Another path to greatnesses

[chopc]

I woke up around 4:30 this morning and it hit me like a tonne of bricks. Couldn't get back to sleep so thought I will have a go and starting the new thread. Hope the title is not too cheesy

Family law is a very important field. No doubt about it. People skills are very important.
If you are referring to me when you talk about people putting others down, you have definitely grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick. I hate intellectual snobbery and pomposity. Probably the reason why I have said a few challenging things on here and why when I read some posts, my blood boils.

UnityUnited DS1's flat mate and long time friend since freshers' has a first in Law from Oxford and a distinction in the Cambridge LLM and has never wavered in wanting to do family law at the Bar.

Good for them @goodbyestranger

I can't think of any post that made my blood boil 🤔

In any case I think the Universities most people are waiting for seem to be Imperial, Durham and LSE?

I envy you @chopc

Also, DD3 is a barrister in a different field (ie not family or crime) and supported herself on the BPTC through a very generous couple of scholarships from her Inn of Court/ the BPTC provider. She hasn't needed a second job, has never asked for a sub, and is earning a very, very large amount already (I think she's in the year below Percy's DD - anyhow, not very long qualified). I'm not saying it's easy peasy to get funds but it's not impossible either, if you're smart enough.

Actually a large amount came in too from her pupillage come to think of it.

I was a scholarship recipient too. I still found it really tough and I believe it’s harder now. When you consider how many people worry about tuition fees, a couple of extra years study on top is enough to put a lot of candidates off.

Actually @UnityUnited your post insulting PresentingPercy's DC was the nearest that came to my blood boiling. For someone who claims to hate intellectual snobbery and pomposity ......

The impact on “career” genuinely didn’t even occur to me when DS was rejected from C last week - it was more that he wouldn’t get the experience of living among those lovely buildings for a few years! Superficial, I know

Not at all superficial! A very valid reason. It’s something that really appeals to my DS (and me!) There are many reasons why Oxford & Cambridge are renowned and in a group on their own, not just for their world class academic levels. The beauty, their college system, the towns, the punting and cycling through cobbled streets etc.

It’s why so many Oxbridge applicants go to Durham - a similar package. All the DC here are bright and motivated enough to get offers from other great universities. They’re all bound to be able to do well academically. But presumably they also wanted Oxbridge for other reasons too besides it ‘being the best’. Hopefully they have the luxury now of deciding whether they want somewhere with a similar student experience or if they want to take advantage of features Oxbridge can’t offer, eg year abroad or being in a large City.

UnityUnited as I say, DD3 could bridge all her fees and living costs through the scholarships and then the pupillage award and regards her SFE loans as just another tax. I'm not sure there's much to worry about in that situation.

Insult? Really? Even the poster herself says the most important thing is to have people skills. There are some superb, very bright practitioners at the family bar. I am not criticising them per se. I thought it was an accepted fact. Pile on me by all accounts because I have found some of the posts incredibly pompous but don’t twist my words.

@goodbyestranger I know a lot of people who come from non-traditional backgrounds say they would will struggle to enter the profession today. Perhaps they are all wrong?

I said there are clear issues UnityUnited but you say these people say they would struggle, so presumably past tense and not current applicants who have been deterred. In the interim, while ludicrously high fees for the BPTC are reduced etc etc, the Inns provide very large means tested scholarships for those who clearly deserve support in getting to the Bar. That's as it should be, to mirror the large financial packages given by the Magic Circle firms (which two of my DC have benefited from, again without needing subsidy).

Anyway... In the interests of standardisation, transparency and widening participation, I wonder if Oxbridge will ever shift to a more centralised admissions process? Eg all applications are considered by the relevant admissions team for that subject and then students allocated across colleges?

I can’t speak for all subjects, but I know for Geography, they got rid of the GAT as scores in this bore no relation to who was offered places and who wasn’t. Anyone can see this on WhatDoTheyKnow - ie there was no correlation between high GAT scores and offers made in the years before the test was dropped.

Where FOI requests have been made regarding interview scores, it is clearly not the case that only people with 8s, 9s or 10s are admitted - ie St John’s college state that those admitted for Geography in the last three years scored “a 5 or above.”

When you see the assessment form used, there is a standardised score for GCSEs; a score from the reference; a score for the interview and a score for “written work submitted.” But only about 6 colleges out of 30 actually ask for written work to be submitted. So the criteria by which the “overall score” for each application is calculated takes account of varying numbers of factors, even within the same subject.

