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?

And remember many academics are fairly low paid relative to their abilities and tend to be fairly left wing.

They're generally used at interview though, to a greater or lesser extent SGADM.

Bristol sets a great deal of (numerical) store by them.

Agreed Janet. Know your enemy :)

I always read them because a. I know applicants out a lot of effort into them and b. I'm nosy.

If there's something interesting in there I might ask at interview ( ice breaker as much as anything).

I remember the daughters with skiing, show jumping, riding, their own horses having a devil of a job trying to ensure theirs would not make a resentful left wing academic vomit......

It's clear from all my DCs' interviews that the ps has been read and absorbed by all the tutors because each of them has been asked questions based on them - almost always for the purposes of a proper academic discussion. The one exception has been DS1 in his last medicine interview, where he was asked which cake he'd recommend the tutor should choose should she visit the café he worked at. I think that probably was an ice breaker.....

Mine have left out a good deal of stuff which they've done which could have been interesting, in case it smacked of bigging themselves up vicariously, or nepotism (even where an opportunity wasn't actually the result of nepotism). They've also been guarded in interviews about the same stuff, for the same reason, even where the opportunity arose.

I'm a bit bemused about the comments regarding skiing, horses, cookery competitions etc. DD1 has done and won all sorts of things (to do with performing and writing) but she has been advised (that's putting it a bit strongly - she has had a brief chat with a friend who has just finished at Cambridge reading the same subject) that that sort of stuff isn't what's needed for the PS at all and that it would be regarded as irrelevant unless it was specifically linked to something that demonstrates why she might be an interesting person to teach and why she would be a person who would get a lot out of the course. Advice from her school - which really isn't targeted at the sort of thing that she wants to do at all but is still presumably a bit relevant - runs along the same lines - not to say 'I did this I won that' but to somehow use accomplishments or experiences to illustrate or underline key points about 'why you might want me' or 'why I'd be good at the subject I'm applying for'. So, 'name-dropping' with a purpose rather than as an end in itself. The advice she's had is you don't just go 'blah blah blah P.S. I won the mrs joyful raffia prize last year at school'. (Although that might work if the Right Sort of person was reading the PS - I once got a job almost in the first minute of the interview because I understood and acknowledged two wildly different cultural references dropped by my future boss (neither relating to my usual banker topics as it happens) - but I think banking on both a nodding familiarity with the true greats of literature and a sense of humour might be a risky strategy).

That brief chat with a friend also revealed just how much preparation posh school kids get for this. And it was a hugely depressing revelation because quite clearly the state sector just can't compete and even having a parent who went to Cambridge isn't remotely comparable to the sort of capital that those kids can tap into.

Gosh yes, the PS should be about why you love the subject. I didn't mean you fill it with details of your skiing achievements. Also a good school will advise on what goes on it. I did read my older children's and I've told the younger ones I want to check them (for typos as much as anything else) but the school will know best what to go on there and nothing will make up for anyone having dire grades.

I would be surprised if state schools did not provide useful help on the personal statement. the state schools around here like Watford Grammar, Henrietta Barnet etc which are of course very good state schools I am are sure as just as good if not better than the private schools my lot went/go to.

I think up to a point the student should use their own judgment too, so that a ps doesn't get too formulaic. Sometimes schools feel they have to play it a bit safe.

Janet I think my DD1's school probably provides superb advice on the PS for most things, and there is certainly a lot of evidence (in terms of destinations) to back that up. But she is applying for a subject which hardly anyone ever goes to do, from her school (although this year 3 kids will be applying to do it). So it's a slightly different situation. I'm not criticizing the school at all for not having a focus on a subject that hardly anyone ever does. But the fact is that the local posh school does regularly send kids to Oxbridge to read that subject and so they have a wealth of fairly recent success to draw on.

Having said all that, back in days of yore I was the first person ever to go to Cambridge to read my subject from my school, and my teachers had literally no idea what it would entail to get in or how to prepare for an interview (my friend who was applying for history, a subject where the school had got girls in in living memory though not in the previous few years, had lots of knoweldgeable support and some interview practice - but neither of us had anything like the preparation her brother, who went to a posh school down the road, had for his interview). But it all worked out fine and we all got in. So. If DD1 gets in great, if she doesn't then that's fine too, she has other options and it won't be the end of the world. I haven't had a magnificently charmed life as a result of going there, I have a good career but so do other friends who didn't. And my boss - who obviously has done better in life than me (apart from supporting an evil football team and having a dubious choice in literature and music) went to York which would be one of DD1s alternative options. So I'm fairly zen about it all.

