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?

French students buy support to get through the first year of medicine or law. I'm not sure that there is any useful demonstration of ability to study independently. It's a cruelly wasteful system IMO.

Mostly ex private school parents expecting the college to be able to "sort it" so that Tarquin can go to a Grandpas college and play rugby.
Their faces fall when its pointed out that grades come first.

In my world the private school parents and DCs are very realistic about the academic meritocracy required for the better British universities. The selective school pupils know that hard work is required as well as being bright or very bright. The parents certainly don't expect their background to count for anything unless it is as a negative.

Talkin, those parents, private school or not have either been advised badly by the private school or have not listened. I am not surprised you are amused.
I agree with Summerends. At DS's private school they get very very realistic advice about their chances for e.g. Oxbridge. It is based on merit.

Surely the timetable for Oxbridge (as well as medicine) is to accommodate the interview ? I had assumed that.

Bobo maybe in your world they do, certainly not in my family / friends circle. It is extremely competitive and they have to work very hard but the first year if failed counts for other courses.

And to add to DarklingJane's comment - at my DCs' school, which if TP is to be believed is a 'let's save seven years of fees type of school' I have never, ever, ever come across any suggestion from either parents or staff that nepotism could conceivably play a part.

Medics and vets also have an early deadline, regardless of uni. Same reason.

In the world of Ooh we can save on two years of fees and still get them into top Unis its a lot less realistic. Quite a few parents mistake the good GCSE results they get in molly coddled non selective private schools with the high standards they will need in the real world.

From what I've read here over the past few years there does seem to be a significant section of parents quite prepared to "buy" private education but with no real clue about what they have signed up for or where it might realistically lead. Which is a pity - and must be frustrating.

Round my way every 11 year old who's taken a pre-test knows exactly what they need to do to succeed academically. And they could each tell you which of their fellows is likely to have a shot at Oxbridge when the time comes. None of their parents, by the time they leave for senior school at 13, is under any illusion that connections or the family name will get them anything translatable into a university offer. So the children just roll their sleeves up and get on with competing in the classroom against brilliant students from all over the world. No mollycoddling!

However Gruach lets get real here. Competitive and hard work these selective private schools are but the DCs in them have everything on their side to help them achieve. They don't have to cope with regular poor teaching, or lack of teachers in their preferred subject or lack of opportunities for extension work etc etc.

summerends - I am willing to believe that in other cities than Paris the situation is better but in Paris it has become nigh-on impossible to pass the first year without enrolling in parallel in a private support system.

Oh sure - but I was really only contrasting with the type of private school TiP described.

You're also right about post A' Level university selection not helping the most academically disadvantaged children - but I'm sure it would help the legions of very bright pupils who don't even consider applying for a "posh" university because they think it's not for the likes of them.

In fact I'd like to see a system where the top - however many - A' Level students across the country are automatically invited, once their results are known, to apply to the best places for their possible subject. A sort of opt out not in. And they would be told at that point that those places would cost no more than their local educational establishment.

I've certainly been told directly by several parents at top selective independents that they feel a bias in the Oxbridge selection system, which works against their DC.

And of course conservatoires have an even earlier deadline. Which nobody ever remembers (including schools).

Yes Gruach with top results taken in context for the school and background (with some correction for MC parents 'gaming' the system by having their DC in poorer schools but supplementing heavily outside).

In fact I'd like to see a system where the top - however many - A' Level students across the country are automatically invited, once their results are known, to apply to the best places for their possible subject.

Like the old eleven plus? My dad's parents got a letter over the summer holidays after junior school telling them he had a place at City of London. I have a lot of affection for that old scheme!

Where do the Classics grads go?
I know one who started her career in HM Treasury two years ago. I actually find that a little bit scary, because imo a background in economics or finance might serve the UK better than the potential to learn on the job that is indicated by a Classics degree from Oxford. One reason for her not to teach was that leafy catchment areas are not affordable on a single teacher's salary whereas what she earns in Treasury (and stands to earn eventually) compares quite well and allows a decent standard of living, with her parents providing accommodation in a granny flat.

'...how many people truthfully aspire to be archivists or church historians specialising in the Middle Ages?'
It is a pity that students don't understand the sort of versatile skills that Latin (for instance) confers (though I think there are limits to the usefulness). I believe that the divide between those who do understand why they could do worse than to study Latin and those who don't is an important contributor to much of the imbalance in intake in many universities. That and other important gaps in knowledge about how the system works -- what subjects to choose for GCSEs for instance.

Wrt changing the world (difficulty thereof) --
In schools perhaps more than anywhere else, the squeaky wheels get the oil (unless they are causing problems, the able students will be ignored in many schools).
The MC will always be able and willing to game the system.

I would add to SheGot's list -- eliminate all setting at primary level.

