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

RaskolnikovsGarret, British DC are lucky in that there are a number of good Universities and courses for academic students to apply to. One danger we found, was that though DS was not too bothered about whether he went to London or Oxbridge, the whole Oxbridge thing in a school with a lot of applicants was pretty unsettling. We realised that it was really the first time he had ever faced rejection. And which is why I often defend London (and by implication elsewhere) on MN. There have been some seriously dismissive comments over the years, which may deter applicants for even considering what are Universities with high global rankings and reputations.

One thing worse than not being offered a place at Oxbridge, is to then consider anywhere else second best/failure, when in many cases you can find a more suitable courses, more approrpiate teaching, or a nice town without tourists, or without the same undercurrent of competitiveness. (I dont want to start a debate but we have known kids who have always set great store by coming top of the class, find it difficult to adjust to being ordinary. It can be more fun being a bigger fish in a smaller pond.)

Oxbridge offer day at DCs school was pretty brutal. DD wanted not to go in, and she was one of a minority who had not applied. It sounds as if your DD will be in an all win position if she also loves her second choice, as long as she does not get distracted by the emotions around her.

Reading through the thread I'd say if KCL is DD's preferred option put it first and forget about Cambridge. Save the insurance option for insurance. By which I mean somewhere she'll get in even if something goes wrong. Exam meltdown or mis marking can and does happen.

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

These stories persist on MN. London students may compromise on space, for example you probably have an extra bedroom rather than a living room, and probably rent ex-coucil or above a shop. But most students can do the sums. It will almost certainly be cheaper to rent not too far away, where you can walk, bus or bike, and study in the library. And there is an awful lot of free stuff in London, including stuff at the various Universities. Brilliant transport and shops everywhere so no need for takeaways and taxis, and no one has cars, an unexpected cost for a DD who struggled last year to get to far flung placements. I clearly never got why anyone would not want to live in London!

Need that is a very interesting point about the effect of the application process. I remember reading on mn a while back that in a way an application to Oxbridge can create a pass/fail situation which doesn't really arise if you decide to apply to five others instead, liking them all to a greater or lesser degree. (Though I imagine applications to LSE and Imperial may create the same effect, and applications for med/vet/dentistry do as well, obviously!)

That is quite an additional potential source of stress for yr 13. Of course it doesn't have to happen, if students apply on a 'worth a try' basis - though 'worth a try' can end up turning into 'really really want to go there' during the process.

On the other hand, if you don't apply, you can't get in! So each student has to weigh up whether they'll be too fazed by it. (And then I suppose some would say that if you find the application process too stressful then you shouldn't be going there anyway - not my view, but probably quite a common one!)

Thatdidntlastlong, exactly. DCs school encouraged applicants to high-demand courses to treat it as a two year process. A fair number then got in to both Oxbridge/medicine or Imperial/UCL/LSE second time around. You are inevitably competiting against other strong applicants for a finite number of places. If you then get good results it is worth having another go. I think it is really important not to see an Oxbridge rejection as "failure". It really is not. To even be considering an application means that you are doing very well. And you are just the same person if you end up elsewhere, and as long as you engage, are likely/capable of doing just as well. Whilst experience of and willingness to have a go is important.

Offer days were awful. I think about 80% of the year applied. There were always a number of surprises in both directions.

(I dont want to start a debate but we have known kids who have always set great store by coming top of the class, find it difficult to adjust to being ordinary. It can be more fun being a bigger fish in a smaller pond.)

Actually, I think that's an important consideration. One of DDs reasons for wanting to try for Cambridge is that she wanted to be somewhere challenging, where the calibre of the cohort allows for a faster pace. Her attitude was probably informed in part by DHs experience - having not tried for Oxbridge and going to a perfectly respectable redbrick instead - of frankly not having much competition. Depending on your attitude, being an average fish in a bigger pond may be much more stimulating.

As with most of the factors discussed on this sort of thread, there's no general right or wrong answer, it really does depend on the character - still developing - of each individual.

Some really useful comments here to pass to DD. Thank you.

Well my child was at Cambridge and is now in London - and now understands why we didnt want them to go as an undergraduate. It is much more expensive to be in London than in Cambridge, unless you live at home and not many will want to do that. Some of your friends will be miles away and others will be nearby - but they will have jobs in London when they didnt at Cambridge so will be less available and however close they are its unlikely to be a few yards away.

My child has enjoyed/ is enjoying both but London would not have been right for them when they first left home. Others, especially if used to London, may thrive there but it's a different type of experience.

To return to the original question - I encourage anyone thinking of applying to Cambridge to read the alternative prospectus www.applytocambridge.com/ When choosing a college consider if things like old buildings matter to you or if you'd rather more chance of having an en suite. Look at what rooms are like for all 3 years as they can be quite different in some colleges. If you row proximity to the boathouse can make the early starts marginally less horrible. Are you highly competitive or do you think you'd prefer a college that might be less obsessed with its position in league tables? Does it matter to you that some colleges give more generous grants or will do one wash a week for you without charge (Emmanuel). Some colleges do more ents than others. Cambridge clubs are rubbish, if that matters, but the May balls are some of the best parties on the planet.

Go and visit, see if it appeals. If it does, apply and dont let a school dictate which college. Interviewers look for candidates who will benefit most from being at the university - all applicants are well qualified or they wouldnt be interviewed. After that you need to demonstrate that you are teachable and can develop an academic discussion. They want to know how you think, not where you came from. If you are a marginal applicant they need the context of your school to help decide, otherwise they dont.

If you are a marginal applicant they need the context of your school to help decide, otherwise they dont.

Quite. It's widely trumpeted (and especially on here!) that every Westminster/Eton candidate is thick and getting in by force of ponciness, and every state-school applicant is a genius hiding their light under a bushel. There are shades of grey! If someone who has done well on their entrance test and has an excellent academic record is a jibbering wreck in the interview, then they may make allowances. But the person who hasn't read around their subject and can't progress a discussion or answer the questions will not get a free pass.

Incidentally ds, an ordinary comprehensive person, said his hands were visibly shaking in the first interview, and he kept swallowing and stuttering. So they're clearly not only looking for super-confident types!

If you are a marginal applicant they need the context of your school to help decide, otherwise they dont.

No, because everyone is 'marginal'. Even if you only look at the school to confirm there's nothing you need to take into account, you still look, because it is so hard to make distinctions between so many very good applicants.

It's not about 'where do they come from' in the snob or reverse snob sense. It's about trying as hard as possible to be sure you're giving each candidate every possible chance to shine.