Oxbridge - how best to go about this?

[GoodyGoodyGumdrops]

Ds (Y11 at a decent comprehensive) has his sights set on Oxbridge.

How best to support him?

How best to maximise his chances?

They are not near identical candidates just because they have the same results at GCSE and AS. It is a mistake to assume this - candidates with very similar scores in Maths AS often come across very differently in interview and may be considered as completely different in ability and potential from one another. Cambridge typically gives higher offers where there is a slight doubt about a candidate.

Schools can also be very poor at judging the potential of their students. It can often be the case that a student with slightly lower UMS at A level actually has much higher potential (according to academics). When I visit schools I am often presented with dead cert (according to them) applicants (who I don't think will get offers) and their second tier applicants who I think are much better. Schools then proceed to attribute their dead cert candidates not getting offers to college choice, subject choice etc when the reality is that the intellectual depth was just not there.

And there's a limit to how transparent the selection process can be, without releasing marked pretest scripts and transcripts of all discussions/interviews. I always find it fascinating that universities are expected to be completely transparent about their selection processes and yet graduate employers are not put under anything like the same scrutiny.

I do agree with the observation that schools do not necessarily understand potential in their students and fixate on the more "obvious" candidates, giving them considerable help and advice whilst ignoring others. In my DDs independent school they even went as far as telling her, and a couple of others, not to bother. They were incorrect and their view that very, very high AS results were required was not borne out by subsequent offers. They never understood that AS results was not the only aspect the university would look at. It took parents to check everything out by going to open days and chatting to the people who actually know and some very helpful teachers who disagreed with the leadership view. It is inevitable young people don't even try if the schools are so misguided. (I am not talking about Maths of course).

I don't think anyone is expecting or on this thread has asked for that level of transparency from Oxbridge, however a certain degree of scrutiny is to be expected given that public money helps to fund the universities (not generally the case with employers). In the case of Bristol my understanding is that lower offers are given to those from certain schools. The list is published and candidates have a pretty good idea of what to expect given their educational background.

I still don't get why it is a good idea to pile on additional pressure to certain candidates over and above the standard offer. I would be interested to find out how it affects outcomes - perhaps that is not possible to establish.

Does anyone have a link to research into the difference in outcome for STEP versus MAT?

I have a child who in a year's time might be applying to Oxford or Cambridge for an Arts subject. The question mark over what A Level offer she might receive might well be a factor in her decision between the two, mostly because Year 13 has enough stress without adding more to achieve an A* in a particular subject with all the vagaries of the marking system.

bojo I agree and also think that schools sometimes focus on behaviour too, which is completely beside the point.

Yes, goodbye. Quite true! Outspoken children are not seen in the same light as the bookish quiet ones! Sometimes the outspoken ones who can think for themselves are better placed when it comes down to interviews.

Indeed bojo!

My eldest's school seemed to favour the loudmouths

I'd also say be prepared to be tenacious. There are zillions of students out there with full sets of As, and many also have supportive schools. Do not kid yourself that 6As is any great shakes - get more! And also, Oxbridge like high UMS points at AS level - aim for over 90 in all of the A levels.
Honestly. DS got rejected after interview from Oxford. 11As from fairly crap comp. Four AS level with 90+ UMS points. No preparation for entrance exam (which he obv did ok in because they interviewed him), f*@cked up the interview because he'd had ZERO (and I really mean this) help from school. Eventually did brilliantly in A levels, easily exceeding what would have been the offer, and thought 'I'm not done with this yet'. Took a gap year and reapplied for Cambridge. He's there now, doing just great. He had determination and faith in his abilities. He also gained hugely by having an unplanned gap year.
So I'd say that the student really needs to have a bit of hunger for it. And for goodness sake don't rely on your comp to help because most don't! There's a reason so many public school pupils get in. It's the masses of preparation their parents pay for!

I still don't get why it is a good idea to pile on additional pressure to certain candidates over and above the standard offer.

The pressure of getting one more A star in a science subject is absolutely nothing compared to the pressure once at Oxbridge. Almost all successful applicants to STEM at Oxbridge will far exceed the standard offers anyhow. (A stars in other subjects than maths/science are much more variable, but it is also much more unusual to be given offers above the standard offers outside STEM.) For example, the quoted standard A level offer for maths is 2 A stars, 1 A but most successful applicants end up with 4 A2, at least 3 A stars, usually 4. So raising the A level part of the offer to e.g. 2 A star, 2 A or 3 A star, 1 A isn't actually that stressful in practice.

The logic is that an applicant who was a bit marginal in interview gets the chance via a high offer to prove themselves and get a place. If they don't want to take the offer, they don't need to. If they take and miss the offer, then they go to their insurance, often Warwick, Imperial or UCL for maths. Again the stress of having a higher offer is small compared to the innate stress at Oxbridge, the stress of getting into competitive graduate schools, internships, graduate jobs etc.

