Looking for the helpful Cambridge admissions tutor who posted a while age..

[seeker]

......if you're around, could I ask a couple of questions, please?

Women in Balliol??????? The very idea!

Edinburgh if you were lucky. Dundee if you weren't.

When I was at Oxford lots of people popped down to London during term. The trains were a pain for getting back which is why The Oxford Tube did so well.

Cambridge seemed much more distant, but there were lots of people on my train when I went back there on a Sunday (I only worked in Cambridge).

St. Andrews seemed far posher, but I only saw the students on a train as I was going to Aberdeen.

Oxford and Cambridge offer a very intense experience which is why they look after their students, and ban term time working.

But these things are often in the PS, because other universities may well be interested

Former Admissions tutor at two RG universities ( not Oxbridge). I now generally focus on research and PG teaching, but still do my bit interviewing applicants. In my field we interview everyone likely to be offered a place.

Seriously, we're not really that interested in extra-curriculars, unless they are related to the degree you want to read. At the level of achievement we expect at GCSE and A levels, I'd take for granted that applicants have good extra-curriculars, as otherwise they'd not fit the profile of interesting, over-achievers that we look for.

It's a pattern, I think: high achievement is rarely limited to just one area of your life.

UptheChimney one extremely competitive university recently, I'm sure accidentally, circulated the minutes of its Admissions Committtee which said that they were actively seeking very high achievers in sports and the arts. It made interesting reading....

Just found this and can't resist adding my two penneth.

I went to a very bog standard northern comp where extra curricular activities were non existent. My parents left school at 14 and were clueless about academia so I had no advice from them. I got all As at GCSE and applied to Cambridge after getting AAA at A level. I originally applied to a decent RG uni and was all set to go but when I got my results I changed my mind about my subject and decided to give Cambridge a go.

There was an admissions test for my subject for which I did no prep at all. Hadn't even seen a practice paper. No prep for interview either. I had left home at 17 and was working in London so just took a day off work for the interview.

I found the interviews (subject and general admissions tutor) quite enjoyable. It felt like a chat. Maybe they gave me a break because of my background but in hindsight I think I probably came across as very independent (and in no way pampered!).

My dh went to the same college but went to private school, did practice tests, interview coaching, had graduate parents etc. I have no idea how I got in really but I am so glad I did.

It was very tough academically. I got a 2.1 (1sts in some exams). Have since done other degrees and post grad at other good unis and found it easier to get 1sts there than my Cambridge 2.1. Not because I was an experienced student but because the workload was lighter and the standard required for good marks not as high.

Socially I found Cambridge very intense and weird at first. People from posh schools slotted straight into the drinking societies and boat clubs and at first I thought I'd made a big mistake. However the standards are so high, supervisions so intense, the competition so fierce as everyone is very bright, that i think it fundamentally changed the way i think and work. Sure this might have happened elsewhere but, having studied elsewhere, I'm not so sure. I also made great lifelong friends, met my dh and have found it has opened doors for me for my whole life.

That said I did have a pretty big psychological wobble in my final year due to the academic pressure. I appreciate that other students face massive pressures in other ways but anyone thinking of Cambridge should be aware that it can feel like an academic pressure cooker at times.

I would advise your daughter to give an application a go if she's interested. It sounds like you'd be a good person to catch her if she doesn't get in.

Sorry that was a bit of a dissertation...

niminy you're obviously right. Even Oxford and Cambridge select their postgraduates/ staff from outside their own university at times. It is also true that certain employers obsess about Oxbridge degrees. Some London law firms apparently make Suits look realistic although there aren't a lot of employers who are so stupid.

The protected nature of life at Oxbridge is one of the benefits of going there. Students do have good facilities, low rents and good bursaries. I don't know if they actually get better or worse teaching but those who are leading authorities in their field aren't necessarily also good at transmitting that information to others.

As UCL has all the costs of living in London seekers child might need to consider if the extra costs of a London university would be worth it. Unless she could live at home it would be a lot more expensive to study there than Cambridge. Are there other universities to consider?

