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!

Oh and I should add that having 10x9s and having an ability to theorise are not mutually exclusive (just in case anyone thought that was what I was saying!!)

Yes I was just about to make your second point.

No I don't believe I am over simplifying. But of course we've only got a sample of one year, so I can only generalise from a particular sample and that certainly indicates a difference in ability with those DC with mainly 8s and those with mainly 9s. The 9s do seem to differentiate and there'd be no point in them if they didn't.

I very, very much doubt that great applicants or indeed any applicants are put off by what a single poster says on MN! It's a perfectly valid point based on what I know of the reforms, the syllabus, the Oxford admissions process. I would expect in due course Oxford to find those with multiple 9s are a good bet. I wonder if you can explain what the 9 was for, if not to distinguish at the top end?

bpisok in addition I'd say that your statements are made as though 9s have been in existence for sufficiently long for you to draw firm conclusions. Also, numerically, that you're wrong that there are more applicants with all 9s (or the equivalent top end of the A* which stretches from top 7 to top 9) than places. There aren't - there are fewer. Which doesn't mean to say that those with those grades will all get places - but they're not in a bad position.

(Obviously tutors won't know where on the spectrum those with unreformed GCSEs or IGCSEs sit between top 7s and top 9s, because the schools won't go into that level of detail in the UCAS reference - but the difference will probably show in the aptitude tests/ interview. Which is the point of them! There's highly likely to be a correlation).

@goodbyestranger 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.
I have been there when someone has come out from an interview and not been sure if the student was "really bright or just exceptionally prepared".
It is not always easy to see beyond the gloss - even for Oxbridge academics.

But what really worries me is that threads about Oxbridge - become overwhelmed by Independent school parents who can then intimidate and put off parents and students who are less likely to get absolutely stellar grades from even considering Oxbridge.

But I do understand - if I had been able to spend hundreds of thousands on my DCs education I would very much want to think I had bought them success. In some ways I am glad I couldn't afford it as I could have been (an even worse) nightmare mother.

Yes there was no question of the independent sector for my DC either.

I've worked in educational access for a good long while too, so not unfamiliar with the various issues.

I'm confused Goodbye by your last post, as on another Oxbridge thread I'm following you said:

One of my DC was recently offered a place at such a school and the letter containing the offer was fulsome in its praise of the huge achievement this represented and of the DC's clearly very significant talents. Then it asked for a decision followed by cash, quickly. That was in connection with the 8 schools sending more to Oxbridge than any other.

Sorry, not used to the controls on here & posted too soon. So am I right in thinking that your DC must be from the super selective world rather than from normal schools where applicants routinely have As/A*s at both A level and GCSE but still have successful applications?

I very, very much doubt that great applicants or indeed any applicants are put off by what a single poster says on MN!

I wouldn't rule out the possibility. It is possible for a single poster to comment quite a lot on threads about applying to Oxbridge.

I very, very much doubt that great applicants or indeed any applicants are put off by what a single poster says on MN!

I wouldn't rule out the possibility. It is possible for a single poster to comment quite a lot on threads about applying to Oxbridge.

Savage.

So, Tesstheteddybear , I hope everything's cleared up for you and your DS about his A Level choices! I'm not sure it's been mentioned much for the last couple of pages.

TheFirstOHN posters are here to share views, not to replace the official outreach channels. I personally find it rather patronizing when state school applicants are talked down to, as though they must by definition have poor grades etc. To quarrel with the idea that the 9 was introduced to differentiate between applicants at the top end is unarguable and my point holds good I think: that if an applicant has a significant number of 9s in the new reformed, much more rigorous exams then that ability shown in the tougher exams is likely to show at interview. It's just a bit silly to deny a very obvious fact. State school parents and students (most unlikely to join the oldies on MN I'd have thought) really don't need to be treated as daft.

Oh Larry I thought we'd met before! But if you want to know my entire personal history then it's absolutely the case that I couldn't have funded private education for my eight DC through secondary but that I was considering a move of house for DD4's sixth form to be nearer my other DC, and would have been prepared to sell my house to fund it and move to a much smaller place. I probably won't go as far as publishing my bank statements with details of income but both statements are entirely consistent. Thank you for asking :)

I'll assume that that's ironic Hingle. I would have called it mild. I think it's fine for posters to comment in proportion to recent experience of applications and general experience in the educational field. I mean. it kind of makes sense.

