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?

I don't know why the personal statement isn't consigned to the bin. You can pay for one if you look around the internet. Actually I was rather shocked to see that you could pay people to write entries for academic prizes, too, for students. If you have a spare £1K or so you could get yourself a specially-crafted personal statement and a couple of highly commendeds in competitions as a bit of icing.

Its interesting with Languages that some of the degree courses specify that an A level must be in a non - native language
One of the issues at Symonds is that lots of the kids did top up A levels in their other language, leaving those studying non native at a real disadvantage.

Then again, while speaking in my second language to a University professor he moaned about my poor grammar - to which I pointed out that my English grammar can be shaky as well

Rhoda
Hear hear to the blerdy brag statement things : I do not remember doing them in my day
and they are so divisive when kids do not have "connections"
daddy got me four placements at different consulting firms
or
I worked at Sainsburys after my GCSEs as the family needed the funds

Yes, there was more emphasis on language and literature and solid wodges of grammar, with the result that after learning say French for 5 years, you could just about manage to ask for a cup of coffee in France. Personally I don't think this was better. It depends what you want a language for.

As others say, the timetable is so crowded now, I think a lot would prefer subjects which they can see a use for. I am sure there is a use for Latin/Greek, but how many people truthfully aspire to be archivists or church historians specialising in the Middle Ages?

Lavolcan
DD worked really hard at her Latin GCSE because it assists her with science terminology and allows her to work out restaurant menus in any of the Romance languages

My school Latin comprised Bellum, Bellum Bella and was an utter waste of time

Very few humanities subjects are put to practical use in the student's subsequent working life. It's the transferable skills they pick up while studying that make them valuable. In this respect Classics is no different from History or Music or English.

True.
My degree subject has never had any bearing on my work.
I'm encouraging my kids to think in terms of degrees that leave options open while teaching analytical skills.

Its such a shame that the widening of University entrance has allowed the obsession with "vocational" to creep into degrees
while being devalued in real work placements.

Doctors used to write prescriptions in Latin and lawyers used to use Latin terms - mens rea etc. and I don't know whether they still do, but after Catholic Churches started to use the vernacular some still had the odd Latin mass. Once those all went the obvious uses for Latin disappeared.

My school Latin was much the same: amo, amas, amat, amamus amatis amant.

I use the phrase "cui bono" more than twice a week, every week in my work. Its unbelievably useful and cuts to the chase better than anything in English.

Latin should be offered to the top 10% of students in all schools because it teaches cross curricular analytical skills IMHO.

And I too wonder where all of the classics graduates are going because there are decent incomes in leafy parts of the country to be had if they went into teaching :
mix up MFL supply with Latin and they could have two schools sewn up and minimal social work side aggro

I am not sure that it's the widening of university entrance which has allowed 'vocational' subjects to creep in. The majority of the newer universities are ex-polytechnics and they always specialised in vocational subjects. Then also, students of nursing, midwifery to name two now need to do degrees in the subject when previously they didn't.

My sister in law was offered a place reading Chemistry at Cambridge. She turned it down and went to Manchester in the end as she also didn't like the formality or the limited social life. Her parents both went and think they were a bit disappointed but she did really well and loved Manchester, doesn't regret her decision at all.

I am told that the preU MFLs are better for non native speakers and have more literature and essays like the old style A level.
For those planning a vocational career like law or accountancy there must be a case for broadening horizons and culture first by studying a different degree subject with transferable skills. That is not to say that a law degree would not in itself be interesting but if students are planning spending their working life doing law then the degree is a unique opportunity to enjoy something different.
Most STEM vocational careers don't have that luxury.

summerends
But how many schools actually do the PreU?
And how many of them are State schools?
Its something that is just not on the radar of 99.5% of teenagers.

Yes I realise that and unfortunately that is likely to remain the case despite the potential benefit for making MFLs more attractive. However I've heard of at least one state schoo selecting preU for Mandarin.

and how many of the kids taking Mandarin are not native speakers ?

