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?

Back in my day 2EE offers abounded. I had 2EE offers from a variety of (what would now be known as Russell Group) universities.

I think Oxbridge abandoned them because they played into the hands of the coached. Some years ago there were also closed scholarships, whereby certain public schools had a set number of allocated places at Oxbridge colleges. My cousins went to Cambridge on closed scholarships from X public school. My mother was about it till her dying day!

As others have said, anyone can have a go at Oxbridge - even someone with 3 GCSEs at grade C. The next hurdle (for Oxford at least and for most subjects) is an aptitude test which sorts the wheat from the chaff. I hear people saying, "I got rejected from Oxford." No, you didn't. You rejected yourself by doing badly in the test. The real test comes at interview, where you have a small window of opportunity to make an impression. There are thousands of hapless kids trying to show their knowledge. Three quarters will be rejected.

Rhoda- your post is full of misinformation.

Which bits?

Para 1: Well, I know that cos it was me

Para 2: closed scholarships certainly used to exist

Para 3: ds applied to Oxford last year so very recent experience

I totally agree with ABetaDad. I went to a top boarding school where more than 20% went to Oxbridge. The school went around the country looking for talent they could offer scholarships to. It was important that the atmosphere was about being academically best and not about whose parents were the wealthiest.

What always surprised me was when speaking with the girls who came in from state schools during sixth form (they normally came in at 13 by a lot came in at 11 too) the ones who arrived at 13 said they were so much happier in the academic environment. They talked about the culture being different at our school in terms of value placed on achieving in every facet of life.

I always thought it was interesting. I changed schools for 6th form and ended up going somewhere more competitive/ academic. I had wanted to go to the local 6th form college so I could be home every weekend and do normal things like have a Saturday job. Sadly my dad was a single parent and was working in the Far East.

DD was flagged up in the contextualized data. We live in a low socio economic area and she is a first generation uni student. However she went to a good grammar school and they were really good in supporting her application. She was mock interviewed/grilled by the head teacher, two current Cambridge students and finally by her form teachers husband who is a barrister, they sent her to his chambers so she would be in an unfamiliar environment when interviewed.

After all this we still had to really consider if financially Cambridge was doable for DD. It is a real squeeze and I can understand why many are put off.

DD's real father disappeared over a decade ago and has never paid child support. I was made redundant last year as I couldn't work early shifts starting at 6am or work on late shifts until 10.30pm because my partner works away mon- fri and I would have no childcare for my DS.

Student finance calculate retrospectively so my old non existent wage has been taken into account as well as my partners good salary. My partner has to pay all the bills and child support for his own children as well as some old debts. I am now spending a lot of time cleaning and caring for my very elderly parents but don't get a carers allowance.

Cambridge tell students they will be unable to work during term time. As the terms are so short and the work is so intense I understand that. It does mean though that DD cant top her income up. During holidays her workload is also insane but during summer she is going to work for her old employer.

DD only gets her tuition fees and £3300 per year, this doesn't even cover her rent and other charges. My lovely DP is now paying my daughters college rent and DD is living off her loan.

DD does not qualify for any bursaries as we are not classed as poor because of partners salary but in reality we are skint

We are also trying to make sure my DS (also not my partners son so also no child support received for him either) doesn't miss out on things like school trips just because his sister is at Cambridge.

sorry that was a bit of an essay

Para 3 of Rhoda's post is certainly true of Cambridge in my day (or at least the bit about interview stage) and not sure why it would change.

My DOS said to me after I matriculated that they get so many candidates through the door who simply know a lot. They've read all the set texts and know all the arguments (taking a social sciences example). What they look for is people not on that conveyor belt. Not schooled or coached but thinking a bit differently. They gave me a place because I compared Thatcher to Peel and he said no one else had that done that yet that day. He also said that I got in on this alone, as pretty much as the rest of what came out of my mouth was pretty standard and unimpressive. It was enough to be remembered and to feel a bit different. These days I'm sure candidates need to be saying lots of original and impressively insightful things to get a place. That particular college was 70% state school, partly I guess because state school kids are less likely to be coached. They are there because they want to go and someone at their school believes in them and supported the application. Often what they think is actually what they think, not what they have been told to say to 'get in.' That's not to say that privately educated kids don't think for themselves, obviously, but the schooling and grooming that exists in some private schools doesn't exist in state schools. By and large.

After all this we still had to really consider if financially Cambridge was doable for DD. It is a real squeeze and I can understand why many are put off.

I'd suggest though sassy that Cambridge (probably along with Oxford) is financially more doable than many other universities. I only know of DS1's college at which everthing seems to be hugely subsidised,, and many of the sports free, plus there are a wide range of various additional grants (not means tested) the college offers - for things like foreign travel (linked to the subject being read). Durham was his insurance and conservatively £1500 more per annum in terms of general living costs.

The academic challenge should not be downplayed. Equally time and workload management are key. However in contrast the one thing that should not put off any DC applying to Oxbridge, even young Johnny, is misconceptions about the cost.

I was going to say that too (about Camb being cheap) but didn't know if it had changed.

Grants were handed out regularly and the meals are heavily subsided, as is in-college living (where you spend most of the three years).

If your income has dropped by more than 20% from the year it is assessed on, then you apply for student finance on current income.

