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?

If you get an offer it will be based on three.

I'm not sure about NatSci, but I think it's the same as for MEng, where applicants who are taking 4 or more A levels apparently quite often get offers based on 4! It may well be that those doing more subjects are more likely to get an offer, but those who do get an offer based on 3 subjects obviously only have to get the grades in those 3. My DD dropped one subject after AS (she did an EPQ in yr 13) so her offer was two A stars and an A; some of her peers got offers of two A stars and two As or even 3 A stars plus an A, FM and physics always being the required stars.

No argument on that. I was trying to emphasise that an offer on three was the minimum.

The personal statement, extracurricular activities, voluntary work and general interest are exceptionally important for Cambridge. A lot of students get all top grades but if they don't seem like they would either represent Cambridge properly, fit in or be different enough to be worth taking a chance in, they don't even get interviewed.

I know it seems unfair and it is in a way, but finding that unusual way to be impossible to forget is the key. Trust me, I know. I still feel sick remembering my interview there and how scared I was sending my application!

The personal statement, extracurricular activities, voluntary work and general interest are exceptionally important for Cambridge.

what subject are you talking about? For STEM (excluding med/vet) those things don't seem to be very important at all ... what matters is being very good at, and engaged with, your subject.

Bunny mama that is simply not true , my ds has been to two sessions this term in Cambridge for prospective applicants and in both they have specifically said that one of the most common misconceptions is about extra curricular . Apart from medicine and architecture they do not want to hear about extra curricular they are only interested in your academic passion and this should be reflected in the PS . Extra curricular are only relevent to the extent that they enhance or relate to this .

@Peaseblossom22 @ErrolTheDragon

I meant relevant extracurricular activities, such as hospital volunteering for medical courses etc. Though it is worth knowing that it's been just over a decade since I went to uni!

Someone I'm friends with is going through the application process with their DC now and is hoping that the years of St John's ambulance and a real corner of a statement will give hem the edge.

It all just seems so bloody overly competitive now. Anyone else remember the days of working hard being enough??

I meant relevant extracurricular activities, such as hospital volunteering for medical courses etc.

That's the exception, which afaik applies to all met/vet schools. They are vocational courses (requiring good but not necessarily exceptional scientific ability) rather than academic courses.

@ErrolTheDragon Oh of course! But imagine applying, assuming good enough grades were all that's needed, when countless other applicants have given up their free time in pursuit of what they want to do! It doesn't bear thinking about that you could have done more.

Urgh. Bloody uni!

if they don't seem as if they would either represent Cambridge properly, fit in, or be different enough to be worth taking a chance then they don't even get interviewed

This is nonsense. Please ignore. Some posters on here have a lot of experience. Others don't. Personally I have looked at about 1500 UCAS forms and interviewed about 400 candidates over 16 years of admissions. Oxford. But I very much doubt Cambridge has these selection criteria either.

Bunny mama. You are giving incorrect advice here. Cambridge is not interested in extra curricular stuff. They have introduced the new entrance exam as a way of telling which students to choose out of the ones with all A* grades.

Not fitting in or looking like they won’t represent the university is alien to me as well. When I ran admissions for a subject at an Oxford college for a time it was the last thing on my mind. It was all about sheer ability and passion for the subject. The medics looked more broadly.

I attach the relevant info from Cambridge. Para 2 is hard to demonstrate if you have just completed your school work. They are looking for additional attributes which could be demonstrated by extra curricular activities connected with the subject. However team working can be hard to demonstrate if you are not doing anything in a team. Doing something with others, which takes a sentence to describe, might tick the box but obviously the actual activity, eg rugby, won’t be taken into account.

We were seriously scratching our heads about that material at a 6th form info evening at my son’s school especially in how to tie the activity to the subject. STEM subjects and sports can often create some opportunities! Maths and rugby has a lot of Google hits not all of them contrived. Any big sport has data attached. I suspect admissions tutors will be on the lookout for less convincing tie ups!

They don't necessarily have to demonstrate all those attributes though, and it should be possible for any intelligent, engaged sixth former to demonstrate some of them. Teamwork may be more relevant in some disciplines than others - for instance real world engineering is rarely going to be a solo activity, but applicants in that area should have had plenty of opportunities to engage in group competitions, participate in or lead school coding or robotics clubs etc. They all should surely be able to show some independence and/or perseverance in developing their 'passion'.

That is assuming schools have those clubs. It is extremely difficult for some children to start clubs with no adult input. That is why sport, which is more widely available, and free at school, should be taken into account. The assumption of clubs in the worst schools is oneof the problems. These schools do not offer reasonable preparation for the subjects at Oxford and Cambridge. It really is clear that the basics of grades and predictions is not enough but schools do not always provide anything extra at all. It is then down to parental know-how and money to provide the extras that are needed. Even bus fares to activities can cost more than some people have. Therefore school attended and parental involvement and money does mean a better chance.

Errol: It is certainly clear that extra activities such as clubs make a difference so why do people keep saying that they onnly take the academics into account? Clubs clearly help widen academics and seem to be a tie breaker. If a DC gets to Cambridge with B in English at GCSE, then something extra is offered. Many schools would not even think a child should apply with a B x 2 in English, so that's another disadvantage. They would have to fight to apply. Certainly where my DDs went to school that would have been the case are clearly they are not the best of the best - at GCSE. However, if you are in the know you are aware that the DC can apply. That is another advantage over other DC.

