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?

I do think the kitchen/catering issue is a real one.

It's a right pain in many colleges, to self-cater. And even if you do choose to cook for yourself, and even if that doesn't mean losing out of subsidised meals in hall, you won't have large numbers of other people doing the same, as you would if you chose a self-catering hall elsewhere.

I don't think this stuff is that trivial really. Sure, it's not as important as the course, but it's day-to-day activity that has the power to really get you down if it matters to you.

But surely there are parallel issues when you choose any university?

iPaid makes the point I wasn't going to - why are you talking in the first person TP? What do you mean when you say that you will see what the tutors say and that you don't have a closed mind to Cambridge .

Saying the DD hasn't got the grades is a bit harsh though. Purely on the face of it, she might have a marginal issue with Oxford on GCSEs, especially if there's no aptitude test, and she might have a marginal issue with Cambridge with the ASs, but the grades aren't a million miles away from the grades some students apply with.

Ok maybe Queens was a rubbish idea, I had a faint idea of a modern hall down in that direction but must have imagined it .

Erroll if you are still here. Engineering. To go on hearsay that Imperial is just applied maths is as bad as the OP! Electronics degree would have lots of modules and projects where students can choose either more theoretical or practical options. If your DD has the brains/grades to be looking at IC or Oxbridge, she should not find the maths a problem. I get the impression that some degree courses are good at teaching people to crib from a British Standard and churn out a design but a bit light on the hard stuff/underlying theory. You have 45 years of working life to do the practical stuff believe me, you soon pick it up.

Also if she fears IC will be a bit too theoretical/impractical then definitely don't look at Cambridge.

TBH if she knows her specialism she might find IC or a dedicated EE course more satisfying. But if she is going to be an engineer then I'm just glad she's looking at anywhere. And can she please bring some friends?

And the AS consideration is ums not grades anyway (i thought) so high Bs better than low and high As better than low.

Kez but once you stray into B grades the ums aren't quite up there with what Cambridge says it wants, for non special access applicants.

The word 'chippy' keeps on coming up and it was the first thing that popped into my head after reading the OP, suggested by the adamant stance on gowns and formal dinners. I am wondering if she won't apply because she doesn't want to experience rejection. Does she feel on some level that she might be out of her element in Oxbridge?

I didn't apply to Oxbridge because I just didn't fancy it. I had my heart set on a different university in another city I loved. I went to that university and had a great time, great education and great career. I personally don't think I missed out on anything and wouldn't change my decision. I definitely think it's horses for courses. Your dd doesn't need to justify her reasons for not applying - it's perfectly fine to just prefer something else.

Mine wants to do medicine and having looked at the courses she doesn't feel Oxbridge is the best place for that. Plus the stress. Plus the fact that Oxford at least is well and truly up it's own arse still as she's seen from the experiences of somebody she knows who went this year. Its just not her.

Yes, obviously one person's short experience gives comprehensive knowledge of the entire university

Surely it's more positive to find the places she wants to go and determine the reasons for going there rather than come up with reasons excuses for not going to Oxbridge. If she doesn't want to go fine. She doesn't have to and if an I've asks why she's applying to eg Manchester not Oxford she sings the praises of the Manchester course and how it suits her. Rather than come up with a list of inaccurate suppositions about Oxbridge.

^This

TalkinPeace I currently have a child at Cambridge and an interest in dispelling misconceptions about the place. One of those misconceptions is that everyone should apply if they may get the grades. The other misconceptions have largely been dealt with already but no-one has yet mentioned the alternative prospectus www.applytocambridge.com/ and especially the shadowing scheme www.applytocambridge.com/shadowing/

As spinoa said upthread there are many good reasons for not applying to Oxbridge. Despite the claims that it teaches you to think it actually seems to brainwash you in some ways, one being your inherent superiority :)

No-one should feel they need to defend a decision not to apply or not to go. Three years is a long time to live somewhere you feel uncomfortable, even if it opens doors later.