Personally I think Bristol's policy, while undoubtedly transparent, is a marketing gimmick and unfair. Lower offers are given to students from schools with below average A level results, regardless of how those schools do with their high achievers and regardless of the Ofsted ratings of those schools. I have a family member who got such a contextual offer despite coming from a family of Oxbridge academics, having siblings and parents with Oxbridge postgraduate education, attending an Ofsted outstanding comp, living in a million pound house etc etc.

It's the masses of preparation their parents pay for!

Sigh.

This is such an urban myth. Private school students don't get masses of preparation. Their parents don't pay for masses of preparation. One mock interview from school is all they typically have.

Volunteers from Oxbridge go all around the country into state schools, offering support with applications, mock interviews etc. Sadly many state schools choose not to engage with this.

The reason that some public schools are well represented at Oxbridge and other highly selective universities is down to a number of factors.

1. These schools are often highly selective so proportionally they will have more pupils capable of gaining a place.

1. They are encouraged to aim high. And discouraged to fear failure.

1. They are well advised throughout their school career so don't often find themselves with the wrong qualifications.

1. They do receive help with the process. Though how effective some of it is remains moot.

1. The education they receive is broad and rigorous and puts them in good position to do well in pretests and interviews.

That said, expectations will be higher from applicants coming from these schools.

Re 'masses of preparation'.

OK I admit I didn't define 'masses'. But every private school I know of (or know children at) timetables oxbridge preparation classes in lower sixth of some form or another - whether its MAT, STEP or ELAT preparation. Or indeed interview preparation. These schools range from the likes of Guildford High School to Perse to lowly Truro School. DC's school - literally none.

Not only that, there is a reverse myth in operation at private schools where parents are told that children at state schools always get lower offers. Not true. At all! In a few, very straightened circs (truly awful schools in other words) certain universities will make slightly lower 'contextual' offers. This never happens with Oxbridge though. And yes, Oxbridge colleges do have nominal 'links' with state schools. That doesn't mean they visit and have a chat though. And if they do, you can bet the private schools get at least the same time. Myths abound all over the place on this.

You really do pays your money and take your choice - we could have paid but had a weird ethical objection to our kids getting an extra leg up when they were already fortunate to have middle class, engaged parents. I'm glad we did - you need a mix of abilities at schools. Its life innit?

That said, OP needs to realise that Oxford love lots of GCSE A*s, and Cambridge adore high UMS at AS - make it above 90 in as many subjects as you can. And the personal statement - make it about the subject. Read around it. Leave only a tiny bit for extra curricular. Also, monitor what the teachers write as references. Sorry User72147... but comp teachers are generally crap at this because they haven't been coached or trained in it, and of course have little experience in it. Teachers in the private sector have way more experience in it, and have often had actual training in how to write an oxbridge reference.

This is my experience with two oxbridge kids.

This is all very helpful, Thank you all and thank you OP for asking the question.
I have a dd in yr12 starting to think about whether she has a realistic chance.
She got 8 A stars and 3 As at gcse. Current predictions/targets for A levels are 2 A star, 2 A (although she's determined to turn one of the As into an A star prediction by the end of year 12)
She has applied for a subject Day and also to Uniq and Pathways for her subject.
She is doing volunteering/work experience in a relevant area.
Is there anything else she could/should be doing now to maximise her chances?

Just to add, she has had literally no input yet from her school (average state comp) she has applied for everything herself based on information found on TSR and similar.

She was invited by head of year at the beginning of yr12 to join the 'oxbridge group' but there has been no activity at all yet. She doesn't even know how many, if any, others are in it.

I was hoping they might have started giving them some guidance by now, but as there has been nothing I have been scouring MN for advice.
That's why I was so delighted to find this thread!

bilbo have some sympathy with your views, particularly last para of your last post. DS1 at Cambridge and whilst his GCSEs were good the number of A*s was fairly limited,; AS grades and UMS were another matter entirely. Cambridge seemed to like evidence of academic trajectory. Of course for DS2, in Y12, AS are a thing of the past, and many DCs applying will simply not have them. I presume the pre-tests now introduced (across all subjects ?) have far more import.

Not sure as parents - myself or DH - did anything much beyond the norm to support DS1 He had a very short list of Unis where he wanted to study his subject, he was very widely read, and in truth had grown up in a house full of books and was genuinely "serious" about the subject - I think Cambridge prefer seriousness to passion. He had the probable advantage of a strongly academic sixth form with a track record of Oxbridge entry, and genuinely brilliant teachers in his subject.

As did all the other Oxbridge applicants in his year, all very capable DCs, almost all of whom were called to interview, but only around 60% secured offers. The entry quality is of course very high and I doubt that for the majority of candidates there is little to really differentiate them. For those who were not successful though they ended up at the likes of Imperial, Warwick, Durham etc - all elite universities.

