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?!

Let us know how you get on, MissAnthrope. Good luck.

A lot depends on which college you apply to. I went to a comprehensive and got into a progressive college because they wanted a broader intake. There's no way I'd have got into lots of the colleges though - I didn't 'fit'. It might be worth this boy trying again next year, with applications to different Oxbridge colleges.

On the blueshoes and Anna points about employers thereafter and having my three children at university stage it's all very relevant, you need a range of skills to be valuable to employers and some will want very personable people who will bring in business and others who are just good at doing the job. It's like recruiting children in a competitive school at age 4 or 5 - a lot of schools want some children who are loud and some who are quiet to get the balance so I don't think it matters too much if you're in either category but the problem comes if you just cannot in any sense sell yourself however good on paper because you don't speak properly, cannot express yourself are dreadfully shy or something like that.

Thus I suspect those who can talk, get on with other people and have good academic skills and common sense probably do better. What I've wanted from my children's education is not just good exam results but rounding them off, giving them lots of different things to try and do and so they've a chance to work out what they want and what they're good at and what they enjoy.

Of course I should n't be on the threat at all as I didn't go to Oxbridge. I remmeber mentioning it to my headmistress and she had thisridiculous point that I couldn't apply as I was a year young (I was 17 when I went to university) and it would involve her having to phone them and she put it in such a way that it seemed to me so big a thing to ask her it couldn't be persisted with so I decided to find universities which offered scholarships - for some reason I seemed to want that and I did 9 hours of papers, bit like genreal knowledge, general studies things but without preparation and got one not that it was financially worth much.

dreading the whole thing

ds going to apply - him and dp say 'nothing to loose' just think its going to be high stress....

whoops lose

an interesting thread - and one that has made me decide not to encourage my children towards Oxbridge entrance. They can apply if they wish to do but I don't think the value system is one I really want them to acquire.

There is a difference between what employers want and what our education system aims to deliver. At school and university students are trained towards academic excellence in, usually, one subject. When they come to seek work an employer will be looking for someone who has more general skills. So the ability to analyse problems and work out how to deal with them is important as are organisational skills, people skills and the ability to sell yourself. But being able to sell yourself is what society values most highly.

Re the conflict between a burning interest and a desire to make a profitable career. I think if I were the admissions officer I'd be thinking to myself:

-Yes, fine, nothing wrong with wanting a profitable career in the city, but you've got to get there first. My job is to find out if you are the sort of person who would actually flourish in the teaching system we have here- tutorials, passionate intellectual discussions etc. If you are not the kind of person who would enjoy this, then maybe you would be better off working towards your (perfectly reasonable) goal in a different kind of institution.

There are after all lots of universities in this country; it's about choosing what suits you. Making the wrong choice for reasons of prestige can end up in disaster.

What are you seeing as the "value system"?
I'm not at all sure I could identify a unitary "value system" with Oxbridge, unless it's a basic fundamental enthusiasm for intellectual energy (any kind of intellectual energy, inc. what's going to be needed to set up a small business, etc.) - which is very much fine in my book - I cannot at all see what's wrong with approving of thinking effort. And, further, Oxbridge hasn't any kind of monopoly on that.

What does (or did, in my day) distinguish its offering from other universities was the element of "sink or swim": as a student, endless masses of opportunities were out there for you - lecture series and electives and amazing brains to pick - but you had to make your own decisions to get out there and access them. No-one was going to sit down with you and lead you through, let alone help you choose, the options.

After Oxford I did a post-grad at an Ivy League place in US, and the difference was remarkable: students there, even the post-grads, were led through the system, presented with neatly organised menus of choices, helped to make their decisions. Much easier for someone who isn't so independent minded.

If that difference still applies - ie, between Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge universities here - then I think it is a valid thing to take into account when deciding what to look at.

I'd agree with Bink. The old value system may have been a public school, old boy network type thing, but it isn't that now.

