Cambridge - Son regrets applying.

[Squoink]

Our 17-year-old is doing A-levels at College, and has now applied for universities. He didn't originally consider appling for Oxbridge, but his teachers advised him to do it. He even went on a school trip to Oxbridge to have a look around. Anyway, he has applied, so is now waiting if he'll be invited for an interview.
The problem is that he now regrets applying. He considers it a lot of effort, especialy compared to the other universities he applied for. He especially hated writing his personal statement.
He doesn't really want to go to an interview, and I can understand that. He'd have to travel a very long time (between 6 and 7 hours if there are no train disruptions), he'll miss college and he'll have to spend at least one night, possibly two, in Cambridge, and after all that effort and spending quite a lot of money which we've actually been saving for something else, he might still get a rejection. His predicted grades are A and A* level, but he may not achieve those.
He has two offers from two of his other choice universities, which have lower entry requirements, so he's sure of a place to study anyway. He likes those two at least as much as Cambridge. He's not sure he'll fit in at Cambridge and he's afraid that the work pressure will be too much.

From what I've read I think he should be fine there, study-wise. Socially I don't know; he's not a very social person, so I suppose that'll be an issue everywhere. He is worried about the usual: that it'll be too posh for him. None of his (step) parents has gone to any university, so it's all a bit alien to us.

My son is normally very confident and relaxed, but this entire Oxbridge application stresses him more that his exams -or anything else for that matter- ever have.

Should I push him to keep applying or would it be better for him to withdraw his application?

Does anybody know why candidates are not allowed to put both Oxford and Cambridge on the forms? Just curious really....

Because it would nearly double the workload and they're already interviewing fewer people than they used to in order to be able to cope. AFAIK.

I suppose you could argue that universities like Exeter have to cope with double the workload by being put as insurance.

I guess if it was standardised, they would have to rely on tests rather than interviews.

Well, no - because Exeter don't interview anything like so many.

And if you make it tests not interviews (lots of subjects include test plus interview atm), someone still has to set and mark all of those tests. It'd be quicker, but still time-consuming.

I guess it's a vicious circle really - the more Oxbridge are set apart, the more they're able to keep relying on the interview system, and the further apart they become (because as someone else said, all universities used to interview).

There used to be a problem with places like Exeter/Durham and co, on occasion at least, not interviewing or offering places to otherwise suitable applicants who were in process of applying to Oxford or Cambridge, as they assumed they would choose Oxbridge if given an offer. I don't know if this is still a problem. I also remember that many places, including Leeds and Nottingham, said at open day that for popular courses such as Law or Medicine, straight A predictions or grades would not guarantee an interview let alone a place. Nottingham had so many applicants for Medicine they had to turn away many straight A students (for want of a better phrase!) - I know this from someone who was involved in admissions.

If your ds wants any interesting/important job in life, he will have to make an extraordinary effort, possibly involving extra travel and extra input.

But the effort you describe uilen is sales essentially. There is no effort made to ensure that the right people get a place.

But currently there is no choice for academics outside the top few institutions: if they don't fill their courses, they may lose their jobs in the medium term. (Or, in practice, if you are a top rate academic, you will have to move elsewhere, probably outside of the UK.) BTW the failure rate is still non-trivial in many courses. I don't accept that most departments in my field are tinkering with courses for sub-standard people to pass; repeat years, upholding decent standards, are far more common.

Again, I think it is remarkably easy for academics at Oxbridge to criticise "marketing", when they have (with no effort required) a steady stream of strong applicants. Society has distorted views of universities, with some courses (not Oxbridge) getting strong students based on out of date reputations, reputations which I am sure will not supported by the REF, and are not supported by any form of assessment of their teaching.

I dunno, I hear what you're saying, but the current atmosphere of bums on seats, can only result in the ultimate devaluing of British university education.

British university education is clearly declining (and I don't think Oxbridge is unaffected) but this is to a large extent in the hands of politicians. Personally I think numbers should be drastically reduced and number caps re-introduced asap but I don't think this is going to happen.

I think he should go for the interview. If he doesn't he might regret it. Also he might find when he goes that he likes it.

My view would be to just go to the bleeding interview and agonise later, when you've been offered the place.

uilen I intended no criticism of the academics involved. They have no choice of course.

I teach at two universities. One Oxbridge. The other not. I can see the difference in approach and subsequent standard of education.

The fault lies with university policy, which in turn responds to state policy.

Slight tangent but what subject do you teach at Oxford/ Cambridge Word? Interested because you say you did law at undergrad and write fiction too, but haven't mentioned postgrad at all. Have you moved from access stuff into an academic post? Don't feel you have to respond, just curious how it's worked.

Hi Molio.
I came to teaching by a very odd route really. It was never my plan.

My UG study was law, but my PG was not (some of it in the US where we lived, some of it here).

I was asked to teach a few bits and pieces as a guest. And it was at that point I was asked to get involved in access, which I gladly did. Since then, my teaching has increased as I've been asked to do more. I absolutely love it, both the teaching and the access work! But I am at my limit and I know that. Books bring in the money . Also, both universities are free to fire me tomorrow...

