A*s and Oxbridge

[BrendaBlackhead]

Does anyone know with any degree of certainty if Oxford and/or Cambridge really field candidates on the number of A*s? (Excluding low-performing schools/special case candidates)

I ask because this year ds's cohort did unexpectedly worse than they were expected to in some humanities subjects. The school is battling on with the exam board but no news yet.

It seems so unjust when in the year above 80% achieved A* for Eng Lit and in ds's year (which was apparently a more able cohort) only 40% did.

Also I see that some schools (particularly private) routinely go for remarks which seems unfair on those students/parents who are less informed about the procedure or even that you can do this.

Obviously if you have generally low grades then it's curtains - but if you have 6A*s instead of 7, or 8 instead of 9 it seems not only tough but unfair.

Re: Westminster et al, when you look at the figures for Oxbridge some subjects are dominated by public/private schools. These are often subjects such as Classics. Even if a state school does do Latin the students have not been doing it since the year dot and also they most probably won't be doing Greek. Also apparently private schools know how to play the game: state school pupils apply in their droves for mainstream subjects. And why not? But the canny can see that Old Norse has a successful admission rate of 40%. So if you don't much care about the subject but it's Oxbridge at any price then I suppose some institutions have the knowhow to shoehorn in candidates.

Turning that round a bit, Brenda, I suspect that a lot of teenagers are pushed by parents/wider family/teachers towards the more vocational subjects because they are seen as safe bets. Families with little or no track record in higher education can understand easily the value of doing Medicine and Dentistry. They know those are well-paid, secure jobs. They also believe (not always correctly) that doing Law or Business Studies or Accountancy is going to be a passport to a good future. They can be persuaded that Economics is a good bet because it may lead to a top job in the City.

Subjects like Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic are never going to attract a large field of applicants because a lot of people would immediately assume they are useless. Pupils at independent schools and the top grammar schools are maybe more likely to see the value in studying these more abstruse subjects and to have the confidence that they will still be able to get a job at the end of it all. Depending on your point of view, this is either because they tend to be more academically confident to start with or because in some cases at least they will have the Old Boy Network to help them along.

It would be a dreadfully bad idea to apply for a comparatively unpopular subject you didn't love just so you could get to Oxford or Cambridge. You've still got to study it for 3 years, after all!

The thing is I know someone who did just that. And he did walk into a top job, and is now... very, very rich (an arse, though).

But you're right, for the average person, taking a punt on Celtic is not an easy decision: a) you may be rejected as they can see through your masterplan b)you may hate it and c) you may end up sitting next to your parents on the sofa for the next ten years with a big debt for company.

I did not mean to hijack the thread, but was just curious to hear an informed viewpoint.

"Spoonfeeding", "playing the game" etc seem to be MN chestnuts. DS' experience was that many of his friends applied to Cambridge for maths and applied maths subjects and got rejected when "tactically" they would have had a better chance had they applied to Oxford. Oxbridge was not the be all and end all, certainly not to the extent that it can appear on MN. Just very attractive if the course is strong, and good to have a chance to leave London.

Expanding from Littleham's point, if the norm is Ivy League, Oxbridge and strong Russell Group, the pace in the class room will be fast, the culture of learning, strong. So assuming teenagers are more influenced by peers, an individual child is more likely to have high aspirations.

I've just read the following on the 'Parents and teachers advising on A Levels' thread...

The cold hard truth is that the number one mistake people make is giving up maths. An humanities admissions tutor at Oxbridge recently said that they now look favourably at maths for humanities as well, and she personally would advise everyone applying to her university, for any subject, to do maths.

irregularregular is this true in your experience? DD (Y12) is hoping to apply to Oxford next year for Classics/Classics & English. She's taking English, Latin, History and Philosophy at AS and has strong GCSEs (10 A* & 1 A) and I'd hate to think that the lack of Maths at A Level would disadvantage her!

Also, and again observation, it was often the very brightest who chose the eclectic subjects, both for A level and for University. I wonder whether knowing you are strong even within a very selective environment, gives a level of confidence that allows you to follow academic interests: classics, theology or whatever, rather than focus on a "vocational" degree.

Marni, there are two ways to interpret that quote.

1. Everybody should do Maths to AS or full A level. If you don't, you're at a disadvantage.

1. Nobody should be put off doing Maths to AS or full A level if their other subjects are Arts/Humanities. It won't look odd and it will be well regarded, but it's not essential to do it.

