Oxford aspirants part 5......the wait is over the results are in!!

[TangoWhiskyAlphaTango]

Thought I would start a new thread as its likely to fill up quick now.

So here we are after many months of applications, assessments and interviews. The wait is finally over for those with DC who have applied to Oxford. Those with Cambridge applicants have another 2 weeks to wait until the 25th Jan (bummer!!)

You have all been a lovely bunch to share this journey with and I wish your dc nothing but the BEST OF LUCK for tomorrow (and the 25th).

I agree with much of your post @DottyHarmer but not your point that if a pupil truly deserves a place they'll get in. I think you're attributing too much science to the process. The tutors are human and make errors and have biases just like anyone else. They're interviewing a bunch of 17 and 18 year olds.

I know of two people who were rejected first time round and then applied a second time and both got double firsts. If they hadn't had the resources and confidence to apply a second time they'd have not gone.

Live that post @DottyHarmer - you're spot on.

Well, @Valleyofthedollymix , ds was one of those who was rejected first-time round and went on to get a first. He says quite firmly that he did not deserve to get in on his first try; he was too young and came across as boring. He didn’t have any resources: had to work in his gap year - no gallivanting!

Of course some might slip through the net. But both dcs have reported that the standard of student is scarily good, no matter whether they are posh or from more humble backgrounds.

I know of two people who were rejected first time round and then applied a second time and both got double firsts. If they hadn't had the resources and confidence to apply a second time they'd have not gone

I'm assuming they were a lot better with the advantage of an extra yrs life experience and knowledge so got in.

If the applicant truly deserves a place, they will get in. I think many parents simply have no idea of the competition their offspring face and can’t accept the decision

I totally and utterly disagree. My DS didn't get an interview despite truly outstanding results in Scottish Highers (so had them in hand), is incredibly passionate about his subject and had a personal statement which his teachers said was the best they'd ever seem (focused on the subject and further research he'd done).

You may remember how realistic I was about anyone's chances, but was still disappointed. I'm allowed to be when I have a DC who is truly extremely bright. Of course we've accepted the decision. He already has unconditional offers including Edinburgh and Glasgow, which he's very deserving of, thank you. He's also been offered a substantial bursary to study elsewhere.

Your post comes across as patronising.

If the applicant truly deserves a place, they will get in. I think many parents simply have no idea of the competition their offspring face and can’t accept the decision

I don't think this is true either. Nor do I think it's about human error. You can interview 40 candidates and believe that 10 of them truly deserve a place. And then you have to reject two of them, because there are only so many places. I know, because I've done this. It doesn't mean they weren't good, just that there's a finite number of places. Oxbridge isn't the be-all and end-all; most people end up perfectly happy somewhere else.

I agree with SarahandQuack and Puffalicious.

Apart from perhaps absolutely outstanding applicants there is an element of chance or performance on the day. DC were at one of “those schools” mentioned above which got lots in, but equally had plenty of good applicants who did not get an offer. Each year there were genuine surprises in terms of both acceptances and rejections.

DS is now 25 and close to the end of a fully funded PhD in the US. At 17 and despite a 4xA*prediction he was rejected by Cambridge, UCL and Warwick, though luckily LSE came good towards the end of March. It was fine, or at least it was after the offer came in. It was pretty grim before then, but even so I am pleased he had his first experience of rejection whilst at home, and the LSE course suited him. Three years on he rejected Oxford at Masters level in favour of staying in London. It is not obvious that those of his peers who his peers went to Oxbridge have done noticeably better. They all got good educations and personal and other attributes seems to matter as much when looking for a job.

If you have not seen it before this is worth a read.

www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/bed2706fd34e29822004dbe29cd00bb5.pdf/Johannes_Haushofer_CV_of_Failures%5B1%5D.pdf

Setbacks are inevitable. It is difficult for young people on the brink of adulthood to face their first real rejection. Picking themselves up and decide to have another go, or see the upsides of an alternative course, is an important part of their development. The applications don’t stop. Some you win, some you lose, the important thing is to apply, and to make the most of the opportunities you get.

Hear, hear Sarahandquack and Needmoresleep

Perhaps it is not private/state but confidence. Those who pitch up at interview aged 17 relaxed and able to express themselves have a real advantage.

