Cambridge colleges

[olympicfan]

DD is in Year 11 and is thinking of applying Cambridge. She likes the look of Human, Social and Political course. Can anyone recommend a good college for this course.

She is going to take Maths, Further Maths, Geography and RS or Politics for A level.

if you are thinking of applying to a Cambridge college the first question is how good are your chances? If you may be a weaker candidate trying to find one where the person interviewing you shares some interests may be a wise move, but it's very difficult to find out unless you can visit a lot or are in public school where they may know quite a bit about the interviewers.

For a stronger candidate apply wherever takes your fancy. The more competitive colleges may seem more likely to fill place with direct applicants but that's just because they get a lot of good applicants. My child tells me of one competitive college where they were thinking of offering no places in a small subject because they felt their applicants weren't good enough - so if there was no-one in the pool they'd make no offers that year. I think they took at least one pool person.

She should also be considering whether Cambridge will suit her - the short, intensive terms dont suit everyone. At least 2 of my child's friends developed problems in dealing with the stress although both have graduated with their year. Some colleges are more supportive than others and some DOS pile on the pressure rather than helping with it. You should always ask about the welfare services and if your child does go make sure they know how to access them/ how to encourage their friends to do so.

My DS chose his college on a number of factors that included the ethos and feel of the college. Wanted less formality and "pomp". He's not into gown wearing or formal dining and was also taken by the great facilities, space and "grass you're allowed to walk on". Subject wise - the number studying and ranking of his college for his subject was a factor combined with the entrance criteria - colleges vary in selection exams if not the A level grades expected. His very good friends study a whole range of subjects so a healthy subject mix may be important too. % state educated was also a consideration as others have mentioned.

Location has been two sided. Slightly out of the centre and sometimes bemoans the distance for 9am lectures (!) but came into its own during the summer term and very appreciative of absence of tourists, the large rooms and space.

Btw, as to WiFi, Cambridge (like most universities) has eduroam, and IME you can log onto very easily all over Cambridge, not just in colleges but in many places in the city centre.

Robins, I did say STEM specifically. The issue with early career researchers doing supervisions is not teaching ability; it is about breadth and depth of subject knowledge and lack of experience in what students find hard. (Since PhD students and postdocs were themselves strong students, they find it hard to know which parts of e.g. maths first year courses are difficult to weaker students and how to break difficult concepts down into sub-concepts.)

I know - that's why I acknowledged that.

In Arts and Humanities, you are trained to understand which parts of a course will be demanding, and how to break down difficult concepts.

There is training for STEM too (not systematic but it exists). Training does not completely compensate for experience. When I was a JRF giving supervisions, I thought I was doing a reasonable job. I look back and realise how much more I could have done and how much more I do now.

BTW in STEM subjects junior researchers tend to be given easier courses to supervise where possible (almost never third year or courses which are known to be difficult) and they get given fewer students from the very top/bottom ends.

Of course - sorry, didn't mean to suggest training does compensate for experience. And I am certainly not trying to minimise the value of the experience and knowledge of world-leading researchers - I think that is one of the huge benefits of Cambridge, that you are taught (at least some of the time, no matter what college you choose) by people who are really pushing their discipline forward.

My point about JRFs/junior researchers was made just because I've had people feel slightly upset or cheated that they were not being taught by Professor BigName. Now, if all your teaching is from a PhD student, you might feel quite put out. But if you have a fair mix of people at different career stages, I think that can be a very good thing. When I was a third-year undergraduate, I was supervised by a PhD student who was then just completing his thesis. And he was great in some ways and naive in others - but I learned things I would not have learned with Prof BigName. And now, he is one of my colleagues, and he supervises quite differently - but I'm not convinced I missed out by getting him at the very start of his career, rather than now, when he's quite well known.

Goodness!

I've never heard of people not being supervised for lack of college funds.

Don't think my college was particularly rich - but it was fairly new so our accommodation was pure luxury. I used to feel so sorry for the young men racing across quads in dressing gowns in the rain to get to a bathroom ...

