Getting into Oxbridge

[PinkPeppers]

Can someone explained to me what is needed to get into Oxford/Cambridge?
Dc1 is decided this is what he wants to aim for (good for him to aim high - I wont stop him from doing that). He is only in Y8 so plenty of time to change his mind too.

However, Im not british and I havent gone through the system so have little idea on how things are actually working.
In particular, im not sure about what is needed. Obviously very good A levels in your subjects (maths/science for dc1). But do you also need a very good GCSE and/or a high number of GCSE with a level 8/9 (A/A*)?
Does doing more GCSE than you have to making any difference?

I know that you need to be able to talk about your subject and be hapy to deal with questions where you didn't know the answer etc...
But what else can be playing in your favour? Ive read for example very conflicting advise of having the right sort of experience/voluntary work etc... (some saying its essential, some not).

Im well aware that he might never get there and might change his mind. But atm, this is the one thing that is helping him focus on his studies and the one thing that makes him want to do well (as well as he can do rather than coasting if that).
So any advice on what would help him and what would make a difference is welcome! and if he changes his mind, he will at least have learnt the power of focusing your mind on something you real;l'y care about

Yes those who were also brilliant musicians, rowers or something seemed to have a bit of an edge over those equally clever kids without the extras

I know you say 'seemed'. And I know you're talking in the past tense, and this could be referring to quite some time ago.

But NO ONE GIVES A TINY SHINY SHITE whether or not someone is a rower. Really.

No institution that was even trying to show itself to be offering equal access could possibly give preference to a candidate who rowed.

This is true. Plus, on the more boring side, I think rowing may be one of those things where it's actually not that important to start at a young age. Loads of people seem to start at university and do very well.

When a relative went to a Cambridge Open Day a year or so ago candidates were told they were expected to spend their time in the library, not the boatshed (or wherever it is that they keep their boats).

I think there is some confusion about Open Days - are we talking about 'Open Days for sixth form for KS3 pupils' or 'Open Days for university for sixthformers'?

I think that it is a good idea for OP's DS to do the former but not the latter (yet).
As I understand it, if you want to study Science at University then obviously science-y A Levels are a good idea, with Chemistry definitely a good choice. Maths is also in the running.

Yes I did Needmoresleep.

I don't really know about the extra-curricular stuff. The impression I had was that you just had to show you were well-rounded, rather than that they were thinking about how well the college 1st XV were going to be doing.

I think the interview system is actually pretty good. There are inevitably going to be flaws, but it does give the opportunity to those who might not appear as good on paper (due to schooling etc) but had the raw intelligence to do well.

You don't have to show you're well-rounded.

You might perfectly well demonstrate you're one-sided as heck. Quite a lot of academics aren't well rounded, either.

I wonder if it's possible to get a false impression of the desirability of extra curricular achievements because of straight correlation. A lot of Oxbridge UGs do play instruments brilliantly/excel in sport/whatever else. They don't get into Oxbridge because of extra curricular achievements, but the people who get into Oxbridge often do have extra curricular achievements. It's not because Oxford or Cambridge value them as part of the admission process but because of the profile of the students generally: they are more likely to be (upper) middle class with financial resources to fund ECAs; likely to have engaged parents who encourage ECAs; likely to have attended highly regarded state schools or private schools which emphasise ECAs and have the facilities for them; likely to be hard working and motivated individuals who apply those qualities outside their academic work as well as within it.

But NO ONE GIVES A TINY SHINY SHITE whether or not someone is a rower. Really.

I thought that there was a train of thought that believed that if you could get a bazillion A* grades whilst simultaneously rowing for GB, being part of the National Youth Orchestra and raising a million pounds for charity then it shows that you can cope with multi-tasking & stress, which is quite handy when you are being expected to write 60 essays per week.

As has been said, if a kid is pretty sure they want do do something STEM, then gcse choices aren't too important because maths and sciences are mandatory, though triple may make 6th form easier than double.

