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?

cathy but if you look at your list it really shouldn't cause a young person too many problems.

The PS has to be done anyway. The SAQ really should not be made into A Thing. Essays to sub are already done, books have already been read so it's just a list.

The interview is like any other interview. No one knows what the tutor might ask, so mad prep is a fools errand.

If you read over those essays, remind yourself about the books you've read, then that's a very good start I should have thought.

I completely get the distinction between parental stress and DC stress SGADM, believe me but I reckon that's just part of the parental deal - it certainly should never affect DC choices in any sphere. Yes, Talkin may well have been referring to her own stress levels.

Bobo that's interesting. I'd say that out of my own DC the least worried about the outcome were the three who never really reckoned they'd get a place. Waiting for the decision was a bit more tense for the ones who thought they might have a reasonable chance.

Of course Oxford has the pre-tests for some subjects SGADM, but again, there isn't a great deal of actual preparation you can do for those and they're straight after half-term anyhow so everyone has had a few days off. And lots of the medics will be applying to other BMAT places too, so that's not usually 'extra'. Likewise the LNAT.

molio long shots often feel free from stress, I agree.

It's interesting that cathy felt you shouldn't bother applying if you weren't extremely keen. Whereas I would have thought that if you weren't too worried and could see yourself elsewhere, the process would be less anxiety inducing.

It's the applicants who really want it, or whose parents really want it, or who can't contemplate failure ( having never experienced it) that always seem rather slayed by the whole thing. Horrible to see.

I agree She and maybe it's a good sifting process for students who have the necessary enthusiasm and commitment.

However with respect to the whole it's-just-a-thing; for many students it's their first interview, they will sift through many, many essays to find the 'right' one and then agonise over which books they can comfortable discuss, that will make for an interesting list and like the PS the SAQ does involve plenty of thought to get the requisite information across succinctly, eloquently and in the right number of words.

I think it's a fair and worthwhile process but not one to embark on if you're a bit meh about the whole idea.

I do think both you and your daughter are getting hung up on what in practical terms end up being relatively minor details. You keep coming back to the issue of year group numbers. As many PP have said , it is pretty irrelevant. There are so many opportunities to meet as many people as you want. Nobody is keeping you prisoner in your college.

The catering issue - choose a college where there are self-catering facilities. Also, although your DD say she wants to be fully self-catering, college meal times are one of the main points of social contact and a hub of communal life. Your DD may come to find that attractive and she may not always want the bother of cooking for herself. It's the best of all worlds.

Other posters are spot on about your misconceptions re lunch and tourists.

You too seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Oxbridge - could that be reflected in your DD's views?

Obviously Oxbridge is not going to be for your DD, but let's squash some myths once and for all.

I went to Oxford and DS will be applying this year. I took him to look round some colleges last week and it was magical. Went in to the 15th century chapel at Magdalen and there was a choir rehearsing - brought a tear to my eye it was so beautiful. As an alumna I have a card which gets me access to non tourist areas and wandering round the beautiful gardens, lakes and ancient buildings is simply unbeatable IMHO. It is an experience which nowhere else can replicate and I wouldn't have missed it for the world. Loved my time there. But I went because I loved the course and that in the end is what really matters. Forget about the minutiae of lunches.

cathy I accept absolutely that the process is more time consuming than a standard application.

But if I could get one thing across to applicants it's that they shouldn't spend too much time on it. The choice of which book to put on a list should be a work of, if not moments, then not much more. You've read what you've read after all.

molio the pre tests as you rightly say, should not attract too much prep.

And yes I know some independent schools do some work on this, but again this isn't worth getting hung up about. Prepping extensively and specifically doesn't seem to infer an advantage.

cathy there's a big, big difference between a meh attitude and not really being hopeful of a place. I think the latter allows the DC to see the positives in other places as well as in Oxford or Cambridge.

With respect to the DC SGADM, they weren't all 'long shots' (one had 11A*etc). They just thought there'd be enough other people who'd be better.

Totally agree, DD wasn't at all hopeful but went for it nevertheless, if she hadn't got a place she was very happy with her insurance.

However for Talkin's DD, it would be a lot of work for a place that you're not sure about.

OP's DD would be applying for (Biological) Natural Sciences. No essays or reading lists are needed. Most colleges don't do pre-tests. So all she would have to do is write a good PS/SAQ and then do general prep for interview, if asked to interview. (Although as said upthread she might be better to choose a college that does use pre-tests/tests during interview, as she would have a chance to shine.)

Agree with other posters that extensive prep for interview and pre-tests does not make a difference.

It does seem unfair that when one is "meh" one comes across so much better! I have been successful in job interviews when I was completely relaxed and chatty because I didn't mind about the outcome. I remember one job, though, which I really wanted and I was a jibbering wreck, sweating and with probably a desperate look in my eye.

Actually, when I think about it, the same is true of men! If you're not that bothered, you act yourself and come across a million times better than when you do like someone and thus are horribly nervous and trying your utmost to be ravishing and interesting.

