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

I think the cause v correlation argument has something going for it. It is certainly true that many (most?) of our candidates have incredibly impressive extra-curricular achievements. But they do not form any part of the selection process unless directly related to the subject applied for. Look at the selection criteria on the websites. You will not see any mention of sport, music, leadership, teamwork, altruism....so they should not be used.

However, someone mentioned reading the FT as if that was a silly suggestion. For some subjects like politics or economics you might get more general questions where some knowledge of current issues could be useful. Though even then if you have that kind of mind, you can probably get through with a purely theoretical approach!

Not new senua but I have to say I have never ventured there before!

irregular, I mentioned it, but not as a silly suggestion.

It would be perfectly sensible to read it for relevant subjects.

I posted several things which, if you believe some threads on here, all candidates must do before they've a chance of consideration, to illustrate what cultural capital might look like.

In the same way, it's obviously not silly if someone reading music has listened to opera, or someone reading English has watched a lot of Shakespeare, or whatever.

But you could sometimes conclude that, in order to get a place, every candidate must demonstrate they've participated in extra-curricular hobbies relevant to every possible degree. This is not the case.

OP, just wanted to say that dd's very rural, not high-achiever school took a group of yr 10s for a visit to Oxford this year, so might be worth asking if they do do anything, you never know.

And you can always visit yourself. Just stay in a Travelodge or go for the day if you aren't that far away and wander round and have a look at the colleges. You can find their opening times online. There are lots of museums (and rivers of course!) too so a trip doesn't have to be all about tramping round colleges.

Agree with LRD that reading is essential, whatever your subject. That's not "cultural capital", it's showing that you're actually interested in what you hope to study. People I know who applied to do English, say, were expected to have knowledge of a lot more stuff than their A Level set texts.

Great work experience and fancy trips are nice but not having done anything much and being a couch potato didn't seem to disadvantage ds.

Also you can stay in an Oxbridge College room during the holidays. As a family we stayed a few nights in rooms at Jesus College Cambridge (my old college) and at Keble College Oxford. At Keble, breakfast was included and was served in a beautiful historic formal dining hall. As residents we got to wander around most of the college.

We booked through www.universityrooms.co.uk

The excellent talks by Oxbridge dons ( maybe you, LRD) given to DS's school pointed out in no uncertain terms that they didn't give a flying f about whether you had grade 8 flute - their example. They were interested in whether you were good at and enthusiastic about their subject.

They pointed out some important things, though, like:

Read the content of the course. If it says it's mathematically based, it will be. If you don't want a mathematically based course in , oh I dunno, Ancient Greek, don't apply here, apply somewhere else. ( this is important. One of the best students at DS's school went to Oxbridge and discovered that the course didn't suit him, too x where he wanted y. He has since left.)

It is very competitive. If you don't get in, that's not a comment about your moral worth or anything else. And lots of dons didn't do their first degrees there.

The Cambridge guidance is excellent, tells you what is mainly expected for each course re A levels and any other qualms that might help, eg for the maths / economics courses. Didn't look at Oxford this time round.

Decide whether you want to be on a campus university or not.

Decide what you find helpful in teaching practices. Some people find the tutorial/supervision system too frightening.

Decide whether you can cope with interviews for admissions. Some can't.

Decide whether you can cope with the pressure. The terms are slightly shorter than elsewhere, a lot of the results are based on final exams, that may not suit you.

Don't be put off by the nonsense photos in the press. Yes, balls happen. And? They happen elsewhere too. I'm quite sure there are the equivalents to the Pitt Club and the Bullingdon elsewhere as well. And lots of students like trying out different personas when up. So they may be dead posh for a period and dead unposh for another, and why not, it's a place to explore ideas and who you are. And the range of students is great because both take huge care in their application systems.

On the which college question, often it used to be used as an icebreaker. But students then saw it as a determining question which it wasn't.

LRD, simply delighted there is now some centralised training, asked the question ( quite often) when working for my previous employer ( had a good reason for doing so) and was treated with contumely. Even if it's not always followed. Standardised list of questions?

No standardised list of questions. Training is centralised and I believe has been for quite a long time now - but as countess says, there will be plenty of people who have been interviewing for years and who will feel (and usually rightly) that they don't want to be taught to suck eggs.

Addley, very best of luck.

On interview questions, DS was asked a fairly obvious one, started to answer and was cut off by the interviewer ( think not you, LRD, susoect not right gender) who said " no, that's wrong, it's x" . First question. DS came out a shivering wreck from that one but the next went ok - to the extent that one don took 2/3 of the time in a solo discussion of the subject. The only quasi extra curriculum question was a ref to his personal statement as he went out of the door, checking their assumptions on something he had referred to. It was all subject, reasoning ability, ability to think broadly as well as deeply.

