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

@Pythonesque He's absolute for Magdalen. It's a shame that it didn't occur to us to look at the choral scholarships. It was all done in a rush because he's applying earlier than we'd have anticipated for uni and it seems the deadline had long since passed by the time he decided he wanted to go in 21 entry. He's chosen Magdalen because the choir is so renowned, but I'm encouraged that there are many other music making opportunities. I don't think he'd enjoy the rigidity of fixed choral commitments anyway.

@Chocomel, is your DC applying to O or C? If C, my DD is a 4th year there. Chapel choir auditions were early in term 1. Her college choir is highly regarded with a reasonable time commitment and she didn't feel able to do it in her first year. She auditioned for and is a member of another chapel choir at the next college down the road whose commitments are fewer.

Please tell your DS not to worry at this point. Good luck!

I think contextualising GCSE's is fair enough, but am somewhat uncomfortable with doing the same with the HAT.

Of course I am going to have a view, as DD is in a selective indy, albeit a pretty standard one. She actually doesn't have stellar across the board GCSE's but her History and English aptitude is very, very good. She just has a natural ability for analyses and writing skills and because she reads widely, has a lot to say. Well above and beyond her similary advantaged classmates. So, I suppose what I feel, is that she would be marked down for being advantaged, even though she is top of her particular pile. Doesn't seem fair does it?

My view hasn't ever been in any way affected by the fact that my DC applied from a selective school. Ive always been in favour of contextualising whatever can be contextualised. It's not a given that parents with DC in selective schools are just about their own DC.

I think that while students from the South, from independent / selective schools and from higher socio-economic groups remain so over-represented at O and C, despite decades of activities designed to 'widen participation', it is reasonable to apply every possible form of contextualisation.

It's not a given that parents with DC in selective schools are just about their own DC

That's great, and laudable, when you are in the position of having all your eight children already in Oxbridge. Sorry to be harsh, but you can take the moral high-ground when it has in no way affected you or your children.

My point is that, there is NO point in doing entrance tests if many of those who perform the best are downgraded, and others who do not so well are upgraded, as then you all end up in the middle again. Yes, the playing field is levelled, but then you have to make a decision on some other criteria. Which is then what?

@Malbecfan really glad your daughter found a way to continue singing. Great news. And encouraging. My DS is applying for Oxford. He has a few pals with interviews for Cambridge, so I'd think he just assumed he'd audition (if successful) when they would. Laziness on his part, and certainly not deserving of an choral place, under those circumstances. All he had to do was a little research....

I think contextualising GCSEs is essential. One of my friend's children is in the same year as my dd but a different school. My dd at a very high achieving state comprehensive. Her dd is in a slightly below average state comprehensive. My dd did better in her GCSEs but on the day of the results both dd and I looked at each other and commented that the friend's results were more impressive. I happen to know that school very well and the teaching is nowhere near as good as it is in dd's school. She has actually applied to Oxbridge and I definitely hope that her grades will be seen in context.

I agree with as much contextualisation as possible. After all, the purpose of the process is to find the students who are best suited to an Oxbridge degree, and if that involves looking beyond the paper scores, at the route that got the candidate there, then that is essential imo.

I would applaud any interviewer who had a candidate arrive in their exam room without absolutely top top grades, perhaps misunderstood the aptitude test (aptitude tests are absolutely NOT tutor-proof), and perhaps mis-fired on their personal statement, because no-one had told them what it was 'supposed' to be like, but in an interview spotted a spark in them, investigated it further, and found a quirky but disadvantaged student who would absolutely fly in that environment.

Why would you not contextualise in that circumstance? Getting people to the start gate is all that that does; once they're there, it's up to them to show their potential, and I don't believe they will accept people who have the results on paper but don't show potential. It's a process to find good candidates, not to identify the schools that do the best Oxbridge prep!

Contextualising GCSEs we all agree is fair. Where we used to live PE was compulsory. Ds would have for sure got a U in that so that would have done him in. As it was he had to take Business Studies in yr 10 when he was 14 and believed all his mates when they said they hadn’t bothered revising. That was a salutary tale ! They also did not set so ds was in classes with all abilities and with teachers who, as a pp observed, only cared about hoisting pupils over the bottom line. (I would say things have changed since then as a school is judged also on how it deals with more able pupils.)

But, contextualising entrance tests is just odd. Either they are a test of what you can do without any help (who knows who has assisted with the personal statement and submitted work) or they are not.

But even then, they are not 'fair' - many schools leave them completely up to the children to work out what is required, whereas other schools will be setting past papers, and giving feedback, based on many years of successful Oxbridge applications. There is no such thing as a 'fair' aptitude test, preparation supported by schools will for definite up your scores.

Look at the BMAT for example - there are many ways of boosting your score for that, either through tutoring, or online (paid) sample tests/marks etc. I don't think an 'excellent' candidate who turned up on the day cold would out-perform a less strong, but very well prepared candidate.

