Getting into Oxford.....

[CrushWithEyeliner]

My friends' son has not passed the entrance to Oxford.
He is super clever, v good at maths and has has a private ed all his life with great results all around. He is articulate but not overly cerebral or intellectual, he finds certain subjects v easy and knows it, he is also really interested in banking. investment management and that kind of career.

I was quite surprised when he didn't make it, and want to know a bit more as to why. I don't want to go into all the details with the parents as I can tell they are quite gutted.
Does anyone know what they are looking for at this exam/ interview and what kind of student gets into Oxford - it seems being clever isn't enough..does this sounds utterly naive?!

I think one of the most important points that somebody made on here (and ad nauseam in the case of Laura Spence et al) is that there are always going to be more clever people who would thrive at Oxbridge (and other top universities) than there are going to be places. In the end, some decisions have to be made on the basis of the performance in an interview when all other things are equal.

My very bright all As top private school Grade 8 sporty charity volunteering niece was gutted not to get offered her first choice of Cambridge college this year and only to get in on the pool. There are lots of able people who achieve highly and they can't all get in.

Interesting the stress on 'debate' and pressure ... I hear this so much (and obviously if you're actually doing the interviewing then you must know how important it is) - but not one of my many interviews/vivas for many things has ever felt pressured or debatey, not even the one where I was interviewed by Isaiah Berlin. (Though it is perhaps relevant that I didn't get that particular thingy .)

I remember my Oxford interview as excitedly sharing all my varied & no doubt utterly naive enthusiasms about Hardy; my PhD oral interview exam very similarly, though for that one we were all on about elegies; and my law firm interview as responding in friendly interested manner to some partner's repining about the timing of his daughter's school fair. The strong feeling about all of them was that I was interested in what they had to say, & they did a good job of appearing to be interested in what I said - it all felt like it was 'getting somewhere'.

Interesting to see whether this is at all a common experience?

DD has her Cambridge interview next week, and is well aware that over 5000 applicants with 3 A Grade Alevels don't get in!

She IS passionate about her subject - but so are the rest of the applicants. It is a plus that she is from a standard state comprehensive and so done better than average, she is unsure if having 2 parents without a Uni education will count against her though (puts her at risk of dropping out apparently!)

I'm sure she'll make a go of whichever Uni she ends up in

Gawd knows. I subjected one of my unfortunate interviewers - a total sweetheart of a historian - to my views on Life, the Universe and Politics - all with the brash bravado of a 17 year old who yearned beneath her Laura Ashley frock (and a black velvet ribbon in my hair ) to be a cross between Astrid Proll and Simone de Beavoir; and my main subject interviewers effectively said 'hello, Ms Inferior, are you having a nice day, you can go now'.

They gave me a scholarship. I think they were having a Very Bad Day, as it was also the day John Lennon was shot.

And I should probably add that I am now a not very well off journalist who lives in genteel squalor and generalised panic. It's not exactly a meal ticket, an Oxbridge degree.

wow this is fascinating so thank you all for your feedback.

VBM thank you so much that is food for thought.
Really interesting that this boy has been at the top of his game and really quite cocky after so many years of public school being told "you are the best". This may be what actually may have let mim down. I think they thought they were gearing him up for just this type of mentality at Oxford.

Interesting that the state school intake seem to struggle with the debating aspect of the testing.

Milliways is it an interview then an exam? May I aask how has she prepared for it? Do they give you any guidelines?

She has 2 interviews and a written exam, plus verbal questionning on a paper shown to them just before an interview.

Her school have held debates for them and she has been to an "Oxbridge interview" day nearby and has another practice interview at a different (Private) school on Monday.

Apart from that, just read as much as she can & practice speaking (she is going for a language degree)

My friend (who went to Magdalen) told me that high grades are just the starting point - they are looking for students who think uniquely and differently as well as being very clever.

I'm fairly certain I would never have fitted the criteria

I had an MSN buddy who was a theology student at Oxford. He would tell of of how he tried to achieve gnosis via the use of ketamin

As VBM says above who will know more than any of us, those are the things they look for. I think it's similar for the jobs my children are applying for post degree too - the places wanting someone who is very keen on the subject, perhaps something notable - not just played football for the school but is the best stamp collector in the UK or written a book on orchids or whatever your passion is and ability to debate. My older children haven't tried for Oxbridge but lots of their friends went there from Habs and north London Collegiate and i've given girls mock interviews - you can tell often who might get in. Some are better than others at debating things. I think if someone has set their whole life on applying (one poor 18 year old wrote in the Times Letters this week he'd spent the last 5 years working to it and been rejected) that's a bit sad. I didn't go to Oxbridge, didn't try and my siblings did and it really hasn't made a difference at all.

