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 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.

Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all but students who have been tutored to achieve high grades generally don't get in. If they need extensive tutoring to get A*s and high UMS they don't think fast enough on their feet to get through the interview stage. Ime it is London universities such as Imperial which are full of kids with very high grades who were very heavily tutored to get them.

Moreover, kids who had to work every hour are also not the ones who tend to get into Oxbridge - if they needed to do this to get the required A level grades then they wouldn't be able to keep up with the (far higher) Oxbridge pace. I pretty much never worked outside timetabled hours at school (except for exam revision) and most of my Cambridge (science) peers were the same.

Surely though if there are two equally bright and credible candidates, one presenting with superb UMS and nothing left to chance (one dad explained to me with pride the extent to which they had investigatged different colleges to ensure his son was at maximum advantage) and the other muddling through even at a disadvantage as you can't boast about computer gaming achievments on your PS then the first one gets the place.

Competition is huge. Otherwise presumably its all on the margins. If you really want the place you make sure your application is better than an equally competent but less focussed candidate. And the less focussed candidate makes surre they don't invest too much emotional capital into Oxbridge but is equally happy with the alternatives, or p[erhaps does not apply in the first place.

Its not dissimilar to what is happening in London Secondary Schools. Plenty decide that though their child might be good enough, they wont do the prep for Tiffin, Collet Court, or SPGS. In part because their child will be fine elsewhere, but also because aspects of the increasingly hot-house culture are unattractive and worth avoiding.

No, I don't agree, because students are interviewed and the interview plays a huge role. It is quite common for students with near perfect UMS to be rejected in favour of those with less than perfect UMS who did much better at interview.

I would agree that there is often relatively little difference between students at the cutoff for places but in general selection at 18 is much more accurate than selection at 11/13 can ever be. The point is that at 18 you can take them beyond anything they have ever seen before and see how they respond. If you try to do this at 11/13 you will make mistakes because some kids are more mature than others, more able to deal with curved balls, more trained by their schools to think independently etc etc.

Perhaps, but I hope you can understand why, seen through a narrow London prism, Oxbridge perhaps does not appeal. If you have been through the 11+ stuff and the whole thing about only being bright if you go to the right school, and the rest (no - not getting all A*s at GCSE is not failure!), and indeed have come late into a confidence about your own academic strength because class performance was biased by the external support some receive, you may need convincing that Oxbridge is the place to go. Especially when for many of your peers it is such a big thing.

The friend who was put off by the Cambridge NatSci talk is at the top of a much less selective secondary outside London. It might depend on your perspective, but I can see a desire for something less hothouse and more balanced, a positive. Though here I suspect the fault was more about the University not understanding that some, otherwise good, students are looking for something broader and not emphasising the wider University offer.

FWIW several of DDs teachers seemed surprised that she did not want to apply. That said she is not that strong a candidate and they accept her reasons. I think they prefer this to trying to convince others to consider alternatives. DS' experience is that it has been good to University with a bit of academic Headroom, as it gives you time and scope to explore the wider academic offer.

I think needsmore has a point.

Where any state schooled students are put off applying for various reasons, those in the selective independent sector and to some degree being put off by completely different reasons.

And one if those is definitely watching how some peers are forced to over -study IMVHO and linking that with Oxbridge success.

There's also a heap if other shizzle too - like wanting to live in London, wanting to go to the US etc etc

I do agree that students in highly selective schools are often put off studying certain subjects/courses by not being top in their own schools, whereas by national standards they are very high achieving. I think this issue in some sense deserves a thread of its own, as it is one of the under-appreciated issues of highly selective schools. (I went to such a school and I can see the damage inflicted on those who weren't in the top half academically still having effects twenty years later. A friend of mine who got a first at a RG has just started a PhD - she always wanted to do one, but didn't think she should since she wasn't in the same league as school friends like me who became Oxbridge academics. It has taken her a long time to realise that she would be great at it.)

I don't agree that heavily tutored/overly hard working candidates will do better in university admissions processes which involve interviews than those who are less tutored/more balanced and perhaps have just slightly lower results. In my own DCs selective school I think the staff are well aware of this and I'm a bit surprised that teachers in schools such as Westminster aren't well aware of it too, and don't make it clear when talking to pupils about university admissions.

NeedsMoreSleep - It sounds as if the French parents you know in London have got caught up in an achievement culture that is quite different to the culture here in Paris, where "les bulletins" (essentially the same concept as US GPA) are much more important than Bac marks and where good Prepas attach huge importance to DC not having been working flat out at Lycee but rather can demonstrate plenty of excess capacity in order to step up to Prepa requirements. My DSS2, who spent every evening of Premiere and Terminale watching streamed TV series on a beanbag in the sitting room, was accepted at a much better Prepa than DSS1, who worked flat out from December of Terminale - he literally didn't stop working except to eat/sleep/work out. Both DSSs got essentially the same grades in their bac - but DSS2 had far better reports.

disquisiones Westminster school, and I'm sure other highly selective schools do try to discourage the over-studying/tutoring culture.

