Oxbridge - please can someone explain something to me

[Onedayinthesun]

Just to give some context, I have a neighbour who is a shameless bragger about her child, for the past 5 years she has talked incessantly about what her kid is going to do with their life.

Never has actually said little Johnny has accomplished X Y or Z. Always, this is what he is going to do.

Since he has been 12 yrs old I have had to listen about his mothers his aspirations of becoming an
Officer at Sandhurst,
A Doctor
Head of John Lewis (after he got his first Saturday job)
A Vet
A Banker in the City
And a Partner at KPMG

She has told me today that little Johnny will be applying to Oxford to study a degree that has no relevance to the above list of careers - and that given their policy for positive discrimination, as little Johnny, in her words is a "bright young thing"??? and from a middle class family and goes to the local comprehensive then he has a better opportunity of securing a place than those attending the best fee paying schools in the country.

Note. This kid did not get straight A's or A* at GCSE for every subject.

I didn't go to Uni, but run my own successful business so not having a degree has not held me back in life, however I get the distinct impression my neighbour (who places such importance on matters relating to education and social climbing) thinks I'm a total fool to think that Oxford select students for their courses on this basis. She is deluded right?

[maydancer]

the thing that annoys me is the Grammar schools and independent schools are so often bracketed together when grammar school children have about a tenth as much funding to their education as independent kids.DS is doing his A"s in sets of 25.He is getting precisely zero help with STEP.

[RhodaBull]

Stop whingeing, maydancer, no grammar schools at all round here so dcs could well be in a set of 25 and also with peers who are only doing A Levels because they have to stay on at school.

Being able to go to a grammar school is a privilege only accorded to few these days based on geographical area.

[Mumsieof2]

There's only ever been one person who went to Oxford in DD school (bog standard comp) in the last 10 years. He didn't have a string of A-A at gcse, he had aspergers but was amazing at maths and physics was kind of special in his own way, quite a enigma. He wasn't so good at the humanities but at maths he was in a league of his own and one of the maths teacher was so supportive giving him extra maths class and really extending his learning. Was so happy for him when he got in despite not having a string of A-A. I think in some circumstances they don't have to be good at everything to get a offer.

[Moonax]

They don't have to have a string of A* to get an offer. DS got in to Cambridge last year on the back of a far from stellar GCSE performance and a complete retake of Year 12. They thought he had potential based on the second set of AS results and made him a tough offer at A level which he made. He went to a good but not particularly exceptional sixth form. He was a long way from a "classic candidate" in that he was neither particularly advantaged or disadvantaged educationally, and the admissions process did exactly what they said they would do and looked at the whole picture. We were, of course, hugely proud of him!

I don't think there's a formula. They're looking for teachable people who can show significant academic progress and who they hope will thrive in their (pretty intense) environment.

[BertrandRussell]

Cambridge pays less attention to GCSEs than Oxford does.

You are really unlikely to get past the first sift at Oxford without stellar GCSEs

[EricNorthmanSucks]

Oxford and Cambridge do not have the same policies/systems for general admissions or widening participation.

It's wrong to conflate them in this regard.

It's true that both make efforts to attract more state school participation. And that both attempt to take into account advantage/disadvantage.

But how they go about that business is individual.

[Molio]

Piffle Bertrand. The aptitude tests help no end.

[Mumsieof2]

Surely someone who has attained a set of good GCSE results but not outstanding, but however has an amazing aptitude test score compared to a straight A kid with mediorce aptitude test, would still be considered at least, its not the be all and end all for Oxbridge hopefuls without sraight A-A. That sort of sceptical thinking is what fuels lots of bright kids from applying in the first place. Creates stigma, urban myths, second guesses of the type of kids they want. When in reality it might not be so formulaic.

[sassymuffin]

Oxbridge don't always want a brain on a chair type of student either, DD was still admitted to Cambridge even after initially missing her offer (she had a remark at her teachers suggestion and reached her original offer) So although a high level of academic performance is required, many other factors are important too. DD's friend got rejected after interview with 12 A at GCSE and 5 predicted A at A level. for a course that had the same entrance requirements as DD's course.

Feedback from DD's Director of studies was she was given her offer as they really liked the way she was confident, calm and an independent critical thinker. She also scored highly in her admissions test which was more luck than anything as her essay question was a concept she was familiar with because of a different subject she was studying.

Most of DD's peers didn't apply because they said that they did not want the stress and workload and also because some sadly said they just didn't have the confidence and self belief to apply.

[BertrandRussell]

OK. Absolutely fine. You don't need excellent GCSEs for Oxford.

[Mumsieof2]

I'm not saying you don't need excellent gcse, great if they do. But those that are say being late bloomers, have disabilities, illness, come from deprived background, hardship overcomming obstacles etc.. Won't necessary have exemplar GCSE I doubt would get penalised for it. Things aren't that black and white.

