Cambridge colleges

[RaskolnikovsGarret]

DD is applying to Cambridge, and has decided to apply for a particular college.

However, seven other students from her school are also applying to that college, although not for the same subject. The school does not let students apply for the same course at the same college, but students can apply for different courses at the same college.

For some reason, I feel that the college wouldn’t let eight students from the same school in, even though they would be studying different subjects. I think that DD is setting up an unnecessary obstacle for herself before she has begun the process. DD has a good chance of an offer, but would applying to this particular college jeopardise her chances of being offered a place?

Any thoughts gratefully received. She does have a second choice college in mind, although that objectively is probably harder to get into.

Thank you

I've heard the best Saturday brunch is at Murray Edwards, so the lads just have to make friends there. The impression I've gleaned from DD is that Johns is perhaps a bit over blessed with public schoolboys with a (maybe deserved) high opinion of themselves, whereas Kings is actually one of the more socially inclusive colleges - though you don't actually have to espouse communism nowadays. But I guess you have to be able to tolerate tourists - for some, the less picturesque and historical colleges may be a pleasanter environment in reality.

Private school pupils are usually told not to apply to Kings College Cambridge as it is the only College that reputedly does discriminate against private schools. Personally I would be put off by the sheer number of tourists surrounding the College.

Thanks. DD is at a grammar school - not sure which category that falls into from King’s perspective.

From the horse's mouth: ds's prof told me that when they interview they do not know where someone is from, what school, anything about them. He said they certainly do not know if someone is a "legacy" student (ie has a history of family going there) and don't care either.

I agree that King's is insufferably crowded outside - and in the chapel.

From the horse's mouth: ds's prof told me that when they interview they do not know where someone is from, what school, anything about them. He said they certainly do not know if someone is a "legacy" student (ie has a history of family going there) and don't care either.

The first part is not generally true. Interviewers can have access to UCAS forms, which include information about school and references. It is appropriate to do so, because you do need to put interview performance into context.

The second part is true. No academic is going to give priority to a weaker student based on family history or school background. And many interviewing academics are not even from the UK i.e. they don't have much background or feelings about different types of UK schools.

Weall have unconscious biases but increasingly there is training for interviewers so that they recognise their own biases and correct for them. Also all candidates are interviewed by multiple people, which in itself tends to flush out any intrinsic bias.

I would guess that the single biggest intrinsic bias in academic interviewing is rapport with the candidate: just because you click with them more, and feel on their wavelength, it doesn't mean they are better.

So in summary I do think interviewers try really hard to get the best out of candidates and to give everyone a fair shot at a place. Unfortunately there just aren't enough places so some very good students are going to miss out, based on quite marginal differences.

ds's prof told me that when they interview they do not know where someone is from, what school, anything about them

Not true and a really odd thing for an academic to have said. For starters, how could interviewers ask applicants about the content of their personal statements if they didn't know anything about them?

Out of those 3 I’d go catz, downing, kings...tbh I’m not sure there’s even any point worrying about 2/3 choice - I never heard of anyone who it was relevant for - you either get your first choice or you get pooled to all the colleges!

Thanks that’s all useful. Yes the choice of three is just relevant to the college she puts down - she knows there isn’t a second or third choice as such. I think she will go with her favourite.

Thank you all

For starters, how could interviewers ask applicants about the content of their personal statements if they didn't know anything about them?

Personal statements are more or less irrelevant for most subject specific interviews. I could believe that somebody interviewing specifically for ability/potential in the subject might not have looked in detail through the UCAS/Cambridge applications, though I doubt this would be the norm. As I said above, there has to be some contextual information taken into account in rating the interview performance; it would just not be fair to compare a student from a school with low academic performance and no Oxbridge students in the past with a student from a school such as Westminster.

Personal statements are more or less irrelevant for most subject specific interviews

Not in my experience. It's very useful to ask applicants claiming on thier personal statements to "have a passion for [subject]" and to have found books x,y, and z "fascinating because [insert standard line on said books]" in more detail about said passion for the subject and fascination for the books. If they can't explain either, then that's normally an indicator of a no-so-great applicant - "I can't remember, we did that last year" is one of the classic tells, as is the less frequent "actually we haven't covered that yet".

Personal statements are relevant for Oxbridge interviews as it evidences their super-curricular. However they will not be looking for extracurricular such as DofE other than a one liner!

Shalom. What do you mean by super-curricular?

I must admit I can't imagine being at university in London for undergraduate. People who have gone there say that London universities are generally missing a sense of community because it's so massive and people are dotted all over. Cambridge, with its collegiate system, will have a tight community feel.

Sorry the above was in reference to her second choice being kings London.