On the debating thing do look at that too. I know my second daughter telling me about university tutorials and saying the state school pupils just didn't seem to have views, opinions, comments, nothing to say now that just may be lack of confidence or it might be some other reason, fewer debates at school? fewer arguments or discussions with teachers?

Do they still do the newspaper on fire trick at interview? Or was it just me?

I think it's worth considering the college you apply to as well. I applied to a non-central college, a few people had gone there from my (state) school to read the same subject as me. 2 of us got in in my year - we were both seen as slightly risky I think. But 2 dead certs who applied to different colleges didn't get in (although one did the following year).

Agree with MI though- it's not been a meal ticket in this household (2 Oxford grads) although perhaps it depends on what you want out of life as many of our friends did do the whole City thing and some are now extraordinarily wealthy.

No, lovemydog, for example, a couple of years ago, we were asking what applicants thought about extraordinary rendition, and what the pros and cons of such a policy might be.

Now I personally didn't know what this was until just before the interview, because it was a fairly recent event, and we explained the term if people didn't understand it. We wanted to see if they could really chew on a problem and think it through out loud, not least because that's what you have to do in a tutorial situation.

In preparation, it would be good for applicants to have a look at the first year reading list for the degree they are thinking of studying (usually available online these days), and maybe tackle a few core texts in outline on their own. They should also try to think about why the degree courses are structured in the way that they are, and what the intellectual rationale might be for this.

BTW Xenia, I agree, it is never worth focusing your whole life on applying to Oxbridge as the reality is there is a lot more out there, and it is perfectly possible to get an elite education elsewhere these days, at any Russell Group university, for example. You can always go there for postgrad studies later if you want (as indeed Laura Spence did). Between you and me, I wonder if Oxbridge has done a bit too much elite brand-building over the last few decades, and consequently been responsible for too many broken hearts nationally. But that's a personal view.

PS We inwardly groan when people have been over-prepared for interviews, because often the content of what they say is actually quite disappointing, but the presentation is so slick there is metaphorical grease dripping off it. Leading public schools can be guilty of this, sometimes, I have found!

We are delighted when applicants get into the zone and start really talking with us as intellectual equals, because the time really flies then, and we know that they would flourish if we took them on.

My daughter was the only non Oxbridge on an assessment day for the job she got 18 months ago but it didn't seem to matter (she was at Bristol) as she had lots to say, found things in common with whoever she was with a lunch etc BUT if everyone else was from Oxbridge that does show some employer bias... more than some... so get in if you can. I wanted the girls to try but they couldn't be bothered to do the extra classes at school and may be they woiuldn't have got in either.

I think my sister got in (first girl ever from our school) in part because she tactically applied to an unpopular all girls college and my brother perhaps (who read medicine) helped his chances by applying again to somewhere not so popular which was in its first year of admitting men. So a bit of lateral thinking probably helps too.

I think where some schools who send a lot of students can shine is in knowing the individual colleges. My own tutor, for example would never want to have had a sparky debate with anyone - it wasn't his style, and if you knew that, you certainly wouldn't send a very overconfident student his way because they definitely wouldn't interview well with him.

What everyone has said about it being to some extent a lottery, and that subject passion is absolutely paramount are right.

Also, don't forget that the vast majority (not all!) these tutors will have been an earnest interview candidate once. To some extent they are looking for people a bit like themselves (since they want successful academics, and they themselves are successful academics). Probably not that many of them who wanted to have three bloody good years and then go into investment banking. Many many more who were longing to find other people to talk linear algebra with, or a decent opponent for the game of three dimensional chess they'd just invented...

Oxford (and Cambrige) is massively oversubscribed. Tutors like to look for a bit extra - real interest in subject and potential rather than being good at passing exams. DH does mock interviews at DS' old school and he reckons he can always tell who will get in because they have that extra spark.
There are lots of other good universities out there, so your friend's son should be fine.

I should add to all this that the admissions process is a bit more centralised and standardised than it might appear.

Everyone involved these days has to have done staff development office training in how to conduct admissions interviews, and how to pool good candidates so they minimise the chances of suitable people slipping through the net.

So the idiosyncracies of individual tutors should not apply very much any more.

Having supervised and interviewed at Cambridge, I would second what VirginiaBoffinMum says.

Someone earlier was worried that having 2 non-uni educated parents might be a problem - au contraire... Oxbridge is working really hard to recruit students like that.

My two pence:

• Think outside the box. Pat answers are NOT what they're looking for - and besides, all the other A-Level students in the country are saying the same things. So, dare to think different.

• Ignore the teachers when they stress that you should emphasise your good-eggishness. Those days are pretty much gone now. And as MrsGBoring points, we academics didn't get our jobs by being spiffing at tennis. You are attempting to get into one of the foremost centres of scholarship in the world. Emphasise your brain!

