Went to parents evening last night. DS1 should easily get in Oxford apparently?

[FreakinScaryCaaw]

He's only 3 months into year 12 so am surprised they'd know so soon?

His English teacher called him a genius. Luckily ds1 is modest and I managed to get him in the car ok as his head hadn't grown He isn't telling anyone. I have

I was secretly hoping he'd go to Durham near home so this came as a bit of a mixed blessing if I'm honest.

Have your dc/s been to Oxford? Or are they going?

His psychology teacher was heaping praise too. She said if there's a lull she knows she can go to ds1 for answers.

God it's hard though isn't it? Realising they'll be going soon I know it's for the best and has to happen but it's still tough.

I wish schools wouldn't do this. Nobody is a shoo-in to oxford. There may be 'only' 4 candidates a place but the standard on paper is sky high. At interview, it's more variable:) I've seen candidates where schools told us the candidate was the cleverest student ever to grace their doors, only for them to fail to get enough marks in the HAT to even get an interview.

Having said that, of course he should apply, it soubds like he has his head screwed on the right way! Though personally I'd say the history course at Cambridge is more interesting!:)

The trouble is that admissions tutors have to compare polished diamonds with diamonds that have been forged in a tougher environment. How can you possibly compare the two at interview? I can see why it would be so very tempting to pick the polished diamond.

How can you possibly compare the two at interview?

I have a friend who used to interview candidates at Oxford. She explained to me that as admissions tutors they are instructed not to ask questions that rely on prior knowledge, but have to ask questions that allow the candidates to demonstrate how they think. That way, they are able to compare.

Certainly, the polished diamonds are likely to be more practiced at the right type of material (because certain schools send many candidates, they know what is going to happen during the interview), "better prepared" (as another interviewer told me) and possibly more confident. The interviewers, afaict, seek to look beyond that to identify talent.

I imagine diamond experts are fairly skilled at spotting gems that are going to polish up well.

Really? As you say, one interview is an unseen passage to discuss, but the other is very specific questions on one topic (requiring detailed prior knowledge and debating skills). Nothing much on personal statement.

Perhaps it varies from college to college.

law firms who recruit like the fact Bristol is on her CV (that counts more than the degree subject). So if you have an idea of career work back from that

This is what I have always known, it's not the actual subject, unless it is a vocational degree, it's the University and the grade, the fact that you have worked hard for three years to get a degree is enough to prove your diligence and intelligence. So a History degree from Oxbridge or Durham can take him wherever he wants to go - Well done to your son!

Just to throw a spanner in the works, I ran into a young woman I know last week who went to a former polytechnic to study Law. Privately I thought at the time, "good luck with that," being all snobby and versed in MN about how no one could possibly do better than being a minor conveyancing solicitor in Cleethorpes with such a degree. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that she has a place on the training scheme with a Magic Circle firm. Btw she also did the sort of A Levels that would have the hair of any MNetter worth their salt standing on end. Just goes to show...

"He may be uninterested in making much money now but when it comes to keeping a family, getting the best girls, buying a property it will certainly matter."

Christ on a bike- that must represent an all time low.............

There are bright people outside Oxbridge and Durham. Brightest & most diligent person I know by a long way doesn't have a degree. Second brightest went to UWE.

Well sort of. You expect them to acquire knowledge during their a-levels, regardless of where they went to school! But they are asked questions on an essay that they submitted, on a subject they have an interest in.

But in all honesty? Those at the very top stand out, whichever school they went to. Those at the bottom, probably ditto, though I know some extremely successful academics who failed their oxbridge interview on first try because they were so lacking in confidence that they didn't do themselves justice. Those in the middle, all with their strings of A*s and glowing references? Well, I think we could probably pick them out of a hat and they'd all do well.

You'd be surprised, though, how many candidates, including from extremely posh schools rule themselves out very quickly. If you're asked what history books you have read and you um and er and say 'well, does reading the paper count?', then it's a fair bet you probably don't have the necessary commitment... All the interviewers I know have similar tales of those who seemingly demonstrate zero interest and commitment in their subject beyond the strict limits of their A-level course. And interviewers are pretty skilled in working out who has been overly well prepared, as they tend to answer the questions they haven't been asked:)

OP, if your son wants to get in, take note! Academics want to teach bright AND interested candidates.

Disclaimer: I no longer interview at Oxford!

