in the Union bar.
These days far too much competition for that! Canny students use their time very wisely .

The need for a CV glittering with extra-curricular activities is very much a US "thing" look here for a quick overview:
www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-hansen-shaevitz/extra-curricular-activities-college-admission_b_3040217.html

It has an ugly side, though. It makes it very tough for low income children to compete with their upper middle class peers whose parents can ferry them around town to activities and volunteering opportunities. This becomes even more difficult when low income kids are holding down after school jobs.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/why-ivy-league-schools-are-so-bad-at-economic-diversity/284076/&sa=U&ei=ZP1lVPztJ4v-yQTS6YHIBA&ved=0CBIQFjAGOAo&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG4QEwqt93pwrT7fzlMptINkRSBFA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?q=www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/why-ivy-league-schools-are-so-bad-at-economic-diversity/284076/&sa=U&ei=ZP1lVPztJ4v-yQTS6YHIBA&ved=0CBIQFjAGOAo&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG4QEwqt93pwrT7fzlMptINkRSBFA

A well-rounded look at applicants sounds good on the face of it, you look closer and realise it is not so simple. Better to keep elite university admissions in the UK as they are. The soft skills of a well rounded, cultivated child are already an advantage. It doesn't have to be solidified in the application process as well.

It's an ongoing debate DH and I have. He's convinced DS should do his various activities because they will help him get into uni. I keep telling him it's not like the US here (where I went to uni) and DS should be doing his activities because this is the best time in his life to take advantage of the opportunity.

DS seems to see both our viewpoints and might want to go to uni in the US so is hedging his bets with a crazy extra curricular schedule.

I can see how, in practice, it could be hugely unfair. However, why would volunteering and musical instrument playing trump someone who has held down an after-school job? Surely it's not what you do in life, it's the way you managed to do it given your personal circumstances? A well connected, wealthy person born into every privilege who hadn't bothered to do anything at all other than take exams and spend their parents' cash would be unimpressive to me...

Actually three of my children won music scholarships and all 5 do/did a lot of music because we like music. I sing just about every day of my life and play the piano. Most of what I want for my children from their schools is education in a very broad sense, hobbies for life. In a sense the exam results are almost incidental. I have never suggested to a child of mind do your grade 8s because that gets you into university but it does no harm to have a range of skills - it's very useful to have someone who can play the piano or the guitar when you're in a group of friends and want to sing or whatever.

I found my oldest child's UCAS personal statement recently - not sure if it was the first draft. It was quite impressive but we never thought then or now that it was going to be the deciding factor in why she went to Bristol. That was her A level results or predicted ones and it was the same when I applied to university all those years ago.

That does not mean don't do the hobbies of course because university is a mere staging post to life and a career. My children would not exist if I were not a pretty good singer. I met their father through that at a Cathedral. Who is to say which hobby is better than another? Some employers like people who have led groups and been able to play sport in teams. Others could not care less. It depends on the job too and the personality of the person interviewing you.

I always think it's a bit unfair when people try to suggest better off children have put no effort into their hobbies though. It is very hard to get a grade 8 in an instrument whether you're at a state school or a private school and most can't. Ditto the effort my lot put into even just bronze Duke of Edinburgh award recently - its' not a walk in the park. okay it's not as hard as dealing with a parent with a drug problem who does not feed you so you have to become a freegan outside Pret a Manger to get your food but it's still an achievement.

"A well connected, wealthy person born into every privilege who hadn't bothered to do anything at all other than take exams and spend their parents' cash would be unimpressive to me.."

Shame you're not an admissions tutor.............

But why?

Why should a young person have to demonstrate more because their parents happen to be rich. If they have the academic ability and can show prior academic achievement, why isn't that enough?

Because we all know that wealth and privilege put you in a place where academic achievement is easier. Obviously you still have to do the work. But my child, or your child will find getting the grades much easier than the children of disadvantaged and/or disengaged parents.

But Hak that is what contextualised offers are for; an attempt to recognise that it is harder to succeed academically in some settings.

But we're talking here about extra curricular activities.

And rabbit seems to be saying that children from wealthy backgrounds ought to have to demonstrate more than academic success/aptitude. That they ought to have to demonstrate achievement outside academia.

And you agreed, no?

The argument seems to go that if an applicant has impressive extra curriculars then they should be disregarded because it's not fair on poorer applicants.

But when a wealthy applicant doesn't have anything impressive, other than academics then they should be penalised !!!!

Absolutely. Sorry, cross purposes- I did wonder why you were asking that!