Despite having the right grades, my child is not applying to Oxbridge because ....

[TalkinPeace]

• she wants to live in self catered accommodation
• she does not like the small sizes of the colleges / social units
• having to go back to college for lunch while doing a lab based degree does not make sense
• the whole gown and formal dinner stuff smacks of coat tails rather than standing on own feet
• she does not fancy fighting through hordes of tourists while moving between buildings
• having a tutor picked by which college they are based in rather than their research specialism seems very odd to her

Also, for what she wants to do, the course at Oxford is not that well balanced
and Cambridge, despite having a fab course was not a place that felt like home when she visited for 2 days.

So she will be putting other Universities on her form and taking a great deal of stress out of this house.

For what its worth, those of her friends I've chatted to are also ruling out Oxbridge in favour of other Unis because of the first four points.

What are other people's reasons for ruling out Oxbridge, despite having the grades?

If you genuinely thing that thick ultra rich kids are not shooed into Oxbridge, you are even more blinkered than my DD was when I was minded to start this thread.

In my subject the vast majority of academics were not educated at private schools - many are not British and many of the British academics came through comprehensives/grammars/sixth form colleges. Why on earth would they let in rich but dim kids when there are plenty of rich/poor very bright kids to choose from? What's in it for them, when they have to teach these kids for 3-4 years? Why would they have sympathy for ultra rich kids when they don't have come from such backgrounds? It doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand why should they reject somebody brilliant just because they come from Eton or Winchester? (The mathematician Tim Gowers comes to mind.)

It is BTW fundamentally different at US Ivy Leagues where funding a building would often get the thickest of kids in.

spinoa is right. Even in very academic schools many will not apply to Oxbridge because they may well not get in. I think it';s a pity if someone chooses not to apply because of something like lunches though which probably means she goes to a state school!

Agreed volcan.

When I visit schools for outreach, I have to do a lot of myth busting. A bit annoying that so many teachers buy into the myths but that's another thread.

But TP should know better. Her DD attends one of the best performing state sixth forms in the country. She's had her eye on Oxbridge for her DD for years. The research has been well and truly done.

If her DD decides not to apply then that's cool. But the decision shouldn't be made on outdated stereotypes.

If they did, it would likely be because the family have a history of heavy donation or the person would provide the required alumni PR. If neither of these are the case then I can think of any reason either.

Cannot^

I think some places put on a great show at open day and some are more perfunctory. This is us, we have nothing to prove, take us or leave us approach.
I went to the Warwick open day with DD, it was extraordinary. After the English talk DD had to hold me back from applying myself it was so inspirational. I wasn't at Cambridge but at the sample lecture DD went to there was no microphone and the lecturer mumbled so much that no one understood a word!
We had a similar experience looking at schools with DD2, we found out that the worst open day did not necessarily correlate with the worst school. Having said that, Warwick is clearly absolutely great and DD didn't choose it because she preferred to be in a town than on a campus.

She's had her eye on Oxbridge for her DD for years. That is where the problem lies, I think.

It can however, be difficult for children from high performing schools and colleges to buck the trend and not apply for Oxbridge/Russell Group Universities. I remember reading some while ago about a girl from one such school wanting to do oceanography at Plymouth, (shock horror an ex-poly) because it offered exactly the right course for her.

so in a competitive subject such as maths at Oxford, why are a significantly higher percentage of applicants from private schools shortlisted compared to grammar schools?

cathyandclaire - Warwick does a lot of marketing!

No Piddly, it's a weird intervention full stop. Perhaps you're just weird, which is fine (I guess). My posts are very straightforward indeed - you can put whatever gloss on them you like, but those will be in your head.

A very rich friend endowed a chair at a Cambridge college and the mum was extremely keen for her DS to go to that same college. His second tier but extremely experienced boarding school said not on your nelly, don't even try. I really just don't buy the rich thick kids thing, like so may others (also, to be fair, this boy was great, and not 'thick', just not Cambridge standard at all).

summerends Talkin's dd spent two days doing the Experience Cambridge scheme, as did my dd, although completely different subjects. My dd's days didn't involve anything for parents to attend - I drove her one day and she went by train on the other.

The organisation wasn't perfect (the start time changed, which meant those buying train tickets in advance were early, and my dd met one girl who'd stayed overnight because she thought she wouldn't be able to get there in time - except then they changed to the later time and she would have been able!) and there was some misleading information given (telling a bunch of prospective MMLers that they will need to submit an English Literature-style essay as one of their pieces of work when applying, turns out not to be true when you actually look at college MML pages, and was a bit alarming to those not doing Eng Lit A level), but there was no attempt to engage with or impress parents. (A Good Thing imo!)

So the TIP family just didn't like the city, afaict. Complaining about the punt people seems to be scraping the barrel

MadamArcati if that's true (I haven't looked at the stats, but I'm sure you have!) I think it might simply be that the more academic indies do a lot more maths, as a matter of course. A friend applied for a job at Uppingham 3 or 4 years ago, and was slightly daunted to find that they had three A level maths groups doing 15-18 modules. And there's been a document linked here giving Oxbridge advice to Radley sixth formers, which said that re applying for Maths, they'd only recommend it if you were in the groups doing 10 modules in the lower 6th. Which is a bit gulp-inducing if you are a kid who's thought at your comp to be some kind of maths genius if you're doing Maths and FM.

I also haven't looked at any statistics and know nothing about applying for Maths (got in on Biology for an Arts subject) but, if what you say is true Madam the beginning of the story starts long before you get to applying.