I don't know about Law at other universities (and admittedly don't know much about what any place is teaching now) but there used to be plenty of horizon-broadening to be had from reading Law at Cambridge. It was a purely academic, theoretical area of study - just with the added bonus of enabling one to proceed to a post grad vocational course. In fact, between, say, History of Political Thought (History) and Jurisprudence (Law) I'd say Jurisprudence was a far more satisfying course (and taught by wonderfully sharp, legal brains rather than broad sweep historians ...)

So I was surprised when the consensus on a previous thread seemed to be that only the ill-informed took Law as a first degree. IME late 20th century Oxbridge Law grads tended (privately) to see people who "only" did a conversion course as rude mechanicals who had devoted insufficient time to the subject.

Talkin that's sort of the point. Mandarin as a MFL should be accessible but my gleaned opinion is that many DCs are put off continuing beyond GCSE because of the exam disadvantage relative to native speakers. I hear that preU levels that relative disadvantage by requiring more essays in English

Gruach my point against a law degree concerns only the restricted perspective of doing nothing but law from 18 for those who are set on it as a career. However it must be a strong potential subject for a student who wanted to do law as interesting academic degree without vocational purpose

I know a lot of academics have very clear views on things that could be done in state schools to improve access in their subjects. Spinoa alluded a little, below.

And certainly I have ideas for my subject.

But here, I think we're taking about general admissions, right? So here are a few musings, in no particular order, and certainly not exhaustive.

1. Selective education,or as a next best option, early and flexible setting. Schools that don't set or put it off are placing their most able students at a disadvantage.

1. Early advice/discussion regarding 18+ pathways. If this is introduced after GCSE options, it's too late IMVHO. This advice should include what GCSEs (no crap about equivalence), how many and when.

1. Prioritise the needs of the able. Controversial obviously.

1. Change the culture in schools in respect high ability students. They shouldn't be finding everything easy. An A does not = job done. Parents shouldn't be dancing around MN saying their DC has been 'predicted all As' in year 9!

1. Insist that teachers advise students correctly. Poor advice whether through ignorance or ideology should not be tolerated. In 2015, no teacher is justified in stating that there are still entrance exams to Oxbridge, that only those with genius IQ should apply, that it costs more, that there are quotas for state school etc etc etc.

Mmm ... Certainly people I knew who did the full three years of Law had the choice of a wide range of options (outside the six core subjects) which offered all the fun of a Classics, History, PPE or Theology degree.

But I never knew anyone who didn't, by the end, want some professional recompense for the ridiculous amount of work undergraduate Law required.

From memory, the Oxford success rate for Classics applicants is around 42%, compared with Maths and Law, say, which are around 10%. That's not the reason dd1 chose it! It would make for a crappy 4 years if you weren't interested, I would have thought She's going to be on the non-Latin/Greek A level course, which involves lots of Latin classes for the first couple of terms and the option to start Greek in year 3 I think. There's also a Greek from scratch in first year/Latin in y3 course, as well as the ones for Latin and/or Greek A level holders.

summerends it's an interesting academic degree even for those who do go on into the legal profession. The professional courses are wholly different to the academic study of law, as well as covering a far narrower range of core subjects - and the subjects available for study within a law degree are enormously varied, especially these days.

Yet another cross post.

As regards access I've just reached the paragraph in Tony Little's "Intelligent Person's Guide To Education" where he says

... no university place should be awarded on the basis of what a student achieved before the age of 18.

He's not at all keen on the current curriculum structure and calls for the abolition of GCSEs and no offers pre A' Level results.

SGADM the only genius's should apply thing is a major point.

shegot
To pick up on your points

(1) I fundamentally disagree with selective state schools because they are "gamed" by the middle classes - see Kent - but I UTTERLY agree that setting should be used in as many subjects as possible and be fluid to allow late developers to be pushed as hard as they can each term.

(2) Could not agree more

(3) Disagree because if you tell the low ability that they do not matter it bites you on the bum ten years later when they are unemployable and committing crime. Every child should be given resources to get the best out of them and reduce economic inactivity.

(4) Speaking as a comp school parent YES PLEASE

(5) Hear hear. Funding should be put back into proper careers advice - sadly Academy schools will not do it as they do not have budget economies of scale to do so.

A fortuitous one Molio! I'm always pleased when someone backs up my vague recollections.