To think universities should state separate entry criteria for Indies?

[Wacamole]

DD who is on track for 3A*s at A’level, thought she’d give Oxbridge a go after being encouraged by her teachers. All very excited, doing super curriculars etc. Only just been told she doesn’t meet minimum entry criteria that would be expected from an Indy, which is straight 9s. She doesn’t have straight 9s, she has straight 8s (couple of nines), not only that, the course she wanted to apply for at Cambridge doesn’t require Maths at all, but school has advised they won’t even look at her if she doesn’t do Maths AND Further Maths. She is doing neither. Apparently an EPQ is also mandatory even though none of this is mentioned on Cambridge website.

All this second guessing, reading between the lines has been really confusing.
I have no issue with universities asking for higher entry criteria for students from indies for obvious reasons but wish they would be more transparent and state this on their ‘Entry requirements’ same way they state contextual offers?

I don’t like the narrative of the “pity places”. And, yes, I’ve heard it in real life, “Hmmm, it’s so lovely they let in so many state school children now...”

I agree that this year on MN and the student room disappointment has bubbled over into bitterness on occasion. Interestingly one candidate who was incensed I noted had less than what was “recommended” for the subject, and also was railing about the interviews. I don’t think they’re looking for confident students (otherwise it would have been curtains for my dcs!) but rather ones who are confident of their subject . Eg I saw an admissions officer grumbling that for English every other applicant mentioned Jane Austen. Yet a good proportion of them could only talk about Pride and Prejudice let alone any of her contemporaries.

MidLifeCrisis your post is extremely dubious on a number of fronts. For starters, on the Classics Aptitude Test, you've failed to spot that those results are purely for the ab initio course. And you have absolutely no way of knowing if the applicant scoring 38.5% had a serious mitigating circumstance.

I do completely understand your disappointment and feel for your DS but the constant denigration of successful applicants (and indeed current undergrads) is pretty poor sportsmanship.

I would say that the fact that seven of my DC got offers at undergrad strongly militates against the concept of luck playing much of a part, although I'm not well versed in probability. But given that none of them are rainmen, or 'deserving' and none researched tutor speciaIisms (on the grounds that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; they also didn't want to be creepy), I think that maybe it suggests that the tutors do deploy a certain method in finding bright, enquiring minds.

Irma my post crossed.

Yes it's a very nasty narrative and of course posts on MN are intended to be supportive on the Oxbridge threads, so this comforting idea that the independently educated who failed to get offers are somehow wronged has been allowed to gain traction.

(To be fair, had I spent £1,141,164 on the secondary education of those seven DC, and they hadn't got a place, I might have been pretty pissed too).

Goodbye can I ask did your dc go to grammar or comprehensive state?

From the original post is there a feeling from the school (possibly born of frustration) that even pupils with impeccable grades are being turned away so what is the point of applying?

I think there is a feeling from some of 'what more could I do?' and maybe there should be a little sympathy for this.

I wonder how many 'shoo in s' from previous years aren't getting places at oxbridge?

Almost inevitably the answer is........grammar!

@goodbyestranger

Almost inevitably the answer is........grammar!

Yes maybe it is almost inevitable

Makes me feel a bit better about my decision as we’re not close enough to a grammar system.

I’m quite surprised at the statements that state schools have bigger classes at A level than indies. In my experience, it’s the other way round, because so many pupils don’t go on to do A levels, so the class size drops considerably. Eg, I did A levels in French and German at a comprehensive. There were seven in the A level French class and only five in the German. Maybe it depends on the subject.

Class sizes of thirty plus though, because the school has always been bursting beyond its capacity.

We aren't in a grammar area either Marsha. The school nearest to us just happens to be an isolated grammar; the comp is further away.

@daisypond out of 300 in our year 11 over 200 stay to do 7th form. Pretty common these days. And with less funding we have less timetable time, so classes getting larger.
Boring old comp that we are we take pretty much any of our students who get a 6 or 2. Still manage to get some of those 'pity' Oxbridge places. Weirdly, more now apply there because of the fantastic outreach programmes they run. I think this is why more state students are getting in. Because Oxbridge outreach are so encouraging and make it seem a place they could fit in. So they give it a try. Not everyone succeeds but no harm done.

6th form !

The only young people I know who have ever got in went to comprehensives. I don’t know anyone who ever attended a grammar school.

daisypond that doesn't hold true for grammars of course. At our school French as a less popular option at A level has class sizes of around twelve to fifteen but the sciences and maths and often history too are in the twenties.

mumsneedwine is right about the impact of funding, although the pressure has been alleviated a tiny bit in recent years. Grammars have not a penny more funding than comps, so no extra leeway on reducing class sizes.

Lots of myths surrounding grammars, which sometimes need correcting.

Coffee yet to hit (so I won't post at length) but I did say you've got to be rainman at your chosen subject if you've got some ordinary GCSE grades, like 6 and 7

CJB I would still disagree.

I mean say you're going for History but got a 6 in D&T; that won't affect your chances once at interview.

For Oxford you do need lots of 8s and 9s as they look at % of top grades. So better to have 9 out of 10 than 9 out of 12. Cambridge look at application much more holistically which is why they interview so many more people. Both Unis offer interview practice to eligible state school students (so those at contextual schools) and this is offered in October half term. They also pay travel costs. But for many state school kids they are on their own and so school needs to step in. So we buddied up with local private school and we interview there's and they do ours. Works really well. Many of our staff are Oxbridge graduates (I know, how weird they only now teach at a comp 😂) so have some experience. And our outreach colleges have trained many staff in what students need to show.
But many schools don't or can't give this level of support so it's harder to apply and get it right. Those kids need a helping hand so they can compete.
@Wacamole get your DD to apply and ignore the rubbish advice from school.

My DD was told quite clearly by her independent school not to bother with Oxbridge and from that moment virtually no help was forthcoming. This was despite 9 Gcses at A* and 2 A and full house of As at AS grade. She knew her own mind and applied anyway.

Don’t think independents care about everyone. They don’t. She didn’t get anything but still got a place. I know a couple of teachers did help her pre interview with extra grammar but no one knew anything about colleges, professors or interview advice. I think the local grammar would have helped more!

However, all of this teaches you something. You can do it. You can only do your best. You are worthy even if the school thinks you are not - and I agree op - it’s shameful.

mumsneedwine your school is in a geographically central area. State schools in my part of the country have nothing even vaguely resembling your set up, and students find it harder to reach Oxford, let alone Cambridge, in October half term. I think you'll find that the offer is restricted to certain state school pupils too, as is the funding for travel. So just a note of caution: those near London do tend to generalise and rural more distant areas aren't in the same position at all.

PresentingPercy completely agree that some indies are very poor value for money and give very poor advice.

@PresentingPercy

My DD was told quite clearly by her independent school not to bother with Oxbridge and from that moment virtually no help was forthcoming. This was despite 9 Gcses at A* and 2 A and full house of As at AS grade. She knew her own mind and applied anyway.

Don’t think independents care about everyone. They don’t. She didn’t get anything but still got a place. I know a couple of teachers did help her pre interview with extra grammar but no one knew anything about colleges, professors or interview advice. I think the local grammar would have helped more!

However, all of this teaches you something. You can do it. You can only do your best. You are worthy even if the school thinks you are not - and I agree op - it’s shameful.

It doesn’t paint them in a good light.

This approach irks me.

@goodbyestranger I did say it was only for certain students ???? And it's done remotely even in normal years so could live in Sydney. I think your kids are a bit older so probably missed all the new outreach Oxbridge are now doing. Every state school has a link college to talk to and get support. It's been a brilliant invention.