Setting aside astonishing late developers the sort of child who's destined for Oxbridge Maths would, at a good independent school, in the top set, 13+ scholarship cohort, already have gone beyond several areas of GCSE Maths before they reach senior school. So they then have 2/3 years not only to nail down the syllabus but to wander far, far outside it. By the time they get to A'Level they're entirely used to being challenged by the unexpected. They've read and competed and worked around the subject for ever. It does help.

(Not saying no grammar schools do this -but the scope is somewhat more limited by time and cost constraints.)

Anglo-Saxon N&C students in my experience read Tolkien at an impressionable age! Generally go on to be social workers and administrators. Actually all 3 I know well are northerners who come from families with no uni background at all.

I mentor sixth-formers (all I know is their parents didn't go to university and they are deemed to be possible Oxbridge candidates) and the easiest ones to encourage are the ones who know diddly about university - the ones who have heard years of misinformation are so much harder.

From my background at a posh school (scholarship and expat brat), everyone was assumed to be applying for university and the 'best' ones they could get into, unless they had a set plan otherwise. So anyone without a firm plan might easily find themselves being interviewed by Oxbridge, whereas a school or 6th form where uni isn't a default, that doesn't happen so much.

Do you think you could cut out the personal attacks on another poster Piddillydee? IMO you are spoiling what is quite a useful debate about why people who might be in with a chance of going to Oxbridge don't apply.

Many of the 'reasons' OP lists sound like justifications - the only really sensible one is that the course isn't right, and perhaps that the applicant doesn't fancy a town like Cambridge, but would prefer say Manchester or London. OP's DD will be 17, and they sound very very typical reasons that 17 year old's come up with. In a few years time, they might be kicking themselves that they didn't give it a go - the worst they risk is one wasted choice.

(Wonder what the difference between acceptance rates is for girls and boys )

Piddly I know some very rich people whose endowment of a chair is relevant to the rich thick kids assertion by OP. I also know plenty of people at the opposite end of the financial spectrum whose experience has got nothing to do with the thread, which is why I haven't posted about them. It's not a big deal.

The DS who is a scientist living in an Oxbridge college who therefore obviously knows about lab commitments and lunch. So his experience is relevant to the lunch part of the thread. I haven't mentioned any other DC on this thread, not even a single one.

Chippy or what.... very tedious.

who

I can't see that molio has mentioned her DC much here.

The son currently at college is surely a good person to ask about cooking facilities .

molio yes you know everything! Point taken. You can get back to your debate!

My annoyance isn't borne from just this thread alone where molio airs her opinions rather there's been a fair few where her opinions, bragging rights come to blows because not everyone agrees with her, it's normally on threads to do with Oxbridge!. You pull people down molio very subtly, could see you doing the same running theme to OP last night, you do it on other threads in the past too. Can't bear to sit here and not comment. Just because maybe OP may have unfounded prejudices or misconceptions no need to pull them down.

so in a competitive subject such as maths at Oxford, why are a significantly higher percentage of applicants from private schools shortlisted compared to grammar schools?

I think this is a topic which should be discussed in its own thread, to do it justice.

Students from private schools on average significantly outperform those from state schools in Further Maths A level, STEP and MAT. Note that the top private schools also tend to dominate UKMT and Olympiads. As an academic in this area I have data and opinions on why this is (along the lines of Gruach's comments) but to go into these would derail the main subject of this thread.

If they did, it would likely be because the family have a history of heavy donation or the person would provide the required alumni PR. If neither of these are the case then I can think of any reason either.

But this would not just be an issue for Oxbridge. Oxbridge is over-subscribed with great applicants and high endowments (by UK standards). A lower tier RG university would be much more vulnerable to "bribery" of this type as they are far less over-subscribed and have virtually no endowments.

LaVolcan - actually concern about dining arrangements would be a valid issue IF the OP's DD's slightly outmoded view of how things are was correct. In the olden times of black and white (when I was there) vegans, people with food allergies and the teetotal were marginalized in some colleges. But not all, even then (and from the cursory research I did of other places this issue wasn't confined to Cambridge in those days - the gown thing yes, but the difficulties for 'non standard' people were real). Had I not been able to identify colleges where it wouldn't be a problem or leave me (from a poor background on full grant) out of pocket, then I wouldn't have applied. But honestly, Talkin - it's not an issue these days at most colleges. The ones where it might still be a problem are very small in number now.

I do think some people underestimate the importance of being happy/comfortable in making your choice though. I know first hand how much of a 'bump' having that name on your CV can give your career. It's massive. But not worth being miserable for 3 years and certainly not worth running the risk of being so miserable you drop out. After I graduated and started work I lived for a while with some Imperial students in south ken (it was cheap, I knew them already, it enabled me to save up for the deposit on my first flat). One of them - a scarily intelligent lad - had dropped out of Oxford because he just didn't fit in there. In those days, you could do that and still go elsewhere. Today, ripping it up and starting again isn't easy - it's probably not impossible but it's very very difficult. Other universities have a lot to offer and other universities can look similarly impressive on a CV.

piddilly - some posters in this thread have made some unkind comments about both the OP and her DD. Molio isn't one of them. As a parent with a DC contemplating Oxbridge application in the next few weeks, despite the fact that I actually went to Cambridge, I still find Molio's input very useful because the fact is she does have current experience (OK it's experience of Oxford but still...) and the current process is, it's very obvious to me, markedly different from in the times of black and white when I went through it. I think it's great that posters like Molio and Attia who have gone through this successfully very recently are prepared to share their advice opinions and insight with strangers on the Internet. The fact that they continue to do so when some people are so chippy and downright rude is amazing.