But what can they do if some families buy into it?

The ridiculous thing is that some of the most tutored children are also the brightest! They just don't need it! They woul dget their highly sought after places at university without all the nonsense.

My children's selective scholls (NLCS etc) have always been very good at ensuring children have enough time to play, recommend older ones keep up hobbies etc. The children that tend to work very hard are usually just that kind of personality or their parents are pushing them.

the issue of whether you are better at a very selective school or not is interesting. My psychiatrist father and teacher mother thought I was a bit shy for that kind of school so I went to a very small private school. No one had ever been to Oxbridge from there and my sister (younger) was the first. Now is that why I';ve always thought I was pretty good at exams, work, life and have done well because I got the best A level results in the school, university prizes , high paid job? I felt I missed out in having hardly anyone like me at school, no debate in class, my essays read out to others (I was also a year young for the year), none of the things like a choir at school I would have enjoyed. However were I in a more academic school would I have thought I was useless because I was in the middle of the class? I doubt it but perhaps I just think I would have been in the top of the class there too because of the school I went to in reality - the confidence. What is clear though is it rarely worth pushing chidlren beyond how they are. Radio 4 had an interesting programme on item on children today - one science man said they'd found your genes were much more of an influence than most people think. So I'm glad I've not had any of the children tutored (except for a short period once just to practise exam papers when she was 6 or 7)

DS is pretty impervious to what others are up to academically. Is this a boy thing?

Whatever it is, it has meant his time at a selective school has been good for him, kept him challenged etc without any of the downsides.

I don't know if DD would have been so sanguine. She went to a small, nurturing, mixed ability independent from y7-11. She is far more alive to what others are up to, but hardly anyone was being tutored excessively or what have you. Just not part of the culture.

Now she's 16, she's chosen to swap to W. I think she's mature enough and self confident enough to deal with the step into a very different environment. We shall see.

SheGot, My daughter too was at somewhere less selective. This was important. She regularly came across girls from the very seletive school in west London and there is no way she would have wanted to be part of the difficult competitive alpha-female culture. I think boys are better at ignoring pressure, perhaps even when appriopriate.

disquisitiones, I get your point, and you are right that it can be difficult to know you are good when all around seem to be better. But there is another nuance. DC are also surrounded by kids with sky high aspirations, who are prepared to work very very hard to achieve them. These kids are bright, but no brighter than them, but earn their better results. From DCs perspective it would seem rational to decide that if this is what it takes to get to Oxbridge, is it not better to work slightly less hard and have slightly reduced aspirations, but still get good grades and go to a very good University.

This seems to be working for DS. He is performing towards the top of his year group and able to take full advantages of the academic resources on offer. This presumably might not have been the case at Cambridge had they offered him a place, and where, with a super-selective intake and shorter terms he might have had to work very hard simply to stay in the middle of the pack.

Given a number of boarding schools and even state sixth form colleges seem to be taking children from overseas, this is likely to be more common. One is example is the widespread belief that Chinese kids are better at maths. It takes a while for kids to figure out that they are not neccessaily better but often get better marks because they work harder. And then the question of whether you want to do what it takes to achieve the same marks.

Bobo. The point might be that none of the French we know in London appear to have any desire to take Premiere and Terminale or Prepa. The aim is invariably vocational-type subjects at top UK Universities or an application to one of the Ivies. The alternative is Canada. Quite a lot seem to bail out of the Lycee early, or opt for the English stream. Like others they often know where they want to go, and will work very hard to get there.

Talkin

"Trust me I'm fiery but she's bloody minded too." And why does that not surprise me . I hope you won't take it amiss Talkin that I imagined your house might be a bit - What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

As a parent of a "bloody minded" , for which I like to read "strong minded" but which probably comes down to "can be a bit stubborn at times" , as a parent , given these DCs are coming up to 18 when they make their choices, these are their choices. All I wanted and would want to know is that a DC was making a choice because he was a) prepared to give it a shot without thinking his life was ruined if it didn't come off and b) strong minded , not -closed minded.

