Fab exam results and predictions but not even an interview from Cambridge Uni.

[nandio]

12GCSEs only 2As and the rest top grades.4A* and A predicted at A level - no interview from Cambridge. Not BME but white working class.

Why would Cambridge not interview a student of this calibre?

Assuming that the test did indeed go well and one of the stellar GCSE.s is a foreign language, the culprit is probably the personal statement.
It should demonstrate a passion for the subject as it is taught at Cambridge. They are not interested in musical ability or sports activities.

That's quite unlikely moredoll, unless it was an absolute clanger, and if the boy has managed umpteen a* GCSEs he's going to be able to muster a passable personal statement. It might be crucial for some unis but really not for natsci at Cambridge. It's all down to measurable markers at the pre-interview stage - hence the introduction of the tests in the first place.

In my 15 years of interviewing for PPE , Econ/Management and HistEcon I can recall almost no instances of the personal statement making a significant difference to whether someone was shortlisted for interview, certainly since the TSA was introduced over 10 years ago.

Very occasionally you get a (usuallly International) candidate who clearly thinks that EM is just like an MBA, which is an issue. Or the written English may just be too weak - but that is also picked up by the TSA essay these days.

Other subjects do vary though.

I have read on another thread that 50% of Westminster 6th form get places at Oxbridge. I would like to know what it is that shortens the odds so much for them. Is it interview technique? Is it the courses they apply for? Is it cramming for the pre-tests? Is it a case of seeing they came from Westminster, so must be a good candidate? They are competing with lots of other students who get at least 3A* who get rejected, so it cannot be just that they get better A level grades. Statistically, if it were just that more applied, the expected rate would be around 20% at the most.

It's all those things re the likes of Westminster. Obv it's a bright hand selected intake. But mainly I think it's preparation for the tests and interviews. Stage schools (and I'm not talking grammars) just don't have the time or resources. Oxbridge candidates in those schools are on their own. I speak from experience!
Not a level
Playing field

I was on the other thread about Westminster (DD didn't get in there for sixth form). I'm guessing it's partly because they are so highly selective. Also the teaching style seemed similar to Oxbridge (from what I've heard, I went to London)- small groups, lots of debate and pupils encouraged to question and look beyond the syllabus- so that will probably help in interviews.

Then why is the present education system failing the brightest who cannot afford Westminster fees? Why is it Oxbridge is not doing more to redress this balance, or is it just a case of some are more equal than others? I agree Westminster are highly selective, but their selection is from the relatively few candidates whose parents can afford the fees.

I agree justrichmal (and am slightly sad as ds offered the Under school but the bursary wasn't high enough for us). Even at ds Grammar school, which has a 22% Oxbridge take up, I can see there just isn't the level of encouragement and debate that you would need to get a child into a very top university unless you had a real self starter/ parental resources for tutors etc.

Westminster have decades of experience of knowing the Oxbridge tests inside out. It is definitely not a level playing field. Simplistic, but maybe Oxbridge should cap the number of offers from schools like St Paul's and Westminster and give more state school pupils a chance.

I agree MrsPatmore. I think some sort of handicap system is required although I realise that will be extremely politically inconvenient.

We went to two Cambridge admissions talks for NatSci.

Both said that they take no notice of the personal statement and they are interested in grades, not ‘rounded personalities ‘ and extra curricular. They said they only use the statement to prompt conversation at interview.

Apparently, from the other thread, in the 60's, going to Westminster was a ticket into Oxbridge. I wonder also if the old boys network is so ingrained in the system, no one even realises it is still there.

Indeed, richmal. Certain schools send what become known as safe candidates - the school knows the required standard and knows which kids meet it -and that is a very tempting prospect for certain tutors doing admissions. That shouldn't happen, but I know from experience that it does.

School performance and socio-economic characteristics of home postcode are taken into account. Just because the pre-test and other academic elements are the most important, it does not follow that the same marks are required uniformly of all candidates. We know that the same grades mean different things for candidates with different educational backgrounds.

What was the NSAA result?

Cambridge doesn’t care about grades ime. It’s more about how children perform in their own tests. Any idiot can get all A’s at a-level, a levels are pretty much meaningless, more so GCSEs.

Thanks frogsoup, I think the numbers speak for themselves. It is unfair that England's top universities, which should be equally open to all, have such a disproportionate percentage of students from some of the most expensive private schools. In the 21st century, it is shameful.

"Any idiot can get all A’s at a-level"

I don't think so!

Why is it Oxbridge is not doing more to redress this balance, or is it just a case of some are more equal than others

I have no experience of Oxford, although I expect it takes a similar approach to Cambridge.

The Widening Participating scheme at Cambridge is outlined here.
www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/find-out-more/widening-participation

The university puts a lot of money and effort into trying to fight preconceptions, such as those expressed on this thread, which are off-putting to many state pupils and which prevent them from applying.
.
It is a world-class university, often topping the tables. It needs the best students irrespective of their backgrounds.

If the candidate in the original post did retakes, what is the view of all the GCSEs not being taken in one sitting? Surely the brightest and the best don’t need retakes? I thought some universities wanted the GCSEs taken in one sitting? Is that correct? If it is, some schools may not know this.

Remarks, I thought, not retakes.

Have they been involved in lots of extracurricular activities? Lots and lots of people have/are predicted good grades but most wouldn't get an interview with Cambridge. Perhaps their personal statement is not up to the required standard.

Do you know how many students usually apply per place at that college? Some colleges have way more students applying per place than others. A future application may have greater success if they apply to a college with a comparatively low ratio of application to offers, though NatSci is very popular

At Oxford this isn't true anymore. There is enough reallocation at various stages that your chance of being accepted to Oxford is the same regardless of which college you apply for. Yes some colleges are harder to get into, but they will reallocate good candidates to another college. I don't think this worked well in all subjects 15-20 years ago, but it does now. Some subjects are more competitive than others though.

Have they been involved in lots of extracurricular activities?

Apart from a few subjects eg medicine, extracurricular activities are not important to Oxford tutors. They are only interested in academic potential.

“Any idiot can get all A’s at a-level, a levels are pretty much meaningless,”

Rubbish.

But I do wonder if private school kids get tutored or prepared for the in-House tests.

Wow... this thread is a mish mash of sensible thoughts and weird misinformation... eg
Assuming that the test did indeed go well and one of the stellar GCSE.s is a foreign language, the culprit is probably the personal statement.

Why on earth would anyone think a stellar grade in a foreign language be required for NatSci? the requirement to have done a foreign language at all to get into Cambridge (other than for MML, obv) is long gone...for the record, my DD is doing an MEng there and - apart from 6A* in maths/sciences/tech and 3A had...Bs in German and both English GCSEs.

My guess is that it must have been the aptitude test ...if the NatSci one was akin to the engineering then it would have required 'out of the box' type thinking - novel problems or putting different ideas together type of thing.