Small sample, but those we knew who got Cambridge economics were both bright and confident. Actually all of this sample had parents who were successful in the City with the expectation their offspring follow in their footsteps. DS’ peer group at LSE was similarly bright, no obvious duffers amongst them, but regardless of school, probably would not have approached an interview with such ease…at least at 17.

Yes, I think confidence and ability to get across to the interviewers that you ARE an ideal candidate, and indeed a better choice over the next candidate, must surely have a great deal to do with it. It's a bit like ordinary job interviews, I suppose. Except that I've come across people who've got the job because they are supremely confident and self-assured and, well, if I'm being honest, are top blaggers, assuring interviewers that they are experienced in a particular thing (yet they haven't done it before, they just THINK they can). Quite a few of those types ending up being a duff employee, with undesirable personal qualities such as being lazy, or selfish, or making themselves appear better than they are, or dropping others in it all the time etc.

One would hope the same issues wouldn't happen at Oxbridge and that EVERYONE who secured an interview at least would be academically brilliant and up to completing their course to a good standard.

Very hard on a reserved 17 year old who is quietly confident in their own abilities but who doesn't like to sell themselves for fear of appearing boastful. Or who is not yet mature enough to want to disagree with or debate what their renowned in their field Oxbridge interviewer says for fear of getting their back up or just being plain wrong. Those are the candidates who would really flourish and grow at Oxbridge, I feel.

It's only hard if you assume that Oxbridge tutors aren't smart enough to draw out a reserved interviewee, or can't be bothered to try. I wouldn't say that Oxbridge interviews resemble job interviews (even for highly competitive jobs) at all.

All interviewees being academically brilliant is also arguably wide of the mark. Only the very top slice of those getting offers will all be 'academically brilliant'.

By academically brilliant, are you talking Stephen Hawking level? Someone who really stands out ahead of their peers? So, say, below this level you'd dismiss someone who is top in their subject at A-level in high-achieving school, who just naturally "gets" new concepts in their subject and who does a lot of extra curricular research and activities in their own time just for fun? (obviously estimated 4 A* too) Because surely there are MANY of this second category, who to my (ordinary) mind would be classed as academically brilliant.

If by academically brilliant you mean that there are candidates with 5A*, who already have their names known in the scientific community, for example, by the time they are 16, who are giving talks and lectures to younger pupils in their local school communitiess etc etc, well, fair enough. I guess there's no arguing with that.

@CurlyhairedAssassin

Yes, I think confidence and ability to get across to the interviewers that you ARE an ideal candidate, and indeed a better choice over the next candidate, must surely have a great deal to do with it. It's a bit like ordinary job interviews, I suppose. Except that I've come across people who've got the job because they are supremely confident and self-assured and, well, if I'm being honest, are top blaggers, assuring interviewers that they are experienced in a particular thing (yet they haven't done it before, they just THINK they can). Quite a few of those types ending up being a duff employee, with undesirable personal qualities such as being lazy, or selfish, or making themselves appear better than they are, or dropping others in it all the time etc.

One would hope the same issues wouldn't happen at Oxbridge and that EVERYONE who secured an interview at least would be academically brilliant and up to completing their course to a good standard.

Very hard on a reserved 17 year old who is quietly confident in their own abilities but who doesn't like to sell themselves for fear of appearing boastful. Or who is not yet mature enough to want to disagree with or debate what their renowned in their field Oxbridge interviewer says for fear of getting their back up or just being plain wrong. Those are the candidates who would really flourish and grow at Oxbridge, I feel.

I strongly disagree here! I was an intensely reserved, shy and anxious girl when I was interviewed - had very serious health issues right through my adolescence, missed two years of school and never fully went back (part-time timetable only). Years of barely having friends, very isolated, etc. I was so shy I couldn't even buy things in shops. Also, was coming from a state school, so no public school-level prep.

But was offered a place. They were able to see something (goodness knows) through my terror!

Yes no doubt that happened. DH also got to Oxford from a state school without any obvious polish. Tutors are looking for potential. However I bet you came across quite a lot who were both confident and mature, who had often came from either private school or from affluent backgrounds.