I wonder why they don’t standardise it more - just for their own purposes really, eg. all colleges must assess using the same number of interviews (and interviewers) across the board; all colleges must ask for one essay (or not, whatever the case may be, as long as it’s consistent)? Seems like common sense really?

Aren't Oxbridge colleges individual entities with their own regulations? Which is why you apply to a particular college than the Uni. To change this would be to change the way in which these two universities function ........

Nice bit of passive aggression

@goodbyestranger I am speaking about people who are practitioners, very talented and successful too, who believe they would struggle financially if they were starting out now. I suppose a lot is down to not having a financial safety net. That lack of security puts many people off committing to a precarious profession. I am quite passionate about social mobility and I worry about what I am seeing. That’s probably why I made the blood boiling comment. The higher echelons of the top professions should be accessible by all who have the talent, not just those who went to the right schools and universities. I imagine you wouldn’t disagree with that.

Oxford already does look at applications on a faculty wide basis ( for some subjects at least if not all) and that is why many students are switched to different colleges pre-interview stage.

Where FOI requests have been made regarding interview scores, it is clearly not the case that only people with 8s, 9s or 10s are admitted - ie St John’s college state that those admitted for Geography in the last three years scored “a 5 or above.”

Personally the above makes me happy. Places shouldn’t just go to those who are great on paper and are excellent at passing exams. That’s where the interview allows them to find potentially suitable & great candidates they could have missed on paper. The TES article a pp attached earlier demonstrates this.

I agree there is a lot that’s subjective and some unjustness depending on subject and college. There are definitely flaws. But if my son is unsuccessful and then becomes incredulous at how a student in his year with lesser grades in his subject got in, I hope I’ll remain objective enough to give him short shrift. I’ll be pointing out that he won’t know what’s in the other applicant’s PS or brain, or what their capabilities are when challenged verbally in person. He may not even know if they have a hidden disability like dyslexia. If you’re going to voluntarily enter the system, then you have to agree to ultimately respect the system 🤷‍♀️

@UnityUnited

Nice bit of passive aggression

@goodbyestranger I am speaking about people who are practitioners, very talented and successful too, who believe they would struggle financially if they were starting out now. I suppose a lot is down to not having a financial safety net. That lack of security puts many people off committing to a precarious profession. I am quite passionate about social mobility and I worry about what I am seeing. That’s probably why I made the blood boiling comment. The higher echelons of the top professions should be accessible by all who have the talent, not just those who went to the right schools and universities. I imagine you wouldn’t disagree with that.

My concern is that could lead to a catch twenty two situation as WP has massively increased at Oxbridge and the intention is for it to increase even more over the next four years. We could possibly end up with applicants who have managed to get into Oxbridge from a disadvantaged background but then be excluded from WP schemes in professions because they went to Oxbridge.

chopc - yes I think you’re right, but I’m sure they could adapt to a more centralised, standardised set up if the will was there. What is stopping them - tradition? I would have thought such adaptions would be in their own interests if they wasn’t to appeal as a modem institution with a focus on transparency and widening participation?

OOps posted slightly soon. My point was that I still believe that all applications should be considered on their own merits.

Btw that doesn’t mean I don’t think some rejected applicants were “robbed”, there’s bound to be some who were. Anyone who got pooled but not fished out for instance would have been seen as a good fit or they wouldn’t have been in the pool. And yes it’s v unfortunate that in a different year, those pooled students may well have got offers. Sympathies to all of them,

@SeasonFinale but then if a students gets accepted into Oxbridge through WP why do they need WP when it comes to jobs as well? I know 3 years can't undo their whole upbringing but UCAS doesn't ask for a whole life story. Maybe just their KS4 circumstances? After graduation shouldn't WP places go to lower tier universities?

I haven't looked at any top city firms' take part in any WP schemes, will look it up

Oxbridge might be doing itself down if it works too hard to even out disadvantage, eg spends year 1 allowing catch up and goes too far the other way, as employers might then avoid it if like UU we want to discuss a difficult topic/bring in some controversy. I still think at the end of the day people with high A level grades at Oxbridge and the other top 10 places are usually the better candidates for the higher paid jobs and the system still works but we certainly need to look at it both to ensure those who are the brilliant ones in the schools that do very badly at A level can get in and to ensure the brilliant ones in outstanding schools are also not over looked.