I dont think it is that unusual for good students not to apply, though perhaps for different reasons than TiP suggests.

Years ago I did not apply though I would have been a plausible candidate, because:

1. I was not enjoying a small girls boarding school stuck in the middle of nowhere and wanted a big change
2. The girls who were considered academic did English History and French. I was probably undiagnosed dyslexic and very good at maths/chemistry/economics. This was not clever, simply weird. The school did not encourage me to apply, indeed I don't think they had ever had someone apply to study economics, whilst I wanted to escape a culture which I assumed would think the same way.

I don't think I ever even considered regretting choosing the LSE. It was the right place for me at the time.

DS applied, but was reasonably relaxed. Cambridge would have got him away from London, but LSE is proving academically and socially stimulating, and certainly far more international, plus the course is probably better.

(Here TiP I think your daughter is wrong. London is big enough to allow for a quite distinct student London. Geographically DS may only be a mile or so away, but he is in a different city. She cannot know the City properly from visits to family. She could do what one boy did, which is to mark out an area of his own territory. He meets up with his parents once a week for dinner or something, but does not allow them on campus or at his accomodation. Again what had seemed a consolation prize when he failed to get through the Cambridge pool has turned out to be a great sucess, he has a very diverse group of friends, plus he is studing the subject he is interested in, rather than the broader NatSci.)

DD will not apply to Oxbridge because:

1. Her results so far are good but not so super duper good to make her more than a marginal candidate. (And here I agree with posters up thread. There will be the odd surprise but generally sucessful science candidates have average UMS heading at least towards the mid 90s.)

1. If you can have a ten week term, why try to compress the same in 8 weeks. This may not apply for humanities, but feedback (no, no evidence!) is that it can become very intense when there is a lot to learn (law medicine, science etc) and whilst some have the capacity to work and play, others are finding it a slog. (Interestingly LSE has now reorganised its terms making the summer one shorter, which will give more teaching time. Even with 10 weeks the pace was tough, so this is welcome.)

1. The additional faff. She loves school, and is really enjoying being at the top. Lots of prefect and other responsibilites. There are some kids who can do it all, but if she were determined to go to Oxbridge this would have had to take priority, both last year (to make sure her UMS were in the right ball-park) and next. She did not want to write essays over the summer, she does not want to practice for BMAT.

1. Course. Oxbridge medicine courses are right for some but not necessarily what she wants. Plus she is probably looking for somewhere, like school, where there is scope for engagement in a variety of non-academic ways. She needs balance, not least because being dylexic means that she had to work harder to access the academic stuff.

The reasons others are not applying or are choosing London over Oxbridge seem to be:

1. Less of a tradition in some cultures of going away to University. In my day London Jews were highly represented at LSE, because you stayed at home till you got married. The same is probably true today and probably now includes members of the London ex-pat community, and Muslim students. This coupled with the large numbers of overseas students seems self reinforcing and London seems good at attracting ethnic minority students from across the UK.

1. Money. Lots of people live within the M25. Many, specially first generation University applicants, want to keep costs to a minimum and dont see the need to take out loans simply to get away from home.

1. Internationally LSE, UCL and Imperial seem to enjoy similar prestige to Oxbridge. (Perhaps in the same way that CalTech, Standford, and MIT are seen as comparable to or better than the Ivies.) This certainly seems to influence London students from international backgrounds.

1. The mother of a friend of my daughter's was telling me yesterday that her daughter also wont apply to Cambridge because of a depressing introduction day. It was all about work, how high the standards were, and how lucky they would be to be accepted. No reasons given as to why a bright but rounded girl would want to go there. (NatSci - I wonder if it was the same event - if so it was remarkably unsucessful!)

To be honest OPs origional question suggests some sort of belief that Oxbridge is somehow "better". Strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully bright DC will be able to work out for themselves what they want from University. It is worth noting that Cambridge student satisfaction for some subjects is remarkably low.

rhoda it's a balance, no?

Enthusiasm and eagerness are attractive, but when it tips in to desperation, not so much .

It's also culture specific. A couple of months ago I attended a meeting in LA to try to convince a bunch of Americans that I was the best person for a particular project, despite the fact that I have no prior experience in a city crammed with people with experience (tough gig).

I had to remind myself before I went in that any reserve had no place at that table. That nothing I could say, would be seen as 'too much'.

The stress generated from taking a long shot and knowing and accepting it's a long shot is not the same as the stress generated from taking a long shot that you desperately want.

Rhoda it's not really 'unfair'. Not in the scheme of unfair things in the university application process.

Bobo it's probably a good parental move to try to dull the desperation. Desperation is very extreme, by definition.

Low expectations are a wonderful thing.

I think of it not as low expectation but the acknowledgement of having many choices

^ Pollyanna emoticon ^

Perhaps another factor encouraging a "meh factor" amongst my DC and their friends has been exposure to some very determined parents and their children. The recent Chinese School documentary brought no surprises, and the approach is not just Chinese. Many of London's senior expat-community own their jobs not just to being very bright, but also working very hard and going to the right schools and making the right connections. There are a lot of people who prioritise grades and achievement for their children.