Indeed. No one had ever been to Oxbridge from my school in any subject ever (my younger sister was the first) and my Head said I could not apply as I was a year young (I was 17 when I went to university). I went to Manchester and did very well so it all worked out fine. Although given my love of singing, 4 grade 8s etc I suspect a choral scholarship to a Oxbridge college might hae suited me down to the ground much more than all that "cool" Manchester music scene of 30 years ago which was not my thing.

Talkin there's a great arrive in today's Times magazine about a girl from a fairground family who read English at Oxford despite sporadic school attendance and traveller lifestyle, a good read regarding her experiences of the social class aspect, may be worth getting hold of

'Arrive'? = article !!

I don't buy Murdoch papers (have not done since the early 80's)
but if you can find me a free link I'd be interested.

There are Circus kids at DCs school who always took the summer term off but the second youngest decided not to, found somebody to stay with, and has done remarkably well. Not Oxford, but heading RG direction

I bet she used the word travelling rather than traveller

Think it would be behind firewall but I'm happy to post it if you want to pm me I don't think she used traveller or travelling tbh (no offence intended, me typing quickly and without thought), the specific term used was actually 'showman'

And paywall not firewall ..see what I mean!

The article is about Shelby Holmes, who has just graduated from Oxford.

She's from the showman community.

Very sensible young woman. She did not find her culture was a huge issue, integrated easily and enjoyed her time.

On posh people ; ' I was kind of disappointed by how annoyingly normal everyone was.'

And she's not the only one ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11695522/Funfair-to-Oxbridge-What-its-like-being-a-traveller-at-university.html

Circus / funfair / showman families are an interesting breed : mahoosive work ethic, expect their girls and their boys to achieve, must be pretty darned sharp to keep their business running with all that H&S has thrown at them - just never has access to book learning in the past.

here's an example of such a family business whose ethos impressed me at an event DH was doing
www.wallofdeath.info/meet-the-team

It's interesting that Shelby doesn't see that she has been particularly challenged by her upbringing. She doesn't feel she's had it tougher than her peers.

She points out that everyone has worked their arses off to get there and that she has a lot of support in many ways. Not educationally but certainly in terms of watching her back and, interestingly, financial.

She points put that she has no issues with asking for financial help from her family, unlike many peers.

Admissions at Yale and there are links at the right that are also informative.

In the US it is generally accepted that using a term like Traveller (or the equivalent since Travellers in the US tend not to go to school much) would work massively in your favour.

Yes, I read it too. I went to (private) school with some showmen daughters in the NE. They are not poor by any means. They own the fairgrounds etc and employ people who aren't showmen to run the rides.

She has done very well to graduate though as her parents left school at 14 and she was rarely encouraged to go to school and moved a lot and worked after school.

The girl in the article mentions she was bought a car when she passed her test and various other things i.e. they are not poor but have a very sheltered protected culture. She said it was like an upbringing from 50 years ago. Her mother always wanted to know what she was doing when she was at university, so her mother got to know the porter at the college who would let her know things like when her daughter got home that night and the girl didn't mind either.

Mathanxiety
amusingly though, I took the SATs to get admission to a couple of Ivy Leagues
I sailed them : the US world was my oyster

but sadly I utterly buggered up the A levels I took at the same time
so spent the year in South Ken instead

Messing up your A levels would have probably scuppered your hopes all right, even if you did well in the SAT or SAT subject tests, or ACT, thanks to lack of a GPA to show for a solid few years of work.

BTW there are plenty of excellent private schools out of London, that would not dream of advising patents that Oxbridge was something they could 'sort'.

Presumably their leavers' destinations would confirm this.

Children brought up in fairs and circuses often benefit from a super-strong work ethic and understanding of trade as well as a tight-knit and supportive community with strong intergenerational links. Access to consistent schooling may be an issue but not most of the other markers of social disadvantage.

Certainly that was SH's take on her upbringing bobo.