Oxbridge Applicants for 2017

[HamletsSister]

DS has done his exam (Oxford, History) and written his essay. Now, the waiting begins.......

Anyone else?

he also did badly in Cambridge's own test

But there is no evidence that state school students overall do worse in the Maths STEP papers.

And interview skills do not play a very big role for maths at Cambridge - the issue is how well you do at answering maths problems.

I think it's important to remember just how over-subscribed Oxbridge is. The vast majority of applicants, from all types of schools, won't get in.

BTW it is immensely misleading to look at 3As as the "necessary" standard to get in. The average grades for successful applicants are far higher. For sciences, typical offers are at least 1 or 2 A stars and most successful applicants have more. In STEM subjects 3As doesn't even yet you into the next tier of universities (Imperial, Durham, Warwick, UCL etc) let alone Oxbridge.

Do either oxbridge or cambridge do contextual offers though? And/or lower if a kid did brilliant on their aptitude test or showed something special in interview? If either of those applied then someone predicted 3As from a poorly performing school or college might have a chance?

Even when students from comprehensive schools do apply for oxbridge, their success rate is lower. For example, 22% of applicants from comprehensive schools were successful when applying to Cambridge in 2015 whereas 35% of those from independent schools are successful.

If either of those applied then someone predicted 3As from a poorly performing school or college might have a chance?

It depends on the subject. For a subject like Maths, a typical successful applicant has four A levels (including Further Maths) with at least 2 A stars, usually 3 or 4. It's very unclear that taking somebody with 3As would actually be in their interests, regardless of how poor the school was, because they would be very unlikely to keep up.

For example, 22% of applicants from comprehensive schools were successful when applying to Cambridge in 2015 whereas 35% of those from independent schools are successful.

But how do you interpret this statistic, without more information? My experience is that state school applicants often apply to Oxbridge with the minimal required qualifications while private school applicants only apply if they have a realistic chance.

For example, the standard offer for Maths is 2 A stars and 1 A plus STEP. In reality successful applicants usually have 4 A levels, are likely to get more than 2 A stars, and have very high UMS (mid 90s or above) in all their maths papers. A number of the state school applicants look on course to get just 1 A star, or 2 A stars, with marks only around 90%, so are not really competitive applicants. Private schools wouldn't encourage such students to apply for Cambridge maths as they know the chances are very poor.

but state school applicants are more likely to apply to oversubscribed courses.

About 50% of the middle-class similar background children we knew at playgroup stage, went to state schools, the rest went private. Reasons varied: not believing in private education; passing the state 11+; meeting religious criteria; etc. Other than having more than one or two children making paying fees impossible, money was not usually the issue, indeed in a couple of cases Grandparent offers to pay were refused.

I think Dragon is right. London professionals work alongside lots of Oxbridge graduates and will encourage their children to aim high and to "have a go".

I also do not see any evidence that paying for education is buying Oxbridge places. If anything slightly the reverse. Two kids from similar backgrounds turn up to be interviewed for one place, one clearly polished and prepared , the other less so. The interviewer might well prefer to pick the "rough diamond" who has interesting and original things to say, and who could go on to have more to offer. In any case my observation has been roughly equal Oxbridge acceptance rates between the two groups.

Where things may differ is for Oxbridge fall backs. There seems to be an assumption that it is Oxbridge and "the rest" perhaps partly due to the extensive outreach opportunities for state students at Oxbridge. Private school kids seem better prepared through the process, in GCSE and A level choices and then in terms of where to focus applications, not just Oxbridge but elsewhere. So you may get more applying to, say, four top ranked courses with the expectation that you take a gap year if you don't get the place then get the grades. Easier for London kids as London Universities are a viable second choice. For whatever reason the focus always seems to on state school percentages at Oxbridge. Durham/Bristol/UCL/LSE/Imperial/St Andrews also struggle.

I also agree that the early deadline may be an issue. Easy at a private school geared up to having PS' written over the summer, and all UCAS forms submitted in October. (So staff can go on to work on the much more complex US Early Decision applications.) Less so somewhere where you have to catch staff at the start of term and ensure they move things forward promptly.

but state school applicants are more likely to apply to oversubscribed courses.

Or rather, the more oversubscribed courses, as obviously they're all oversubscribed. The applicant/place ratio at oxbridge is surprisingly low for some - to be sure the applicants will mostly be excellent so it's still highly competitive - looking at that stats thing for Cambridge I linked to earlier www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/apply/statistics , classics is particularly low... doubt that has a high percentage of state school applicants.