I'd read it the second way.

DD2 has applied to Cambridge to do Natural Sciences, which I know is very competitive. She's bright and a hard worker rather than finding things easy, and has applied to Cambridge because her grades are in the right area (AAAA for AS). I'm worried that if she does get in, that she'll struggle, as she gets anxious and panicky, particularly before exams. She's also just undergoing tests for mild dyslexia/slow-processing speed, which would fit with things taking a little while to sink in.

I think she'd be much happier somewhere like Exeter, which she really liked, so am quite conflicted about whether I want her to get in or not. On the other hand the Supervisions would really suit her. I guess I just have to trust the Cambridge process - and that they know who will flourish there, and who would struggle.

Mimsy I hope you're right although I'd struggle to interpret the quote itself the second way! Maybe that's what the admissions tutor meant though...

I think it's always best to regard everything said on MN with great caution, Marni!

For one thing, some schools/colleges have such difficulty getting Maths teachers/large enough groups to justify doing Maths A level that they really can't offer it, or at any rate not to a good enough standard to get their good candidates through with a top grade. So it would be an equal opps issue to insist that everybody should have Maths.

For another, you'd have to be daft to do Maths A level if you weren't really good at it, especially if you didn't really like Maths much. An A or A* in any other subject at all will always trump a B or C in Maths.

i get alot of stick from friends and family as to why i continue to let dd attend a failing school risking her career and future especially since she is very able. But I try not to be too pessimistic about it. I
know had we been able to afford her to go
to a good select independent she would
have less stress and drama and have a
easier path with knowledgeable teachers
to guide her. She has up to now, been ableto achieve top grades and is able to
work around the schools and its
shortcommings, she has to be more
proactive about how to achieve top marks
which i guess all high achievers would do
any way. Its all been a long learning curve
for her she can only do her best with what
shes got so to speak but atleast deep
down i know she has gotten this far more due to her own merits and will power. Shes not afraid to fall down and a pick herself
up. This kind of experience I think will help her through university life whichever uni she goes to. In a way im glad she wasn't a straight A* student and never got below a B as I wonder how she would have coped mentally when they do get the wobbles which invietably it will no ones perfect all of the time.

Littleham tell her not to worry about the B at AS. In fact there are a fair few Bs floating around. DS1 who has just started at a pretty, old, competitive college got a B in AS Maths the June before last (having pulled it up from a U in January :)). No-one appeared to care a bit. DD3's boyfriend who read History at the most ridiculously over subscribed college for the subject also had a B. Quite a few do (mostly in their fourth subject though). That in itself isn't a real deal at all.

I'll tell her that Molio. I suppose she could have been more strategic and chosen an easier fourth subject, but in my opinion a B at AS Maths might be more impressive to future employers, even if it affects the odd offer.

fairycakes - I would say that your dd is in with a good chance with the course she has chosen. Really hope it works out for her.

So it would be an equal opps issue to insist that everybody should have Maths.

A huge number of courses insist on maths already. No one has suggested that is a valid access argument (other than in the sense of "we need to do more about getting more people doing maths"). The same's true of many other A Levels.

I'd also be very interested to hear of places in the country where you cannot do A Level maths either at your local school or at a reasonably accessible FE college. Because those either are, or will become, STEM access deserts.

An A or A in any other subject at all will always trump a B or C in Maths.*

Always? "An A or A* in a facilitating subject may trump a B or C in maths, depending on the subject you are applying for", perhaps. Many, perhaps most RG STEM courses would take you with AAB with the B in maths, but a large proportion of those courses would reject you out of hand without maths.

The point being made about the humanities was that increasingly, good candidates have A Level maths, even if it's not necessary, and A Level maths is being seen as a marker of good candidates. It was a personal view from the person who was speaking, although it mirrors experience elsewhere.