As seeker said it is too late to think about this when AS results are in. College choice would have to be rushed. Seeker you can visit in both July and September, there are open days in September too. College choice may be important.

alreadytaken may I ask why is college choice important?

On what particular point and in what way is niminy 'obviously right', alreadytaken? On the point that all degrees are equal I would say that niminy was obviously wrong.

Of course not all leading authorities make good teachers but many do. And many less authoritative academics are mediocre at communicating too. I'd rather have an expert who was flaky at teaching than a middling academic who was a flaky teacher. Just because you're not a recognised expert doesn't make you a good teacher per se.

If you simply mean that niminy is 'obviously right' that there are bright people beyond the confines of Oxford and Cambridge well then yes I agree that that is a very obvious point.

alreadytaken why now the disparagement of London law firms? :) As employers, London law firms are 'stupid'? Really? . Could you share your experience please?

This is my final post on this. If you want experts in the field of philosophy to teach you, don't go to Cambridge. The top departments for philosophy are elsewhere.

College is important as it can influence who you have your Tutorials with, as well as influencing accommodation and other factors. For example I would recommend my old college for anyone, as it can provide accommodation for all students (which saves you money as you don't have to pay rent for the vacations). Also how much opportunity students get to meet/mix with "world experts" can vary with college.

On teaching, I know that new lecturers at Oxford are being "strongly advised" to under take training, and obtain a qualification in teaching.

Only a few months ago, Seeker's DD wanted to be a theatre practioner. If this is still a possible interest for her beyond her degree, then I honestly can't think of a better place to go than Cambridge. Several people I knew while I was there are properly properly famous, or, properly successful (not always the same people ;) ) in a variety of performing arts, writing directing etc. There are massive opportunities for people there in that sort of field. If I thought for one moment that my DD1 was likely to get the requisite GCSE grades I'd probably advise her to consider it too, if only because the eclectic mix of opportunities there will better reflect her own eclectic interests and talents than a very focussed conservatoire course. But she isn't going to get the grades, so it's moo. (Yes we have been watching friends. Again. Send help. )

I was at Cambridge in the same year as a now very famous actor and a variety of extremely high-profile meeja types. We were supposed to be studying law but they spent most of their time hanging around footlights and various drama societies.

DH allegedly did maths but spent most of his time singing and playing his viola.

You get the idea- it's possible at Cambridge (as long as you choose a sensible subjects without too many lectures and practicals (ie not medicine or Nat Sci) to do a lot of your chosen hobby as well as study for your degree.

Russians despite the grade deflation last year 50% of the cohort got at least 5A (A, not A*/ A) and your DD is clearly towards the top of the pile. I think you're going to get a pleasant surprise on results day.

Read through most of this thread and wanted to add my penny; which is a bit live princessnumber2's penny.

I graduated from Cambridge in 2009. I'd suggest, OP, that if your daughter has a space to use up on her UCAS form, she goes for it. Reasons why:

Coming from a grammar school (a small out of the way one), not having grown up in the UK and being a "person of colour", I went to one of the smallest, oddest and most traditional Cambridge colleges. Mixed sex, but most of the fellows had been there for over 30 years, and there were indeed many people from schools that cost more than my mother makes in a year. I found that shocking, and actually segregated myself initially because I was nervous of those people. Now,my closest friends are those people, who turned out to be great people.

I wouldn't call it a pampered environment ... there's money, but to be honest not much to spend it on during term time apart from Jack Wills and Cindies nightclub ... I never felt poor and never missed out. They work you hard. We did 4 essays a week. I talk to friends from school who did my subject who did 2 a term; I could have hung myself. But it was worth it - as an enthusiast about my subject I wanted to learn as much as I could - if your DD is the same, then why shouldn't she consider Cambridge? The tutorial system, by the way, isn't (in my experience and that of my friends) a system of spoon-feeding. You bring your essay, your tutor rips it (and you) apart a bit and makes you think - there's no room for laziness there.

So, if you think your daughter wants to be in a collegiate environment and that the tutorial system will support her learning style, I wouldn't worry about her GCSE's. Mine were about the same, but I had a C in there.