My observation, from within DCs cohort of bright kids at an academic private school, is that overall, other things being equal, the ones who would present well at interview aged 17 were more likely to get Oxbridge places. Others then got places on reapplication with an additional years maturity, whilst the rest gained places at Universities, mainly London, which did not interview, and did fine there.

If the applicant truly deserves a place, they will get in. I think many parents simply have no idea of the competition their offspring face and can’t accept the decision.

I also don't think this is fair. My DD did get her place at C and is very happy and thriving. I do think it's the right place for her. I don't for one minute think that she deserved it significantly more than the 2 or 3 people who would have been "next" on the list.
She was pooled to a college that she didn't apply to. There was a parent on this thread last year whose child applied to the college she got pooled to for the same subject and didn't get an offer - but mine got an offer there without facing the same interview.
I think the college made the right choice for her (I would say that as her parent obviously! but also the feedback she's received has been fantastic) but how can any of us say that those who were rejected didn't also "deserve" a place?
The reality is that there are fewer places than "deserving" candidates and, at the end of the day, it's a bit of a lottery.
At dd's school I know the others (some I know very well; others just in passing) who got their O and C places and think they all deserved them - I also know several who were rejected and think that many of them also deserved a place - but not everyone can get one.

I'm sure there's a certain 'je ne sais quoi' (USP) that marks certain young people out as special academically. And it's certainly not all about top grades, although I'm sure they help!

DS went to a very high-achieving state school (although he not so much so!). A couple of the boys from his time there are clearly destined for stellar things (already with national and international prizes under their belts, in their respective subjects). Interestingly, neither ended up at Oxbridge though.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

I'm sure there's a certain 'je ne sais quoi' (USP) that marks certain young people out as special academically. And it's certainly not all about top grades, although I'm sure they help!

DS went to a very high-achieving state school (although he not so much so!). A couple of the boys from his time there are clearly destined for stellar things (already with national and international prizes under their belts, in their respective subjects). Interestingly, neither ended up at Oxbridge though.

There isn't really.

What I do think is relevant, is how good a fit someone is for whatever they're being interviewed for (Oxbridge, any other university, any job ...).

DD wasn't predicted a perfect string of A levels, which was lucky as she didn't get them. She won't get a first, but then again, around half in her College won't either. I hate this myth that you must be academically brilliant to get a place, as it gives a lot of students (from state, grammar & private backgrounds) a sense of imposter syndrome. She's a normal teenager, good at sport, able to string a sentence together, from a perfectly ordinary background who fits in well in her college.

I think the issue is one of false negatives versus false positives. There are many more deserving applicants than places. If O and C get their process right (and there is no reason to suppose they don’t) then there will be very, very few false positives - that is, students who get in but do not deserve to be there.

However, there are likely to be lots more false negatives - that is, people who do deserve to get a place but don’t. This is because - the Stephen Hawkins of the world aside - it is likely to be very difficult to distinguish between the many very good candidates, and lots of aspects about the process could make the small difference between being offered a place or not.

So there will definitely be some degree of luck/circumstance/specifics of the course/personality of applicant and interviewer etc which mean some very deserving students get an offer and some don’t.

I don't think my DS (O) could. be described as academically brilliant. He's very smart, good at his subject and a bit of a polymath. He failed one of his first year exams though and if he gets a 2.1 we'll be delighted. But he is thriving in the teaching environment and is going from strength to strength. I suspect the potential was spotted at his interviews.

It will depend a lot on the subject, as some subjects are very competitive and with others it's fairly easy to get an offer.

Ds2 did not get an offer. He was disappointed on the day but is very stoic and ultimately I think it’s a blessing in disguise.

He’s got offers from Exeter, UCL and Sheffield, waiting to hear from Durham so he has a lot of exciting options.

Congratulations to all those with DC’s that got offers, it is a really exciting time. Commiserations to those that didn’t, it’s tough for dc’s because the process is so challenging and involved.

Those are some excellent options @DontKeepTheFaith - well done to him.

DD has an Oxford offer. Recent name change 😊

Storminamu the stats in DD's year showed she had around 10% chance of getting a place. PPE is quite competitive.