Larry I think you know very well that my DC is at a superselective. Superselectives are going to be the best place to distinguish between the mainly 8s and the mainly 9s for the reason you give - there are lots of those grades flying about.

He's made his choices Hingle, he's in Y12.

No idea.

That makes perfect sense in that context goodbye

If at a super selective then all 9s (with maybe the odd 8) are likely to be expected- disappointing if anything else really. In the real world large swathes of the country have not been lucky enough to have had the privileged education your DC have benefited from.

Oxbridge are aware of the advantages that both independent and grammar school DC have and adjust their GCSE grade expectations accordingly. They are very very clear that this is the case on their web sites (which you rightly recommend all potential applicants read). It's all about context but it explains why your view is that 'a full house' is almost a prerequisite.

Sorry goodbye, I meant had it cleared up whether his (already committed to) choices were satisfactory or if they had ensured he doesn't stand a chance of getting an interview at Oxford.

That's not in any way what my point was though bpisok, a full or nearly full house. My point was about Oxford saying it won't distinguish this year between 9s, 8s and A* and me saying that the distinction will probably appear at the aptitude test/ interview stage. Because the entire reason for the 9 is to make a distinction in terms of academic ability.

Also bpisok that's not correct about mostly 9s being the expectation, even at the top state superselectives. That would be absurd.

At 10:09

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.

From Cambridge web site (doesn't look like they nec agree than a full house is needed)

GCSEs
There are no GCSE (or equivalent) requirements for entry to Cambridge. GCSE results are looked at as a performance indicator, but within the context of the performance of the school/college where they were achieved.
Applicants have generally achieved high grades in subjects relevant to their chosen course, and most students who apply have at least four or five As or As at GCSE (7 is considered equivalent to an A in the new grading structure; and 8 and 9 is considered equivalent to an A). However, there are always exceptions and we don’t require a minimum number of As/A*s at GCSE. One of the strengths of the Cambridge admissions system is its ability to assess all applicants individually.
Our research shows that post-16 examination performance is a much better predictor of degree success at Cambridge. While GCSE results are looked at as a performance indicator, this is within the context of the performance of the school/college where they were attained, and strong performance in Years 12 and 13 can make up for a less stellar performance at GCSE.

Oxford
Higher grades at GCSE can help to make your application more competitive, and successful applicants typically have a high proportion of A and A* grades or 7,8 and 9 grades. However, we do look at GCSE grades in context. Where possible, tutors will be made aware of the overall GCSE performance of the school or college where you studied. They will also have information on how you have performed compared with other Oxford applicants at similar schools. (See further information on how we use contextual data.)

bpisok it's true that Oxford admissions tutors have said several times over the years to my DC that they set great store by a full set of A*. Perhaps my DC only talk to the more extreme tutors with idiosyncratic views but I tend to think not since exactly the same has been said to me several times too. What's said on the web site is intended to encourage and it's says clearly that context comes into it too.

If you note, my comments are Oxford specific so the Cambridge website is irrelevant to them.

Silly typos.

I'm unclear what point you're making yourself but I did ask what you thought the purpose of the new Grade 9 was?

I don't have an issue with the differentiation between 8s and 9s.....that will clearly be the case. My issue is with the implication that you need a full run of 9s or even a full run of 8s in order to be competitive.
That is quite simply not true.

Anyone reading this thread with a DC in a tough school or with a chaotic home life would read your posts and think that it's not worth applying unless they have those grades. That is my objection.

Oxbridge have taken great pains to encourage applicants from all backgrounds and I fear that this (possibly unintentionally) is being undone by the likes of this thread.

The statements on their web sites make this clear. Or are you suggesting that they are trying to get more applicants than they need or can possibly take just to make more work for themselves assessing them? This would not be in the University nor applicant's interest and I am not sure that either institution would be that cruel.

bpisok has managed to put into words what confuses me about some of the comments that seem to come up on these threads.

The universities themselves are doing everything they can to demystify the application process and to encourage wider access.

I don't understand why some posters are giving advice that seems to contradict this. Is it that their information is a few years out of date? Or is it that once their DCs have been accepted at what they perceive to be an elite, exclusive institution, they want to be gatekeepers to prevent any lesser applicants accessing the special club?