Re London - has she thought of UCL (if it has an appropriate course ) - a way away from South Ken ?
Needmore's post resonated with me.
I have lived in London as a very small child, I have visited relatives during school years, was in London as a student and from my first job and getting married and bringing up a family. London is A Very Big Place. All those things were very different. I could walk to places I knew from different experiences and yet the truth is my day to day life now is a world away from my university days. I might as well be living in a different city. But - she knows her own mind

Your daughter will make her own decision. In truth , "I just didn't like it and could not imagine myself being there and being happy for 3 / 4 years " is enough. Maybe that is what she is saying.

Would love to know what you and you Dh have been doing around So'ton campus that she doesn't want to show her face. . (That is actually meant to be a lighthearted joke. )

Anyway, obviously the main focus should be on where she does want to go , not where she doesn't.

But , an interesting thread.

Oh and whilst i'm on a roll - re the "passion" thing. What it seemed to come down to in the Darkling household was - reading beyond the syllabus voluntarily because it was "quite interesting" and didn't feel like homework. Not glamorous.
Also understanding that Getting Into a university is not the same as spending 3 years there actually having to study the subject. Arguing the toss between the latest xbox and whatever the other one is - engendered similar "passion" - these students are quite normal.

Bobo there are plenty of kids out there not feigning. That's just how they are. I got lost in the pigeon holing back there!

disquisitions I absolutely agree about the very good applicants in selective schools being deterred by not being at the top of their school. Contextualization here and the thinking behind it doesn't help either. I really do strongly believe that many state school teachers across the sector over estimate what's required, which can act as a huge deterrent. I think there can also be a mistaken link in some teachers' minds between good behaviour/ general keenness about school and Oxbridge potential whereas of course that's the most tenuous link ever!

Can I just note again how bloody awful London schooling sounds - is it really this much of a nightmare?

I can't say molio as we were safely in the backwaters until DS turned 13 and as I say he's Just Not Arsed by what others get up to.

You hear stories of course of how awful some parents are, how singularly driven they are for their DC's education. But how common that is, I don't know. Everyone judges from their own perspective.

I know some parents at DD's school think we are very driven and give the face for her. On results day, one charming mum said to her 'you deserve it because you haven't been allowed out of the house for three months.'

Which is true, except of course for all the sports, the drama, the 2 DofE expeditions, the parties, the...

One is example is the widespread belief that Chinese kids are better at maths. It takes a while for kids to figure out that they are not neccessaily better but often get better marks because they work harder.

I always find this comment fascinating, as Chinese students typically don't do well at university maths. I would say that they are less likely to get thirds and 2:2s, but not more likely to get firsts.

Moreover, there are quite a few Asian students in my DC's selective school but they are not the ones who have the reputation for being superstars at maths - they are often top set, but not Olympiad/UKMT material. Perhaps this is again a particularly London school thing?

I sympathise SGADM. People assume I must be not just pushy but ultra pushy and that the DC 'don't have a life' (actual quote from newly arrived local mum). I'm not certain that when they discover it, they like the reality - which happens to be sports, drama, DofE, parties, X-box (nod to Jane :)) etc.... Being serious, it's actually quite an important message for access, as a few posters with bad experience at Cambridge Open days have pointed out.

Just to let y'all know, I'm still reading

but as this thread, like far too many others on the Education boards,
has reverted to those with kids at fee paying London Schools and a few state Superselectives
chatting among themselves

myself and my fellow 90% of the country not in that group will just observe.

to think out of the box, you have to realise you are in it

I think I probably am quite a pushy parent in some ways .

But more often than not, the things I push on have little to do with school grades.

Rubbish talkin! There are hundreds, nay thousands, of threads on the Education boards from all sorts of posters. Most with children in state primary schools!!!!!

But a thread about Oxbridge will bring out a self selecting group. Naturally. Those who work there. Those who have DC there. Those who have DC who would like to go there. Those who have DC who have considered it etc.

Your DD has decided not to apply. That's fine. Don't try to spin it.

Talkin, that's a shame if that is what you think.

I for one would be very interested in where your daughter is interested in going.

I think I said before a friend of Ds positively applied to So'ton (engineering) when he was a credible Cambridge candidate (hoiking back to thread relevance) . That to me is strong minded. The man in the street, uninformed about various university courses and just hearing "Cambridge" , would say "why?" That boy could give that man a credible answer.

Darkling
Her course choice is clearly listed in the thread. She's going for Campus Unis. It should be easy to guess most of her UCAS form.

I'd like to hear from other families with first hand experience of the 90% of the population that attends non selective state schools
and what choices at University their kids made

Well why not start that thread talkin?

TBH I find your positioning yourself as some disadvantaged outsider quite tough to take. Your family are all Oxbridge educated and you went to independent school...

It's a bit rich when you perfectly well know my background!

Your family are all Oxbridge educated
Um no.
My parents and grandparents were not educated in the UK
I arrived in this country as an economic migrant when I was young.