Are these GCSEs good enough for Oxbridge?

[lawlawlaw]

Hello all.
Have been chatting with family over christmas about my daughters future... She want's to study history.
Family think she should apply to Oxbridge (of course they would)
Her GCSEs were good but not stellar. She had 6A* and 6A (all in hard subjects though)
She goes to an average comp if that gives any help as I've heard they are more leniant with results for state educated pupils.
She is ridiculously passionate about her subject. It's honestly her whole life.

Could any fellow mumsnetters give some advice... Should I help her to apply? Are these results under average for Oxbridge?

Oh and the school have suggested she apply but they aren't very experienced in the field so I don't want her to set her heart on it if there's no chance.

Or, conversely, state schools tend to keep an open mind about what university course is right for each child. Whereas private schools trade on a high proportion into Oxbridge so very much expect their brightest kids to apply there without a second thought.

purple I visit state schools/colleges all the time as part of the widening participation scheme.

Minds are often very closed! Both pupils and staff. It's a huge barrier.

And whilst I accept that the converse can be true at independent schools, I know which situation is more problematic in my mind.

"Or, conversely, state schools tend to keep an open mind about what university course is right for each child. Whereas private schools trade on a high proportion into Oxbridge so very much expect their brightest kids to apply there without a second thought."

If a student applies to Oxbridge and is offered a place then they have a choice. Fear of failure and not trying is often worse than failure.

Yes.

The reasons I hear for not applying are often wrong/flawed/absurd.

really tired Why would students apply somewhere that isn't the best course for them? Don't they normally make their choices before applying? And its not exactly sensible to apply to Oxbridge as a back up option, especially if it's going to involve interviews and tests.

SheGotAllTheMoves states that she hears reasons which are often wrong/ flawed or absurd. I have less experience of meeting potential Oxbridge candidates. My sister in law turned down a place at Oxford because she thought it would be old fashioned and full of private school kids. It is a bit of a vicious circle if state school kids reject Oxford because it's full of private school kids. Other very bright people have not even looked at the propectus or gone to an open day because they don't believe they are good enough.

Certainly there are other world class degree courses. It is understandable that some who wants to read physics might reject Cambridge in favour of Imperial or Manchester. There is a problem when someone who is the calibre to look at studying physics at a world class university has low aspirations and limits their applications to the ex polys. Top universities allow the best minds to mix and make connections. The top students also benefit from bouncing ideas off each other. Many government minsters in top leaders in industry went to the top unis.

Elitist establishments need the elite students. These elite students can cone from any background.

Ds was at an independent school with a decent Oxbridge track record. My experience is hugely limited (i.e. a sample of 1) but some views on Oxbridge entry from private schools I do not recognise. (And I'm talking specifically about Oxbridge here because it is mentioned - not because it corners the market in excellence )

"Whereas private schools trade on a high proportion into Oxbridge so very much expect their brightest kids to apply there without a second thought."
Actually at DS's school they did make the pupils think carefully about their reasons for applying to Oxbridge - it's not just about getting a place, it's also sticking the course for 3 / 4 years.

ABetaDad, DS's school did give him a couple of practice interviews but these were very much concerned with the subject - so with a History teacher - not any prep in an "Oxbridge style" interview - so more just practice in being asked about the subject reasonably intensively for 1/2 hr. Also I think the HAT is a little more nuanced than I read from your post (and apologies if I misconstrue). A bright child with an aptitude for history can get through the HAT (to state the bleeding obvious) but, there's getting through it and getting through it well. From what I understand, anecdotally, there is scoring well enough to get an interview and then what the typical successful candidate will have scored. BUT - my experience is limited - I accept all contradictions.

In fact the two best bits of advice he got for the interviews were 1. If you don't think you've understood the question - say so" and "Don't forget to breathe"

Sounds like she has a reasonable chance and should research both places' degrees and other good unis, and do background reading as well as revision - and then she should be in a good place to take advantage of the course that is both prestigious and suits her, Oxbridge or not.

There's organisations that mentor sixth formers who have little/no experience of university in the family - Social Mobility Foundation is one that does internships plus email mentoring. Looking into what is available could be useful.

For those of you who think that somehow there is some sort of comparative 'choice' between Oxbridge and other universities (except perhaps some academic areas in London colleges) there really isn't.

Oxbridge standard is so far above the standard of other Russell Group universities that the word 'elite' doesn't quite cover it. Its a different world.

No one should be being told that Oxbridge might not be the right choice. If they have the intellect and the passion for their subject they should go.

I loathe the way kids in state schools are dissuaded from trying. My DW was 'dissuaded' and she ignored her teachers and did it all herself with no support. You don't need 12 A* at GCSE. Its not about that. Yes you need good grades and aptitude but you need something more and that is what the interviews are designed to find out.

I know someone who is an admissions tutor in an Oxford college. She describes the difficulty of trying to choose between the polished 'finished article' private school student and the 'raw talent' state school student.

"Oxbridge standard is so far above the standard of other Russell Group universities that the word 'elite' doesn't quite cover it. Its a different world."

Have you ever been to another university? Most people have little to compare their university choice to. Harvard, Connell or Princeton are surely on a par. Certainly courses at these universities are competitive.

I really think a lot depends on the subject you want to study. There are other elite courses in the uk which are incredibly competitive to get into. For example medicine or vetinary science. If someone wanted to study Physics at Manchester rather than Oxford because Manchester has the Joderall Bank telescope that is a fair reason. Another person might want a year industry. What is a sad reason is if someone will not consider top university course because they think it will be full of rich kids.