Just don't let her visit the Pitt Club. ...

p.s. read through a couple more - yes, unless you do NatSci or Medicine you have time to do lots of other things - theater, music, sport, mooching in the bar. And if your DD wants to work in theater, the ADC is amazing and there are lots of opportunities to work on and backstage. Corpus playroom is also a great venue and The Shop (if it still exists, I think it does) is a student-owned and run creative space where they put on amateur theater etc.

If you do NatSci or Medicine you have time to ... row.

Of course not all leading authorities make good teachers but many do. And many less authoritative academics are mediocre at communicating too. I'd rather have an expert who was flaky at teaching than a middling academic who was a flaky teacher. Just because you're not a recognised expert doesn't make you a good teacher per se

Thank you for saying this, Yellowtip.

I do so get sick of the "wisdom" of top research professor=crap teacher. University is as ich, if not more, about learning, rather than teaching, and who better to enable and facilitate learning than a top researcher in the subject you're studying?

secretswirrels (hope I got that right) although the colleges make efforts to ensure that candidates get the same chance of admission wherever they apply the process depends on people. If you have a brilliant academic record the chance of admission probably is the same at any college but if you don't it may just depend on the person interviewing you. Therefore it makes sense to try and choose who that is. If you do get in then colleges offer slightly different things and you need to be sure you'll like living there.

UpTheChimney Generally the assumption seems to be that top research professsor = great teacher. Enabling and facilitating learning is a skill. If you are preoccupied with your research efforts it's perhaps not one that you work to develop. Of course you may possess those skills anyway but the assumption that you must have them is just that, an assumption.

alreadytaken I disagree with you on this as on so many other things (intercalated degrees excepted, on which I doff my cap at you as the unparalleled MN expert).

It seems to me that the received stereotype is rather that of the brilliant but socially awkward and crumbly don barely able physically to climb down the stairs from his set in his ivory tower to eat at high table, let alone mentally engage with his students. I believe the reality to be somewhat different, with just very clever dons of both sexes and all ages deeply interested in their students as much as their subjects and well able to pass it all on.

Do you claim different? And your evidence is?

The 'teaching" that I received at Cambridge was mainly superb. However, it was a very different kettle of fish from the teaching I have been required to deliver on MBA courses, and the teaching DH delivers as a RG academic (to admittedly much much much bigger tutorial groups). It is entirely possible that the majority of people at non Oxbridge universities wouldn't like the way 'teaching' is done at Oxford and Cambridge. That doesn't mean that the teaching is bad though, just that it's a case of horses for courses. There are so many different ways to teach....I've taught (at post graduate level) all over Europe (also in the US, and Latin America) and the differences in what is considered 'good' are sometimes quite extreme. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not holding myself out as a great teacher, I think I'm Skrot at it, to be honest. But I do have extremely wide ranging experience :(

seeker It is good to aim high. Esp if the AS grades square up.

If the AS grades do square up you will need to reassure your child that
a)It is a wonderful place
b)It is easier to do well and have a good time there, given the same brain, because of less travelling and the higher staff/student ratio. It is also cheaper.
c)There are a lot of people there from ordinary households.
d)The interview process is nerve wracking and so worth preparing for by lots of reading and discussing issues with family and friends this summer. It is this preparation which will ensure he/she doesn't dry up on the day.

If grades are excellent and he/she doesn't get in, I think a gap yah is a good idea personally.

If the AS grades don't square up, don't apply.

Hmmm. Dad left school at 15 to join the Army. Mum (from SE Asia), born into poverty, left school at 11 to go to work. Me - ex Army brat with a peripatetic childhood, but somehow good at passing exams and doing big sums with minimal effort, but acquired huge attitude problem because that's what my hormones made me do... OK. Therefore - not exactly trad Oxbridge material... (apart from social engineers at Kings perhaps?!)

Somehow got into St Andrews (pre Wills!) - had no clue where it was and was surprised to find out it was on the coast... (no joke!). Drank my way through the 4 years attempting 'a science'

Applied for an industrial PhD, not fully realising that it was actually at Cambridge (again - no joke. Got bollocked for it in one interview where I asked if I HAD to join a College as I didn't want to...>facepalm