Anyone whose DD or DS had a disastrous Oxbridge interview....

[Supermanspants]

..... and managed to get an offer?
Hideous interview today. Grilled on a topic she hasn't even covered in her A level course and based purely on a 7 page academic article she only got half an hour before the interview.
She is so down about it all.

BTW personally I think a lot of the problem lies with the general population's perception of Oxbridge: people seem to put it miles ahead of other places, not understanding that this is not the case. Oxbridge may have better buildings, historic colleges but it is hiring its academics from the same pools as other top universities and academics at Oxbridge are not better than those in other Uk groups.

If you have 10 applicants for every place, and almost all applicants want their place (cf other RG universities), then there is always going to be some amount of luck and arbitrariness in the selection process. I agree that interviews are affected by unconscious biases, no matter how hard academics try to look for the potential in every candidate. Pretests also involve some luck and biases involved.

Splendid to be reassured by those in the know/who know better that everything in Oxford and Cambridge is working exactly as it should, so the right students and right academics (world leaders!!) are invariably selected, and all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Lesser mortals like me (despite a degree from one of these institutions and a daughter who is currently at another) sometimes just don't quite get it.

Do you know I've even sometimes suspected that one or two of my old mates who are Fellows can come across as being quite stupid. In therms of their work they may be playing a particular game quite well. But they'll come up with all sorts of smug, received ideas in conversation that display the limitedness of their range - but they genuinely believe because they're saying something it is the product of great intelligence.

It's as if there's a self-confirming Emperor's New Clothesness about it all.

Actually maybe some 'world leaders' are stupid. It's not exactly as if the world is being run well is it? (Depends on whether you rate the Camerons of this world more highly than the Corbyns.)

(Of course these thoughts some residual innate 'thickness' my superb teachers - most of whom were rubbish communicators, and not at all good at eaching never quite managed to banish? Was I one of those ultra-rare admissions mistakes.?

Rant over.

Same as any walk of life Marianne, you'll get unconscious and/or conscious bias, old school tie, bright/thick etc etc Everyone involved in the process at every level is a flawed human...

smug, received ideas
Some of those on this thread.
Lazy assumptions about tutors, who have been interviewing cohorts for many years, being easily fooled by confident public school types and not seeing the potential of a shy northern Comp applicant.

Yes, to the flawed nature of humanity Hullygully!

MarianneSolong I agree with disquisitiones in that my experience of many years as a senior STEM researcher in one of these universities is that most of my colleagues are international or if UK very mixed in their previous education including where their first degree was. Perhaps for humanities it is different but even there the people I know are rather international. I think that there may be a conscious or unconscious bias against students from the elite schools just because it is more difficult to uncover the ability and curiosity from educational advantage.

I'm finding the discussion interesting - thanks to those who are contributing their experiences. It is odd because via a whole set of circumstances, which I did not scheme to bring about - my daughter has ended up in 'the college next door' to the one that I used to attend.

It is interesting trying to work out what has changed, and what has not changed. And to separate reality from mythology. Obviously there are lots of mini-institutions making up larger institutions, as well as different faculties/disciplines etc - so hard to come up with any universal truths.

I'm also in an odd position because I currently work with people who have been marginalised and disadvantaged. We live in a culture where the dominant ideology that 'success' springs from a mixture hard work, native ability/intelligence etc. And we'd all like to think/most of us like to think that such ability and intelligence will shine through, so that doors swing open to welcome the clever and deserving.

But the particular environment I'm in is one where I see doors being closed, drawbridges being raised. Life becoming grimmer and harder, the more vulnerable being penalised rather than supported. (Meanwhile my daughter is in the midst of cloisters, courtyards etc.) It's just a bit weird.

MarianneSolong true educational disadvantage (school and parents) will already closed doors long before aspirational university applications.

Hmm. I'm chair of a comprehensive in a deprived inner city area. What I see when I talk to the young people s a determination to do well in whatever their chosen field is. And the enlightened head makes sure that his kids break through their comfort zones in preparation for life ahead, know that it will take darned hard work but that they are just as entitled as anyone else to go places. And his staff are absolutely up for that too.

I'm not disputing the cuts to benefits, but the aspirations of teachers and pupils have changed massively over the last 15 years. Look at Mossbourne. Far more Oxbridge offers than many a well known independent school. Yes we still need to do better, but a lot has changed.

In my own field languages, there is vastly more opportunity for the poorest now than when I was a student from a poor background many year ago.
When I went to university from a provincial city, I had never been to the country of the language I studied, and had no access to foreign films or print media or books other than school texts. So I was massively at a disadvantage over people with holiday homes/ living in London/foreign au-pairs etc. Nowadays any determined teenager can total immersion online, and if they are Oxbridge material they will have the nous and work ethic to seek it out. And the same is true of other subjects.

My own field is literature. I'm concerned about the narrowing of the school curriculum in terms of literacy teaching, the decline of school libraries and the slow starvation of the public library service. Bookshops are in decline and there's a dumbing down in terms of the way in which books are - or aren't discussed in traditional media. Moreover the cost of higher education discourages students from disadvantaged backgrounds to study subjects which are less likely to lead to well-paid careers.

So yes, lots of books are available online - but that does not in itself provide a kind of wealth of literary/cultural opportunity.

I'd agree it's not a straightforward doom and gloom scenario. Just that not all changes are for the better.

Many, many more classic works downloadable now than were every available in libraries.

I think for me it wasn't just about the books. It was being able to have conversations about the books. People to suggest particular books. Books that had introductions where the novels were put in some kind of context.

I do think libraries are important. (Though there are those who say we have the internet, so nobody needs libraries now.) Physical places where you can go and try books, and talk to people who will recommend books are valuable. Ideally schools where it's just a bit broader than talking about fronted adverbials, and set texts and mark schemes amd going up from level 1c to level 2a.