The biggest challenge at the moment is that I've been asked to be involved in admissions. Obviously the ultimate decision most definitely does not rest with me, but it's still a huge thing. Or it seems so to me.

I will PM you my subject.

I mean I'm sure it's obvious. But one attempts to keep things a tad anonymous.

Thanks Jeanne - interesting last paragraph. Seems to happen in most countries too. It is all most complicated.

Let us know if your son gets an interview Squoink. He should treat it as a fun weekend away if he does get one.

OP, I would recommend your son makes his way to the interview. Going to Cambridge or similar will make your CV stand out for life and open a lot of doors and contacts. Most people there are normal - the public-school types just make more noise and are easy to fix on as stereotypes. And to be honest if going into politics you need to experience those people and not be intimidated by them, and in fact be able to understand, influence and work with them.

At least if he goes there he could count it in or out.

OP, of course it should be your son's decision but an informed one not based on myths about how posh everyone will be.
My son has just started there and despite similar worries he absolutely LOVES it! The college system means that it is so easy to get to know like-minded people but he will not be forced to be sociable nor isolated or forgotten about. When we visited him recently you could really see that it's a community of lots of different types of teen, but who all seem proud of their college and really enjoy their subject and it was so nice to see other students saying friendly hellos to him as he wandered around college. None of the ones we saw were posh. As a Mum it made me feel a lot less worried about him! It made me wish that all Unis could be college-based (I have younger DCs).
Looking back to this time last year, Ds was quite stressed because somehow applying to Oxbridge becomes more public than other applications, but he came from a school with no special Oxbridge scheme, interview practice etc. and was just himself in the interview (though the interviewers were pretty tenacious at certain points in the interview, don't know if that's common). They didn't seem interested in what he actually knew, but got him to think through possible answers to unfamiliar topics so I wouldn't worry if he hasn't done lots of extra reading.

I heard you mention money, OP. We aren't very well off but DS1 got into Oxford (Balliol, PPE) He was also very shy when he went. He met lots of quiet nerd people like him, most of his friends were from state schools and it was a lot cheaper to live there than his younger brother is finding it at Leeds. They are only away about 24 weeks a year and DS1 kept his old job on at Tesco on a bank basis. Although they are not encouraged to take outside work while they are at Uni I got the impression that anyone struggling could help at events or in the library etc. DS1 got quite a few opportunities he might not have got elsewhere - such as meeting politicians at the Oxford Union debates and being paid to write an article interviewing someone he had always wanted to meet. DS1 now has lots of friends and is far more confident (probably as much due to living off the Cowley Road for a year than in college) I'd encourage your son to pursue it for now.

I think it is unfair to say that many other universities put almost no effort in

This.

And Oxford &Cambridge receive extra public funding to maintain their tutorial system, enabling one to one tutorials as one of the main ways of teaching. Gosh, if all universities were funded like that, we'd most of us do it.

I agree with you UptheChimney. From what I've seen, other universities put in a colossal amount of effort & don't have the benefit of this extra funding. I wonder if this system will last?

Littleham, I assume that the extra funding is to help Oxbridge maintain its place in world rankings. As I understand it Universities elsewhere will offer large salaries/research funding to big name academics and there is a need to compete. Places like LSE/Imperial take in large numbers of high-fee paying International students as an alternative way of ensuring the numbers add up.

Even with the extra funding apparently only 12.8% of Cambridge's teaching income comes from the Government (Higher Education Funding Council for England grant). LSE is even less at 10.1%. The picture is one of lots of commercial drivers and declining Government influence.

As someone who recently wasted paid full fees for a very mediocre university with a chaotic and unprofessional administration and teaching team (although very deceitful convincing marketing) I am all in favour of proper market forces applying to universities, and for more funding to those that deliver better run courses.

upthechimney I didn't say universities put no effort into teaching or tutorials etc.

I said they put almost no effort into the admissions process ie filtering which applicants best suit the courses offered.

I stand by that.

Obviously effort goes into marketing and garnering interest from prospective applicants. This seems to me to be missing a huge chunk of the process.

This is not the fault of the staff

Dontgo indeed!

I think the expansion of university education has resulted in some very poor quality courses being offered in some very poor quality establishments.

For the same price as those of very good quality!!!!

It's a racket, for sure.

Why should Oxbridge get extra government money for teaching "to maintain its place in world rankings"? Shouldn't this come from the students themselves? Or shouldn't Oxbridge have to bid for it? I think UK students would start to be a lot more critical of what is on offer at Oxbridge is they had to pay several thousand more per year for it. And if bids were allowed there would be some pretty strong competitors for extra teaching money outside Oxbridge.

Note that salaries do not differ significantly for academics at Oxbridge v non-Oxbridge as the latter are not necessarily worse. Oxbridge also typically doesn't offer much in the way of research funding to its academics - they are expected to get their research funding from research grants. Furthermore Oxbridge academics are often necessarily the most successful in getting research funding - if I recall correctly the EPSRC Oxford funding per academic is actually lower than that at a bunch on non-Oxbridge universities at the moment.

That's true, but there are a lot of very good courses in excellent universities too. I can understand why people working there might feel a bit peeved.

I guess in places like USA it is done with higher tuition fees and alumni donating money, which isn't ideal either.