And that's another thing - in both the subjects I studied I hurtled all over town for supervisions in a variety of colleges. It never really occurred to me that anyone might be getting all their 1:1 teaching in house.

It may well be that at another college travel grants and suchlike might have been more pletntiful and in your face (so I wouldn't have ignored them on the assumption that only Nobel prizewinning undergraduates stood a chance) but I would always have had to source most of my reading from subject libraries or the university library, regardless of the quality of the college library.

MrsHathaway I also had to be subbed by a (now-no-longer) DP! (Same college but Coutts account ...) My college did invent a small scholarship to see me through. But I didn't officially graduate til years after because I still owed them money for rent.

It never occurred to me to not pay my college rent/negotiate with college terms to pay it. (Another who did not receive parental contributions so was very short of money.) Strangely enough, I was also helped by an ex-DP (whose parents owned most of a city).

I should clarify that I'm sure I had the university minimum supervisions. This was for MML language papers for which we had faculty classes (although I couldn't access them for health/disability reasons). People at rich colleges had additional supervisions for those papers, and it's hard not to think that was advantageous.

On the other hand, I absolutely agree with pp that being off the tourist trail in May was a very big advantage.

If DD is sporty/dramatic/musical then she might also like to look at the college's facilities. Some colleges' sports fields are miles away so you end up cycling like a mad thing to get to netball practice on a Wednesday after your 2pm lecture. Being able to contribute to the life of the college stands you in good stead if/when your interviewer asks why you're actually applying.

Top tip: "because my mum thinks it's good" doesn't go down well.

Also I never had a 1:1 supervision in my entire 3 years, except for ones where the other tutees hadn't turned up. 3 or 4 was usual, and rose to 12 when 11 out of 12 of us who had one supervisor all complained to the DoS about their uselessness, and he tried to squeeze us all in himself.

I'm sure the teaching is a lot more standardised than it used to be, and new PhD students aren't just given a list of names and told "teach this lot some Engineering, would you?" (DP's experience!)

I daresay it was different for the sciences Citrus?

I went from a stupendously lazy one supervision per week for an arts subject with a supervisor in a different college (and entirely avoidable lectures) to a terrifying 2 or 3 per week in a more vocational subject. With the second there was small group tuition for some subjects (and unmissable lectures every blimmin' day). I much preferred 1:1.

No 1:1 supervisions here either, again usually 3 or 4. I can't imagine 1:1 would have been great though (economics), hearing the other participants input & views was often as useful as the supervisors, and heated discussions were pretty common.

I also went to a poor college a long cycle ride from town that (still) sits at the bottom of the (!) but for me the advantage of majority state school students / less pressured environment etc definitely made up for any down sides. They were pretty creative at helping the broke too even if they didn't have straight cash to hand out - I used to clean for conferences / work in the bar outside term, one of my fellow students (mature) worked evening shifts as a porter etc.

sorry, that should say bottom of the Thompson table

If I had been good enough to have considered Cambridge I would have wanted to apply to a college that a) took a fair few students doing the same subject as me and b) took a fair few students of a similar (state educated, not wealthy, no tradition of university attendance) background.

My DD has currently just finished her first year and has several HSPS friends who are loving this diverse degree. With regards to college selection DD definitely recommends going along to an open day and visiting as many colleges as possible as each college has its own character. Don't believe all that you read online about each college either as on paper DD does not fit the traditional stereotype of her college but she fits in perfectly and has made lots of friends.

DD picked her college as she loved the tradition aspect of it. They have a minimum dining requirement and this is added on to her termly rent, it means around four times per week she has a three course meal served in a group setting (think Hogwarts great hall style) This ensures that students get out of their rooms and mix with one another and DD found this great in exam term which can be intense and isolating.
DD also loved her college first year accommodation this varies massively between colleges as do termly rental prices. DD had the cheapest band rent and still got a single bright airy room with furniture, en suit bathroom and private balcony overlooking beautiful gardens. She also has a bedder (cleaner) once per week and gets free laundry facilities.
She also loved the "parent system" which is not offered by all colleges. This meant that when she started, she was assigned a family, she had "parents" and a fellow first year "brother" and "sister". They where all in a group chat before term started and made the whole starting Uni process less daunting. Her "parents" are in the year above and study the same subject so sold her their old books cheaply and are always on hand for advice. This family remains in place for all her time at Cambridge and generally forges close bonds of friendship. She also "Grandparents" and when term starts again she and her "husband" (they have fake marriages in Easter term) will be assigned "children"

These are some of the things that attracted DD to her college but they may also be the things that put some students off.