I've been reflecting on this as I try to shore up the confidence of a comprehensive educated DD who's just returned from an Oxbridge interview convinced she's mucked up. She had the nice open questioning Zoemaguite describes but still froze and gave less than ideal answers (eg forgetting all the many books she has recently read) because she's just not used to one on one. I can't see how tutors can really see beyond the surface when some are so much better polished....But the taste of intellectual debate she had from the other candidates has just made her want it more; it's lack of experience and confidence rather than appetite and intellectual ability that can make candidates appear less able. Oh well, here's hoping for a telepathic interviewer!

Unfortunately classicsgirl you are right that interviewers are not telepathic. I've done that 'frozen in headlights' thing in job interviews; I know it's incredibly frustrating when you feel you haven't done yourself justice. I do think there's a gender element in there as well - really bright boys from comprehensives tend to fare better than girls in interviews, unfortunately.

Having said that, I don't think feeling that she's given less than ideal answers is necessarily any indication of having done badly, because on the whole, the questions are pretty difficult! I suspect some of those who think they've aced it probably just haven't realised how difficult the questions were! I remember a girl from a comp who sent very few people to Oxbridge who burst out crying halfway through the interview. I'm quite certain she went home thinking she'd totally mucked up, but she was offered a place. I still like to think of her face when she got her offer letter! Best of luck to your DD.

"I also think some state school kids are very thirsty for knowledge and keen on their subject, but just don't know how to access proper history books"

oh, ffs!!!!!!!!

Classicsgirl My dd did the same in her second interview. She is 'interested' and has read heaps of books (all summer long), but seized up with panic. So frustrating for her....

Why is it considered acceptable to make a candidate wait all day until the evening to go to an interview. Panic attacks start around midday when other candidates come out saying how 'awful' or 'fantastic' their interviews were and by the time the evening comes they have turned into a miniature sweat balls!

Loads of lovely things, but the long wait needs to be changed.

I didn't say 'proper' history books. Any history books will do! All public libraries stock them, and in these days of the internet it's even easier. And the need to show an interest in the subject beyond your A-level course has always been very explicit in all the course literature. I didn't go to a public school, but I certainly had done extra reading, based on books suggested by my teacher. 'Citizens' would count, Madrigals!

Littleham, there could easily be 70 or 80 candidates to get through in 3 days...however you schedule it, sadly some candidates will have better times than others.

But evening interviews? Why not split it up over a number of days or interview less people? It would take the pressure off the university staff as well.

Having just dropped ds off at Oxford today, I have to say the system is completely ridiculous and out of touch with the modern world. They insisted he be there at 10am but his first interview isn't until late afternoon. There is no way that it was not known quite some time ago what time his interview would be so why not ask him to turn up half an hour or whatever before the correct time? Instead he has to sit about like a lemon for hours!!! We had to set off from home at the crack of dawn when there was no need for it.

His second interview is late tomorrow afternoon - what a stupid system. Does Oxford not wonder how everyone else manages without keeping unfortunate teenagers hanging around for days?

I think the system must be designed by some sort of sadist. I just hope ds isn't invited to interview at any other stupid college so they can force him to sit about for even more flippin' hours.

Classicsgirl I recall reading somewhere that the interview is just one of several things that they take into account, when they sit around a table and make decisions on which candidates will be sent offers. If someone didn't perform well at interview but did well on everything else (written test/work, past and predicted grades, and reference) then I would expect that the interview would not count too much.

Littleham waiting all day for the interview does sound hard.

Raidne I share your frustration. DD spent four days there last week. Neither she - nor anyone else for her subject at her college - was required for the fourth day, but by the time they told them that it was finished, it was too late for most of them to get home that evening.

I had called before to see whether being there on the fourth day was really necessary, and was told that if she were needed but not available she would be putting herself at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, she enjoyed her time there and is very inspired to work hard as a result.

It was more than hard RandomFriend. She went into a flat spin by the end of the day. When she rang me just before her interview she said she was so tired that she wanted to lie down and go to sleep, that she couldn't think and was feeling very stressed. I had to talk her out of the panic on the phone! She had both her interviews at the end of the day, after waking up about 5am each day.

Sorry to break it to you Raidne, but she had to get dressed in her interview gear for a third day and sit around until she found out that she was being sent home rejected.

Totally archaic. Lovely people, but it obviously needs changing.

It is a pretty unique system - in my DDs case, she went pretty much into her interview and actually feels she wld have done better with some time before it - she had both on day 1 so then had three days regretting every word she says. Random friend thanks for the reminder it's not the only factor! Same goes to littleham.....the problem now is convincing her other unis are worth a look because she had such a great time discussing literature and putting the world to rights with the other candidates. Just a shame she couldn't be as articulate in the interview!