To clarify; I don't think a blanket 'contextualisation' is necessarily the right approach; more that I would hope an interviewer would step away from the marks a bit and look at the candidate, and contextualise in the sense of looking at how they've arrived there, and where their potential could lead them, and if that involves admitting candidates with lower aptitude test scores, then so be it.

I think it is possible that the need for contextualisation is greatest when determining who goes forward to interview. Most people seem to agree that tutors are excellent at spotting potential in interviews, so the contextualising of GCSEs or entrance exams helps to ensure that a broad range of people make it to the ciritical face to face (or screen to screen) interviews.

And yet, on the other side of the contexualisation debate. My DS did his GCSEs at his local comprehensive and bailed out to a highly selective independent school for A Levels (which required an entrance test, and an interview, and then to meet their GCSE requirements. We discovered afterwards that DS seems to be the only state school candidate who ended up going there).
My DS's GCSEs look pretty impressive compared with his cohort, and definitely less impressive compared with those he has now joined at the flash independent school. On of the things that discombulated him a bit at the beginning though, was to be in classes where everybody is bright. He is doing well there, but he is not at the top of the tree. He is now seeing people in his flash independent school being turned down for interview at Oxbridge, people he is very confident are streets ahead of him, not just due to teaching, or opportunities, but simply in terms of ability, motivation etc, while he is seeing people at his old school getting interview offers, people he felt he was streets ahead of in all of these things, but who stand out because there are all the more average kids in the comprehensive, who would never have got steller GCSEs.
And it is odd. Had he stayed at his old comprehensive, he might well have applied for Oxbridge, with the handful of others who are (it is just a handful). At his fancy independent school, he felt it was less appropriate, especially as he had decided he really, really wants to do medicine, whch is hard enough, and so decided late last year not to try (which is why I am still lurking, because it was a path not travelled). Admittedly his comprehensive is regarded as a very good one, has an outstanding rating (although from ages ago), and probably mostly sends maybe, one, to Oxbridge a year (as opposed to his independent school, which can send dozens). So it is not comparable to a comprehensive taking refugee children from sink estates. But as someone who has now at least somewhat seen "both sides" now, we are really not sure that the contexualisation does the job it is supposed to do.

That's great, and laudable, when you are in the position of having all your eight children already in Oxbridge. Sorry to be harsh, but you can take the moral high-ground when it has in no way affected you or your children

My views on contextualisation and the need for it haven't wavered since I started working in a field directly related to academic access in 2006. I think that will be evident from my posts going back for years, not that I expect you to check (I doubt you're that invested!).That was before my eldest DC applied to Oxford, so back in your box please Baaaahhhhh! I tend to put my money where my mouth is, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

When I say the only state school kid who ended up going there, I mean after GCSEs and for A Levels. There were almost certainly a much larger number who passed the 11 plus and ended up there at Year 7 after spending primary school in their local state school.

bimkom when we went to the Oxford open day, a related question was asked, from someone with a child in an independent school, whose contemporaries had bailed out to a state grammar - the response was that they look at the context not just of the school they're applying from, but where they were when they do the exams etc.

It's mainly about getting people up to the starting gate, not giving anyone free passes in.

I think that's the reason they don't count the number of As (8/9s) at GCSE, but rather the proportion of As, (so 9x8s = the same as 12x9s etc), and then compare to the average score of the school.

I agree, bimkom. Ds started school in a very unleafy area. He looked like a genius! In fact they moved him straightaway from Reception to Year 2 (bizarre and a huge mistake). We then moved to a leafier place and ds was normal . Still bright, but there were plenty of other kids just like him. Had we stayed in the old area and ds remained in school there I’m sure Oxbridge Admissions would have borne him through the hallowed gates on their shoulders.

I hope Oxbridge are not overly taking big fish from small ponds.

Another thing to add is that contextualisation absolutely does not 'level the field', nothing like. The effect is marginal, therefore the moral outrage is completely disproportionate to the tiny tiny bit of levelling it brings. The numbers being bandied around here are way out. For a top selective school 12A would in fact come in at 10+A as contextualised and it's easy enough to translate that for the HAT, or any other aptitude test to which it might apply this year. The effect is that of a ripple, not a wave.

Me:

@Baaaahhhhh Brilliant!

@bimkom I found your earlier post fascinating.

Oh dear sorry Baaaahhhhh.

Hopefully there'll be a slew of History invites on this thread tomorrow. They can't really push it much beyond tomorrow to let people know.

Still waiting for Geography....

@LaundryFairy

Thank you *@Baaaahhhhh* - hopefully the thread where all our DC hear good news!

A couple of colleges are sending out invites today....

Not sure I managed to add a quote to that last message.

No gin in me yet..... honest!