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.

(If it is relevant, both the musician and the creative writer / drama person from my family DID go to Oxbridge - but have rarely throughout their working lives broken the 21k barrier)

teacher - if the value of the job is not worth the cost of training to degree level then the answer is no.

However, I know a woman who is in repertory theatre who did not go to university and she is a good actress and doing very well and she did not need a degree.

There are plenty of great artists who do not have degrees. There are plenty of great writers without degrees.

There are people who trained in say Engineering to degree level who later become writers and actors. How many of them were at Cambridge and Oxford - ever heard of Footlights?

Frankly someone earnng £21k as a writer having been through a degree course would be better going and managing a fast food restaurant Therein lies the problem. Far too many degree holders not working in jobs that actually require a degree and not earning enough to pay back the cost of the degree.

Do your relatives all live on a trust fund?

Beta,

Both said relatives fall into the 'Footlights'-type pattern: first class Oxbridge science degrees, followed by higher degrees in their chosen fields of work, followed by years of typically 'feast or famine' freelance work. Both have worked with 'high level' professional organisations (RSC, that type of thing).

No trust funds. We were brought up poor as church mice (by similarly Oxbridge-educated, highly-principled, public spirited parents), and are pretty good at managing on less than people like you would expect.....

"
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."

There needs to be something that stops universities in their tracks from constantly crying out for more money and all (so called) universities and raising fees to the max for all courses. (Even if there is only 4 hours a week contact time and 2 extended essays a term). Universities often completely over charge such students because the present system means that there is no incentive to provide value for money.

It would be sad to see the demise of the arts, but autimately everyone has to be capable of earning their own living unless they have a rich Daddy. Maybe those doing music or drama should do their courses as part of a joint degree or study at home or part time to stop themselves from racking up such horrendous debts.

Combining music or drama with business studies or book keeping might make it easier for a freelancer. Being self employed involves a lot of work not related to someone's passion. They would have an additional skill during hard times to keep a roof over their heads. Dancers need a plan for when they are too old to dance, but not old enough to pick up a pension.

I have been thinking, by the way, about your belief about the destinations of your college peers and how it differs from mine.

I suspect it is all to do with 'micro peer group' within each college - we are all more likely to associate most with those who share our own experiences / values / beliefs, and while I am sure that there were 'micro peer groups' within my college who will have a 'norm' of high money, visibly high status jobs (and your micro peer group might well have been like this), my 'micro peer group' has a norm of 'public service / low money / high social worth' jobs instead.

Statistically, I suspect it is a mix.

ReallyTired - absolutely.

teacher - something isn't adding up here. Your relatives cant be paying back their student loans and living in anything but subsidised circumstances. They must be being supported by the state, the church, a charity or an inheritance f some sort.

FWIW - there are musicians out there in the world in fantastic bands without degrees earning millions of dollars. Others with degrees also earning millions of dollars.

"It would be sad to see the demise of the arts, but autimately everyone has to be capable of earning their own living unless they have a rich Daddy."

The 'creative' branch of the family owns a house, is bringing up 3 children, 2 at private schools (full choral scholarships + bursaries) ... 21k is definitely 'earning one's own living - and I did say 'reliably'. Like everyone in their fields, they save in the 'fat' years to carry them through the 'lean' years.

My friend's son has recently had 5 offers for a vocational course at university. He's planning to go to the one which is local to him. It's an ex poly. The course has an 80%+ employment rate in the industry he'll be trained in. Average starting wage is £40,000 and there's a year in industry that will pay him £22,000. He'll keep his debts to a minimum by living at home and keeping his part time job. I think it's a brilliant opportunity for him, despite him not remotely qualifying for any of the criteria as set out by Betadad

A brief Google indicates that a 5th decile (50th centile) family income for a family of 2 adults and 2 children was around £44,000 in 2014.

So 2 adults, with 2 children, both earning just less than £21,000, would still have a household income higher than more than 40% of families of that type... which doesn't seem to imply any need for 'church / charity / inheritance'

Wrong kind of musician..... interestingly lowbrow assumption of yours, btw.

teacher - I think *ReallyTired and me are on the same wavelength. There is some kind subsidy here.

The 'house' was it inherited, the 'scholarship' is that part of the job of one of the relatives because they are a choral teacher or choir master?

The 'bursary' is that because the income declared is below a threshold because the assets are in a trust fund?

FWIW my money I earned.

More this

relatively well-known example of the appropriate genre than a pop band with degree educated members

"The 'house' was it inherited."

No. Mortgaged in the usual way, deposit saved up from a 'good' project

"The 'scholarship' is that part of the job of one of the relatives because they are a choral teacher or choir master?"

No. Obtained by the children in a competitive entrance test - though obviously they inherited some of the talent of their parent.

"The 'bursary' is that because the income declared is below a threshold because the assets are in a trust fund?"

No. Because their income is, genuinely but variably, low. Like I was educated in a reasonably famous private school on a 100% scholarship because I was clever enough to come top of the exam, and my parents too poor to pay any of the fees.

Interesting that you think a couple living on just below median income cannot be living except on handouts.....

Oh, the scholarship and bursary are 'subsidies', if you want to look at it that way - but it is a common way for the famous cathedral choirs to fill their choir stalls with the best available musicians.

teacher - there is no way anyone would get a mortgage with those finances. Self employed with highly uncertain income. In any case £125k would be the maximum at 3 x joint income of £42k.

The house prices in any Cathedral city are way above that level for even a flat. Something doesn't add up but anyway this isn't relevant to the thread so we should move on.