I was that straight A student who went to a slightly crap comp and really, really wanted to go to Cambridge. They didn't want me though! I was totally surprised to find out that other candidates knew all about the selection procedure and had been preparing for it for months whereas my school knew nothing about it and didn't prepare me for anything. I know it sounds ridiculous now to just turn up and hope to get it but this was pre-internet and I literally had never met anyone who had been to Oxbridge (nobody in my family had even been to uni) and I was a duck out of water.

I think any child who has talents as wide ranging as Johnny's (namely doctor to KPMG through Action Man) should be lauded and encouraged, middle class or not. He didn't choose his mum or his university-of-life neighbour. I reckon Johnny should be given a break, preferably at Oxford, where he can get away from all the cat fighting over the fence.

I'm dubious about ABetaDad's claim about bursary and scholarship kids at independents Supermum. I'd bet my bottom dollar that the vast majority are middle class kids with knowledgeable parents, in other words not prime outreach targets. The well known schools certainly aren't knocking on the doors where I live and there are some very bright not well off kids round here. I've not heard of a single approach, despite being in a position where i probably would.

I know the private schools were doing it in the 90s. I was at school with bright kids, some of whom went to foster parents during the holidays and some from sink estates in inner cities as well as ex mining towns in middle of nowhere Wales.

Cambridge students CAN work within the university

But in the 90s private schools still had the assisted place scheme. When I was at school there were far more children on assisted places, bursaries and scholarships than there are in my DC's schools nowadays.

On the other hand I think ABetaDad has a fair point that quite a few kids are sent to private schools just because they are very high ability. This is certainly true in my DC's schools: some parents make sacrifices to send their kids to a school which they feel is the best option for their (very bright) children. Certainly the reason we send our DC to private schools is because local state schools couldn't cater to their needs. People are certainly entitled to disagree with our choice, but in general high ability students shouldn't be turned away from top universities just because they went to private schools.

I always find the endless debate of private v state very misleading, when there is such a range of schools in both sectors. It would for example be ludicrous to claim that kids from Henrietta Barnett are less privileged in the context of Oxbridge admissions than kids from a small non-selective private school that never sends kids to Oxbridge. And I have had students from very modest backgrounds whose parent sent them to private school sixth forms on bursaries just so they could do Further Maths (which the local state sixth forms didn't offer) - it would again be ludicrous to judge most such students as more privileged than kids from super-selective state schools. Fortunately Oxbridge admissions tutors look at a variety of factors when judging context.

and will probably sneak out and name change.

Anecdotally, but I do believe it - just because you go to an independent school doesn't mean to say that you do not deserve your place. You are competing against the most huge number of talented DCs - and don't you know it. No tears expected.

Sorry , cross post with Disquiet.

When I look back at the cross section of students at school it's awful that the opportunity isn't there now for those who were only able to afford the school via the assisted places scheme. We had a broad spectrum of kids from those in care homes through to orphans and everything in between. Not many came from middle class homes who were boarding. The day girls were more middle class.

My school offered additional assistance via their endowment to provide funds for parents to afford the opportunity to attend. Little things like parents being a 5+ hour drive away, the school subsidized one of the parents driving costs plus them taking time off work. Also school trips were covered either by other parents or the endowment.

disquit2 I'm slightly alarmed that you appear to be judging all students at state superselectives as privileged by definition, but are more open to the idea of disadvantage at private schools. There's a worrying lack of objectivity or street-wiseness there. Don't be misled by MN, that would be very unfair.

Supermum I was a direct grant pupil at a London GDST and we had a very, very wide cross section also. Interestingly the much wealthier stockbroker belt kids didn't break off into cliques. That's the ethos most state super selectives are trying to replicate so it's quite grim to hear an admissions tutor express such bias. disquit2 I think you would do well to dig a bit deeper.

Molio there is no cat fighting over the fence. Little Jonny has had a very unremarkable school career to date and no hobbies or achievements to note.

I have been listening to his Mother pluck high level careers out of air and tell me how Little Jonny is going to be soooo successful. How do you know what is really going to become of your child if you are deciding for him??

Where is Little Jonny whilst his Mother engineers his climb in social stature (because she can't be happy for him to attend any good uni or trust his judgement to pick the right career path).......lying on his bed playing X Box.

I'm not saying - he does not deserve to go to Oxford - if he is able and wants to apply, good, go for it. I'm intrigued why his Mother thinks he will get a place because of the barrier that is middle England and an outstanding Comp that Oxford would positively discriminate in favour of his social demographic??

To my original post wanted to know if she is deluded or not - which on reading the very helpful posts on the thread, she is as I suspected.

Quite right very bright children should be plucked from underperforming schools, low expectation demographic families, poverty and be given the education chances of those more fortunate. On this basis of selection Little Johnny is not a fit.

Hocus DD1's law tutor at a very progressive but academic Oxford college told her he didn't give a hoot what type of school an applicant attended, on the grounds that the applicant didn't choose it and shouldn't be penalized. Very wise. He'd been in post for decades (he happened to have been my law tutor's tutor - that old ). He'd seen it all.

OP cat fights or not you do come across as really quite remarkably chippy and not very kind to your neighbour.

Of course Johnny won't get in if he's average whatever school he attends, whether that's Westminster, St.Cake's, RCGS or Failing Local Comp.

Love the idea that lying around playing the X Box precludes an Oxbridge career. Many might regard that skill as a necessary pre-requisite. Certainly don't regard Johnny out on that count alone.

That was supposed to read Westminster, St. Cakes, RCGS or Failing Local Comp.

Molio