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?

So what was that stuff about it being a 'blue' household?

Are you disappointed that your DD isn't applying TIP?

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.

Lots of people commenting on this thread do have such first hand experience. The last posts have indeed been dominated by regular posters who have children at grammars/superselectives but there's nothing to stop others commenting too.

On the other hand, why would you want to segregate the discussion into comprehensive v sixth form college v grammar school v independent school? Why not start a more positive thread about courses in biological sciences at campus universities and let everyone give their experiences of these?

Some universities get more non-selective state school applicants than average (Southampton being one), some get fewer (Bristol etc), but surely it would be constructive to break this cycle and get people to apply based on the courses, facilities, environment etc and not based on the current private v state ratios.

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

There are boxes and boxes. This is quite punchy for me. I will probably have to apologise later on.

In truth I do wsth your Dd well whatever she decides. It's a nice problem to have that she has IYSWIM.

I'm really confused now.

So your parents didn't go to Oxbridge? Why did you say they did then?

I'm leaving this thread now. I answered you genuinely but now think that you seem obsessed with Oxbridge and not in a good way.

I'll leave you all to it

MrsFrankie
I'd have loved her to have wanted to : especially Light Blue as I was brought up in a Dark Blue house
( Shegot the house one grows up in may or may not include ones family)

disqui
I'd like to know how many of the state school kids at Oxbridge
(a) went to non selective
(b) never went to Private school
as its well known that lots of private school kids ship into Symonds and use it as an easy hop into RG Unis

and I've been informed many, many times by posters on these boards that kids at selective schools get into better Unis than their Comp cohort, particularly those in and around London as against those in the sticks

do the top Unis really widen participation?
I suspect not
because as was made clear up thread, some of those involved in admissions expect more right stuff than a comp can ever provide.

It's getting a bit more complicated than that as those at London comps are always doing quite well which makes it more about immigrant work ethic and also the South East. It has always puzzled me that if IQ is spread around the UK pretty evenly why should schools in the SE do better than in the NE where I am from.

talkin whether family member or not, you make it very clear that you lived in a Dark Blue House. This, coupled with private school, hardly positions you as outsider to the educational establishment . Ten there are the Ivy connections...

Why you should choose to dismiss this is beyond me. I'd have given my back teeth for family know-how like that.

Dont want ro sound rude but can someone explain to me what is meant by the expression "living in a dark blue house" I've been reading through the thread but don't understand the saying and I really want to know??

I think it means they supported Oxford in the boat race.

Shegot I must admit I'd quite like some family know-how. And I went to Cambridge! But so much is so different now that that doesn't seem any advantage at all apart from knowing the train station layout and the geography of those bits of the town I used to frequent (which is by no means the whole town - there are colleges that I never knew where they were and I still don't know where they are to this day. And that's even before you consider the name changes!). It's my matric year's turn to be invited to my college's commemoration dinner this month but sadly I can't go since I will be away for work. I suspect that actually it's a good thing, given how prone to stress I am. I can go in 10 years time (if still alive) without all the worry of having a kid applying.

I think it means living in a house with Oxford (dark blue as opposed to the light blue of Cambridge) graduates.

Yes it is a bit offensive assuming that those with kids at independent selectives and state selectives are disinterested in how things work for DC less advantaged than their own. It must by now be blatantly obvious that SGADM works towards improving access to Oxford. I've worked for quite some years attempting in my own small way to improve access to selective secondary education, which is simply an earlier step in the same direction but Oxbridge access is of course the natural partner to those earlier initiatives. As SGADM says, TP knows the former's background, which wasn't rich, at least financially. Similarly, my father arrived in England as a child in 1939 with the contents of a single suitcase, and no working knowledge of the English language. An independent school took him in as a boarder, out of charity. SGADM and I both value the social mobility that education can bring - so we do something about it, or try to, in our own ways: we don't just talk.

Ah thank you both kindly for clarifying, I guess my DD lives a dark blue house. Shame on me never knew!! I thought it meant something else, some class or status symbol

Well why don't you also discriminate between children attending schools in areas where going to Oxbridge is seen as quite normal, and areas where it is less usual.
I live in Surrey, a totally non-selective area (the Grammar's are not in Surrey LA but London boroughs), admittedly with quite a few private schools. But quite a few of the comprehensives get a regular bunch of students into Oxbridge each year, and most of those have gone through the State system all the way (in my experience). And apart from one Sixth Form college I think the same would be true there too (as apart from that one I don't think many have much of an influx from Private schools).
I would also say that Surrey as a whole tends to get a lot of students into the "better" universities, if that means: Oxbridge, Medical Schools, Russell Group, and Times top 10 (or whatever). There are even jokes about just how many other Surrey students you meet at Durham (and I'm sure the prejudice against the English at Edinburgh is partly fed by Surrey students).

Oh BTW my Working class Grandparents had strong (and opposing) support for "Blues" in the Boat Race - I wouldn't choose University on the grounds of that.

NeedsMoreSleep - exactly - the people you know with French passports are culturally somewhere else (London). The fact that they are French nationals is no indicator of typical French behaviour. You should probably stop extrapolating from your observations of French-in-South-Ken to "Parisians". They aren't the same! Btw there is a fun article about the Lycee CDG in this month's French Vanity Fair that you might enjoy.

I think dismissing London because you have relatives there is a bit daft. I grew up near London, worked in London, had a flat in London (weep... another thread) and dh commutes to London. I can say with some certainty that you could wander round all day all year and never bump into anyone you know, let alone Auntie Joan or Cousin Tony. In fact, making contact with anyone in the next borough is sometimes more of a faff than visiting someone 100 miles away. And, as someone who is quite familiar with London, there are always new things to discover - and - for a student - with new people!