Rather than encouraging someone to attend a particular university it is better to encourage them to aim high and not fear failure. I doubt that any university want sheep. The interview process will find out why they want to read physics at Oxford rather than Manchester.

" know someone who is an admissions tutor in an Oxford college. She describes the difficulty of trying to choose between the polished 'finished article' private school student and the 'raw talent' state school student."

Oh, what utter bollocks.

"xbridge standard is so far above the standard of other Russell Group universities that the word 'elite' doesn't quite cover it. Its a different world"

Ditto.

You are Evelyn Waugh and I claim my £5.

TBF admissions tutors are only human and the interviews are 20/30 mins average.

So yes, it can be hard to spot raw but uncommunicative talent.

Obviously we have GCSE grades, AS UMS, pre tests, school work too.

With a subject like history, I would recommend that she really thinks about what she wants to study. Does she prefer modern history, ancient, social, political, economic, eastern, western, etc etc. Once she has figured that out she should then look at the kind of modules offered by various universities to narrow down her potential places to apply to. 'History' as a generic term can cover a huge swathe of potential subject matters and it would be awful if she went to a university that didn't really cover what she is passionate about.

In terms of grades, her GCSEs would be more than adequate for an Oxbridge application but it is her a level results that will matter most. She will need at least 3 As (one or two may have to be A*s). She will need to talk to her teachers about what they are predicting her to achieve, and if she is doing exams at the end of year 12 then they will be a good indicator of how well she may do.

Remember Oxbridge is a very different university experience to any other university. The terms are short and intense. That style of learning doesn't suit everyone, no matter how bright they might be. It's not the be all and end all. She needs to be somewhere she will be happy.

ReallyTired - yes I have taught undergraduate and graduate students in several universities including Cambridge. My wife has also taught in several universities.

Bertrand - it may annoy you but Oxford and Cambridge come consistently near or at the top of international university league tables every year. The other Russell group universities do not apart from some London University colleges. I am seriously considering advising my children not to waste my/their money unless they get into one of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_triangle_(universities) golden triangle London University colleges or Oxford/Cambridge.

golden triangle London University colleges or Oxford/Cambridge

God yes. Pity those poor mathematicians at Warwick, and the Medics at Liverpool. And the nurses at West London. And the vets at Surrey. Just throwing money down the drain.

ABetaDad1 you do sound a bit awe struck to be fair to Bertrand. Oxford and Cambridge are not crammed with universally brilliant students. This over-hyping is what deters a lot of very able but less well off kids from applying. Mumsnet in general is a bit OTT about it too. Not much chance of encouraging regularly clever kids from less obvious state schools to apply if everyone inflates the standard required.

My understanding from current tutors is that they're actually very, very adept at digging down beneath the polish but perhaps it's easier to blag it in the subject that SGADM has experience in.

Sorry BetaDad but that is over simplistic. What about Product Design at Northumbria or Automative Engineering at Surrey.

DS met up with schoolfriends at Christmas, many of whom are at "Golden Circle" Universities. Not all are happy with their courses, including a couple at Oxford, including one who seems to have an hour's tutorial a week from a disinterested tutor and some wishywashy comments following her end of year exams. In fairness another at a northern RG University is frustrated because though he chose the course which interested him, they seem to have accepted a number of students with grades below those advertised and the course is insufficiently stretching. Equally DS is enjoying London but this is not true of all his peers, some of whom may have got more out of being at Warwick.

Teenagers are new to major decision making and don't have a lot of experience/perspective. Its important for them to work out what is important to them. Employment prospects clearly matter, but course, teaching style, University type, accessibility and so on also need to be factored in. I can see good reasons why someone from a small village might prefer a campus to London. Or why some might prefer a University offering 10 week terms rather than 8.

Hello OP, DS1 currently reading History at Cambridge, with fewer A*s at GSCE than your DC.

Largely agree with MummaGiles point. The reason DS1 had a shot at Cambridge was for the breadth of periods offered, for the same reason Durham was also one of his choices. York somewhat grudgingly as their course started after the fall of the Roman Empire. So it really is well worth looking in detail when narrowing down university choices at what periods covered, and then modules within that, and indeed thematic modules that span the centuries.

My only slight disagreement is that having a keen interest in say modern history at sixth form may not necessarily last into university. DS1's college strongly recommends, although does not insist, that students study in their first year periods that they did not study at A levels, and in many instances this seems to really kick start brand new areas of interest. All I'd say therefore is not to close off too many avenues too early. And remember, Cambridge (or Oxford if she really must :) ) is just one of 5 options on the UCAS form.

molio I don't think my subject is more easy to blag, I am simply more likely than many to admit that I am human (though if course most colleagues do admit this privately).

I'm not completely sure what it is you teach or to who SGADM, so apologies if I've got this wrong, but I thought you'd said you teach a particular English course to the visiting students. An English interview is surely more susceptible to the power of polish than interviews in many other subjects? Only my opinion of course.

Needmoresleep - if you want a degree course that is closer to a vocational area then by all means choose a course like that. My niece is having her degree in the construction industry sponsored by her employer and doing extremely well and her employer is over the moon with her and offering her promotions even before he degree is completed.

I could not be more pleased for her but it isn't Oxbridge. She is not going to work in the City or Magic Circle Law firms or top management consulting firms that pay the highest salaries in the country. These employers only recruit at a very few select universities and that includes Oxbridge.

It is not just the education it is the opportunities it offers afterwards. That is why anybody who has a chance should aim for the very highest level. The payoff is huge in employment terms afterwards. The top recruiters recruit at the top universities and pay the highest salaries for a reason.

Are your DCs old enough yet to have an opinion BetaDad?