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?

"He is worried about the usual: that it'll be too posh for him."

Oxford and Cambridge were both more than 50% state school even when I went there (from an extremely ordinary comprehensive).

That was in 1988.

Surely your son is not so intolerant that he can't bear to be in the same place as a minority of posh people?

If he wants to go into politics, frankly he'd be nuts not to at least give it a go. Not because all politicians should come from Oxbridge, but because in practice a huge proportion of them do.

If Keir Hardie had been intimidated by contact with posh people, would be a very different political landscape today.

He is only 17. I was intimidated by heaps of things when I was 17.

Just wanted to point out that it's a myth that Oxford and Cambridge alone get extra funding for their tuition practices. There are several places that do, one of which is the University of London, which also has several colleges with international reputations but manages to avoid being included in this discussion... as do various arts universities.

Most of the HEIs in that list are conservatoires for fine arts, dance, acting, or music training, which were formerly outside the HEFCE funded system. They are not "arts" universities in the general sense of a "Bachelor of Arts" they are "arts" in that they are intensive practice-oriented institutions. Far more like Vet Science or Medicine in terms of hours of required tuition & training.

Very much NOT like standard universities. Oxbridge are funded to maintain their teaching via one-to-one or two-to-one tutorials for standard subjects. Many of the rest of us would love to be able to teach in this way. But only Oxbridge is funded for that.

It used to be that "laboratory" or "part-laboratory" subjects such as most "hard" sciences, plus modern languages, music, and drama (as taught outside the professional musician/actor training conservatoires) got a higher rate of funding per head of student (public funding was in Bands A to D). It was in recognition that these subjects often required lower staff-student ratios (SSR), or extra, (and expensive) equipment or space. However, it was not to maintain to very low SSR of Oxbridge, nor the 1to1 tutorial teaching.

But after the 80% cut in public funding for universities, this mechanism of banding funding according to cost of courses disappeared.

Oh, I'm not saying it's fair, or even justified. I don't know enough about it to hold a view. I'm pointing out that it is not unique to Oxbridge, as is often claimed. And is simply untrue.

Just from curiosity, what are UCL and SOAS accorded that additional funding for? And the University of London more generally?

SOAS teaches diplomats and spies obscure foreign languages and presumably pulls in lots of overseas students who might go back to run their own countries?

The University of London (I think) includes RADA, which is not otherwise on the list but is of that ilk.

UCL is just a really brilliant place (says an utterly unbiased alumna).

I'm pointing out that it is not unique to Oxbridge, as is often claimed. And is simply untrue

Er no, what I am saying is not untrue. Oxbridge receives extra funding to maintain its tutorial system, but teaches much the same curriculum as any other standard university. That is, they get more money to teach what the rest of us teach.

The HEIs in your list are specialist conservatoires, or special Vet or medicine schools. Very different.

Upthechimney the banding system of funding is still very much alive and kicking!

Sleeponeday - UCL etc receives that funding for specific academic institutes (Zoology in the case of UCL) that are of national importance, but not otherwise funded.

This funding is NOT for day to day subject teaching (not even to support Oxbridge's tutorial system) - that is met through the recurrent teaching grant. It is for institutions whose 'distinctive' provision is a public benefit and cannot be met through other sources of funding.

The fact that it is a separate allocation actually puts it very much at risk of being reduced, or abolished altogether, at a time of funding cuts - it's an easy thing to cut without pissing off too many institutions!

the banding system of funding is still very much alive and kicking

Not at my place ... well, that's what I'm told when I go to meetings which deal with resource allocation ... maybe the Dean is telling porkies

at your Dean - do your colleagues really think that Vet Med gets the same funding now as History?

Your place may well of course not use it as a method of resource allocation - but most institutions do still use it that way.

Oh I see what you mean ... I was tyhinking about HEFCE, not internal methods of resource allocation.

I was told by my Dean as HEFCE no longer funded 'part-laboratory' subject (which some aspects of my department used to qualify for) then we had to have the same resource per FTE as the lowest banding which is the other section of the Department for the whole Department.

I can't really blame the Dean: she has to do an impossible job. Well, we all do really. long gone are the days of sherry in the SCR ...

He's got a lot preconceptions. He should just go to clarify things because he's got no real idea.

They do fund Lab based stuff, although if all your teaching is returned under one of the purely Arts and Humanities cost centres then you wont'. But change your cost centre to say, a languages one, and your PG stuff gets (a bit) of HEFCE T funds, change to say 145, Media Studies, and your UG gets funded as well.

although if your institution is unusual and doesn't allocate internally the same way it won't make any difference. IME though Deans don't really get the funding system....

