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.

Hmm, I guess my Ds hasn't got the grades then; 1 a* and the rest all A. He's hoping for Cambridge.

"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."

Not everyone wants to work in the city or for a magic circle law firm. Some people want to be doctors, nurses, computer programmers or shock horror do an apprenticeship. Not all Oxbridge graduates lead happy lives and get a well paid job. My husband has a third from an ex poly and earning more money than many Oxbridge graduates. Our neighbour has started his own company and doesn't even have GCSEs. There are many routes to sucess.

In fact I am going to be absolutely brutal about this.

If your child is not going to do an undergraduate degree at either a) an international university in the top 20 of the international standings or b) Golden Triangle university or c) a degree course paid for by their employer then they are highly likely to be wasting their time and just building up a debt they will never be able to afford to pay off.

Universities now are businesses who are only interested in capturing as many fee paying students as possible and not about education. They are even less interested in whether or not the fees the students pay will pay off in greater earning power.

Russell group universities are filling up with as many foreign students as the lecture halls will take just to bring in fee income and regardless of the quality of the students. The race to the bottom of gathering fee income has reached epidemic proportions in the US with many students who will never pay off their loans and we are following quickly behind.

Think hard before encouraging your son or daughter to go to a UK university outside the Golden Triangle. Even courses like medicine may never pay off with junior doctors salaries under pressure.

Lots of Cambridge graduates will never pay off their debts. Doing a degree is more than just money. The junior doctor who never pays off his debts will enjoy an interesting career. Given that we have to work until 67 then surely you want your child to have a fulfilling job. It's better to think of student loans as a graduate tax rather than repayments.

Good question Hocus :)

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.

I have had to turn down many applicants from Oxbridge who were hoping to enter a PhD program. This was due to the fact that they did not have the skills required. They may well be 'elite' but to get through a Natural Sciences course without any practical or even theoretical lab based skills is an absolute travesty. Students from York or Bath (and others) were much better educated.

Cambridge was a worse culprit than Oxford in this respect. The biggest irony is that the PhD program is a highly competitive University of Cambridge one.

slightly off topic - sorry OP

I failed to get into Oxbridge to read history despite straight A*\As and it was based on my personal statement and lack of extra curricular activity. All I did was study and work in a sandwich shop! Ended up going to Durham, which was wonderful.

I think she needs to show she has something about her, go the extra make, runs for charity, etc etc

It can't be said often enough- extra curricular activities that cannot be directly related to the course you want to study make no difference to your chances of getting into any university.

Ah I see!

Sorry ignore me (it was a long time ago)

Bertrand, so, say you want to teach and are a volunteer coach at a sports club, would that not help?

"The payoff is huge in employment terms afterwards."

I have a first - the highest in my college across any subject - and a PhD from Oxbridge (science subject).

I am a primary school teacher (though, to be fair, it isn't my first career, and my initial postgraduate employer was probably much more swayed than my current employer was by my university...).

Of my university peer group, those I remain in touch with are happy in interesting jobs ... but only the odd one or two are very 'materially successful' in the high status / high salary sense (and those mainly because they got into tech startups at the beginning, on very low graduate salaries but with share options). I do know more distantly of others who have gone down the law firm / management consultant type route, but those were confined almost exclusively to those who came from that kind of family background.

Back in real life, BetaDad, many of the most successful people I know went to Leeds/Durham/Manchester etc. While many of my Oxbridge friends, despite or because of being intellectually very able, have struggled somewhat with real life.

For most people a decent degree from an RG or similar university is absolutely sufficient, in academic terms, to enter the world of work.

teacher - well being a primary school teacher was your choice. Why are you not teaching in a secondary school as a Heed of Department in a private school where your skills and qualifications would be ighly sought after. The fact you chose not to do that is up to you but you did have at least the option and that is what I am talking about.

My contemporaries from my small college at Oxford are at the very highest level of politics, law, the City, academia. Not all by any means but the majority.

Irene - people from other universities can do very well in life. The options open to them though are narrower. On average an Oxbridge degree brings a far greater range of employment options at far higher salary rates. That is what I am talking about. Maximising life chances. No one should pass up the opportunity if they have the talent to try for Oxbridge or similar. Schools and teachers that that discourage their pupils from trying for Oxbridge need to be sanctioned.

BetaDad - trying for it is one thing if they want to .

I may be wrong, but I read one of your previous posts as no place outside a small number of London colleges or Oxbridge is worth the candle. To be "brutal" back at you I think this is (and I quote Bertrand) " utter bollocks" .

It would be brutal if one of your DCs had set their heart on a university - to pluck one out of the air - Edinburgh - which seems on your link to do pretty well on the criteria the 'golden triangle" is based on - would you honestly not support and encourage them to apply to a university of that stature.

Cheekily, may I suggest you name change to AlphaDad or indeed TigerDad.

I'm not saying what you are musing upon is nonsense but if you really would not support your DCs other than those few universities, IMVHO you are mistaken. But your choice. (Or indeed, ideally, theirs )

ABetaDad:

1. Why a private school?!

1. If this is the Oxbridge sell you're giving your son, God help him manage your disappointment if he doesn't get in.

1. What percentage success rate do your DW's tutees have in their Oxbridge applications, out of curiosity?

Cross post with Hocus.

