Parent of oxbridge candidate-peersupportneeded

[funnyperson]

OK so my DD is applying to Oxford for entry in 2011 and has a 75% chance of getting rejected so I am told by the Oxford website so I reckon a new thread would be helpful for us parents who may end up with joy or grief but in any event need to keep sane enough to support our loved ones. Any tips on maximising chances of success at this stage?

I've name changed so I can post this as I'm an Oxford tutor and have been following this discussion with interest. I wanted to say a few things.

1. At least in my faculty and my college, we work REALLY hard to attract applicants from state schools. This includes:

• open days - I do heaps of these where I talk to students and try to dispel the myths they hear, allay their fears and make Oxford seem far less intimidating
• seminars with teachers - we talk to them about how to prepare their students for interview
• outreach to schools - our admissions tutor travels to state schools across the country to help encourage applicants

1. We work really hard to make the process as transparent as possible - eg the podcasts online for Oxford where tutors talk about admissions. People are always happy to answer questions in my experience

1. We know that students from independent schools have all sorts of advantages, interview coaching etc etc. We try as best we can to see through it via the interview, which is more that unis that just admit on raw marks do. In my experience, we've often admitted students with lower grades from state schools who showed promise (independent thought, clever ideas) over the more polished private school student who didn't. We're not perfect but we try. We also have information about their school and we use that to see if they're doing well in a difficult environment which we take into account where possible.

1. It's actually quite miserable to be doing all this, yet every year the papers run stories about us being biased (or, now, apparently racist). That's basically calling me a racist snob, which I'm not and nor is anyone I know at Oxford. I appreciate it's complex, of anyone we know that because we do this every year, we read all the applications and we are human. I spend nearly an hour talking to each applicant, I'm the one who hands them a tissue when it gets to much and the tears come. We stay up until all hours agonising and debating over who to take. It's the most grueling, exhilarating, heartbreaking week of my working year.

The simplest way to understand what we're trying to do is realise that the tutors are people who are passionate about their subject and who will have to teach these students. So they honestly look for students who are clever and interested. I have no interest in admitting someone based on the colour of their skin or their social background. Why on earth would I? It's actually pretty absurd to think I'd want to spend three years of my life teaching the less bright student from the posh school over the clever state school student. I want the ones who love my subject, wherever they're from.

Finally - I know lots of your children don't get interview prep, but of my students who've had it, they almost all said it didn't help at all and in fact some of what they were told was wrong.

The best prep they can do is read all the information online, come to an open day and email tutors in their subject and ask them about it. I'm always happy to answer emails like that and I'm sure most of my colleagues are too.

Good luck to all of you who are still waiting on the mail. I hope it brings good news.

but if nearly 40% of applicants are from private schools, that's nearly all the private school population...and 46% of the places go to private school kids - that's still a massive bias towards private schools

btw intelligence measured by IQ has a very similar distribution in the private schools system to that measured in state schools

So what's the reason for the bias, Heroine?

Sutton trust website
www.suttontrust.com/research/

will find and post the link to the specific report on Oxbridge entry

summary of elite schools research

www.suttontrust.com/news/news/elite-schools-dominate-admissions-to-top-universities/

Quote from the Sutton trust on the recent report on university entry for those who receive free school meals

'The figures also show that the proportions of FSM students varied significantly between highly selective universities. For example, King?s College London has 5.5% of FSM pupils among its students compared to Bristol?s 0.9% (see table in the Appendix to the attached report).'

This, I think, is the most interesting and possibly relevant statistic- it shows that there is a university bias in relation to admissions which is independent from all the various school/social factors which affect a sixth former receiving free school meals.

So, what is Kings College London doing that Bristol isn't?
Is it the prospectus? Students look more 'ordinary' in the KCL prospectus. Is it a London thing? Is London more used to diversity ? And if so, is it because of the city or because of the faculty (more used to diversity) or because of the applicant profile? So if it is a London thing, what are the comparable proportions for out of London universities? How much is poverty tied up with ethnicity? Also one should take into account that not all eligible for free school meals will necessarily apply- only the more desperate- many many more will be in need but not apply due to pride.

