Psychology A Level/Oxford

[Tesstheteddybear]

Hi my DS is applying to Oxford 2020 for Chemistry. He is a little concerned he may not receive an interview due to the fact he is studying Psychology, Chemistry, Maths not Further Maths, Biology, Physics etc for A' Level. GCSE's are very good.

Has anyone got any knowledge of this - thank you!

I know the figure is flawed sandy. That was my point. Although to be fair the independent sector has been a bit cowardly, waiting to see how things pan out with the harder exams.Still, it's quite funny in a way too, given their claims about wanting to stretch the most able etc. Ah well, they're coming on board now, because it's clear they'll be left behind otherwise. I think your DS's school is among the first to capitulate!

@goodbyestranger - to be fair to the school I don't think 'capitulate' is the right phrase. There was always a planned strategy to gradually move away from iGCSE and this was shared with parents several years ago. The schools results for the new GCSE taken last year (DS1 did Maths, History, Geography and Latin only) were extremely strong and I'm sure we'll see the same again this year as the proportion of GCSEs to IGCSEs goes up.

But back to Chemistry at Oxford if we can as that was the OP's question! I hope this focus of 9s doesn't put anyone off applying who doesn't have a string of them. TSA is the thing to focus on assuming predicted grades are strong.

I would fully expect the school results to stay very strong but there was actually no academic reason whatsoever - especially at the best schools such as your own, to move 'gradually'. It was entirely open to all schools to move at the same time as the state sector. I would actually have expected better and bolder leadership, but there you go.

there was actually no academic reason whatsoever - especially at the best schools such as your own, to move 'gradually'.

I hate to defend a top "independent" but there was plenty of reason. My DC's State Comp would have changed "gradually" if they could. Instead they reduced the options for one year group to give more teaching time, and then the subsequent groups moved to 3 year GCSEs. Some of the new Syllabi are massive, and do best with at least 3 years if not 5 years of preparation. An obvious example is History - 1000 years of history, is much easier taught over more than 2 years, especially if you then have to do the concentrated studies. And it's a massive change from the 20th Century focus of a lot of History syllabi before.

@goodbyestranger - I'm pretty happy with the leadership at the school thanks. They sensibly let the system bed in before fully committing.

Now let's return to the question of Chemistry if we can..:

Things are always presented with a positive spin to parents sandy!

Molly 40% of grades at our school were Grade 9 last year so it was perfectly do-able for top independents if it was do-able for us. They were nervous that's all, however they want to dress it up to parents. Last year's Y11s really enjoyed the challenge of the new syllabus and I have to say it would irritate me as a parent if an able DC had to forego the new syllabus which was perfectly achievable in the time frame.

@MollyButton - thanks. I'm a pretty discerning parent and can spot when I'm being spun a line. I'll just agree to disagree with @goodbyestranger and move on.

Let's not let another Oxbridge thread get derailed by petty comments. It just puts off posters asking genuine questions and most of the rest of us TBH.

sandy I'm not aware of introducing anything petty. I threw out a comment after you made one about the Ofqual figure in relation to independents. I didn't know we had to stick to a script! But yes, enough of why the independents did what they did.

www.ucas.com/advisers/offer-rate-calculator/

Im not sure if someone has already posted this but try this.

Yes we are another school that did a mix of letters and numbers and got 95% students obtaining A/A/9-7 but although 78 got all A/9s won't be in the 732. Surely though when the (high performing) indies do go all numerical that is based on the top (variable by subject) percentage then some of the top indies will in fact outperform some of the state schools and take some of those 9s. Just thinking out loud and after a few glasses of proesecco on hols in Italy.

On.the basis all the state teachers seem under so much pressure to get the new syllabus taught within the time frame and switched over (and on) it is better management to not do this if you don't have to.

Also on the basis at the Oxford Open Day the admissions tutors stated that 9s 8s and A*s will all be treated exactly the same again there was no reason to place staff under the pressure of switching to numerical and they could gear themselves up to the new way (ie. O level way of teaching).

Oops premature posting - I already mentioned the prosecco didn't I.
Sorry I was late to this and they are just my thoughts and I know it has sidetracked the initial question to which my answer is the subject choices should be fine.

@OKBubble - is that right? your figure of 78 caught my eye, because at my son's independent school where they did a mixture of letters and numbers, 78 got A, 9 or 8, with 94% getting A, A, 9, 8 or 7.