LRD, I am very grateful for your input on this thread.

Thank you Orlanda I've got a few weeks to polish my extracurriculars before I find out where I'm going to be studying…

I've 15 years' experience interviewing at various Oxbridge colleges. LRD is spot on. We really don't care about extracurriculars. Nearly all colleges have done away with the 'general' interview, and instead have entirely subject-based interviews. Training is centralised, but the Admissions Forum release updated guidelines every year to all (not just new) interviewers, and Admissions Tutors see it as their brief to make sure colleagues are aware of (and hopefully complying with) current guidelines and best practice. Plus, nearly all colleges now interview in pairs, not only to ensure best practice is followed, but also to protect interviewers.

you can expect a question on why you've chosen that particular college

This is directly against current Admissions Forum policy, so should never be asked. Why have you chosen this subject, however, is an absolutely fair question.

I've never met an interviewer who is interested in extracurricular activities, except from directly relevant work experience in subjects like law or medicine; and in any case asking about extracurricular experiences or achievements is pretty much only ever an icebreaker-ype question (often for candidates who are struggling to open up or get going with more abstract questions, in the hope that they will relax). However, the vast majority of our questions are entirely subject-based - on academic elements of the PS, or work they have sent in, or on more general/abstract problems, or on pre-reading. And the vast majority of candidates are talkative, resourceful, and deal with the interview with great competence, even if they don't end up being made an offer.

In the end, what we are assessing for is kind of an X-factor. It isn't anything to do with money, background, extracurriculars, or social poise or advantage, or confidence, or polish. It isn't even, for the most part, to do with qualifications (which is why we do occasionally take people who really don't have all-singing, all-dancing GCSE A*s). Pure and simple, it's an intellectual quality, a facility of mind which you recognise when you see it. There's a bit of passion in it; and a bit of having an intuitive grasp of the subject as it's practised at university level (which is very different from anything that can be taught at an expensive school). But in the end it's a kind of raw intellectual power - someone who can grasp a problem presented in quite simple terms and then do something with it. To that end, the most effective and telling interview questions are normally the ones that aren't anything the candidate can prepare, but on the unseen problems or material we discuss in the interview and the insight that the candidate can offer.

(And, whether they seem like they are enjoying the kind of thinking that we are doing together in the interview. I've rarely interviewed anyone who is clearly hating the interview - maybe I'm just too fluffy an interviewer - but some candidates really light up with enjoyment. If they are really thinking in the interview and clearly enjoying the process then that is excellent. This isn't the same thing as being either accustomed to or polished at having academic conversations, either - it can come with all sorts of awkwardnesses too.)

Oh, and the interview definitely isn't the be-all and end-all. I've certainly taken students in the past who have performed a bit dismally in one or more interviews but can display their intellectual facility in written work, tests or qualifications.

The interviewer's job is also to look behind the circumstances of the interview and weigh up the different aspects of a candidate's application. They certainly don't have to be perfectly smooth performers across all our assessment measures - we are interested in the student him or herself as a person, not in whether they conform to an imaginary set of measures. Real people aren't perfect all-rounders, and they have strengths and weaknesses. We're also, of course, looking at aspects of their background in an effort to advantage, rather than disadvantage, them - such as giving particular weight to an excellent GCSE performance for the candidate's school if it's a significantly under performing one; or noting that a candidate who didn't shine in interview nevertheless has a 45 in the IB (a mark which puts them in less than one percent globally, so a really amazing score).

We're not in the business of securing smooth paths to the social Establishment for the rich and privileged. We're looking for the best people intellectually, regardless of background. It's always a careful and heavily examined process, with everyone involved double-checking themselves at every stage. We really do take it extremely seriously!

traininthedistance thank you for this

Very useful information on the thread.
Also if not said above do realise that it can be worth not applying for something extremely popular which makes it harder to get in. Pick the subject with care, unless you are brilliant and only adore one subject and it must be that at all costs.

(My twins did not apply although the school wanted them to but I think they took the right decision for them. 100% of children who applied from their school this year to Oxbridge failed to get in incidentaly. On the issue of subjects, they are both holding Bristol offers for the Autumn as first choice (they rejected Durham) - one needs A*AA and the other AAB - quite a difference and shows how the subject choice can affect the offers you are made).

Thanks LRD and TRAIN for your input.

I went to Oxford in the dark ages and went through the process with DS recently and I get so frustrated at the amount of misinformation that is put out and the whole idea that Oxbridge is only for wealthy, privately educated snobs and "not for the likes of us". The interview is also portrayed as a kind of dark art, akin to being initiated into the Masons when actually Oxford is leaning over backwards at outreach and there is masses of official information available to those who care to research it.