For A levels, once you start looking at university websites, the subject requirements are clear IF the student knows what discipline they want to go into. If they don't, it may be quite hard now that AS aren't the norm, and many sixth forms seem to be encouraging just doing 3 - though I hope that wouldn't apply to someone wanting to do double maths and two sciences, which keeps most STEMy doors open.

I heard that too, senua. You also need to be a regular reader of the Financial Times, an eager consumer of BBC Radio 4's every programme, and to have studied Latin in your spare time. Otherwise they ceremonially disembowel you and feed you to the ASBO swans on the Cam. Fact.

Ds has a place and is going in the Autumn.

He went to an ordinary comp and didn't even decide to apply until the last minute. So no long-term planning. Never went to a summer school/course/other leg-up sort of thing.

He is super un-sporty so no achievements there. He has Grade 8 piano but didn't even mention any musical interest/aptitude on his personal statement.

However, his grades were stellar (apart from one B for a GCSE he had to take in year 10) and he had read a lot around his subject.

Interviews (and there are more than one) are not "chit chat" and they are looking for lively minds, not lively personalities. Some interviewers can be arses and some seem to favour the technique of having long silences to make the candidate sweat.

It is only expensive to go to Oxbridge if you want to be in with the Bullingdon Club set et al and drink fine wine but those sorts will all know each other beforehand and be rich anyway.

There's no point in thinking, "I'm going to AncientAttractiveCentral College" because so many candidates are pooled and there's also no point in applying to UglyModernDistant College either in the hope it'll be easier to get in as they'd rather ditch all their direct applicants than accept ones that are less good than those who haven't made it into more popular colleges.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/education/oxbridge/12200381/applications.html

This is an excellent guide to the application process.

You do have to demonstrate a rounded behaviour (prefect, backstage in theatre, events), even if it is single minded.

*You don't have to show you're well-rounded.

You might perfectly well demonstrate you're one-sided as heck. Quite a lot of academics aren't well rounded, either.

LRD* I'm trying to think if I know a single academic who might be described as 'well rounded.' I have a (senior- close to retirement) colleague who took up playing the piano last year, does he count?

Do you now?

Goodness, I wonder how on earth I ever got in, or those candidates I interviewed.

Or all the candidates my colleagues interviewed.

Or all the candidates interviewed by people on this thread/other MN threads.

Or all the candidates who followed the Admissions Office advice.

Those thousands of successful candidates who weren't 'rounded' must be feeling pretty silly now.

I went to an Oxbridge college from a non selective state school (shan't be any more specific in case I out myself).

I really don't think they give a shit about laundry lists of extra-curricular activities. I certainly didn't have one, just piano playing and a bit of library volunteering. Half the intake in my year consisted of hyper-focused nerdy boys with obsessive interests in their studies and in fantasy fiction/role playing and very little else.

What they look for more than anything else is for people who are both extremely knowledgeable and extremely passionate about their subject. For the sciences, you need to be obsessed with your science and very very good at it. For the humanities you need to be obsessed with reading about your subject, learning about it, talking about it, and just reading very very widely, with tons of both general knowledge and subject-specific knowledge.

I did humanities. We were handed a previously-unseen and unlabeled piece of text to read; we then had to have a discussion about it with the interviewer. I recognized the text at once as an extract from the Spectator (early 18th century). I mentioned it when I went into the interview and my interviewer's face lit up at once. This is a period of literature that is seldom "done" at school; if you show familiarity with it, it's a suggestion that you have read very widely and spent a lot of time hanging around in the library, and not confined yourself to cramming your way through a few exams based on a narrow range of texts (though you will be expected to have top exam results as well).

Now, that was humanities, but in the sciences too they will be looking for that kind of fanatical love for the subject and tons of knowledge well outside the standard syllabus. There has been some good advice here.

By the way, I cannot speak for all colleges, but at my college I never experienced the slightest weirdness about state school/private school and to be honest, I don't think I ever really thought about it while I was there. I got the strong impression from interviewers and everyone else that they were very very keen to get great students from state schools; if state school students are somewhat underrepresented, I don't think it's because of prejudice or bias. So don't worry about that.