[Molio]

Bertrand what do you call excellent? Leaving medicine aside, because medicine is fairly unique in that regard.

A good aptitude test will secure an interview more easily than excellent GCSEs. A low aptitude test score is often the reason why a student isn't called for interview although a straight A* student may still get one on the strength of that level of GCSEs.

But where does your cut off lie when you say excellent?

[Onedayinthesun]

Do your teachers have to support your application when you apply to Oxford? I'm guessing applications have to be realistic in terms of the students predicted A levels and entry requirements for the course.

[HocusCrocus]

"Do your teachers have to support your application when you apply to Oxford? I'm guessing applications have to be realistic in terms of the students predicted A levels and entry requirements for the course."

That's not a question specific to Oxford. The school / teachers can't stop you applying where you want to. They will, however, supply predicted grades and a reference on the UCAS form (no idea how much the reference is taken into account). But, common sense would say, if you trust the school's judgment, take account of their view before you use a place up on the form for any university.

Of his list, as Molio said, Medicine and Vet courses - you will need certain subjects. Head of John Lewis - not so much . Fairly niche ambition though.

If it is his ambition to go to Oxford & he and his teachers think he is a credible candidate, good luck to him. If it is his mother's ambition and not his, well.......

[dilys4trevor]

Have not RTFT but I went to Cambridge and if they like you at interview (and you are expected to get good grades) you could be offered EEU, depending on the subject. So, little Johnny could absolutely flunk and still get in.

I know Cambridge in my day made 'two E' offers in subjects as revered as English (although never in maths and science).

I went in the mid 90s and competition could have stiffened (and I'm sure it has). However, I'm sure too if you blow them away at interview in a more 'arty' subject (or slightly less popular, e.g. Archeology and Anthropology) you could still get in on low grades. Two of my mates got two E offers. One got this in A&A, knowing you can get in on poor grades if you excel at interview, with the express purpose of switching to a 'better' subject later. I guess the point is though that the kind of person who would get that kind of offer would never get two Es!

Basically, if little Johnny has never actually excelled in reality, it's not that likely. This woman sounds awful.

[HocusCrocus]

Molio , Bertrand , Interesting point re what are excellent GCSEs. DS has a relatively few number compared to many DCs I read about on Mumsnet ( Not the same as DCs in general I know) . 9 .
The grades were not perfect but were (very) good. DS thought from open days that Cambridge were more interested in AS / UMS levels than Oxford (probably because of the aptitude tests). That said at the open day Oxford said they would expect a "decent number" of A * (not specified.) I do think some schools go for too many GCSEs.

[boys3]

hocus Cambridge have definitely been much more interested in AS along with the UMS detail, so the AS demise was not welcomed. However it has / is happening and aptitude tests are on their way www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/applying/admissions-assessments

On the clearly far more serious point of young Johnny I can't help thinking that if he was being properly aspirational, or indeed his DM on his behalf , then MIT or Harvard would be the objective :)

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

dilys4trevor, the days of EE offers are utterly gone, as far as I know. I believe Cambridge requires at least A* plus 2 As at A level for everything, with the Maths offers being even higher.

Re being head of John Lewis - I was at university with a man who is now very senior in the JLP (board level). He got a 2.2, albeit in a well-respected subject at one of the best universities in the country (not Oxford or Cambridge). It clearly didn't hold him back, but times have changed in the 30+ years since then.

[maydancer]

dilys4trevor I doubt that would happen because they are under pressure to make and be seen to be making the process fair and equal

[dilys4trevor]

Perhaps those days are gone although it wouldn't surprise me if not. Cambridge play by their own rules and didn't shout about two E offers even back then.

[dilys4trevor]

The two offers of EEU among my friends were both state school offers to be fair.

[BertrandRussell]

"Perhaps those days are gone although it wouldn't surprise me if not. Cambridge play by their own rules and didn't shout about two E offers even back then."

Yes they did!

[titchy]

EE offers are most definitely a thing of the past.

[dilys4trevor]

Well it was news to me when I went, and other undergraduates told me. So it can't have been that loudly trumpeted.

Anyway, guess it doesn't matter for the OP's question if it doesn't happen anymore

[OneMagnumisneverenough]

I'm gobsmacked that a poster doesn't think poor people are aware of Oxbridge.

What they do is feel that it's not for the likes of them. I come from such a background and certainly in my generation, getting a decent job with prospects was seen to be nirvana - Uni was rarely expected and certainly not Oxbridge - it may be a little better now, but not much.

Also I think you'll find that the majority of children that get bursaries etc for private school are the unexpectedly poor middle classes rather than the actual poor kids with parents on low wage or benefits, once again possibly because of low expectations but also because of lower advertising of availability to parents as well as people who just wouldn't consider private school for political reasons or think that their child would have trouble fitting in because of their background and not being able to compete with children talking about their skiing trips or grand holidays etc.