^I'd like to know how many of the state school kids at Oxbridge
(a) went to non selective
(b) never went to Private school^

Me.

No selective schools where I grew up, so comprehensive really was comprehensive and everyone was there (unless they went to a paying school of course).

Janetblyton, because achievent/attainment in education and work are correlated much more closely with opportunity, family background and aspirations than IQ.

It always surprises me when people who see themselves as intelligent fail to grasp the basics of social inequality.

The statistics for how many students are privately educated and how many state educated (with breakdown of type) is readily available.

In fact I've seen talkin use those stats to make a dinky little explanation of why she believes privately schooled pupils are not over represented at Oxbridge and parents are wasting their dosh.

Recent change of tune.

talkin whether family member or not, you make it very clear that you lived in a Dark Blue House. This, coupled with private school, hardly positions you as outsider to the educational establishment . Ten there are the Ivy connections...

Yes, I do find it ironic to be lectured about being ignorant of normal schools by somebody who grew up around Kensington and was sent to a private school; flunked her A levels but her parents could then afford to send her to a tutorial college; got a lower class degree at university, with no need for sleepless nights about future prospects.

I did go to a private school myself but on 100% scholarship. Had I flunked my A levels my parents could not have afforded a tutorial college. I had full grants and loans at university since my family earned so little. My main memory of undergraduate life is being cold and sometimes hungry, as I was trying to stretch my money to cover the vacation periods. I worked very hard at university (no hanging round bars for me) because I knew I needed to and I worried about getting a good job after graduating.

Meanwhile others in my household found their way from a poor village (not in the UK) with no electricity or phone connections to Oxbridge, attending schools which make all UK state schools look privileged. And we now spend an enormous amount of time on diversity, which brings us into contact with kids from all kinds of backgrounds.

I agree with SheGotAllDeMoves that this thread is in part about the OP's previous claims being reversed: all views or evidence which don't agree with OP's perspective will be rejected (so time for me to leave the thread).

BTW despite 20 years experience of Oxbridge I struggle to remember who is light blue and who is dark blue - I don't follow the Boat Race and I see College colours far more often than university colours.

As I said upthread, you do need to look at where privately educated pupils are over-represented. If they take 90% of the Classics places, well, there you go, and obviously some strategic applications take place regarding little-known subjects. If, however, private school applicants dominate a mainstream school subject such as History, then that bears more scrutiny as clearly then a school is conferring an advantage - whether it be better teaching, more exam-focused teaching or those nebulous features such as confidence, polish and general technique.

I think the better performance of London/SE has a lot to do with aspirations. So French being transferred from Paris are influenced by international work colleagues to consider an international (Anglophone) tertiary education for their children and to ensure that their DC are well placed to compete sucessfully. And reasonably ordinary DC like mine pick up some of the ultra high ambitions and strong work ethic of their peers.

I agree with Shegot. There are some, probably accurate, stories of excessive parental pressure (indeed there is evidence on MN itself, including the 3+, 4+ thread in Primary Ed or some of the "my child is 8, am I too late for 11+ tutoring" threads). However by and large DC get on with things and are just pleased they are not subject to the same. Yes there are irritations, but I suspect they would be more irritated being in a class where some of their peers had low aspirations and who did not engage in education.

Overall I think it is a positive. I think my children have done better, at least in terms of results, because they live in London, and the statistics seem to suggest that the effect of the impact of peer aspirations applies in a range of schools, not just private or selective. I also think it is a good thing that my DC are aware of, and feel able to reject, some elements of this ambition, and that by doing so they have a better idea of what they want for themselves.

So DS can be surrounded by kids from all over the world who seem intent on becoming investment bankers and earning huge salaries, and decide this is not for him. DD can see peers working very very hard to achieve that Oxbridge place and decide she is happy with "good enough" results that hopefully will get her to a good university, and onto a solid career.

So back to OP. Though this many be a London only phenomenon, it is as valid a reason to not to apply to Oxbridge as a desire for self-catering.

It would be interesting to see differences between geographical regions from 50 years ago when the country had grammar schools and today contrasting say the SE and the NE where I am from. May be there is no difference now to then (and we would need to take the top 10% or 5% only as only they went to university 50 years ago). My parents both passed the 11+ and met in higher education in the NE although I suppose in the 1940s and 50s the NE had not suffered all its economic decline so may be these things are too hard to compare anyway.

One reason will be that London has more immigrants who work hard and put a huge emphasis on education, another as people have said is money and perhaps just more competition. the London inner comps did better because of Teach First and perhaps volunteers from industry. there seem to be new selective acadamies in the state section in London now too which you don't get in other industrial cities. I think GCSE grades in comps are 2 grades ahead in inner London compared with grades in Hull.

There was a fascinating programme on R4 talking about just this and concluding that one factor that comprehensive schools outside London have to face is that there are strong family networks in small towns, which can sometimes act to anchor a child to the community. There can almost be an unconscious desire to discourage ambition, because it would mean children leaving the towns where they grew up. i have seen this with my neighbour, who had mixed feelings about her pushing her sons to go onto higher education because she said there was nothing wrong with their lifestyle and lack of ambition-- they were content, so why wouldn't the boys be, too? And if they stayed locally they would have all their family nearby. She changed her mind somewhat later on, though. Obviously the family network is hugely advantgeous in other respects, though.

I agree, Abraid2 - there is often an insoluble contradiction between ambition and staying embedded in family/community/networks which are an important source of wellbeing. It's important for it not to be seen as the be all and end all to go a long way from home to study. For some people it may make much more sense to live at home and go to a local university.