I had an enthusiastic teacher who loved literature and who praised my work when I was 10. For one term. It changed my life.

I agree re guidance. I had none and can see the difference with my dc. It's all v well saying brains and motivation take one a long way, but if you don't know the signposts, or even that the roads exist, you don't get far, and certainly not nearly as far as you might with informed support.

It's all v well saying brains and motivation take one a long way, but if you don't know the signposts, or even that the roads exist, you don't get far, and certainly not nearly as far as you might with informed support

I agree 100%. I see it with my niece who is able but has no guidance, especially at home, she reads all sorts of tosh, will read anything and everything except the stuff she needs for the level of schooling she is at.

Nobody cares if you know what a Dirichlet Function is when you are 14. It will never come up in a GCSE maths paper.

That's why we try to provide that additional stuff, cultural in addition. We get some of the post GCSE students from another school to run additional maths classes for the top mathematicians, good for them and us.

What's been great is that as far as I know, when some of our kids say " I want to go to imperial and study physics" people say great, no one says " you won't like it there". Ditto Cambridge or Oxford. A long time ago that would not have been the case.

Moreover the cost of higher education discourages students from disadvantaged backgrounds to study subjects which are less likely to lead to well-paid careers.

What's the evidence for this?

I think there is evidence that students from disadvantaged backgrounds actually don't know which subjects/courses are more likely to lead to well-paid careers. For example, students from families with no background of university study are more likely to study actuarial science, finance, accounting than maths, believing incorrectly that the former are more correlated with well-paid careers.

And while I am definitely not a fan of the post 2012 student funding arrangements the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds is still increasing.

true educational disadvantage (school and parents) will already closed doors long before aspirational university applications.

I completely agree with this. In my own subject so many students exclude themselves by their A level choices: so many are excluded by schools not offering or not encouraging FM A level. But at the same time students who don't have FM won't be able to keep up in the top courses. What are the solutions? Online FM support is offered; online and (free) residential STEP courses are offered; vast amounts of time and resources are spent telling disadvantaged schools about these resources and encouraging students to apply; Oxbridge ambassadors who themselves came from such backgrounds go into schools and colleges; the RG publishes and circulates a document about informed choices. And yet we often face a lot of resistance when we try to improve access in these ways...

Peer influence is incredibly important. Universities can do all the outreach in the world but being in a tiny minority of high-ability pupils means that taking FM or preparing STEP are viewed as unusual/hard work/challenging rather than part and parcel of life. Life is so much easier when you ride the general wave.

Jeez, all these clever children even getting as far as an Oxbridge interview.

You're all marvellous.

disquis, two thoughts. More schools doing things like this

1. "Pimlico Academy Post 16 is a part of a consortium arrangement with other schools and colleges in Westminster including The Grey Coat Hospital School and Westminster City School. Students are able to take at most one subject in a Consortium School or College."

Interestingly two of the schools mentioned were pretty troubled a decade ago but are now part of the impressive improvement in London schools.

1. Closer working between private and state sectors. Observation suggests that offering bursaries as a way for a school to fulfill charitable aims may not provide much impact. Some very talented kids get an education they would not be able otherwise to afford, but there is a bias towards those with existing high aspirations able to research the process. The same level of resource spent providing say, a classics teacher to offer GCSE to a local consortium, teaching for FM AS or STEP preparations, or perhaps help with Oxbridge and medical school applications might go a lot further.

Splendid to be reassured by those in the know/who know better that everything in Oxford and Cambridge is working exactly as it should, so the right students and right academics (world leaders!!) are invariably selected, and all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

The terminology of world leading is standard: it arises in the classifications of academic work for the Research Excellence Framework, for example. No top research group will hire somebody who isn't a strong candidate for a "4 star" classification in the REF: "[Work of] quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour".

And I didn't say that the right students and academics are invariably selected: I said that it would be a myth to believe that better qualified academics are routinely rejected simply on the basis of where they were educated/are working. In fact the opposite occurs: in the run up to the REF there was a bidding war for top academics, with many academics swapping universities (including moves from low ranked institutions to Oxbridge).

Very interesting Needmoresleep about providing more support for applying to key subjects to more deprived students. I wonder what proportion of people that go on oxford uniq summer schools, apply and then get an offer.

There is a huge amount of research and planning needed to be done to apply to do Medicine for example. It is possible to do it all yourself (as a student) but would you realise all this at a relatively young age especially as your peers applying to do other subjects are not having to do this. You might not until it was too late.

Tropical, I can't remember the percentages but I have definitely seen statistics that show attending a Uniq summer school improves the odds of getting an offer.

I also have seen so many pupils not taking the correct subjects. Or (perhaps worse) being mislead by naive teachers that they have a good shot at getting into Oxbridge/medicine etc with poor GCSE & AS grades

Tropical, DD is at a private school, but medical school applicants do their preparations with pupils from a local state school. Different students will bring different mix of academic excellence, personal skills and real life experience to their applications. Given no one can be sure that they will get an offer, I think it has to be useful to have an understanding of individual strengths and weaknesses and, where necessary, about the need to continue to work hard to achieve top grades or boost other experience.

Obviously private schools have more resource to do this sort of thing. But it is a resource that can be shared for wider advantage.

My son has been for an interview at Cambridge this time (maths) at a middle ranking college.He felt the interviews went ok, well even.

I will be very annoyed if this is, as others have insinuated , because the college wasn't really interested in him.To my mind if they are not interested, then don' interview!The cost of travelling down there accommodation and food was a lot to find at christmas time.Interviewers need to be aware of this and they need to give every candidate the opportunity to show off what they can do rather than sticking with easy questions.