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?!

Thinking further & meant also to say - I too would be very bothered if I thought it was valuing debating ability over substance - you'd really not get far (which is what I meant by talking about pitting wits) at all there if you were all mouth. (Presuming one of the exact things the interview is flushing out.)

Even as peers, as I remember it people were completely judged on whether they actually knew what they were talking about. They looked feeble very quickly if that wasn't the case.

Fact is, I suppose, that given the Oxbridge system (small tutorials, teaching via give & take discussion, etc.) it has to value both (and equally) depth of interest and ability to engage out loud. And, yes, that does prejudice certain sorts of people who have all the underlying ability but not the readiness to talk. But definitely nowadays Oxbridge is so not the only premier education route.

On the desummoning - this has changed just in the last few years at Oxford. Some subjects are now desummoning quite a lot (a third or so), because the numbers were getting so silly, but each subject has made its own decisions on it so it varies a good deal. In fact, presumably this is what happened to the original subject of this thread since it's been up for a few days now and there are no post-interview results out yet. The subjects like law which now have a centralised admissions test that's taken at school are desummoning the most as they feel they have their own results to go on. But the principle is to call for interview if there's any doubt - so for instance a candidate with slightly patchy results from a school known to be weak will still be called. We do take the schools into account, and the UCAS form includes information on the school's university admission rates (and for both schools if people have moved after GCSE).

Most subjects in Oxford (at least on the arts side) now set some kind of admissions test - some taken at school in advance (like law and history), some taken on your first day in Oxford (like classics, or language aptitude tests for people wanting to do languages they haven't done at school). The idea is that the interviewer will know the results of these tests by the time they interview - at the interview stage there'll already be a rough "order" of candidates established, though interviews can and do change this.

In general, there's a bias towards stressing our own methods of assessment over school/external ones. So a candidate that looks patchy on paper but does very very well in the admissions test will be a very strong one; whereas one with soaring marks in all modules etc at A level but who performs only averagely or poorly in the admissions test will be less impressive. (This is what happened to Laura Spence, for instance.)

'de summoning' - not inviting to interview?

Yes that's right. They're not actually summoned and then unsummoned, just told they haven't reached the interview stage.

I just remember talking with genuine enthusiasm and passion about my subject - Biological Sciences. This was back in 1992. I had read Richard Dawkins (who then had not published as much as today) and other texts outside the A-level curriculum, out of genuine interest. I used to ask for these books for Christmas etc (we didn't have much money as a family!) I didn't believe I would get into Oxford - I had my heart set on Nottingham and thought it was worth a try! My parents had not been to University.

I will never forget the moment my dad phoned me when I was at my boyfriend's house and told me I had got in. What a moment!

Good luck anyone who is trying. It is something to be truly proud of. I LOVED my course - it is hard hard work but is so worth it if you are passionate about your subject.

Of course things will have changed, but I got in in 1994(Xenia, I think I may know your brother [eek]), and Jumping Jellyfish mentioned being relaxed - that was certainly true for me. I knew I was likely to get into medical schools elsewhere based on my highers (I'm Scottish) and I'd had not Oxbridge coaching despite coming from an independent school, and tbh I only tried for Oxford cos I thought it was worth a punt (I actually stumbled upon the prospectus by accident!). So I wasn't really cripplingly nervous like some of the others - I was in it for the experience and so that I could tell myself that at least I'd given it a go.

I was asked some really interesting questions - testing my logic, deduction, ability to think as a scientist - but what really swung it for me I reckon is when the medics asked me about why I'd studied English Lit and not a third science at A Level - I got slightly indignant and launched into a diatribe about art and science not being mutually exclusive yadda yadda. I really rather enjoyed the slightly needly and combative turn the interview took - to be honest I've always loved a good scrap and I don't think it was something that anyone's ever actually taught me. (this was a third interview, my first college having decided I was good but maybe not for them)

That said, I soon realised when I got there that there were dozens of less independent-schooly "articulate" students there who were bright and interesting in totally different ways. I imagined it must be lots of fun interviewing them and trying to pick out the ones who suited tutors best. I also realised how many other people would really suit the Oxbridge system but who never thought they'd get in. There are a lot of people whom I've met since who were clearly bright enough (ie miles brighter than me) who thought they might try for Oxbridge but didn't bother because they thought it wasn't for the likes of them.

And of course since I've qualified I've appreciated that I would have thrived elsewhere (though I adored my experience there, and would simply love my children to have the same).

As someone who's just got an offer to read English at Oxford, I'd say that the tutors are looking for students with a real passion for their subject. That's something you can't really fake at interview. Insight, ability to cope with intense academic discussion and debate, and potential are all important. And sometimes they have to turn away applicants who would thrive at Oxford, just because of a lack of spaces, especially for the most oversubscribed subjects. I go to a state school and it was clear that I was very nervous when I walked into the interview, but after a while I forgot that I was being assessed and began to enjoy it. Interviews are very similar to tutorials, so in a way they're testing you out to see how you might cope with the real thing.

This thread is 3 years old.

So?

My son, much to my surprise, did get into Oxford and is now in his third year at Balliol doing PPE. He got 4 A's but at a state school, which may have helped. He is not the most socially polished sort of boy, a bit geeky and shy so I did send him on a 2 day information course about the subject and Oxford so he would feel more at ease - it didn't cost much at all and the main benefit was that he knew a bit more about the subject and the environment.

His friends on the course are a mixed bag of public/state school pupils, and like him they tend to be centred on their studies and don't go in for extra curicular activities. Typically they are a bit geeky, like him, quiet and rather sweet - very polite etc. I'm very proud of him.