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.

Not wanting to hijack, but does anyone know if Oxbridge positive discrimination also applies to state grammar school entrants? Just curious. OP you must be very proud of your son, whether he goes to Oxford or not!

Some people told me that the 2nd and 3rd years that are hired to look after interviewees are actually spies for the admissions staff. To see if we were the right type of sociable.

I was there for four days. It was okay but only cos I found the secondhand section in Blackwells. And it was CC so, nice views. I don't think it's that bad- it's a nice trip and you get to explore Oxford while you're there.....

As there are more applicants per place for state ghrammars than most academic private schools there should surely be discrimination against the state grammar pupils not vice versa.

Thank goodness my dd2 isn't reapplying.

the right type of sociable - please someone tell me this isn't true!

velour: nope, categorically no way!!! I promise! I find it really sad that this kind of rumour gains wings. The interviewers have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the social graces or otherwise of their intake. Personally I didn't pay much attention to the rugby team or the rowing or the debating team or whatever else was on the personal statement either. It really is all about the academic ability!

I agree that the Oxford interview system seems a bit perverse - Cambridge manages to do interviews without this crazy 3-day-long ordeal. I have no idea why it evolved the way it did - I just turned up to my prearranged timetable!

As for the interviews, randomfriend, I'm afraid it isn't really possible to do badly at interview and still get a place. The opposite might apply though - if the other metrics aren't stellar but you do incredibly well at interview, that might swing it.

Actually I think the trend towards trying to make everything 'measurable' for admissions works against some state school candidates who might not fit into standard boxes. I find it quite unfortunate that the HAT and other admission tests are used to weed out a percentage of candidates (20% or thereabouts for the HAT, if I recall correctly) who don't then even get a chance at interview. Some of those who will have received no preparation at all for that kind of open-ended exam will fall at the first hurdle, whereas if they'd been given the chance to come and talk face-to-face (as used to be the case), the admissions staff might have used their discretion. As it is, there were always a few (predominantly state school) candidates who if I'd been using my gut alone would have received a place, but just couldn't, because the numbers didn't add up (as in, their assigned 'grades' at GCSE/HAT/essay/interviews were not high enough to put them in contention).

Lol velour ! Certainly not in my day!

My dd had 4 days there last week - got told on the 3rd that she wasn't required any more, but all bar one of the group of friends she made stayed the extra night anyway because they were having so much fun! So it really does depend on the person.

To be honest, I think if they are thrown by the interview process,they will sink without trace in the hothouse that is an 8 week Oxford term........

Littleham, let me say again, because it's so important: the 'right type of sociable' is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to who gains a place.

Indeed, if you take the average social skills of the average Oxford fellow, you'd see that sociability very often doesn't rate very highly at all in their scheme of values:)

it isn't really possible to do badly at interview and still get a place

zoemaguire thank you for that correction; I must have mixed it up, as I thought I had read a whole list of criteria that would be taken into account when deciding which candidates will get offers.

Great news! Men do quite we'll at primary level. Does he have good interpersonal skills?

There are lots of criteria, random, but the weighting (at least in history) heavily favours interview.

It is a mad system. I wonder what attempts they make to collect feedback from applicants to find out how it can be improved upon. Even simple things can make a big difference to stress levels.

Rather depressing that these 'bright' DC are not resourceful enough to find something useful to do when in Oxford for 3 days, apart from stress about the interviews...

What a bizarre comment (and name).

It's no marker of brightness to be unflappable, is it? And Oxford at the moment will be rotten with Christmas shopping crushes and the colleges mostly closed for interviews. There's a limit to how much I think I could get excited about wandering around the free bits of the Bodleian, or going to the Pitt Rivers, if I were trying simultaneously to keep my mind on my interview.

Don'tGoToRoe - Nice, very nice.....not. Actually she did make friends and went to the market, but they had to stay close to the notice board and it doesn't stop stress does it? Might not be a big thing for you, but it is for her.

Hakluit - happen to agree with you there & think York may be the better option, but then Oxford did kick this off with its access scheme.

Zoemag - I'm very pleased to hear you say that. Big relief if she did get in (although she is 95% certain she has not...unless someone's gut was working overtime of course). Do you have to do well at both interviews?