I would say therefore to try to avoid DCs over fixating on Oxbridge or bust. The majority of applicants will not be successful - the stats tell us that. But they have five choices to potentially use on their UCAS form, Oxford or Cambridge would be just one of them so they have little to lose for giving it a shot if Oxford / Cambridge offers the course, course content and teaching approach in which they truly believe they will thrive.

bilbo as an admissions bid and also a parent of two DC currently at a highly selective public school, I still question the efficacy of the Oxbridge prep provided.

I'm not disputing it has any impact, but less than you would think.

What has far more impact is the quality of education generally. It is serious, rigorous and broad. It prepares pupils for academic life beyond school which of course includes Oxbridge.

If you made an active decision for your DC not to receive that type of education then you can hardly bemoan that it didn't include Oxbridge prep.

As for contextual offers, they are rare but I can assure they are made from time to time. However, care must be taken as in the past some students in receipt of lower offers have not fared well.

In practice, what happens is that contextualisation takes place during the admissions process.
Applicants from certain schools are held to a higher standard in terms of their results, predictions, performance at interview and pre test.
Applicants flagged for contextualisation will have it taken into account. Of course this does not imply an easy ride.

As for outreach. Both universities do loads. I personally have visited lots and lots of schools. I have ongoing links with any that want that.
However, we can only offer the horse water. Some schools decline visits. Some ignore us altogether. And some that do invite us for visits do not take on board any of the advice we offer.
Not all of course. Some are absolutely committed to widening participation.

So what counts?
Good GCSEs, yes of course.
Good AS - who knows? As they become optional, can they be any sort of measure?
Pre tests - currently very important at an Oxbridge college near you.
Personal statement. Don't overthink it. Say why you want to study this subject, then back that statement up with some evidence from things you've experienced/read etc.
References are indeed worth checking. This is a good place to point out any flags for contextualisation, and also a good place to signpost an specific academic achievement.

I think, as Carl explains, it is hard to isolate single variables in the education package offered by some high-performing private schools that are strong determinants of success at entrance to Oxbridge.

My DSS2 is in his second year at UCL where, he claims, he is the only student he has yet come across who did not apply to Oxbridge! He said that most of the first term of the first year wa one long debrief of why each student had failed to be offered a place at Oxbridge (they had seemingly all been interviewed). DSS2 says there are a handful of students on his course who are so extraordinarily able and accomplished, with such a stellar track record, that he can only conclude that the Oxbridge selection process is less than perfect. Which is not really very surprising!

Bilbo, small samples, but DC have two peer groups. Local children they have known since toddler groups, and an extended family, spread across the country but with a surprising number of cousins and second cousins around their age. State:private has been about 50:50 for both.

Two observations:

1. If you paid for private in order to nail an Oxbridge place, you were wasting your money. If anything the Oxbridge acceptance rate was higher for the state educated.
2. In contrast, and obviously not scientific, a slightly higher proportion got lost in state schools and have not achieved their potential.

Would we pay again? Yes. But we were paying for a broad education, and DC got that. We also had ethical objections to the gaining a religion, moving into catchment, or cramming for 11+, that seem universal in an area where local state schools are challenged. It is hard to take any education moral high ground seriously, when you know that had we lived near a high performing state school DC would have gone there, and had others had the sort of options we had, they too would have found a way out.

I don't know anyone at either university who would say it is perfect.

We do our best. A lot of time, energy and money is spent trying to get it right ( more than elsewhere).

And the drop out rates show that we generally choose applicants who cope well with what is thrown at them.

IME there are too many good applicants for the places available. So not everyone can get an offer. Some of those rejected would have done very well and thrived.

Bobo, I am surprised by that. We have known two go to UCL to study economics. One did try Oxbridge and LSE. The other, from mainland China, wanted to be in London where there was family support. Ditto at LSE. Lots seem to prefer to be in London and did not consider Oxbridge.

Failed Ivy... is a different matter. Studying abroad is often an economic decision and certainly one friend of DS decided to take up a place at the LSE, because she failed to gain a place at a top US college. Name recognition is important, and it was decided that LSE offered more "name" than a second tier US college for a lower cost. I am surprised the French do not make similar assessments. Or does the Cambridge brand have the same status in France as in the UK. Our experience has been that for Europeans working in the City, LSE is well recognised and respected and that the gap between Oxbridge and elsewhere does not exist to the same extent.

NeedMoreSleep - maybe your data set of 2 is a bit less representative than DSS2's data set of several hundred (thousand?)! Obviously there are exceptions - the ones that prove the rule?

No argument. I had assumed that LSE and UCL populations were similar. I am sure there are plenty at LSE who also tried Cambridge, but far from everyone, not least because applying involves more faff. Overseas the respective reputations seem closer than they are in the UK. And add here my experience of living in Asia, where the local LSE alumni society was if anything, more lively and relevant than the Oxbridge one my boss belonged to.

Respective university reputations vary wildly according to the marketing effort made locally!

Bobo - which subject? do not say if you would rather not.

Ah - or is it Economics - sorry if I missed that