Yes Dragon. Also History of Art, MFL and so on. Lots of state students don't get the chance to study two MFL at GCSE, nor classics nor History of Art. And taking four A levels gives more breadth. So keeping up a MFL opens the door to combinations like History and German, and keeping up maths does no harm when applying for social sciences.

I am never convinced that private pupils are more tactical when choosing which subject to study. This has not been my observation. However I can believe private school pupils choose their A levels more carefully in a way that allows more doors to stay open. And agree that very few would think of applying to Cambridge for maths without an average maths UMS in the high 90s.

It's not just that state school applicants are applying for the most competitive courses, they are focusing on vocational ones. Law, Medicine, Engineering etc. I think more work needs to be done in comprehensives to explain that an Oxbridge education is about learning to think and this is , in itself, valuable to employers. I wonder if many of those applicants simply fail to look at the university websites. Classics can be taken without Latin or Greek and is a fantastically broad subject. Art History does not require you to have taken Art History at A level. This is just a couple of clicks!

Also something to bear in mind, that with the possible exceptions of French, German and Spanish a student can study a modern language from scratch at both Oxford and Cambridge, provided they have at least one MFL (I am not sure of exact details) which makes courses with MFL more accessible than in the past to those who haven't had a wide choice of languages at school.

Nevertheless there is a stringent aptitude test for languages. I don't think it's feasible to sail in to do a language ab initio just because it might be a decent back route in.

Agree that private schools dominate Latin, Land Economy, Norse & Celtic and other subjects which are either not taught at many state schools or are a bit "out there" and this obviously skews the private/state figures.

With the most popular subjects, it is still down to numbers. Private or state, most applicants will not get in.

If you look at University destinations of pupils from selective private schools, I don't think you will see a big bias towards less competitive subjects, probably the opposite. Medicine is the obvious example. If you want to study medicine, unless you are very very able, you would expect not to get into Oxbridge, but be content with a range of other Universities. The same applies to a lesser extent for engineering, economics, law etc.

If you really really want to go to Oxbridge you might discover an interest in Norse studies, but I expect few do.

So bright state school pupils may be applying for the most competitive subjects, but so is everyone else. That is why they are competitive.

The question then is how good a proxy is an "Oxbridge places" measure and what does it tell you.

I am never convinced that private pupils are more tactical when choosing which subject to study.

But to some extent, a choice may be made for them - and the same may apply at a GS sixth form - not for the uni course per se but in the A levels offered by the school,and how many they can take (or start to see how they go in yr12), and if they're steered towards the facilitating subjects and the 'keep doors open' options if they dont know in yr 12 what degree they might want to do. I suspect this is one of the major failings of many 6th form colleges.

I don't think you will see a big bias towards less competitive subjects...

I'm sure thats true, but thats an entirely different question to whether the less competitive oxbridge subjects are likely to be dominated by private/selective school kids.

I think Latin to GCSE is hugely beneficial. I also think the broadness of the private sector matters. I had a ds happy to play the flute, a dd who carried on with singing lessons into Y13. This was encouraged in the Indy sector and there was no embarrassment. The cleverest boy at ds's primary is now at Durham - the first to go there from the local comp. Many of dd's friends from primary are applying to Reading, Sussex, etc. They were brighter than dd at 9/10. One mfl only at the local comp and a need to fit in.

DD has had one interview this morning. She's been called for another at a different college tomorrow. There is no way she was the cleverest of her primary peers. Perhaps she has simply blossomed but she was given the confidence to apply because applying to Oxbridge was expected and the norm.

What course has she applied to Roses? If you don't mind me asking?

Dd who is very sociable and bubbly, really seemed to have enjoyed her interviews, lucikly she knows that it doesn't 'mean' anything in terms of outcome . However, I am wondering if this is actually a bad sign. The interviewers were really friendly and there seems to have been quite a bit of shared humour. In the second interview it flowed like a conversation. She says they did challenge and persist with questioning. I have read somewhere (on here maybe) that when ATs realise quickly that a candidate is not suitable they will just make the interview as painless as possible and it does seem on here that some of the interviewees who have had the worst experiences and come out thinking it was a train wreck were offered a place.
Am I overthinking it?

I honestly don't know

Am I overthinking it?

Of course. Thats what this thread is for. That and overanalysing statistics.

Good luck on his travels! If he's applying to other UK unis has he had to come for interview for any of those too?

Sadusername which subject?

History and Politics
I