When I was at Cambridge (10 years ago), students at my college were actively involved in linking up with state schools around the country - there was even an Access Schools Officer on the college SU committee - in order to try and convince students from all types of backgrounds to apply. So far as I can tell, Cambridge wants people with inquisitive minds, with a natural intelligence and interest in their subject, who have the potential to thrive in an intense intellectual atmosphere. The one on one supervisions can be stressful - one hour on your own arguing your case with a world leader in their field - and it needs a particular sort of person to cope with that. Somebody who has been coached and hothoused at school may look good on paper but may not be independent and strong enough on their own to cope with the pressure whereas somebody in a state school who has had none of this additional support may be the perfect candidate. The interview process tries to find those students, but it can only do this if these students apply in the first place - which is why access initiatives are so important. There is also an acknowledgement that some kids have the raw potential but may not have the support to get the typical 3 A grades at A level. One girl I know who came from a school that had never had anyone attend Oxbridge was given a 3 B offer for Law and thrived once there.

I learnt so much when I was there that I use daily in my career - how to work independently, how to plan my work, how to think and argue and listen. It wasn't just sitting in a library discussing erudite topics of no consequence just for the pleasure of the intellectual debate (although that was often fun!).

Interestingly I received offers of a place from all 8 unis I applied to, but only one (Cambridge) had done that based on an interview. It gave me so much confidence that they had met me and felt I would fit in just fine.

CrushWithEyeLiner

I think I read somewhere that last year there were 25,000 students who got 3 A's at A Level. There are around 3000 undergrad places each year at each of Oxford and Cambridge, if I remember rightly. Back in 1993 when I went to Cambridge I think the stats were that 8,000 got 3A's at A level and there were still around 6000 Oxbridge places. So that means there'll be an awful lot of people nowadays with great results who won't be able to get a place.

You asked whether there are a hierarchy of colleges. I think the answer to that is that yes, there are, but that the admissions system is designed to try and make sure that a good candidate doesn't lose out just cos they applied to an oversubscribed college.

The colleges that tend to be oversubscribed are those that are in the centre of the town, old with beautiful architecture, or "famous" colleges and so on. Modern colleges located further out (eg Churchill in Cambridge) or ex women's colleges (eg Girton) tend to be less popular (nb this is no reflection at all on how good they are as colleges, and everyone thinks their own college is the best, wherever they end up). However a "pool" system operates that means that if an oversubscribed college has a really good candidate but just not enough places, then they put them in the "pool" so that all the other colleges who potentially have spare places can interview them. I think both universities publish applications/admissions and pool statistics by college, so applicants can see what happened last year. THe general advice is that you should just apply to the college that you like the best and not play the stats game, because what happened last year is likely not to happen again this year! Having said that, it is safe to say that, say, King's and Trinity at Cambridge are almost 100% certainly going to be more oversubscribed than say Churchill or Girton. Some courses (e.g. medicine) are more popular than others (e.g. theology) though generally I think the number of places available in each subject reflects reasonably well the number of applications).

If you are really really interested (perhaps you have a child of your own who might apply one day) then the Student Room forum threads on Oxbridge are an absolute mine of information.

The universities' own admissions pages are also full of info and they are really pretty transparent about what they are looking for, far more so than in the pre-internet days in 1992 when I applied, when you just plumped for a college, went to the interview and hoped for the best (actually perhaps the old way was much less stressful!).

In terms of what they are looking for, it's a real lively and enquiring mind, a real interest in discussing the subject, and a general "would I like to tutor this person?" test. I don't think having umpteen extra curricular brownie points counts for much - the interview(s) are very much academic ones.

You don't have to be a genius (god knows I wasn't!) but you have to be the sort who likes a good discussion and is used to expressing their ideas about things. Beyond that there's a big dose of luck involved - did you gel with them and they with you etc.