We sort of drifted into this via an accident of geography, and to some extent have struggled with it. One boarder friend of my son's revelaled that rather than go home, he was sent to tutors every Christmas and Easter and only had Christmas day off. Another University friend said that back home in Asia she was far from alone in having four hours tutoring every night after school. DD mentioned yesterday that one of her friends had great AS results, but added casually that he had tutors for everything so his performance was not directly comparable. DS noted at quite a young age that some of these children were very anxious, as if success was the only thing that mattered to their parents. DD equally found some children very judgemental. Since academic, sporting and musical achievement seemed to be the only things that mattered, girls like her who did not go to the most academic school in West London and who were happy to bob along doing "well-enough", and whose parents did not run a bank or a law firm, clearly did not rank, and essentially, were not worth spending time with. (The parents behaved in much the same way!) Similarly one, perfectly nice and not in the least snooty, Russian mother, confessed she found it difficult that the school did not provide class rankings. She wanted to be sure her child was top. The child was tutored in at least four subjects at Primary stage, and was too busy to have play dates. There was a reason why the school did not rank students!

Over time DC have come to realise that they are probably as bright as some of these kids, though do less well simply because they don't work as hard. This is their choice and one that we are happy with, not least because rounded, resiliant and emotionally able adults will probably do as well as those with better grades and little else. (And what does "doing well" mean anyway?)

There is a lot of Oxbridge/Ivy or bust, with plenty of preparation, kids only putting one choice on their UCAS forms, and gap years if they dont get there first time.

There is a certain amount of this still at LSE, with students determined to secure their job with Goldman Sachs, but DS is experienced in ignoring it. DD is more than happy to duck out altogether.

Though having said that, DD was quite shocked at a London medical school open day where she was about the only one without parents and parents asked all the questions. And similarly to the Cambridge breifing mentioned earlier, the talk was all about academics and nothing about student life. She asked another girl why she wanted to be a Doctor. Simple answer. The family expected it.

So choice of medical school is not simply "not Oxbridge" but more to find somewhere with a good course/life balance and where a good proportion of her fellow students are there because they want to be there, and not just under the pressure of family expectations.

I've never understood parents who funnel their DC into med school.

The life if a doctor always strikes me as weighed with cons rather than pros.

Naturally, if either of mine had the vocation, I'd support all the way. But funnel? No way.

Needmore, re London children living at home - yes, that's true of boys at my sons' school from Asian families (India, Pakistan etc) where there is a very clear pattern of giong to some very good places in London whilst living ath ome at university (which makes it even harder to get into places like UCL, LSE etc as more competition from all those children who will be living at home so want London and nothing else).

We have doctors in the family who are happy. I think it just depends what you like. It's certainly an enjoyable career for many.

Like-minded people tend to hang out together, so it's hardly surprising that uber-achievement focused families find one another and use one another's focus as fuel to keep on going, onwards and upwards. And don't choose to spend time with people whom they perceive - entirely subjectively - not to use their time to best advantage.

It's a very English thing to feign low expectations and give the appearance of (a) not working too hard and (b) not caring too much about outcomes. There are arguments for that attitude - great for preservation of the ego - but also against as quite a lot of people buy into the idea that working hard is unnecessary and that results are down to luck or intelligence and hard graft has little to do with success.

DSS1 was very when he started at university and saw all the Asians bright eyed and bushy tailed sitting at the front in lectures and all the British at the back (unwashed/unshaven/in dirty clothes). He quickly worked out that both attitudes were a pose with no obvious correlation to results!

Bobo, its not that simple. And I would add some successful London based Parisians to the group of parents who can be very "interventionalist" in securing their DCs path through to Higher Education (and indeed internships and more.)

Living in the uber-sucessful melting pot that is central London has not been a bad thing for my DC, and they would not have survived had they not been capable of keeping up with their peers. They certainly have picked up a far better work ethic than I ever had.

However they recognise that balance is needed, and do not envy those DC whose parents are over-interventionalist. And I think it is a good thing that they recognise early that they own their own futures.

If you know enough students who go to Oxbridge in part because every achievement on their UCAS form has been supported by parents and tutors, it is reasonable to be a bit "meh" about whether going there is the be all and end all. And it is a real advantage to know that you are as good as them, but with slightly different priorities. Indeed I think it really helps that DS is studying the subject he really wants to study, and is not constrained by a need to pick courses which will be most attractive to investment banks, or help guarantee the first. Ditto DD and medicine. They both know too many children who are studying these subjects because their parents want them to.

Hi talkin I may be wrong, but I do think it's a smidgeon ironic that someone who knows it all needs to go to university at all

My experience of Oxford is that there are many colleges who have self catering units. Most first years have halls, and after that you can live off beans wherever you like.

Sometimes when people are afraid of something they rubbish it before it 'rejects' them first. Something for her to think about maybe?