Good reasons not to apply include

The courses are very theoretical and are not necessarily good preparation for a world of work where you may actually have to do something. They prepare you well for careers in academic life but most students dont stay in academic life.

The short intensive terms put a lot of strain on students.

Degree result is based heavily on final exams, most universities give more weight to results in earlier years and some include coursework

Preferring a different teaching style

Although I have a child at Cambridge I have still to be convinced that Oxbridge offers much advantage for medicine, other than that if you are very able academically you have a good chance of being admitted. It's a good example of a career that needs practical skills once you start work.

already I agree with your comments on short terms and intensity of work.

These are not things that suit every student. There's often an almost breathless quality to it, which I personally find invigorating, but some find quite stressful.

The long and short of it is that for msny students more is expected of them in a shorter space of time.

However, I would take issue on your comment regarding the theoretical aspect of courses at Oxbridge.
First, most courses at universities are meant to be so. They are not vocational.
Second, the way a brain is trained to analyse is what is useful in the world of work. Trade skills can be easily picked up.
This is one reason Oxbridge graduates are so popular in the working world.

Are your comments based purely on your experience of medicine?

There are many good reasons for not choosing Oxbridge.

Where you eat your lunch does not seem to be one of them.

Indeed! Sounds to me more like a case of someone who is scared of not getting in (no shame in that - it s not just about 'getting the grades' - many more 'get the grades' than there are places for) and has decided to reject it before it rejects her.
By all means look at the specific course you want, then see where it is the best fit, but to rule out a gold standard education because of eating lunch or other trivial issues suggest that her reasoning skills are poorly developed anyway - that is a better reason not to apply.

Atia I should have been clearer, what dd has observed this year has simply confirmed what she already thought rather than establishing that strain of thought on the basis of that person's experience alone. I have to say I've seen nothing on this thread to disprove that particular theory either

Saying the DD hasn't got the grades is a bit harsh though. Purely on the face of it, she might have a marginal issue with Oxford on GCSEs, especially if there's no aptitude test, and she might have a marginal issue with Cambridge with the ASs, but the grades aren't a million miles away from the grades some students apply with.

They aren't away from the grades people apply with but they are marginal to get an interview in the subject of interest (biological sciences), for which the grade profiles of applicants are very high.

Oxford cuts on 6 A* at GCSE which the OP's daughter doesn't have. (I think she has three or four, the rest As and Bs.) The chances of an interview would be slim with her grade profile unless she does fantastically in an aptitude test.

Cambridge cuts on UMS and a student with a B in one of their sciences (which OP's daughter has) would only tend to get an interview if their UMS in the other three sciences is 92/93/94+. Many applicants will have 5 As at sciences for AS, rather than AAABB, and many of the 5A candidates with 95+ UMS don't end up with an offer. Not sure whether OP's daughter has this level of UMS in her best three subjects. Also while Cambridge does not automatically cut on GCSE results, most successful applicants for Nat Sci will indeed have 6+ A*s. So overall (as OP knows) her daughter has a slim chance of getting an offer and perhaps a slim chance of an interview.

The title of the thread tends to imply that the student is a dead cert and just doesn't want to go, but even candidates with straight As and high UMS cannot be sure of getting an offer when the applicant pool is so strong.

A comment on the cohort thing.

I was at a single sex college. As such we were therefore more or less forced to mix with other colleges.

You have the people you are on a landing or corridor or staircase with.
You have the people in college doing the same course.
You have people in other colleges doing the same course, especially those you are doing practicals with for science.
You have the college level clubs and societies to help you mix with others in college.
You have university level clubs and societies to help you find like minded people all over the university.
You have the friends of your friends who are doing different subjects in different colleges.

compared with the schools she's been at for the last 6 years, 200 in a cohort is downright claustrophobic

This made me larf.
Never mind the quality, feel the width.

spinoa I suspect OPs DD knows she is a long shot and doesn't want the hassle of an application for such a slim chance.