My advice to anyone wanting to apply is - do your research, make sure the course is what you want, pick the right GCSE/A levels accordingly and then develop your interests outside the curriculum. Do that and you have as good a chance as anyone of getting a place.

Also if not said above do realise that it can be worth not applying for something extremely popular which makes it harder to get in. Pick the subject with care

That advice might be valid for some, but I don't think is applicable to anyone wanting to do a STEM subject (which is what the OP's DS is likely to lean towards in due course). Sure, there's a lot of applicants per place - but hey, UCAS gives them 5 choices, and there are many other excellent and good alternatives if they don't get an oxbridge offer.

Lots of useful information already added to this thread from when I was last on it. One thing (to go against what others have said -- I guess subjects vary) is that in some general subjects you may be asked about your personal statement. Not because the interviewers are impressed with what you've said (although they might be) but because it indicates areas which you could be expected to know about (after all, you volunteered the information).

So, for instance, if you have said you have studied a lot of music (or you're a DJ or whatever) then for a philosophy question you might be asked about the what make music good music. It's a way of seeing if you think philosophically about things in your life. Similarly, you might be asked the value of sport, or what makes good art, etc. Also, do not assume that because you're being interviewed by Oxbridge lecturers, they don't know about grime, electronica, live action role-playing games or the off-side rule.

Also (and I have said this on many other threads) do not say that you have really enjoyed (etc) a book in the personal statement and not have a clue what is in it. That is interview suicide.

Agree, Chaotica. In one of ds's interviews he was asked extensively about his ps and books he'd mentioned. He'd have been sunk if he hadn't read them.

He was also asked a question, "So what have you been reading lately?" This was not for English, by the way!

I think every interviewer is keen to see evidence that an applicant is actually interested in the subject, and not just sticking rigidly to the exam syllabus.

LadyinCement I'm glad you're DS had something to say. No interviewer (whom I ever met) actually wants to trip someone up.

your not 'you're'

Errol, yes will depend on the subject. I am pretty sure at most universitiess if you apply fior history rather than ancient history you will need higher grades and find it harder to get in (history and English are popular). Just looking at my twins' offers for this Autumn (above) that reflects their subject choices - Geography A*AA, ancient history AAB which they both knew and expected when they applied and both like their subjects so not a problem for them.

My siblings went to Oxbridge and were probably helped that one applied to an all girls' college which was not that popular and the other (male) to a college whcih had just moved from being all female so again was slightly easier to get into. I do not know if those tactics would work these days however and they both worked extremely har, one being the first from the school ever to get to Oxbridge. No one applied nor had ever been to Oxbridge from my school when I applied to university and when I suggestsed it to my head she said was too young to apply (I went to university at 17) which was a rather silly answer but I did not press the point, not that it has mattered at all in terms of my career.

You can't game the system anymore with college choice, I'm afraid. Subjects have centralised admissions to ensure that the best students are offered places regardless of which college they applied to (or made an open application). Applicants are imported or exported from undersubscribed and oversubscribed colleges at admissions meetings. Someone cleverer than I can find the published table and link to it.
As an example-
Let's say Christchurch (oversubscribed)has interviewed 20 direct applicants for Maths and has 5 places but 6 candidates have done well enough to get offers. 1 student goes back into the pot (export).
St. Hilda's has had 10 direct applicants (undersubscribed) for Maths and 5 places but only 1 is suitable. They might import the spare Christchurch applicant and look for other good exported candidates . Open applicants will be allocated to colleges for interview and may get a direct offer from a College or have to hang on until results day when they are told which College they have got. The College which underwrites their offer will take them if they aren't slotted in elsewhere.
Some of this horse trading happens during the interview days when applicants can be called to additional interviews at other Colleges and some of it happens in the admissions meeting. Multiple interviews ensure that every candidate is seen by several academics in the department so nobody is rejected because of one bad interview/ personality clash/overt bias.
Clear as mud?

I would suggest that he choose strong academic subjects for his GCSE's, such as maths, triple science, English lit, history, geography etc

If he is serious about maths, he would ideally need further maths at A Level

My nephew was interviewed by Cambridge recently for Maths and one of the first things they said to him was, we are not interested in anything else you've done, just maths, maths and more maths. The interview was also very much maths based.

He's still young, so try not to let him put too much pressure on himself. If he has the academic ability the rest will work itself out and oxbridge isn't the only game in town.

look at Russell Group universities as they are also considered to be the best

There is loads of information available online for parents and students

Some of this horse trading happens during the interview days when applicants can be called to additional interviews at other Colleges

I don't believe Cambridge does that, but Oxford do - and their interview process can be more than one day (but they put the applicants up in colleges).