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 it's very hard to say EXACTLY what gets you in. It can be down to the interview schedule, mood of interviewer, mood of candidate, number of candidates you're up against, alignment of the planets etc etc and all sorts of other random things.

At 18 I got myself tied into knots worrying sick about my interview day at Cambridge. My first interview was with my Director of Studies (I applied to do Japanese Studies). I had rehearsed and re-rehearsed and virtually vomited on his doorstep when he called me in! I was then TOTALLY thrown when he said something along the lines of 'I've decided I want you to get in, now you just have to go knock them dead in the Admissions interview'!!!! In my case I had done lots of extra-curricular stuff in Japanese at school (speaking competitions and essay competitions) and I think it was clear that I was devoted to my subject, and hopefully that I was fairly bright (and my skirt was very long so it can't have been that! ). I had also done lots of other properly geek stuff like debating and netball and head girl etc etc etc.

BoffinVirgin is the veteran (not literally!) expert on here....

Can we encourage her to tell us her published titles as I'm sure that royalties will go up thanks to MN

Have just read the post by Onward Upward and think that that is spot on. Generous conversationalist and someone who you'd be happy to see for hours and hours every week, often one on one (on a small course like mine).

If I were able to give one piece of advice to someone going for a Cambridge interview, or the parent of someone doing one, it's that the candidate should try to relax, be themselves, give it their absolute best shot BUT not get too hysterical about the process and be philosophical as it seems to be down to many factors that don't immediately meet the eye.

Message withdrawn

Oh, and if it's possible to know who's interviewing you, then be a supersleuth (and super geek!) and find out what their research interests are and get hold of their papers and books! A little flattery goes a long way for poor undervalued academics??!

If he admitted to wanting to be an investment banker, coupled with being a typical public school type, that probably did for him!

The people who interview know best and it's good they are making it reasonably objective but certainly with certain types of jobs thereafter the same point about would I like to spend 2 hours with this person counts or would I want to be stranded at a Siberian air port for 20 hours with this potential employee. Now that can get a bit difficult if people then recruit people "like" themselves (accent, class, interests etc) so it's probably not a good recruitment test unless you're using it to mean would I want to be stuck at that air port talking about the subject they're applying for of course.

So ability to string a sentence together, talk etc does help.

this thread is nice for those of us with square peg round hole smart kids.
Ds1 (yr10)has interest from Cambridge already for maths as apparently quality of those doing maths degrees is dropping and they want to recruit the brightest most naturally gifted maths students.
Ds1 somewhat perversely wants to go into politics but on the back of what degree he is undecided. Law, economics... Unsure yet.

But dps aunt wasconsidered dead cert for Oxbridge until she mentioned her dad was pit deputy in the mines...

EachPeach - to a point it's interesting to have people who are good at more than one thing but this is not one of the interview criteria.

Whoohoo - No WAY am I ever giving away my identity!!! MN is the one place I can be really free and frank about all sorts of things with other mums, and in my life that is a rare and wonderful thing. If people try to find me I will stop posting!! Also when people cite my work willy nilly in interviews (or even essays) it just comes across as smarmy!! I am not daft and I know what they're trying to do.

Bloss - That sounds like the right thing to do for a mock interview. It's how people work through a problem out loud which is interesting, rather than the actual solution. Sometimes there isn't even a solution.

Piffle - I honestly doubt this was the reason. But as I keep saying, even in the last 5 years things have changed a great deal because of all the Widening Participation initiatives. So Oxbridge experiences pre-2000 really no longer count.

VirginBoffin don't worry: your identity is safe with us

Lucky you didn't interview me, then

I totally agree about being open and honest on MN. It's quite liberating, isn't it...

I wonder if that is Xenia's real name...I have to admit that if I ever met someone called Xenia I could not resist checking if it was THE Xenia of MN fame! Her name goes before her!

I could not imagine the boy in the OP getting into my College in my year if he did actually talk a lot about investment banking etc.

Admission processes have I think changed massively in a generation. My parents both went to Cambridge.

My father had his housemaster write a letter basically asking for him to get in. Major public school. Unconditional offer. No questions asked and no interview IIRC.

My mother had a scholarship to a private school, A levels and S levels. INcredibly clever, first in her family to go to university at all, but definitely a scholarship girl rather than a fee-paying student at the private school she went to. Had three hardcore panel interviews and fairly rigorous selection process. Did get offered exhibitioner (?) for Oxford and schol for Camb. But had to jump through hoops like crazy.

I like to think that the pendulum might have swung the other way now. I hope so.

Or rather, two generations.... Parents were there in 1960s.

Whoohoo, I would have simply have grilled you mercilessly about the theoretical points I raise in each paper, and the back story behind each of them, until your brain imploded. It's called eating students for breakfast!! hehe. What sport.

peach: "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."

I don't completely understand. Why can't someone who loves mathematics also want to apply it in a commercial field? Does it detract from that love? Or are interviewers really just seeking to admit academics like themselves? If so, I would agree with Xenia's point that looking to hire someone after your own mould is actually counterproductive to the flowering of ideas and lead to a tunnel vision.

As an aside, mathematics can not only be used in accountancy but in a far more pure form in investment banking. There is the urban myth (?) about this brainbox who got fabulously weathly off the back of having developed and selling a complicated algorithm which allowed banks to predict the behaviour of markets. Loads of mathematicians in investment banking.

So to peach, boffinmum, penthesileia, onward and others involved in Oxbridge admissions, all things being equal, does expressing an interest in a City career count against a candidate?