Quite.

One of my favourite quotes is:

Don't educate your children to be rich. Educate them to be happy, so they know the value of things, not the price.

I went to a university that BetaDad will never have heard of. Those that were interested in that sort of career were still able to get the top management consultancy jobs, etc.

Betadad I wonder if you understand that other people are different to you, and have different aspirations? The majority of graduates don't actually want to enter the highest levels of law, city, politics etc. So to assume that makes you incredibly narrow in your outlook and advice.

Have you met Xenia or whatever she calls herself this month by the way?

Hear hear decorate. Posters like beta dad and Xenia know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Very nouveau riche.....

"Educate them to be happy, so they know the value of things, not the price."

Absolutely. All of the college contemporaries that I keep in touch with love their jobs. There is a statistically astonishingly low rate of divorce / separation amongst them, and a strong ethic of work for its own sake (e.g. pure research, inside or outside academia) or in public service (e.g. diplomatic service, teachers at all levels from primary to university, doctors, civil servants). The few who are also materially wealthy are extremely low key about it. They are happy, well-adjusted, empathetic individuals with a crew of happy, well-adjusted children amongst them.

Some of our children will probably follow in our footsteps - because many are very academic, in an unostentatious way. Others have interests - music, dance, engineering - that point them towards other tertiary-level institutions. Some have needs, illnesses (mental or physical) or disabilities that will mean that university-level education is not the best path for them. Others are adopted or fostered, and will need a totally different type of care well into adulthood.

But what strikes us all, when we meet, is that we are 'happy in our skins' and have brought our children up to be the same.

Betadad,

Yes, of course. When I changed career I could have walked into a teaching job at our local private schools, and was actively encouraged to do so.

But I happen to teach to educate children and see them progress, not teach my subject - so I chose to teach primary, where I see the same children pretty much every lesson for a year, and can develop them as whole people not just in a single subject.

And why not in the private sector? Lots of reasons, but the principal reason is, in much more famous words than mine 'not because it is easy, but because it is hard'. I do things because they are hard, because that makes them interesting and challenging. Spoon-feeding ableish, well-supported, rich children to pass exams is easy. Teaching a child with dyscalculia to subtract 1 reliably is HARD.

Xenia is DeoGratis these days. I'd recognise her anywhere although we have never met. I earn more than she does!

I am telling my children to be very very clear about why they are paying for uni and what they are going to get back for the money they will borrow.

I am not at all certain it is the right thing for DS2 although DS1 is bright enough for Oxbridge he may not have the desire. You can't force someone to want something and I am certainly not going to try. I would like to open my DSs eyes to the possibilities and open the door if they want to try but not if they don't.

I genuinely think 50% of children should not be going to university that are going at the moment. The socialist experiment of university for all was stupid and a con trick. Going to a rubbish university to get a rubbish degree that employers don't care about and won't pay for is an utter waste. I do believe in good universities paid for by the state on a scholarship/grant system that only the best students go to.

"I genuinely think 50% of children should not be going to university that are going at the moment. The socialist experiment of university for all was stupid and a con trick. Going to a rubbish university to get a rubbish degree that employers don't care about and won't pay for is an utter waste. I do believe in good universities paid for by the state on a scholarship/grant system that only the best students go to."

I think that there should be more on the job vocational learning. The insistence of a degree for a lot of general jobs and lots of Mickey Mouse apprenticeships hurts our ecomony. There needs to be more on the job training.

Universities are keen to make money and its in their interests to have plenty of bums on seats paying extortionate fees for second rate courses. There is no comeback for taking on a low ablity student who cannot cope with a challenging courses or turning out a hoard of completely unemployable graduates.

I feel that universities should be forced to pay some of the interest on student loans of graduates who are actively seeking employment or are in full time work and failing to earn 21k. When the sucess of graduates is linked to the financial wellbeing of professors the universities will be a bit more careful who they offer a place to. (Safeguards would have to be in place to prevent universities from refusing to offer places to the disabled or favouring men.)

ReallyTired - I agree with all of your post and especially about bums on seats and I think this is a excellent idea.

"I feel that universities should be forced to pay some of the interest on student loans of graduates who are actively seeking employment or are in full time work and failing to earn 21k. When the sucess of graduates is linked to the financial wellbeing of professors the universities will be a bit more careful who they offer a place to"

In effect, making a university invest in you and require them to think about the financial returns on that investment.

"who are actively seeking employment or are in full time work and failing to earn 21k"

There are degrees / degree level qualifications - creative writing, art, music, drama spring to mind because those are the ones family work in - where full-time-equivalent (often freelance, but full time hours) work in that field, even with many years of experience, does not reliably pay 21k per year.

Would we lose something, as a nation, if all courses in such creative fields became impossible for universities to run because of the typically low graduate salary? Do we want all our writers, musicians, actors, dancers to turn away from their fields and enter 'higher paying but not in line with their aspirations and talents' jobs?