Best response in those circumstances - shame , would have been nice, but hardly a tragedy.

However , either the DD or OP or both would prefer to package the situation as - could have got in but don't want to because if [insert here].

Could be pride, defence mechanism, whatever. Human reaction but actually unhealthy. Better to focus positively on where you do want to go and where you will likely get an offer.

Everyone applying to Oxbridge is a long shot. Nobody is a dead cert. I think some of the comments on this thread are a bit mean. If my DD does decide to apply, she will know she is a very long shot. If she doesn't apply it won't be because she's not 'good enough' (all she has to do is compare herself to me to know she is easily 'good enough') but because she decided finally that she wants to go a different route. If she does decide to pursue to Oxbridge route not her alternative plan, it won't be because she feared she wasn't good enough for her alternative, it will be because the people who have been trying to convince her (not me as it happens) that the Oxbridge route is better for her persuaded her with their arguments. That's all. I'm sure the same is true of TP's DD. she has lots of options, she has yet to select her preferred one. Personally I feel more kindly towards kids who are still deciding at this point (end year 12) than kids who are proclaiming at the end of Y11 that they are in the process of selecting their (apparently inevitable predestined) Oxbridge college now.

BTW with a relatively weak grade profile if somebody did want to apply then they might want to think strategically and avoid over-subscribed colleges. One can look up the patterns of applications by college and subject for previous years but as a rule of thumb (for Cambridge):

• avoid the big-name colleges (Trinity, St John's, King's)

• avoid colleges which are high in the Tompkins League Table (Pembroke, Churchill, Emmanuel, Christ's)

• go for colleges which are lower down the Tompkins Table, bearing in mind that the single sex colleges are often on the look out for undervalued females. Think about Murray Edwards (women), Newnham (women), Girton, Homerton etc.

And I agree that it is a shame when people focus too much on Oxbridge. Selection is made on the basis of small differences between teenagers, and people shouldn't dwell on not having the required grade profile, not getting an interview or nor getting/making an offer. So many people seem to have bad feelings about this many years later.

uhtred absolutely no one on this thread has said anyone is a dead cert.

The only person who implied it was the OP. Who has been talking about her DD's Oxbridge intentions for a long time. Well before year 11.

I always say that getting into Oxbridge is a numbers game. Too many excellent candidates not enough spaces. Some excellent candidates won't get an offer. This is one reason never to count your chickens ( a bit like all those MN declarations that their year 8 child is predicted all A*s), and never to get too closely attached to the idea of Oxbridge. Parents seem to be worse that young people for the later.

That said, some applicants stand a better chance than others. There are cut offs. Not everyone stands a chance. And I would say, based on DDs grades that she's borderline.

Now that being said, most of us have agreed she should still give it a whirl. A great score on pre-test , an interview that clicks and she could get an offer.

But it's perfectly understandable that she might not want to roll the dice. Onwards and upwards.

But leave out the gathering of a case against Oxbridge. What use is that to anyone?

I have to say I've seen nothing on this thread to disprove that particular theory either

Bugger, Northern, I thought we were trying to demonstrate the opposite Seriously, I know a lot of people who went to Oxford, and I know a lot of people working there now, in academia and the admin/management side. I really don't think the proportion of up-their-arse-ness is any higher than in the general population. (Which for medics is pretty high, admittedly!) The Oxford clinicians that I know best are extremely generous, thoughtful people. There is what can be perceived as arrogance that comes with knowing that you're doing good work, that you're in a place doing some of the best research in the world, but fake modesty is probably less appealing.

I'm getting off topic.

I think if people expect to see a certain stereotype at Oxbridge, they will find it.

Me, I'm a working class northerner, brought up in worse depravation than any of the Oxbridge-is-up-its-arse-I'm-keeping- it-real-standing- on-my- own-two-feet-me gang could imagine!

And even though it might be me who comes to chat about Oxbridge, me who interviews you, me who teaches you, you will still spot the bloke wearing a gown because it's what you want to see.