No, because we base our decision on the interview criteria, which are fairly standardised and just as I outlined earlier. We are only interested in things like intellectual rigour, debating/discussion ability and sufficient qualities of endurance to survive in what has become a very competitive environment.

Clearly we don't want to be surrounded with boring farts whose only aim in life is to be like us one day (how creepy!) so we are a lot more open minded than people think. Also not all of us have exclusively worked in academe.

Last time I looked at stats from the Career Service, (admittedly not since the credit crunch) a huge number of our students seemed to go into accountancy or financial services Graduate Trainee Schemes or similar, so we're used to them doing that and it would be a bit odd to object. However the admissions interview is not the time for a big careers discussion, it's a time to explore the subject under question.

I remember my tutor asking me at the end of the interview what I wanted to do afterwards (this was way before 2000) and when I said stay in academia he sniggered and raised his eyebrows. Mind you when he found out I was doing a PhD he choked. He seemed to expect most of his students to go into the City.

The strangest interview was with the college Principal. Took place in a huge room, and involved discussing the beauty of Exmoor. I suspect from reading VBM's posts those sorts of interviews have gone.

Hi blueshoes - no, of course not! But think about it: if a candidate comes to you saying, 'I only want to do a degree in this subject, and at this university, because it'll get me a good job', then they're not going to university - any university - for the right reasons, and, quite frankly, they'll be difficult to teach. If people treat their education in a purely utilitarian fashion, then they're not really getting the most out of it. DYSWIM?

If, however, a candidate comes saying, 'I love X subject' (then shows you how in the interview), then says, 'and I hope that with this subject I'll be able to do all kinds of things in my life', you think, 'hey, this candidate is open minded'.

To keep your dignity, things to avoid at an Oxbridge interview (all real life BoffinMum scenarios):

1. Do NOT say, "I want to come here because I have heard an elite degree means you will get a top job".

1. Do NOT say, "I am here because my mum/dad wants me to come".

1. At the end of the interview, when we ask if you have any questions, do NOT start pleading for a place in an undignified fashion, and then cry.

1. Do NOT waffle on endlessly about loving poetry without explaining why in an academic way.

1. Do NOT lie that you have won a prestigious international subject-related competition, thinking we are too stupid to Google it if it sounds fishy to us.

1. Do NOT think that asking us about rowing opportunities will strengthen your chances if all else fails.

1. Do NOT assume you have done badly until you get a letter from us.

1. Do NOT assume if you don't get in, there is no point in reapplying the next year if you really think we got it wrong.

God, VirginBoffinMum* - some of that is too^ familiar! Ho ho.

O/T but it always surprises me that students seem to think we don't 'do' Google. Particularly the plagiarists...

this is rather depressing. Both of my children are able but neither is particulary articulate. So it seems they have no hope of Oxbridge admission. Doesn't really matter how able they are or if have a passion for the subject unless they are charming, articulate and easy to teach.

No, tatt! Not necessarily! Look, we stress the articulate debate part, because - more often than not - that can't be faked, or learnt in advance (no 'pat' answer, IYSWIM).

But, but, but, but, but: we work really quite hard to see the best in students. And some subjects (Maths, Languages, Classics, Sciences) in particular require real talent, demonstrable ability, at a specific thing. If your kids have that ability, even if they are a bit inarticulate, we can coach it out of them.

Look - there are loads of suberbly inarticulate people at Oxbridge, who rock at their subject in their own way.

I expect your kids are not actually as inarticulate as you think when talking about what really interests them!

I should stress that when I said certain subjects require talent I didn't mean that others don't, not at all, but that - for example - in an interview for a Law place, the interviewer doesn't necesarily expect the candidate to know a huge amount of legal info - they just need to show the predisposition.

Penth, as an aside, my best one was when we googled someone to fact check some wierd claims, and found they had set up their own online porn business. Now that caused a bit of a stir in the selection meeting, I can tell you.

Tatt, don't fret about it, there are loads of brilliant universities where your DCs will thrive and probably do just as well in life, if not better. My DH recently described Oxbridge as "Day centres for the terminally bright" and admittedly there are some slightly dysfunctional elements there, which can make certain people miserable, honestly. It takes a certain genetic make up and mindset to prosper there, not necessarily people who are better or more able than at other good places. I wish people were more aware of this.

PS Penth is right about us digging out the potential in people. I'm quite proud of how often we manage to do that. If in doubt, apply ...

VirginBoffinMum!

Yeah, they get so weird! - You're reading an essay, or whatever, and suddenly there's this freakish 'change of voice'... And you're like, 'rrrrriiiggghhht'. We're changing to online submission soon, so the plagiarism software will do most of the hard graft: god, I've wasted some merry hours winkling out the weird & wonderful websites where the determined little bs get their information...

My best/worst one was when a student submitted, as his/her own, the essay of another student which I'd marked the year before and given a 1st. But - get this - I couldn't prove it because the other student (a finalist whose original work it was) had picked up their essay already, so there was no paper trail...! And you can't just accuse a student of plagiarism without proof... So they got away with it!

Too right Penth.

We are using special anti-plagiarism software as from this year, and reserving the right to ask for an electronic version within 48 hours if we suspect anything.

I also file all the formal assignments so there is an audit trail.

However I know it's still endemic, and I am also considering seeing whether it would be possible to do some proper research into the essay mill phenomenon, if I can find a way of addressing ethical issues.

How does a teenager become passionate about a single subject or a particular area of a single subject?

ds1 is only 11, and - quite rightly - has a huge range of passions, interests and ability: from sciences to languages to humanities to arts.

I find it a little sad to think that at age 17 he will have developed a passion about one specific subject: presumably to the exclusion of other areas.