Super curricular is the stuff you do outside school related to your subject - so what lectures have you been to, have you done any moocs, what else have you done in your subject. Unless you are applying for music they don’t care about your g8 or your sport or your DoE - one line to say you’ve done it and all the rest subjextvrelated (this is specifically Oxbridge don’t know about others)

I do see the argument against London (I went to a London university) but she preferred the staff and course at KCL compared with the other universities she looked at.

One of ds's friend is at Imperial, and I asked him on Saturday evening what it was like, and whether in the second year he has to live out (50 miles away). He said there is a great community and you can live in halls in the second year if you want - as he is going to do.

Many courses at the London universities look excellent, but I think many, many non-local, not very rich students are put off by the scary stories of having to live in Zone 6 and being isolated.

Ds had three interviews. One in particular concentrated just on PS. Woe betide anyone who claims to have read something they haven't!

People who have gone there say that London universities are generally missing a sense of community because it's so massive and people are dotted all over.

It all depends. Obviously London is very different from Oxbridge, but oddly because people are scattered, the individual University campus can be a real focal point. London is expensive, so you are more likely to use the campus for discos, societies etc, or visit friends at other London Universities. (DS was a member of a University gaming team who were regularly trounced by Imperial and UCL.) Plus you find that EU/O'seas students are often very motivated, so the library becomes a real hub. (DS and his coursemates colonised a room in the library and worked together - all nine got firsts.) And all sorts of academics, recruiters etc float through, there is lots of research going on, plus wide access to top quality public lectures, so a real sense of being part of things. London transport is good, so students are not as cut off as they might be in in their second and third years at Warwick etc. It depends what you want, but DDs surprise at Bristol is about how much social life happens in the City, rather than the University, and how few join University societies, with probably the majority of students never visiting the Union building.

Each University is different. There will almost certainly be silver linings from not getting into Oxbridge, and indeed our neighbours son now wishes he had opted for UCL over Oxford. From DDs observation though, it is really important not to see everywhere else as second best. It probably isn't, margins on whether you get a place or not are small, and really not everyone who goes to Oxbridge has a brilliant time. Her experience is that those who start elsewhere feeling they are somewhere inferior, come across as rather sad and as far as she can see, not obviously brighter than their peers. I dont think in London, DS' peers ever considered whether Oxbridge would have been better. The course was demanding and interesting with a wide range of options, others on the course were bright committed and from a wonderful diversity of backgrounds, and they were simply to busy to ever consider what might have been. And no evidence at all that career opportunities would have been better had they studied amongst dreaming spires.

Thank you - useful insights. I think DD would perversely almost be relieved if she were rejected by Cambridge, as she loved Kings London. There is certainly no pressure from us as parents even to apply to Cambridge in the first place. More than half her year are applying to Oxbridge, so I think she almost feels she has to, especially as her teachers consider her such a strong candidate. A cliché, but I just want her to be happy.

If a DC truly prefers one of the excellent London unis (imperial, UCL, KCL and LSE) and likes the idea of living in London, and has thought about the possible downsides, then IMO they should go for it.

Going back quite a few years I had a family member who was at imperial for 6 years - lived in nice digs in Chiswick, and found a community which suited him in a local church. Obviously that's a rather specific and probably unusual example but London can be many different things to different people.

I don't think it matters much, but FWIW, colleges have a general admissions officer who will know how many students from a particular school apply in different subjects. To the best of my knowledge they won't discriminate on this basis at all, but they will know. Interviewers in each subject won't know.

Interviewers definitely know what school candidates went to, and get information about its general performance (this is used to put a candidate's performance in context - eg., if a student has slightly less good exam results but we saw their school generally has very bad results, that would be taken into consideration).

Personal statements are useful IME. But in the sense that they give something to discuss, mostly. If someone mentioned a particular book or something they'd done, we might use it as a prompt for conversation.

We are in London, and DD is a London girl through and through. The example KCL offer is about 5 levels lower than her predicted grades, so if she is offered a place, it would make a great reserve or indeed firm choice.

DD was quite pissed off by one interviewer (not Cambridge) who ignored all the interesting stuff on her PS and decided to grill her on her gcse choices, specifically German which she'd only done because the school made them do a language and that was the one exercise book she ceremonially tore up after exams. She got an offer anyway but it put her off making that uni her insurance choice.

So, in addition to not writing anything on the PS they aren't happy to discuss, a quick thought about the whys and wherefores of subject choices, even 'irrelevant' ones, may make for a pleasanter experience if an interviewer decides to go off the PS piste.

That's a no-brainer to include as one of her 5 then OP- she doesn't need to make the final firm/insurance choice for ages yet, after interviews/applicant or offer holders days.