Whereabouts are you based Dad?

@OKBobble - I'll PM you, as based on a quick search, I think my son goes to the same schools as yours. He was one of the 78 but he did get some 8s.

In terms of cut off for interview 8s are being treated as on a par with 9s but the reality is likely to be that those with a long string of high A*/ 9s are a bit fleeter of foot academically, so do better at interview and get the lion's share of the offers. I don't think they'd have enough applicants to interview without winging through the 8s along with the 9s. The ratio is generally three interviewees to each place, at Oxford at least.

State school parents!

Please do not go into despair at the above crowing about schools where everyone seems to come out with the highest grades!
Oxford (and I believe Cambridge) - actually want the brightest students not just those who get the highest grades at GCSE. That is why they introduced the Foundation year, why they have created the Opportunity Oxford scheme.
You do not need all 9s or even 8s to get in - but if you go to a top Selective Independent then you might - as you might be assumed to have been so well coached that admissions struggle to tell if you are "really bright" or just "well coached".

I would agree with Molly. Both Oxford and Cambridge are VERY clear that GCSEs are taken in the context of the school they were taken in.
If you go to a school where everyone gets 8/9 and you apply with 7s then that could be an issue. They really want to know whether you are top/in the top 5%/middle etc in your school.
There's also no problem with a spiky profile. Let's say there's someone applying for maths with 9s in maths, FM and sciences, 7/8 in 3 other subjects but with a 6 in art and a 5 in drama. Would they care? Probably not, assuming that they nailed the MAT. They also look at the subjects taken.
If you are applying for physics then a 9 in drama and a 7 in chemistry is no where near as good as a 9 in chemistry and a 7 in drama.

....we really do need to be careful in saying that a full run of Astar/9s is required. I would also argue that the 'fleet of foot' comment is not entirely accurate either.

All GCSEs show is a breadth of knowledge - they don't demonstrate depth in the subject applied for and that's what they are looking for. Is the candidate obsessed with the subject enough to put in the very long hours required and are they totally absorbed with the subject? Can they grasps concepts quickly and apply them? Do they want to learn for learnings sake? .....that is literally what they are looking for at interview.

The fact that lots of DC at my DCs' school have good grades means that my DCs' grades are less good by comparison. I know a little about the reforms etc and the top grade was brought in precisely to differentiate at the top. As far as the teachers can see on the basis of a single year, it quite strikingly did what it set out to do. It's an absolutely fair comment that I made; I have no need to 'crow', whatever 'crowing is', and that comment is extremely rude. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the observation but only on the basis that it's incredibly obvious. Goodness me!

By which I mean that comment of yours is rude. Quite uncalled for.

Cross post with bpisok. I would stand entirely by fleet of foot in terms of showing intellectual versatilty and creativity at interview.

Also, while a full house of A* has never been either necessary or sufficient at Oxford in absolute terms in the past decade or so, it's certainly been the case - and admissions tutors have said this in terms - that there's something, esp for the humanities, which is indicated by a full house or a long run etc and whatever it is, Oxford likes.

Versatility. Perhaps I mean speed of thought too.

Molly I would say that the idea that in interview tutors can't tell the difference between superficial gloss and real ability is pretty rude to them too. Of course they can. Where more top grades might be required for top performing schools is going to be to meet the threshold for interview. Which brings me back to the point about those with lots of 9s likely to come into their own at interview. I'm entirely unsure that these new GCSEs can be dismissed as just requiring regurgitation of knowledge.

But I obviously agree that context is critical too.

Speed of thought - yes absolutely. That is what they are looking for. What I don't 100% agree with is that 10x 9s demonstrates.

Having a string of 9s at GCSE doesn't necessarily correlate with theorising. What it does demonstrate is that you can learn what you have been taught and I think Oxbridge know this hence they look at other characteristics such as upward trajectory (as education progresses it becomes less 'taught'), entrance tests (which tend to be based on things they haven't learnt) and interviews (where they can assess how you think). If it were simply a requirement of all 9s at GCSEs and all A* predictions at A Levels then why bother with interviews or entrance tests at all?!?! There are enough places to accommodate everyone who meets these requirements.

Additionally there are many applicants who meet the above academic profile who are rejected whilst many with a less stellar profile are accepted.

I just think you are over simplifying this and potentially putting great applicants off of applying.