For STEM, the narrow range of courses in RG STEM that are accessible without A Level maths is narrowing, and as more candidates do A Level maths, the opportunities for those without to get places are reducing (and the mathematical demands of the courses will increase as the candidates have better maths). There is, for example, only one computer science course in the RG that doesn't insist on A Level maths, and several that strongly recommend further maths.

littleham I think both or dd's are pretty much in the same boat not much difference. DD had emailed one of the college admission tutor at Cambridge back in the summer when she originally had AAAB before her remark on the B she got for history. They encouraged her to apply even with her B and were quite sure she would get a interview as her best 3 subject was above 85% which was required for the BPS course she was enquiring about which isn't as competitive then some of the others. In hindsight, now that she got her 4 A's after remark she was probably better off applying to Cambridge less emphasis on GCSE. But dd was adamant as she definatley prefers the EP course Oxford offers and felt the modules she could choose were more interesting and fascilliated her ambition to do research psych. We know that that even if she sails through TSA successfully her biggest hurdle is the interview she's a introvert can only talk passionately about her subject anything else will be like "lights on no one in"???

All good points, duh. I was over-generalising, I'm sure, especially about the B in Maths being outranked by A* in (say) Media Studies. I personally think it would be a good idea if more people studied Maths for longer (in spite of the fact that I would have hated it, but that had a lot to do with how I was taught). I'm heartened by your views about the utility of Maths for Humanities students, as it was one of my son's A level subjects (he's doing a History degree).

Re the point about not being able to do Maths A level, though - I've read on MN more than once about schools and colleges struggling to get enough candidates to run Maths A level, or having one mixed-ability group including students who got a B at GCSE and who then find A level almost inaccessible. I agree with you that institutions in this position are going to be STEM deserts. It's shocking but it does happen. In a school/college like that it would probably be better to do something else.

8 As seems to have achieved MN status as an important benchmark*

A couple of the schools I know of are using the "8A*" criterion for selecting which candidates they advise should be applying to Oxbridge.

I read somewhere that Oxford, when assessing GCSE's, take account of how the applicant did relative to the school. So, if the applicant goes to a school where a large proportion of students get 7A or more and only two people get a "B", having 5A may not be enough. On the other hand, a candidate with 5As from a state school where As are scarce would be looked at very favourably.

AllMimsyWereTheBorogoves
" I've read on MN more than once about schools and colleges struggling to get enough candidates to run Maths A level"

I think you're confusing Maths and Further Maths. Not having enough students to run Further Maths is quite common. I've never heard of a school or college not having enough students to run Maths. Does anyone actually have a concrete example of this?

Thanks fairycakes. She does have slightly lower at AS and is going for a more popular course (History), so it is unlikely. But boy, she would get an A* in talking! Although an academic interview would make anyone nervous. I think shyness must be a genetic thing, as we have two introverts and two extroverts!

Further Maths is the only dodgy one at my dc's sixth form, but so far they have run it.

I've read on MN more than once about schools and colleges struggling to get enough candidates to run Maths A level

Are you sure you don't mean Further Maths? Are there seriously schools that cannot run A Level maths, which is the single most popular A Level in the country? If a school can't run the most popular, just what is it running? I'd leave such a school.

I think its quite rare to have kids that are gifted in both arts/humanities and sciences /maths. They tend to be one or the other if they do, do both they tend to find one area harder than the other. Only a observation.

I think its quite rare to have kids that are gifted in both arts/humanities and sciences /maths.

It's difficult to tell, because the UK system forces people to specialise at 16. The US system doesn't to anything like the same extent, and Yale students don't appear to have problems making distribution or passing Freshman Comp.

This article is very interesting. I like the graphs!

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/can-a-perfect-run-of-a-gcse-grades-dictate-how-the-rest-of-your-life-will-pan-out-8761839.html

I read a newspaper article recently about the surprising number of schools that don't offer A/level maths. Not further maths, just maths. However, I absolutely don't think that that should be a reason not to require A-Level maths for subjects with a strong mathematical content. All schools/colleges should be offering maths and should have the funding to do so. There is a limit to how far it is sensible for universities to go in making up for deficiencies in the school system. We're not school teachers!

As far Maths for Humanities goes, I would be surprised if it was seen as anywhere near required by most tutors - but would be seen as one good subject to have taken among a number. And the maths GCSE might be given special attention as a general indicator of a versatile intelligence.

I do think that taking A level maths keeps more options open than any other subject - but it's almost never a good idea to take a subject that doesn't bring out your best.

I read a newspaper article recently about the surprising number of schools that don't offer A/level maths.

It would be really interesting to know what the actual levels are. Schools that don't teach the single most popular A Level seem like an odd proposition. Is it that they don't do A Levels full stop, that they're BTEC-only shops? Which is a subtly different problem.