In terms of whether its worth all the bother of applying to Oxbridge, I don't know whether it gives you that great an advantage over any Russell Group university (but I suspect there is some advantage - people are still impressed by the Oxbridge tag, and the the tutorial system, where you spend an hour a week one to one with an expert prof, weakly trying to argue the case for the drivel you wrote in your essay, is certainly character building!). But in terms of the student experience itself, I think there are advantages - especially the tutorial/supervision system, the beautiful and inspiring surroundings, the top-flight facilities, and the fact that you get so well looked after in terms of accommodation/food/financial support for those who need it. There was no "grunginess" in my student experience - three years of beautiful (and cheap!) accommodation in the college and no need to resort to the private sector, a daily cleaner and bedmaker (!), daily food in a medieval dining hall, umpteen book grants, bursaries, travel scholarships. I was so well looked after I couldn't believe it!

HTH
Bumps

And as Bink says - you had to sink or swim. The lecture timetable had to be bought from the bookshop - it wasn't just given to me! - I met my Director of Studies at the start of term then never saw him again until the end, found out what supervisions I needed to attend, with whom, and signed up for them myself, managed my term so I could get all my essays done, and then had a quick meeting with my tutor at the end of term to check I was still alive and okay! There was nobody to hold my hand. There are plenty of people who just could not cope with that amount of independence at age 18.

Bink - I think that the point you raise about the extent to which students are hand-held at university is a very valid one, and I agree that IME Oxbridge undergraduates do need to be (very) independent learners. I think that is a traditional feature of the British university system and that in all those universities where most of the academic staff are themselves the product of Oxbridge, there is an expectation that students look after their own learning to quite a large extent.

My sister was at Cambridge reading for a similar degree to mine when I was at Bristol and I didn't think there was much difference in the extent to which we had to get on with things on our own. However, I do think that the pressure upon, and expectations of, my sister were higher.

Of course, things may have changed now, it being decades later .

Being clever is no where near enough. That is almost taken as a given.

I remember from my own application to Oxford (many years ago), that they were looking for those who were capable of independant thought and formulating their own ideas. At my interview, I was asked a question on the English paper I had answer and had to say that I had absolutely no idea whatsoever and had never considered that particular aspect of a play. On general questions, I was prepared to argue my corner but concede when someone said something that I thought was correct and had not considered. They are looking for people who learn and reflect, not the intellectually arrogant.

I will be encouraging my children to apply when they are old enough. Oxbridge aspires to be an environment which promotes intellectual merit and I think that is something I would like my children to be exposed to. In addition, I cannot underestimate the impact that it has had on my ability to get jobs. That may not be laudable but it is pragmatic.

What do you mean by the value system, tatt? It seems to reflect the values of our culture and also as you say what employers are after too and as you also say employers want someone with fairly good personal skills for many but not all, jobs. If you can't speak in your Oxford Interview or an interview with an employer you're not likely to get very far whereas my daughter who was at Bristol didn't have an interview. She didn't get AAA (got AAB same as I did - qu. whether AAB in 1979 is the same as AAB 5 years ago but silly to try to compare). So without an interview you do get different students presumably, the incoherent one who has good exam results and wrote a good personal statement on the UCAS form will have as much chance as the one who is good speaking. But I think an interview system is better if a university has the time and money for that.

The values are that not everyone can get in. That alone puts some people off who want truly comprehensive education.

HolidaysQueen

Yes, I think you've hit on an interesting disjoint between, on the one hand, how well looked after you are in material terms (e.g. years of cheap accommodation with a cleaner and bedmaker, great extra-curricular facilities, libraries, book grants) and, on the other, the extent to which you are just left to manage your own academic work with minimal input.

Of course there's plenty of advice and guidance on academic matters available, but you just have to have the nouse and confidence to seek it out (took me till the third year to do this!)

It's odd that on the one hand the college took great care to carefully hand paint "Miss J.E. Bumpsadaisie" on my staircase and over my room door each term, but on the other hand my director of studies had no idea I missed most of my term's essays due to glandular fever!