I found it very interesting that the St Georges Medical students are much more diverse than, say, Imperial or UCH.

Holidays nearly over. I shan't be able to post or read as much. Will miss it. Will read that nobel prize winner you mentioned betelgeuse. Only if I can afford it...have just discovered that DS did not buy ANY textbooks!!!!!!!!!

DrLollie "I appreciate it's complex"

There's the rub. Make it complex & arcane and it will inevitably favour those 'in the know'. Outreach may help to a certain extent but it is generalised information. Schools that get admissions year-after-year will have specific, current, hard information; others are operating on urban myth.
Much gets more, and all that.

that is interesting funnyperson. I suspect university catchment demographics play a large part. Poorer children are more likely to apply to their local universities.

I do think though that a lot of the problems start much earlier than at 16+. For instance the sutton trust have also found that children growing up today in the poorest fifth of families are already nearly a year (11.1 months) behind those children from middle income families in vocabulary tests by the time they are five, and the gap continues to widen, so it's not entirely surprising that this group is under represented at university. It's not widely thought to be an innate ability thing (Xenia may disagree), but many poorer children do not realise their potential for some reason and underachieve massively. By university application age many do not have the level of skills needed to successfully access the courses. More needs to be done in the early years and throughout school to put this right, rather than foist all the blame on university application processes.

Surely, beyond passion for a particular subject, universities must and do recruit students predominantly on the basis of skills already mastered rather than on raw intelligence (whatever that may be), and therefore privately educated children do better at the most selective universities because they have parents who are aware that the range of skills developed by state education is necessarily, because of budgetary constraints, limited, and have chosen to opt their children out of state education and offer them more developmental opportunities paid for from their own pocket?

Why will that ever change? Why should it?

betelguese My 'in the know' comment referred to schools getting students into Oxbridge year after year.
The students getting on after graduation is a whole other matter, especially in a recession.

btw University of Warwick research showed that state-school pupils with sub straight As are more likely to get a first than private school kids with straight As...

One of the skills missing from state education especially the comprehensive is the art of essay writing which is a major part of the entrance tests for many oxbridge subjects.

Friends of ours whose sons transferred from our local primary to prep at eleven spent a lot of time in the first year or so just learning how to write essays which was then developed ready for common entrance in year 8. This is something which cannot be done in a mixed class where a good proportion of are aiming for grade C at GCSE.
Most state teachers are excellent as they have to cover a wide range of abilities from year 7 to sixth form but do not have resources to prepare a couple of students for the elite universities. If they are lucky there may be a combined education authority oxbridge day. Compare that to many of the independents who will have enough oxbridge entrants to justify an extra preparation class.

Heroine, as snorkie has pointed out, it's not a massive bias towards private schools. Of those who apply, broadly the same percentage will be accepted from private and state schools.

leosdad I couldn't agree more about essay writing skills being essential for entry to Oxford and Cambridge, especially as they both ask for samples of written work. I think it is good and important that they do so- another hurdle in the process of the application which both my children found educational and which helps discriminate.

gerontius There is an 'acorn' weighting -details on the Oxford website -designed to give more weight to higher grades if achieved at a low achieving school.

Given this, it is not grades which are causing the pupils from state schools to be rejected. The interview process and, probably, the quality of submitted work is worth looking at -especially, it seems to me, after the discussion on this thread, there is a lack of transparency about the pooling/second interview process.

Betelguese jobs are a key issue, but the guides all say that Oxford and Cambridge graduates have very good employment prospects compared to other universities. For example many top companies will only recruit from about five universities.

Perhaps the times have come when if we want jobs and want our children to have jobs we must compliment and nod and smile and flatter and wine and dine the Gods........NO.

Be polite and pleasant and give praise where it is due
(and it is often due) YES, but where processes are not transparent, where there is apparent wide variation between admissions tutors/individuals, where it is appears possible that the meritorius among the disadvantaged may have little hope of success...well then it is up to those who are fortunate to be sincere about any problems they may have perceived.