At the first 'gate' of getting an interview - which is what this thread was initially about - the input from people actually involved in admissions seems to be that it really is the academics, in particular the aptitude test which focuses purely on subject knowledge (and the application thereof to novel problems) rather than broad spectrum ability.

The deficiencies of schools ... misinformation, lack of 'supra curricula' opportunities - well, for sure that's a major cause of perpetuating inequities. I simply can't understand why a school would make any student who wanted to have a shot at Oxbridge 'fight to apply' ... just let them do it. Let the universities decide fgs - they know what they're looking for (and conversely, what they really don't care about for a particular course).

Bubbles you are right that some kind of extracurricular engagement is a good thing. But you make two mistaken assumptions. The first is that it needs to be in the form of clubs. Someone who has demonstrably spent their spare time diving into the Queen Victoria shelf of the local library, or writing historical fan fiction, say, is going to be more interesting to a history admissions tutor than someone who plays five county sports (which to be honest would be a red flag for someone who wants to come mainly for the sports opportunities rather than the academics).

Secondly, the extra-curricular stuff is highly unlikely to be a tie-breaker. Academics want to admit bright, engaged, committed students who are going to be interesting to teach - who can engage, don't collapse when challenged and can think well on their feet. When deciding between candidates, it is those things that are the deciding factor. In a tie-break situation, tutors are much more likely to sit discussing the relative merits of two candidates' answer to a question about whether historians should be more interested in kings or paupers, or some such, than whether grade 4 bassoon is more entrance-worthy than 3 terms of ballroom dancing. (and also, if a candidate meets the level for entry, don't forget they will likely be pooled for interview at another college).

That's not to say that there aren't unfairnesses in the system - clearly there are. Public school candidates will on average be much more used to a cut-and-thrust intellectual questioning style of teaching, and therefore more likely to perform well under interview pressure. Narrow teaching to the exam is probably more common in state schools, which can also be a disadvantage. And like I said earlier, metrics (i.e. marking each stage of the process including admissions test, submitted essays, interviews etc) removes some of the discretion of tutors to admit promising candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds who might struggle with some aspects of the process. It's clear, for instance, that public school candidates are likely to have had more help from teachers or parents with their submitted essay than someone from an over-stretched inner city academy. It's very hard to see admissions can allow for that kind of thing. But Jocasta having an advantage because she can say in her PS that she reached county level in dressage? That really shouldn't be the focus of your worries.

*HOW admissions can allow for

But Jocasta having an advantage because she can say in her PS that she reached county level in dressage? That really shouldn't be the focus of your worries.

No; but there is a more valid concern about different opportunities and experiences available via some schools but not others.

To take a very specific example relevant to engineers and the like: Arkwright scholarships. Some schools participate in this, some don't ... and I get the impression some types of school are more likely to do so than others. If you look at what's involved (practical project work, exam, interview ... good experience whether successful or not) and what successful candidates get (money for themselves and their school to support relevant activities, industry mentor, funding for head start course...) - well, it simply can't not be an advantage to students who have access to it.

Absolutely, yes, I totally agree Errol. I just think that sometimes (and some of the posts above indicate this) that many people (schools included) reduce the idea of extracurricular engagement to a formula, and to the idea that if you don't go to a school which offers high-level structured activities, or have the money to do them after school, then all is lost. At 17, I still remember a teacher getting me to add random activities to the end of my own personal statement because it was felt that there weren't quite enough of them! So in addition to my genuine extracurricular stuff (essentially music, music and music) I was forced to add in random nonsense like ballroom dancing (I'd done six lessons!), theatre (I'd been in one school production) and cycling (I cycled to school)... I wish it was made clearer that admissions tutors see right through that kind of box-ticking, and that it is first and foremost academic potential that Oxbridge are really fundamentally interested in.

And best of luck to anyone reading who has interviews kicking off this week!

I do really agree with you all. I know there are schools that put the Oxbridge bar very high and dissuade pupils. My DDs school for one! Some pupils are not self motived to go to the library when none of their friends do and there isn’t one in their neighbourhood anyway. If you are in a tiny community you just won’t have that. The internet would be your friend of course.

As for Arkwright - never been offered in any school I know. Like many of these good things, if you don’t have access you are more likely to do a team sport or music because that’s what’s available. That isn’t good enough but it’s difficult to access anything better.

However just talking about academics when lots of successful candidates can offer more, like your DD Erol, really does highlight the problems DC face when they don’t get appropriate support and advice.

"Some pupils are not self motived to go to the library when none of their friends do and there isn’t one in their neighbourhood anyway."

I guess at this level it's more a question of reforming our entire socio-economic system rather than just Oxbridge admissions. There is arguably a limit to how far it can be down to Oxbridge to sort out the fundamental inequality of our school system - if a child isn't self-motivated to go to the library then they are not going to cope with an Oxford degree. The answer is to make sure every 4yo has access to a good library and a librarian to open up the world of books to them. Except that in their wisdom the tories have shut most of them down...

The problem is culture. They are not supported in extended learning. If they had been taken to the Library from being a tot, it would be normal. Being conditioned to this style of learning is also an advantage. Not every family is the same and motivation takes different forms. However with insufficient guidance that is knowledgable, a child may not know what they have to do. I think all heads of 6th form should be advising and be up to date and not be prejudiced. That might level the playing field. If a child then doesn’t engage, that’s up to them. If they don’t realise extra is needed, and the op suggested it was all about exam results, they have not been well advised.

Actually no libraries in my county have closed down. They are professionally led but volunteer run. So no, most have not closed.