Oxbridge Aspirants 2021-New Thread 4

[Baaaahhhhh]

And we are off:

Thread 3 link: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/higher_education/4070531-Oxbridge-Aspirants-2021-New-Thread-3

A question for those familiar with Oxford admissions: if the personal statement and school reference don't form part of the admission scoring, do other achievements (e.g. relevant work experience / essay prizes / published work etc) actually matter?

My DD had no published work, essay prizes or relevant work experience. She doesn't have perfect exam results, but she did very well in the TSA. She's studying alongside people with all of these things though. She wasn't asked about the tutor's research interests at interview or anything requiring formal exam based knowledge of her degree course subjects. I guess they just liked her.

That's lovely to hear, Hoghgyni ! I seem to recall someone upthread saying that the children at their DC's school (independent I think?) were given a talk telling them that they had to be extraordinary to get in! I did wonder....

Laundry, I think it’s probably about contextualisation tbh, because ten grade 9s and all A*s from an underperforming school will be outstanding contextually; whereas for a student with the same grades from Westminster or similar, it will be just average. So those schools may well be telling students they need to do extras like essay competitions etc as their grades alone possibly don’t count for as much in the context of the overall cohort.

It think the confusion comes from the HAT having been contextualised in 2019 and that is the most recent available history admissions report. I was simply puzzled how that would mathematically be done. If it is not happening anymore then the question is moot.

That makes sense, quest1on - but I do still wonder how those things factor in the decision making when the PS and reference aren't part of the scored assessment.

No idea Laundry . DS didn’t do a scored assessment, but had to send in two essays. Other colleges for his subject don’t ask for any essays at all, so all they would actually have to go on are the grades, references and PS. I guess it varies not only subject to subject, but also college to college.

Ahh @Stitchintimesaves9 ok doh! sorry didn't realise asked my dd and she said yes oxford and cambridge have same names for colleges, good luck to your dd too xx
And well done everyone else on interviews!

Congratulations on the latest interviews!!
Beginning to think Dd will not receive one, seems a lot went out yesterday. Is anyone else still waiting?

Revengeofthepangolins the Merton report is on last year's cycle and is explicit that the HAT was contextualised for entry 2020. There is no reason for that not to be the case this year. The same school data is used to adjust the scores.

I remember that there was a tool for DS1 to find out what his GCSE equivalent was in the year he applied for Medicine. His school (state selective) was in the band which had the most downward adjustment and I would say that if anything the adjustment was too light touch.

@goodbyestranger Ah got my years confused. Even more so then.

How interesting that there was a gcse contextualisation tool - I must try to find out more about that. It is pure curiosity on my part, as the process is the process but still interesting :-)

@RevengeofthePangolins - they do say exactly how the contextualised GCSE scores are calculated in the History Admissions report I linked to above. It also says that the HAT scores are contextualised using the same information. Of course, this doesn't give information on individual schools.

I think Merton was the one who slipped a confusion in in one place Revengeofthepangolins!

The tool used was definitely an official tool but I can't remember whether it came through the department or not.

I would put good money on the HAT being contextualised again this year.

Hi everyone, wishing your DC well as they wait for interview news. It is an anxious time.

Interested to read people’s thoughts about the role played by schools. For reference I am an Oxford graduate married to an Oxford graduate and have DC at Oxford. I have also taught many applicants (some successful and some not). Someone mentioned that the system should be ‘tutor-proof’ and in a way it is. I realise this isn’t true of very objective subjects (eg maths) where an applicant has to score a certain mark, but arts and humanities are subjective. Tutors tend to accept the people they feel excited about teaching and who have a genuine passion for the subject. That is why ‘better’ schools advise entering essay competitions and doing super-curricular stuff - because it shows passion. In reality the truly motivated students are doing all these extra things without being told, and Oxford dons are very good at spotting the real deal.

The late great Norman Stone (modern history professor) said he could always tell which candidates to accept from a certain look in their eyes. That is frustratingly vague, but he knew exactly what he was looking for and so do his modern counterparts.

@Flyonawalk - I think you are right. DS1 was always passionate about history and we thought that's what he'd read at university but then in Year 12 something happened and he 'got' chemistry. Whenever he talked about it it was with a weird intensity we hadn't seen before. He still loves history but it's chemistry that excites him. I think that's what the tutors spotted when he interviewed last year.

"The late great Norman Stone (modern history professor) said he could always tell which candidates to accept from a certain look in their eyes. "
Reminds me of a discussion with DH, and although there are several publications about this topic, I though I should mention the one where Oxford Uni was involved...
"Doctors shouldn't ignore a 'gut feeling' about a serious illness when treating a child that comes into their surgery, suggests a study by researchers from the University of Oxford"

Oh, and still no results here...

Re contextualising GCSEs DS1 went to a state comprehensive which is outstanding and has a higher progress 8 than the national average and the local average. My son is testament to being predicted certain grades off his year 6 SATs and absolutely smashing through them through sheer hard work.

As a comparison, the local selective grammar but non-fee paying had 98% of students achieve maths and English grades 9-5 grades compared to DC's school which scored 59%. The local authority average is just 42%.

When the History GCSE class is mixed ability and my son is predicted a grade 7 (he got a 9) and others in the class are predicted a 3, where do you think the staff concentrate their efforts? Of course it is trying to get the grade 3s up to a grade 4 not only so the child has more passes at GCSE but also the school does too. And rightly so.

This was the same for languages where they combined the lower and higher ability classes for year 11. A disaster for the higher ability with the lower ability ones needing so much of the teacher's time and attention. Only my son and one other student were singled out for a high grade. He got an 8.

Only English, maths and science were setted all the options classes were mixed ability. In maths he was in the 7-9 group, "top set" maths was the next one down and meant anyone going in for the higher paper.

All students applying to Oxbridge still have the A/A predicted grades for A level, they aren't doing someone a favour. No talks ever mentioned Oxbridge at Ds's sixth form. They intake anyone who has grade 4s but some subjects such as science and maths need a 6 or a 7 for further maths. But Ds1 was chosen to be on the Cambridge outreach programme hence why we found out a lot. Ds got the equivalent of one A and the rest were As for GCSE. There is no information on the sixth form's website about being a Cambridge HE+ college.

I'm pretty sure DS1's aptitude for History comes more from the fact that DH read History at Oxford than from his school. In fact they didn't do a single HAT test in preparation.

There really is no sense or logic whatsoever in contextualising the HAT but not the ELAT, MAT, PAT, BMAT, MLAT etc.

I'm beginning to think from a few comments I've heard from "people in the know" that last year's contextualising of the HAT was a one off.

These things are generally trialled by one Oxford department first MidLifeCrisis007.

If Oxford have confirmed that the HAT is not contextualised this year and their own admissions data confirms this - ‘HAT score plus contextualised GSCE score’, then I would accept what they say.

I know that when DS1 took the TSA for Chemistry last year it didn't count for admissions, they were collecting data to see if there was a correlation with final degree results. I guess that's why they decided not to bother this year but it may well be back as a requirement next year.

If they start contextualising tests, then they might as well throw them all in the bin. What’s the point if candidate A has scored 80% but has been marked down to 50% and candidate B, who scored 20% has been upgraded to 50% and both scores land on the interviewers’ desks? If I were the interviewer I’d say, forget this, show me their actual papers.

I could beat Usain Bolt in a running race if he had both legs tied together and I started on the finish line.

Applepieco perhaps but that is the same wording as used in the Merton feedback for 2020. I wouldn't put much store on the tutor's response, unless it was a very senior tutor who was absolutely on the ball :)

I find it hard to see how any conclusions can be usefully drawn from a single year's trial.