Sorry, I also forgot to add that every single one of DD's friendship group was privately educated and DD was state educated. She said this has never ever been an issue and nobody that she has encountered in her college cares but she is aware that their are certain colleges were that may not be the case.

In my day I wasn't particularly aware of any differences in provision between colleges. In fact, I had more supervisions out of college than I did in as my DoSs (we had 2) did huge trade offs with other colleges on the different papers - I had supervisions in at Emma, Trinity, Newnham, Churchill and Fitz as well as some lovely (eccentric) supervisors who taught from their own homes (not sure that would happen now, but I had great experiences.) I was at an old, town, river college but off the tourist track and had a fantastic time, even though the bathroom in my final year was unheated with listed single glazed badly fitting 18th century windows, and a dripping tap that regularly froze...

DD has visited about 10 different colleges over the past month and her ideas of what she wanted changed radically once she got inside and starting talking to people. I thought she'd love Kings (it was the trendy lefty college in my day and I often wished I'd gone - all my politico friends were there) but she wasn't at all impressed as in spite of its statistics on admitting comprehensive students she found it unwelcoming and standoffish - said she felt like they know they'll be oversubscribed so didn't try to attract any interest.

She has refused point blank to even look at my old college, which I can understand, and has finally chosen one which surprised me but her reasons are very sound: accommodation in college for all 3 years, fantastic grounds, lovely library (big) and very close to Sidgwick.

She's acutely aware that the odds of being accepted at your chosen college are very much against her but her response was classic: "I'd go anywhere just to get in. Even Girton." (Nothing against Girton other than its location you understand.)

Now we just have to wait for the AS results. I don't remember there being this much stress back in the 80s. But then, I was quite naive and not that aware of the level of competition to get in.

I also forgot to add that every single one of DD's friendship group was privately educated and DD was state educated.

I think that state v private can be a very divisive and unfair classification anyhow.

State and private schools vary enormously, as do the cohorts who attend them. I have a student who went to a small private school in the North on a bursary. He comes from a "not wealthy, not university educated" background and his parents sent him to the private school because the local state school was in special measures and didn't offer FM at A level. I doubt that this student would have much in common with most kids from private schools such as Winchester or Westminster.

On the other hand, there are state educated kids from top London schools such as Henrietta Barnett, The Oratory etc who have quite a lot in common with those educated at London private day schools, in terms of wealth, family background, history of university education etc.

At all but a few Oxbridge colleges state educated students are in any case in the majority amongst UK based students nowadays. Overall 60% of undergraduates at Cambridge were state educated. (Not sure though how they count private till 16 and state 16-18 or vice versa.)

Absolutely agree haybot I think that is a very valid point and that is often not recognised.

DD went to a grammar in Merseyside and her friends went to Haberdashers and St Pauls but also smaller independents that may only be locally known. Her college doesn't seem to have many state educated students possibly because it has a very right wing reputation which is the opposite of what DD is.

Haybott, I totally agree about the divisiveness of the state/ private distinction. In reality, once at Cambridge, I found it pretty irrelevant. No one was interested in talking about school so in the majority of cases I didn't know which of my friends attended state or private schools. I went to a pretty down to earth college though so it may differ elsewhere I suppose (and Brenda, from your description, your daughter has made an excellent choice).

My DD has just graduated from Cambridge and she tells me everyone she's ever met at Cambridge loves the College they attended. This includes students who ended up in a specific College via the pool. I think this just shows it doesn't really matter that much.

My daughter is studying this course at present. Feel free to message me.