• Please, please, please think about how you might back up what you write on your personal statement. I'm STUNNED by the number of students who turn up claiming to "love poetry" when it turns out they've only read the William Blake that's on their syllabus; or who "adore Shakespeare" having only read The Merchant of Venice. Can't you see how strange and daft that looks? Read, read, and read some more!!!

• Your personal statement may form the basis of the interview, so do read it over. Again, I'm amazed when people don't even remember what they wrote. The interviewer may well take her/his cue from your statement, so try to read your statement with a critical eye: where do you say something a bit woolly, vague, or contentious? Be prepared to back it up!

• Don't be afraid to take your time when answering a question, and don't be afraid to change your mind half-way through answering. A lot of interviewers adopt the 'Socratic elenchos' approach when interviewing: they are actively trying to see how 'teachable' you are, so making mistakes, but correcting yourself or thinking out loud doesn't have to be a bad thing. You are showing them how your mind works, and how you respond to new angles.

• Don't panic or lose heart if you 'freeze' in the interview. Any interviewer worth their salt will recognise how scary it is, and give you time to compose yourself, or at least try a different line of approach.

• And finally (for now at least!): we WANT you to do well! We want to see lots of bright young things. We are not your enemy or out to trick you! Keep that in mind.

Sorry - weird - I've written that as if talking to a student... But you'll all get what I'm saying, I'm sure.

Interesting, VBM. But it must surely be true that individuals tutors' styles and personalities mean that some tutors would be a better fit than others, and if you can make that match, it would improve chances of getting in? But agree that it's a marginal thing.

I do know that when we were applying, our school used the Schools History Project A-Level, and that the girls who'd gone up in previous years said that our stunning historian who didn't get in (my best friend) had made the wrong college choice because that tutor was less sympathetic to the SHP.

Admittedly that was a long time ago now.

Yes but those tutors may not necessarily be teaching you. You may even be supervised by a postgrad student - this is happening more and more.

Things really have changed a lot even in the last 5 years, and good eggishness and fitting in is no longer a virtue, as Penth says. Intellectual rigour is what counts.

One of the best and most interesting personal statements I ever read involved a student who was interested in sociology, and who had totally of her own volition spent a summer infiltrating a group of graffiti artists in a covert manner, to find out why they behaved like that. It read like a classic 1960s research project. However this is an ethically very dodgy way of doing research and seriously compromised her personal safety, so we reckoned she had talent but needed saving from herself.

In the interview she fielded all the questions well and at one point described how she had trekked off from a school trip to Paris to find Sarte's grave. Her thoughts on the subject and Sartre were fascinating and went way beyond A Level type thinking, pulling together all sorts of strands of social science thought in a kind of intellectual synergy. She scored top marks in the interview and waltzed into the college with AAB.

Have been involved in Oxbridge admissions in the past.

IME, what we tended to be wondering at interview (assuming that the candidate was talented enough and self-motivated enough - that's checked but pretty much assumed) was "how would it be to spend an hour or two hours a week in the company of this person, with one other student, talking about the topic they were sent off to research and write an essay on?"

So we were absolutely looking for independent thought, a preference for learning through conversation rather than having information fed at them to digest and critique alone later, the ability to defend a position and to change their mind mid tack - to think aloud and on the hoof and coherently, and to be a generous conversationalist.

There were people I interviewed who were certainly bright enough but would have been emotionally crucified, in my judgement, by spending an hour or two hours a week in intensive academic discussion with me. Some of those we were able to pass on to colleges where the tutor was the kind of personality which would be nourishing to them.

Some people were so bumptious that the prospect of spending an hour or two hours a week with them was just unbearable. Some of those we were able to pass on to colleges whose tutors enjoy the company of that sort of exuberant confidence.

Some people were very attractive to us, but there simply wasn't room for them, and they fell through the net because, having applied to an oversubscribed college, the places at the less fashionable colleges tended to have been filled by the time they filtered down.

And from my current position, I have to say that those of us at the other Russell group universities are DELIGHTED to pick up the Oxbridge rejects, they tend to have a LOVELY time with us, get good degrees, be good intellectual company, get plenty of intellectual stimulation outside Oxbridge and go on to have happy and successful lives. Especially the ones who shrink into their shells at interview - because the lecture plus careful pastoral attention model often suits them to a tee and they blossom and flourish into splendid splendid intellects.

Colleges are looking for people who will be a credit to them. Everyone at Oxford is good at their subject- so they need people who offer more- ie are good at other things too- music, sport, theatre, oratory, whatever.

What course was he applying for?
You said he was good at maths, yet he wants a career in banking. Any Mathematics tutor would turn him down- they want people who love mathematics, not accountants.