(And also, if churches are sick of 'pray til you get the place', then they should think about how they contribute to the cynicism).

I am also dubious about the lack of modern RL skills of Classicists, mathanxiety. The civil service has a long tradition of recruiting humanities graduates and deploying them in all sorts of positions where the link between their skill set and their responsibilities is dubious. I am not at all convinced of the argument that "any good degree develops analytical skills": high-level verbal analytical skills and quantitative analytical skills, are, IMO, both required. I have spent a lot of time working with French graduates from the top Grandes Ecoles whose quantitative analytical skills are fabulous but whose observational and verbal analytical skills are usually a lot weaker and that situation creates different collective blind spots to the British situation where humanities graduates often predominate.

I believe that the divide between those who do understand why they could do worse than to study Latin and those who don't is an important contributor to much of the imbalance in intake in many universities.

Totally agree, math. As has often been mentioned in these threads, many families with no tradition of going to university wrongly assume that a vocational degree subject is the obvious choice to be sure of getting a good, well-paid job after graduating. Hence the intense competition to get onto degrees in Medicine, Dentistry, Law, Business Management, Finance/Economics and so on, but also the otherwise inexplicable popularity of undergraduate degrees with titles like Forensic Science. Schools don't seem to be doing a good job of explaining why a degree in Maths or a pure science would put a bright youngster in a much better position, and that there is real value in studying the humanities too.

I have no quarrel with the idea of going straight into vocational training if that's truly what the student wants and if the course is rigorous, has strong links with the relevant industry and offers good placements. I'm just not convinced that doing a degree that doesn't match up to that description is a better investment than (say) an English degree in a top-rated department.

Would a post 18 scheme change matters much?

Wouldn't too many state schooled pupils still not fall into that category because they had taken the wrong subjects or too many or hadn't received adequate teaching?

Yes, we could contextualise but we need to be careful how far we go with that. A few students with contextualised offers have struggled recently, which isn't fair on them, us, or the students who missed out on a place.

It depends. I don't think my sibling reading medicine at Cambridge was a disadvantage to them and that's vocational. Nor though do I think my daughter is a worse lawyer for having read ancient history as if you don't read law you do an extra year after (the GDL).

I have never seen parents at my chidlren's selective private schools assuming they will get into Oxbridge. We all know it's hard and lots of children won't try because they won't get in.

SheGot I think efforts could be focussed on advice at age 14-16 as you suggested plus considering post 18 selection. However as you point out contextualisation is not a remedy for consistently poor teaching and opportunities.

Those of you who are London based forget that in many parts of the country, private schools compete for pupils, not the other way round. Falling rolls at private secondary mean regular local headlines of closures. Schools will tell parents nigh on anything to get fees in the bank.

What about the thing Yale tried for a while where they only took people who were in the top ten in their school in the SATs regardless of the school ....

And y y y to the abolition of faux vocational degrees like Forensics

Contextualization is already very marginal. It doesn't in any way tackle the problem it's just a nod in that direction so I agree SGADM: as things stand, post 18 would probably make the situation worse, with the barometer swinging much further back towards the independent sector again, at the lower end of the Oxbridge ability range. I think it would be regressive.

A few students with contextualised offers have struggled recently, which isn't fair on them, us, or the students who missed out on a place.

Ah.

How long before I read about the revisions to contextualisation in the papers?

From my extremely limited experience of going into a primary school observing Maths, one thing I noticed was that a number of children had perfectly logical brains, and should have been OK with Maths, but they didn't read well, and hence couldn't really decipher the questions. From that I came to the belief that the key was making sure all children could read well by the time they left infants.

Giving contextual offers, as applied to both my children's comprehensives, is going to do nothing to help a child who comes into secondary school with a reading age of 7. I didn't feel the teaching was any way deficient at the schools in question, but those who got into Oxbridge/medical school were from the more Middle Class educated families and were getting the A* grades anyway.

high-level verbal analytical skills and quantitative analytical skills, are, IMO, both required. Ideally perhaps but reducing the undergraduate time spent specialising in their quantitative subject by developing writing skills will inevitably lower the attainment level and therefore technical skills.
When it comes down to it post school education is acquisition of either higher level quantitative/ scientific technical ability or writing/verbal skills, non-quantitative logic and culture. Even the social sciences have to specialise eventually.

grauch I don't think you will.
Contextual offers will still be made, though perhaps with more caution in some cases? Maybe not even that.

Just an issue to consider.

A word also on personal statements.

They don't swing things much at Oxford or Cambridge. Some academics refuse to take then into account at all.

Having teen work experience at your Dad's bank won't swing anything. Might even alienate some academics who see their subjects as purely academic.

Different to say, Bristol, who state clearly that they do look at the PS for highly competitive courses.