Beta, I agree that it isn't relevant - but you forget that I might be talking about pre-boom house prices, or at least pre-boom first house prices. To cite myself as a parallel example, we have owned 3 houses in our married life. Our 3rd house purchase some years ago was with a deposit of about 3x the total price we bought our first house for - gained almost entirely from the increase in value of the first and second houses, and leaving us with a really very small monthly mortgage for the remaining value, which is very much less than 125k.

lawlawlaw 6A*+6A is absolutely fine for Oxbridge entry so encourage an application. Aptitude and Passion for the subject is what tutors are really looking for so for the latter I would start writing down all the things than provide evidence for that passion (books outside curriculum read, visits etc.) as a way of preparing for statements and interviews. I'd also think about the reasons why people study history, and about the differences between history at school and at university. The school background is a subsidiary factor in admissions - right now I'd focus on getting your kid ready for making a good application rather than imagining you can rely on that.

This articles as some interesting throngs to say about the importance of GCSE results and Oxbridge.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/can-a-perfect-run-of-a-gcse-grades-dictate-how-the-rest-of-your-life-will-pan-out-8761839.html

Sounds a bit mean I know, but as a full fee paying parent I do find scholarships/bursaries frustrating. In my experience (of several schools) they always seem go to the children of parents who went to excellent private schools, often top public schools. People who had every chance to get jobs which would pay for the education they want for their children. Shouldn't these private schools be giving a leg up to families with no immediate family history of such privilege? Rant over....

I agree GaribaldiGirl. I know a few people who live lovely free-spirited lives eg one is a gardener with tied cottage and dh is a perennial Phd student - who come from affluent backgrounds but manage to keep their own earnings and assets low and then qualify for bursaries. They are not means tested on summers spent in parents' Cornwall seaside house etc etc (me, jealous at all?!).

Also, there was a programme on Eton scholarship boys a while back. One boy who achieved one but they skimmed over quite quickly had Grade 8 on a couple of instruments. Now, that many music lessons, plus buying the instruments etc does a)not come cheap and b)needs a significant amount of parental push and know-how.

Garibaldi,

That is a really interesting point - in a sense, have 'those who have all the 'entry tickets' to very well-paid careers but have chosen not to follow that path' less 'moral right' to financial support to allow their children to obtain the same 'entry tickets'?

I can see the 'moral force' of this argument, and hope that, when looking at applications for bursaries, top schools might have regard to the 'potential earning power' of both parents as well as 'their current earning choices'.

However, it would lead to some very interesting dilemmas: is the 45 year old 'Oxbridge educated composer' less worthy of a bursary for their children because they COULD have become a merchant banker at 21? Is the mum who gave up a successful career in management in a large company to go into much more poorly paid public service role out of 'moral conviction' not worthy of a bursary because her previous career paid more?

I suppose the 'moral point' I am making is whether we, as a society, think that there is some benefit in 'highly qualified, highly educated individuals' choosing 'traditionally lower paid' career paths, and this not discriminate against them in e.g. bursary applications.

Some of these career paths are in the public sector:

• Nursing
• Teaching
• Social work

(Yes, there are higher paid roles available by progressing into the 'management' of these areas, but is it a loss to 'front line teaching / nursing / socail work' if highly educated / intelligent individuals are quickly taken out of front line roles)?

Others are in the creative arts:

• Dancers
• Actors
• Musicians
• Writers
• Composers

Still others may make choices about staying at home with their own children - do we as a society lose out if some highly intelligent / highly educated parents care not enabled to stay at home with their children, and we as a society expect them to delegate at least part of the early years childcare to others who are less highly qualified? [This is not about SAHP / WOHP. It's about whether we specifically, as a society, should choose to deny this choice to those who have high-flying, highly paid careers because the latter 'must maximise their earning power otherwise they are ineligible for certain things e.g. bursaries']

There is the point, however, that such 'highly qualified, highly educated individuals', whatever their income, are much more aware of 'the way the system that can be played', and may thus be more likely to gain the bursary etc simply because they are in a position to know about them and have the confidence to apply. It is that which perhaps needs most to be addressed.

One boy who achieved one but they skimmed over quite quickly had Grade 8 on a couple of instruments. Now, that many music lessons, plus buying the instruments etc does a)not come cheap and b)needs a significant amount of parental push and know-how.

I got to grade 8 on one instrument shortly after starting secondary school. I had only ever had free lessons at school from the local music service at primary level. It didn't cost my parents a penny apart from the cheap violins they bought. I had a lesson once a week and took exams when my teacher told me to. And I wasn't scholarship material but I am sure someone really talented could have made plenty out of those free lessons.

teacherwithtwokids and Garibaldigirl

DH and I are exactly who you are talking about. We both have good Oxbridge degrees but chose to work in personally fulfilling but much less well-paid jobs than we might have taken. Our children receive very generous bursaries to enable them to go to an independent school because of our low income but also because of their own intellectual and artistic ability - both things are taken into account when awarding bursaries.

I often feel guilty about this - but obviously not enough to send our children to the local comprehensive school. I'm very much aware that our children have lots of advantages already, the advantages that enable them to pass exams and get arts scholarships.

Oddly enough, both DH and I were also aided by bursaries and scholarships to go to very good independent schools (better than the ones our children attend) so we are the second generation to do this. Will our children continue the pattern? Maybe, because none of them show much sign of wanting to head into high paying careers - I suspect they will be educators, civil servants and charitable sector workers, all of whom are priced out of independent education in a way they were not when I went to school.

I completely agree that the system works to benefit the impoverished middle classes rather than to promote social mobility.