Although, having just re-read the first half of my post and thinking of lessons to be learned from Greek Tragedy when horrible things happen when the Gods are displeased .......perhaps I should scuttle into the shadows only to come out to compliment and nod and smile and flatter and wine and dine the Gods. After all, I have two children and a job. The Oxbridge- for- the- disadvantaged crusade can best be fought by those who have nothing to loose.

Incidentally I just want to reiterate that DS went to a fantastic history open day last year organised by the Oxford faculty. Sincere compliment.

Incidentally Ponders asked Sieglinde if the number of applications to Oxford was up this year and didn't get a reply. Does anyone know the answer?

Also thinking rather wryly about one of my opening posts in this thread. Hah. I thought I was being paranoid. No, it transpires I was being insightful and foresighted.

Does it make me feel like the Oracle at Delphi. No it does not. It makes me feel uncomfortable. It is not the tutors on this thread who have put me in a bad mood. Its the jumped up teens and students in their early twenties on TSR. It is the post membership (of Royal College) junior doctor syndrome. The minute they pass a post graduate exam they think they know all there is to know. It is like having a 16/17 year all over again. You know that phase they go through when mum is embarrassing/stupid/totally out of date/musnt be seen anywhere near their school friends etc before they get a bit more mature and loving again (perhaps yours didn't go through this). Well Junior doctors just after they have done their post grad exams are the same- all senior doctors overnight become fossilised, out of date and patronising. So it is on TSR. No grey. No you might know this and I have heard that. No discussion or real listening. All neg rep and pos rep. No interesting rep. Mostly, if you disagree with anything they say, neg rep. Really really depressing at times. I don't know why I bother. Or why I let it bother me. I don't envy Oxford or Cambridge tutors. Except for the fact that the Oxford medical students are truly delightful to teach. Understated, bright and interested. But I wouldn't be an Oxford PPE tutor if you paid me. All those arrogant opinionated articulate aggressive private school clones who think the world owes them and they know best. I wouldn't last five minutes.
There. Rant over. I am going to cook the dinner.

1.Self directed learning and curiosity-state school pupils will be brilliant at this

2.Essay writing and analytical skills- state school teaching possibly but not necessarily variable- actually state school teachers have access to fantastic online resources which private school teachers don't. But will state school teachers raise the bar high enough for the more able pupils?? Do they know how high the bar needs to be raised? Have they the capacity to teach- I suspect they do.

1. Talking/questioning/discussing.-here is where state school children can be quiet; conditioned not to display their brains in a too cool for school culture; possibly though not necessarily without family backing; coming from large classes where asking questions will incur the mockery of peers. Here also is where the ethnic minority male will have been conditioned to be quiet and 'respectful'. Or, if talkative and outgoing, may well have been labelled aggressive.

So one could try debating/drama/MUN/TSR/debatechambers/nagty/iggy/
school nurse on health/general studies/critical thinking as previously mentioned .
Or try asking teachers at the top private schools what they do.

I do those science outreach sessions for state schools. They are never quiet. Always lots of lively interest. Wonderful.

I do practice interviews at my son's school for medicine. I am always astonished at how even the very bright think they don't need to read much detail about diseases mentioned on the personal statement. I am sometimes impressed with how quickly the brighter ones have grasped the essentials of approaching ethical dilemmas.It doesnt matter if you are a quiet medic. Surgeons don't talk that much. They have to have stamina and be good with their hands and have a good visual memory and good at remote controls.

Actually I had another thought. In Oxfordshire there are many pockets of not so privileged- Cherwell High School and some of the little villages and the Vale. How much does the university look after its own 'catchment area'? I just remember one of the mums who posted here who lived in Oxfordshire but never entered an Oxford College and so much wanted her child to do so.

Betelguese you are right as usual. Hats off to the Oxford and Cambridge tutors for teaching the most articulate bright young things of the day and dealing with all the critical press and mums. Oxford is the most beautiful and intellectually vibrant place and we wouldn't have a thread on it if we didn't love it so.