Oxbridge Aspirants 2021 - New Thread (2)

[Baaaahhhhh]

Sorry posted last message on the last thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/higher_education/3757768-Oxbridge-Aspirants-Sep-2021

Here is the new one......

Revenge - yes and anyway, the article states 12 uni advisors and 9 US “counsellors” at SPS. This will just be normal teachers who have been on an internal course or something about UCAS and can say, “yes enter an essay competition,” or whatever. Or maybe they mean heads of departments who can chat with boys about extension work, etc. There is hardly going to be an office of 21 advisors who sit there with the sole purpose of offering uni admissions advice. I agree this kind of thing is misleading and just winds people up.

MidLifeCrisis007 I don't think it's possible to say that the author read the email on her phone whilst actually driving. If she did then yes, idiot and doubly idiotic for stating that she did in a newspaper article.

I would think more likely she glanced at an email notification while stationary in traffic then left the motorway for Starbucks to read it properly. If she read it properly while driving - not much need to pull into Starbucks. Sometimes detail has to be lost in articles like this.

Obviously understood that there's a certain amount of anti Guardian sentiment on here quest1on but the fact appears to remain, at best, on your interpretation: twenty one university advisors at St Paul's compared to (scaled up) four to four point five advisors at a comparable grammar (ie top end). The grammar school team have teaching responsibilities too. Nothing changes. Funding = resources.

Twenty one across one hundred and eighty students is massive! Just saying that it struck me as astonishing, that's all. I mean I knew these kids were nannied - but even so!

Anti-Guardian? No actually, but that’s irrelevant. I just know this school and how these schools have a tendency to overplay things.

It’s true that many teachers in these schools went to Oxbridge themselves, sure. I am certainly not denying a student in that kind of environment is more likely to apply.

But teachers with bolt on titles are not the same thing as “advisors.” Some people pay for these on top - there are companies offering whole packages for things like PS help, college choice guidance, interview experience, etc.

It’s like at a smaller independent school one of mine goes to - the “SEN department” is a history teacher who just has that bolt-on title. She can’t see your child 1:1 or make any interventions. You have to find that yourself outside the school.

I do remember reading on MN some years ago (probably searchable) a poster mentioning that their dc’s private school moved in a personal statement team for UCAS to, er, “help” with the writing of them.

I think in the past then certainly it was invaluable to have “inside” knowledge and guidance, but there is oodles of help now on many internet sites, so an applicant would have to be a real - what’s the opposite of a self-starter?! - not to avail themselves of the help that is easily found.

I've never sought anything outside my DCs' school. Lots of parents don't. They just trust the school, for better or worse.

My point is that the ratio remains the same: twenty one to four. The fact that all advisors across both settings have other roles is wholly irrelevant (I'm a bit dubious about all the St Paul's advisors having a dual role, but let's assume).

I would say also that additional roles delegated to members of the teaching or support staff are taken very seriously; they are almost always remunerated and are invariably monitored by their line manager.

Yes I’ve learned far more on MN than via the school. The Oxbridge guy is nice enough, but his main role seems to be ensuring there are no clashes of students applying to the same colleges for the same courses. That’s the only input he’s given us personally.

Also, have you ever been round SPS goodbye. I’m not sure “nannying” I’d the word that springs to mind . It can be a tough environment.

Nannying is the word which springs to my mind though quest1on, for sure :)

Well that’s up to you, but people will go for certain schools for the same reasons people go for Oxbridge. We don’t all have free grammars. There are kisses oriole in these schools for sure, but not all pupils in independents from the backgrounds you assume. For instance, at DS’ school 20% are on bursaries and more on part-bursaries (no child, once in the school is denied a trip or experience on the basis of their family not being able to afford it. This is a non-issue - there is a fund). Just as it takes effort, resilience and intelligence for a 17 year-old to get into certain unis, it takes considerable effort for a child to get into these schools. The odds of a place can be one in 15 in some schools at 11 plus. It’s crazy. Nobody sits the interviews for them, or does the entrance exams. Maybe you think Oxford students are “nannied” too?

“loaded people” I think that was meant to read!

The SPS Guardian claim is misleading. The school most certainly don't have 21 full time advisers. They may well have 21 staff who provide ad hoc advice on university applications. DS1 attended a similar school and there were a similar number of staff available to advise on specific subjects or locations (ie N America). But this was mainly an ad hoc thing for them, only a couple had a significant proportion of them time devoted to the activity.

I seem to recall the claim had to be corrected. I will see if I can find it.

quest1on my DC all attended the local school (three and a half miles away - the next nearest - in and out of special measures - is five) in the village I've lived in for forty years. It didn't require any thought on my part, more a no-brainer.

I think I'd quarrel with the fact that it's exceptionally hard to get into the top independents, judging by my own experience, both historically and recent.

And yes I do think to some extent Oxford students are nannied, relative to other unis where they don't get that same level of individual tuition and are left far more to their own devices.

sandy I think you're missing the point about relative numbers. The fact that university advisors have teaching responsibilities is universal in the state sector. The article observes that St Paul's appears to have a much, much, much higher number of so-called advisors per student. I'd expect that if I'd paid large fees for a DC. I'm not sure why it's causing quest1on any angst.

Also - this is to quest1on - I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that I assume all students at top indies are loaded, since literally nothing I've said suggests that.

Shame about kisses oriole not being a thing at indies - I was intrigued!

goodbyestranger I thought your DC's went to a Grammar? If that's in your village, lucky you!