Little - hard to answer. If one is properly catastrophic, that may be enough to rule out a candidate. But if one is fabulous,that could equally rule them in! Officially, they are all marked out of 10, and it is all totally a numbers exercise. In practise, the tutors decide on an order and adjust interview marks accordingly, which sounds dubious but I think isn't - much as the powers that be want to turn it into a totally robotic exercise, it will never happen. One amazing interview and one rubbish one add up to an unremarkable average, but after discussion the amazing one might win out, if that makes sense? Mostly, its a surprisingly harmonious exercise. Admissions people really do genuinely want to do the right thing and see past superficial polish as far as humanly possible. There is an awful lot wrong with Oxford, but the admissions exercise really has come a hell of a long way since the days when proficiency on the rugby field and daddy's contacts were enough to get dim Tim a place!

Thanks for that explanation. I really understand it now.

I have been thinking about what zoe said upthread about the importance of the interview.

if the other metrics aren't stellar but you do incredibly well at interview, that might swing it.

Surely everyone who is invited for interview has good enough metrics to get in? I would have thought that those that don't have good enough scores somewhere or other or overall are not invited? At least, I hope we were not encourage to get an international flight just on the off-chance that DD might perform brilliantly at interview albeit without the right metrics!

As for not being able to discount the interview if it goes badly in the sense that the candidate freezes, surely it is possible to take into account the fact that some candidates are just not used to one on one? If they cannot take that into account, then what would be the point of all the outreach work? I would think that the kind of preparation and teaching style at some of the independent schools would prepare candidates will on this front; and this is exactly what Oxford would be trying to look beyond?

Could the situation have changed since you were interviewing for an Oxford college, zoe?

Random - this has been bothering me too, mainly because my third daughter (aged 16) will very probably be drawn in this process. I wonder whether I would be doing her a favour by advising great caution?

sorry - drawn into!

Littleham, certainly advise great caution - everyone should! A line that caught me on a "guide for Oxbridge prospective applicants" that I found on the internet from a well-known public school is: "Consider yourself a long-shot – fully expect the worst. You will perform better and feel you have nothing to lose." That is my mantra now.

If you google that phrase, you should find the whole 38-page document. Or I can send it to you, if you like - it is definitely worth reading if you have a 16-year-old considering applying. I found it quite by chance, when I was googling something that I didn't understand that was listed as relevant for DD's subject. DD's school doesn't have anything like that, and her subject teacher didn't help much.

Overall, I think it is worth applying just for the opportunity to go and stay at an Oxford college - for DD, it has motivated her so much to want to try to do well academically because she wants to be in that atmosphere if she can. Also, getting the UCAS form in for the October deadline, as well as getting written work ready early, can only be a good thing to help her maximise her results in A-levels.

Of course everyone invited to interview is potentially good enough to get in, but inevitably there is a range. Unless things have changed (always possible, but I last interviewed only a couple of years ago, so suspect the essentials are the same) the HAT (plus fancy combo of other metrics) is used to deselect the bottom 20% of applicants. That leaves quite a lot open in terms of quality of essays submitted, GCSE scores (remember you don't actually have to get a certain set of gcses to apply), school references etc. So yes, on paper some look more likely than others. But it is still the interview that is the deciding factor, and some that look very promising on paper turn out to perform very badly at interview, and vice versa. In practice, the competition is such that the vast majority of successful candidates will have performed extremely well on every metric. As I said, though, it isn't entirely a numbers game, and neither should you wish it to be, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Re the fact some candidates aren't used to one on one (2 on one in fact, nobody interviews alone), obviously interviewers do their utmost to put candidates at ease. As I said, it is quite possible to be so nervous to the extent of bursting into tears mid interview and still get in. A lot of state school candidates do do themselves complete justice even if the format is unfamiliar. And if somebody came from a school with zero oxbridge history (a more realistic division than state/private, as some state schools have long Oxbridge traditions), we would truly bend over backwards to help them do their best. But no, the system isn't perfect. I'm not sure how it could be Abolishing the public school system would help.

One point though - it is easier than you might think to see through superficial polish, because incisive intellect is quite hard to fake - not impossible, but hard. There were certainly lots of candidates from v expensive schools who had clearly received extensive interview coaching, but were still unable to cope with an unexpected tricky question, because they didnt have the necessary mental agility. But other things being equal, I'm not denying that practice is an advantage. I hope that the internet (and availability of documents like random located) has contributed at least slightly to levelling the playing field of unequal information.

Littleham, Also, for your DD3, she (and you) will have learned a lot from this application.

Thanks, zoe for the detailed explanation of how a department can eliminate the lower 20% of interviewees, for history at least. Every little bit of information helps to build an understanding of what might be going on! Would it be possible for a student to think they have done badly, but in fact may have demonstrated some of the qualities that an interviewer is looking for?