Thanks for explaining, titchy, that's enlightening. :)

Actually, the funding for some of the universities mentioned here is not quite as described - it is almost unfathomable for even the most clued in uni DoF for sure! but the 'extra funding' for ox and Cam is not for the tutorial system - the additonal funding is for various very specific aspects which attract national funding or specific.

it used to be the case - 10 or 15 years ago - that lumps of additonal money were given to various institutions for just generic extra costs relating to some aspects of their provision - those days are gone. There was a stream called special factor funding which is now all but gone. There have been a series of detailed costing exercises over the years to provide evidence for specific requirements for funding which, if proved, have led to continued funding, but if the extra cost has not been justified (on impact grounds) then the funding has been phased out. i cant actually think of any funding now which hasnt been scrutinised in this level of detail.

So, some of the extra money you see allocated to Ox and Cam is actually for very specific things - the libraries is an example. (it is def not for the tutorial system) Manchester also gets additonal money for the research collections in its libraries. As does LSE. As does SOAS - that's the additional funding you see in the SOAS allocation.

Conversely, the Uni of london no longer gets additonal funding for its library - so thats not what the extra money in their allocation is for. One thing it is for though is the School of advanced study (post grad humanities subjects). This is because there is no other way of funding those institutes (which make up the school) within the generic HEFCE formula - there is no other place like it (from a funding point of view). But the Uni of london as a whole is a pretty complex in institution for central funding - lots of parts of it which are just not like anywhere else - British institutes in Paris and elsewhere for instance.

Anyway, just thought id share what i know thats in the public domain - none its worth a hill of beans though for those of you within an individual department in a uni as your uni can fund any department exactly as it pleases!

Backandcall I didn't want to say anything, because this is just based on memory which is obviously fallible (especially with a baby!) but I recall the colleges talking about the abolition of the college fee when I was at Cambridge, over a decade ago. The college fee was extra funding for the additional costs of the system, and it was no longer being paid.

Cambridge has a Zooology Dept, mentioned as expensive. It also has a copyright library, which is a national resource, as well as various collections not held by colleges - the Scott Polar Research, for example - which cost them a lot, and don't afaik attract the sort of funding the Microsoft lab does for Compsci, for example. My vague memories were that funding specifically for the tutorial system had been withdrawn, and therefore I was surprised to hear statements that it was ongoing. Again, this was just academic small talk which as an undergrad I didn't really care about, and it's not evidence for anything so I didn't cite it... but it did surprise me, to be told that either my memory is wholly faulty, or the academics mistaken on funding.

It seems an incredibly complex subject.

You're definitely correct even with baby brain! The extra money Oxford and Cambridge and others get is not for the tutorial system.

This THE article www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/queries-over-special-funding-for-oxbridge/420748.article seems to say that as of 2012 at least some of the HEFCHE 'institution specific' funding stream payments to Oxford and Cambridge were a contribution to the costs of running the tutorial system.

Thanks for the link dapoxen - an interesting article which makes no sense at all! It conflates several separately allocated funding streams in its article - the WP monies; the whole institution funding stream and the special factor funding - all of which are easily trackable on HEFCEs own excel spreadsheets on their website (oh, what accountants do that passes for fun....)

The quote they share does seem to relate to funding of the tutorial system but the article header is clear its about the cost of interviews and the latter part of the article is talking about WP monies..... so i find it all very confusing, and this is my specialist area!!!

BeckAndCall Do you know what the institution specific funding to Cambridge and Oxford is for?

I think I've found the 2012 HEFCE report which that THE article is based on: www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2012/201216/#d.en.73676. It reports on a consultation on, and invites submissions for, institution specific funding.

As far as I can see, it doesn't contain a definitive list of what the funding can be awarded for. But paragraph 18 lists some factors which submissions should address. These include 'nature, type and amount of direct HE teaching' (one-to-one teaching is explicitly mentioned, along with use of current practitioners and very small student numbers) and 'nature, type and scale of dedicated facilities or specialist resources (with professional-standard performance spaces and dedicated practice spaces as examples).

dapoxen - it certainly includes research library funding for both of them but could well include many more streams mixed in there......
It would be relatively straightforward to find out on the HEFCE website....(but not from my ipad which couldnt cope with the masssive spreadsheet!)

to get back to the original topic - there are a few careers where Oxbridge makes a big difference and politics is one of them. My child is now in their second year at Cambridge and while I wasn't keen on them going (dislike the short terms and they are doing medicine where the lack of clinical contact is something I see as undesirable) there are advantages to the place. As you sound financially stretched the bursaries are generous and the accommodation costs low. To some extent they make up for that by eating expensive meals (formal swaps and eating out are a big part of the culture) but it's still cheaper to live there than most universities. If he wants to be in politics he is going to have to learn to eat formal meals and actually he'll have to learn to deal with posh people.

There are plenty of people at Cambridge who arent posh and plenty of geeks. The geeks find other geeks to mix with and perhaps even become a little more social over time. Everyone has a college "family" who help them settle in and if they are lucky are a continuing resource throughout their college life. At the least his two "parents" (one generally from his course) will cook him a meal in the first week and introduce him to another person (his college brother or sister) But if he's a very withdrawn type politics isnt the right career for him.

If he gets an offer and you want information feel free to pm me