I think things are a bit better nowadays, esp with the internet. I've been helping a younger cousin with his application recently, and I notice that the History faculty now actually tells students what they need to do to get what mark, and publishes comments on each set of exams so that next year's cohort can learn from them. Reading lists for papers seem to be standardised and available on line, rather than just dreamt up in each supervisor's head. All this would have been unheard of in my day - I had no idea what one had to do to write a first class essay, and felt it was a mere twist of fate on the handful of occasions that I managed it.

If I can (loosely) draw a couple of those points together - in my experience (gulp 13 years ago) Bink's point about students needing to actively seek out opportunities in order to make the most of Oxbridge was where the extra-curricular activities came in at interview.

I had two interviews - one subject-related, one more general. The general interview focussed almost entirely on one unusual interest I had mentioned on my UCAS form. I think the fact that I was genuinely passionate about something fairly unusual, that I had developed the interest independently and pursued it doggedly, was what got me through that more general interview.

Of course luck was also a major factor...

That's a good insight ghostbuster.

I can't claim anything at all special about my extra-curricular stuff at school, but as part of the literature extension thingy I did after Highers (I'm Scottish, and old, and don't know if Highers even exist any more) you had to write a weeny mini-thesis ... I did a very enthusiastic one about those evangelical weepies published by SPCK (the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge) in the 19th c. - Christie's Old Organ and Froggy's Little Brother and so on - and spent hours in the Edin Nat'l Library calling up every one I could find & having a lovely sob over them - and talked about them in interview too - so I suppose that provided evidence of independent intellectual goal-seeking.

swot bink

I am finishing my PhD at Cambridge after a considerable gap - first degree from Russell group. I have been tutoring first years here throughout and a couple of friends have asked me similar questions after thier dcs did not get in.

It is fantastically oversubscribed and there must be an element of unpredictable subjectivity in the selection process. My tutees, while all bright, did not strike me as exceptional on the whole and my gut feeling is that most of them could be interchanged with the top half/two thirds at any Russel group uni without noticing the difference. You get a handful each year that really stand out straight away is being a bit special. That's been my impression.

I get very irritated when people assume I will be pushing for dd to go to Oxbridge. It is pretty intense and high-pressured. Definitley sink or swim (absolutely so as a postgrad - off you go, see you in 3-4 years...). I think it would be pretty grim to be here and struggle. If dd wants to apply I will support her but I will definitely not be grooming her for to that end or suggesting that it is the Holy Grail. I will, however, definitley be selling the Russell group, unless there is there is some good reason to choose elsewhere (e.g. special subject choice, or just obviously unlikely to get in).

As for colleges - put a popular one first if you like but always a less popular one second. Popular colleges will not accept second place and there is something of a tunnel from some of the private schools.

thanks for that Acinonyx - interesting

ds likes to be the best - he likes to compete academically and he does see oxbridge as holy grail

i have long tried to convince him NOT to apply but dp has quite rightly said its his choice and win or lose - its better to try

so try he will but it feels like a minefield from where i am sitting

about being looked after - IME (which is admittedly 10 years out of date) this varies from college to college, not all colleges offer book grants, and not all colleges offer 3/4 years in college owned (so so cheaper) accommmodation. The prospectus I think usually does make it clear though how long they can accommodate you for.

IME compared to friends at other unis doing arts subjects the workload was much heavier - 3 essays per fortnight. Also the lecture schedule didn't always tie into the tutorial/essay schedule - so say the contract law lectures may be on the term after you study contract law!

NotanOtter - If I stay here I am actually quite anxious that dd might feel nothing else is good enough (dh is also associated with uni). I imagine your concern as mine would be, is that he should not feel unduly dejected if he doesn't get in. If he's keen - then I wouldn't stop him applying. After all - he might get in and every one will be happy! It would just be such a shame if anyone felt second-rate by not getting in. It's a bit of a lottery.

TotalChaos - that is still a problem. Lectures are sometimes out of sync with the essays (and yes it's a heavy load in shorter terms). Just lack of organisation and planning - teaching is not the highest item on the faculty agenda.

(And congratulations Acinonyx - presume by "finishing" you are in that lovely downhill freewheeling stage of nothing left to do but the references.)