DD has been told that just about everyone has a go at rowing in the first week, and they go from there. I don't know about college crews, but last time (ages ago) I watched the Boat Race, they mostly seemed to be muscular postgrads not skinny 19yos

My DH used to work for a major multinational - he said that when recruiting new graduates, they liked (in addition to excellence academically) one, or at most two, interests 'pursued to a high standard' - any more than that was indicative of someone who wouldn't be putting sufficient focus on their job. Maybe something not dissimilar might apply to some extent?

And YY to the previous poster who mentioned about cause vs correlation in terms of musical instruments and extra curricular activities. Private schools and middle class parents tend to provide a lot of these. Private schools and middle class parents certainly boost your chances of getting into Oxbridge. The musical instruments themselves almost certainly have no effect whatsoever, but you end up with this accidental correlation going on.

I enjoyed my piano to a moderate degree, but wouldn't have joined a sports team or orchestra in a billion years. I mean, it might have cut into my book reading time (oh no!).

That Telegraph article is sponsored by Oxbridge Applications who have a vested interest in making the process seem like some sort of obstacle race with secret rules.

As I said, ds certainly wasn't planning his strategy from a foetus. He wrote his personal statement a couple of weeks before the deadline.

What you need is great exam results (yes, there are some people who get in with not so great ones, but then you have to be super great at interview/entrance exam), do very well in the entrance exam, and then perform well at interview.

Also the thing to remember is that there are X places and X+ masses of applicants, therefore many, many people are going to be disappointed. When ds went for his interview the admissions officer told the assembled group that 40 were being interviewed out of several thousand applicants. They had 8 places, and not necessarily for those that were there. They were sobering odds but best to let people know up front.

OP I think it's very important that your DS does not get himself wedded to the idea of Oxbridge.

Of course it's a nice aim to have. But a lot of pretty bright young people have the same aim. So statistically...

For those that do apply, I would recommend strenuously that those around them, family, friends, teachers aim to keep the process as low key as possible. Too many teens get all ramped up by it when they should be concentrating on other important stuff (lying down, YouTube videos of drunk cats, passing their driving theory test without opening the book).

The admissions process takes account of GCSE grades, predicted grades, entrance tests, interviews and the personal statement. Oxford and Cambridge weight these slightly differently. As do differing departments within the universities. Put bluntly you have to do decently in them all, though not perfectly, although the PS is the least important in any application I would say.

Elendon's link does look quite useful but it doesn't mention the words 'prefect' or 'rounded'. I can't work out how to c&p from that but the yr 12 september bit seems about right.

Plus, the Telegraph is broadly right wing and therefore broadly sympathetic to the idea that the sort of cultural capital that comes from money is going to be helpful.

I think the well rounded message is a difficult one.

On the one hand, no admisdions tutor cares specifically that you do X,Y or Z outside your studies. But on the other hand if it's unusual, it might form the basis of an interesting conversation at interview.

The fact is, most PSs drafted by good applicants deal primarily with how much interest they have in the subject they would like to study evidenced by relatively pedestrian stuff : I've read these books and liked 'em. No applicant should be over thinking their PS.

Jeez LRD, I was only giving my impression from having been through the process. And I don't mean that you needed to have gold DofE, grade 8 on an instrument and represented your county in cricket. Just that you showed something of what you were about other than pure academia. I completely agree that people go over the top in thinking that they can make themselves look better by doing a shit load of stuff, when the overriding thing interviewers are looking for is whether you'll do well on the course.

The extra-curricular stuff is a massive bonus to being at Oxbridge. The collegiate setup is great for sports, and musically it is exceptional.

Also the thing to remember is that there are X places and X+ masses of applicants, therefore many, many people are going to be disappointed.

Actually, Cambridge averages about 5 applicants per place. (This is lower than many good RG courses, the difference being that the majority of people who get an oxbridge offer accept them rather than one of the other 4 choices)

For some Cambridge courses it's lower - the stats, including a nice interactive graph generator are here: www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/apply/statistics