Well the nearest school isn't actually in the village Baaaahhhhh, since no village in England is three and a half miles long: it's up the steep lane away from the beach and onto the 'main' road for three miles then around a sharp corner then bingo. But the local council provided free transport for the village DC from our kitchen door, so that was nice and easy :)

The nearest community school is 7.1 miles away, having checked google.

goodbye - I think your comments just illustrate how decisions on where your children end up going to school is largely driven by regional variations and what happens to be available locally.

If we happened to live in a more rural place, then no doubt our kids would have gone to the nearest local school. We hardly set out with some massive agenda to send them privately. Neither of us are even British, we had absolutely no idea. Neither of us privately educated either - DH came here as a child with a refugee family with a physical disability that kept him out of school for years as a child. We are both first generation uni-goers. When I phoned our local primaries when my eldest was about 3 (five of them), they actually laughed. You have to live in designated streets or be full-on church-going Catholic to have a look- in basically.

The situation in this part of London is that the “local schools” happen to be SPS, Kings Wimbledon, Latymer Upper, Godolphin etc etc. So when they’re on your doorstep people are more likely to have a shot. And it all becomes a kind of vicious circle because as more people tend to go privately, they don’t need to build extra state schools in the area.

The situation my kids are in is obviously a world away from the type of education we had and you really don’t need to tell me about inequality if education provision in the UK. It’s a bit like preaching to the Pope.

But to say it’s not difficult to get into somewhere like SPS is a bit of an insult to the hundreds of super-bright kids who are turned away every year. There is a whole industry around getting into these schools. You wouldn’t believe the lengths some parents go to and obviously it takes a massive toll on a 7 year old or an 11 year old. It’s far more stressful than Oxbridge because these kids sit for maybe 5 schools at 11 - all with their own examination processes and specific interview styles. My kids are all in different schools - this is how random and competitive it is. Anyway, it is what is is, but so can see how it sounds crazy to people from elsewhere and why they wouldn’t understand, yes.

quest1on I'm only too well aware of the educational divide in London and the absurd lengths some parents are going to to lever their kids into top schools. It sounds a nightmare and I'm endlessly thankful to have brought my DC up miles away. We have a lot of wealthy London people in the village with second homes who have spent years fretting about exactly this. I guess the only thing worse would be to live in London without money and privilege but with bright kids who have every right to an equal chance, academically, but may well never get it.

@Vargas

Lurker breaking cover here. Ds applying to (in order of pref) Cambridge, Durham, Exeter, Bristol, and Lancaster to read Geography.

He has received an offer from Bristol for AAA, which he is pretty thrilled about, as we didn't expect to hear for ages. I really don't understand how they can start offering so early, when loads of kids won't finish applications until January...

Bristol History department (so may be the same for Geography) know how many applicants they historically get at certain levels so make a number of early offers to students whilst keeping open enough to give consideration to any received by standard deadline.

At Bristol they don't even read a History ps except for tie break purposes and they give a score to the top 8 gcses achieved and to the A level predictions.

It is nice to have that early offer in and congratulations to your DC.

Moving back towards the thread title, I spoke to DD4 today, just started in Oxford, who tells me that a noticeable number of the independent school freshers are seriously downplaying their background. They shouldn't have to do that. I would say that anyone who got in this year from an independent richly deserves their place - fortunately DD tells me that this seems to be the line most students are taking. But what a different vibe it is now from just a decade ago.

Worried about reverse snobbery I guess.

goodbye - well yes, I can well imagine that. If I think of DS’ friends now, there’s maybe about 15 of them. A few live in tower blocks where, if I’m absolutely honest, I’d be scared to get in the lift. Others live in Mayfair or six storey houses in Chelsea etc while others are somewhere in between. Various cultures and religious backgrounds too, But there is genuinely no snobbery and the super-wealthy ones definitely downplay it, understandably. Once they’re in the school, nobody gives a hoot and if social issues do occur, it’s definitely not because of wealth or background. They are where they are and they all have the same goals, at this point. They walk out of the school and there’s homeless people lying across the pavement or visibly shooting up. They know they are massively privileged to have the opportunities they have been given. It’s in their face every day.

@goodbyestranger

Moving back towards the thread title, I spoke to DD4 today, just started in Oxford, who tells me that a noticeable number of the independent school freshers are seriously downplaying their background. They shouldn't have to do that. I would say that anyone who got in this year from an independent richly deserves their place - fortunately DD tells me that this seems to be the line most students are taking. But what a different vibe it is now from just a decade ago.

I was a first generation university goer when I went to Oxford in the (coughs loudly) late 80s, but had been to a home counties boarding school (fully fee scholarship, father in army so needed consistency of schooling) and spent my first year being mercilessly (though good-naturedly) teased for being a sloane, as I was one of only two such girls in my year. Admitedly, I did present fairly rah, and was at a very unsocially elevated college - Teddy Hall.

Some of it was social positioning eg the soi-disant "Mac lads" as I recall actually went to fee-paying ex-grammars, and I certainly wasn't madly posh, but I guess what I am getting at is that even in the 80s, it wasn't all Brideshead. Thankfully.

Ironically, Teddy Hall's intake exactly a decade ago was to an extent (aurally at any rate) dominated by a group of uber posh sounding boarding school girls! I was even at a dinner where their voices reverberated over everyone else's!