Epsom College Failing at Oxbridge?

[HedgehogFan]

I have a young DS at EC and have seen a considerable decline of Oxbridge offers compared to other similar Independent Schools. Does anyone know why?

Thanks HedgehogFan that really is shockingly low. 140 is a relatively large cohort.

The issue for years has been that too many not very clever applicants from the independent sector have got places, slowing up tutorials etc.

Xenia Oxford has without any doubt whatsoever been an advantage getting training contracts at Magic Circle firms and pupillages for my own DC (seven out the other end). Your twins are in an unusual position in that you are a lawyer working for yourself and prepared to train them yourself - although perhaps they have other plans now, I haven't really followed the 2017 thread, so apologies if I have that wrong. They sound lovely boys, but I don't think that they offer a particular benchmark on how much going to Oxbridge matters or doesn't matter for a career at the top end of the legal profession.

Hi OP, to answer your question about ‘super-curriculars,’ the school will have little to do with this. The whole point, is to demonstrate independent inquiry and motivation beyond the school and the opportunities available to you. So, in a school where 9s and A* at A-level are few and far between, a student will have done a lot of it themselves to get those top grades. This is will count as evidence of motivation. But in a school where top grades are the norm, it follows that teaching will be generally very good and the student carried along with a more able cohort ( no need for teachers to slow down or diversify teaching styles). So what else have these students done to be ‘outliers’ in their cohorts? This is what the unis are asking, I think.

The internet is free to everyone and a quick Google search will reveal essay competitions galore that any student from anywhere and in most subjects can enter to boost their application. No school will support you with this, but there’s no reason why any Oxbridge applicant can’t try writing for an easy competition, a magazine, or blog. There are things called MOOCS they can do. Online lectures or Podcasts. Really, as long as they have internet access, such things are equally accessible to all. If they do enough if this kind of thing, the PS should write itself. But unis will expect students who have not had educational disadvantage to have done more of this kind of thing. This is the key difference, I would say.

I think perhaps some independents are still under the illusion that a few A* alone will give you a reasonable chance. Perhaps they need to be more realistic with students?

randomiser my DC had no educational disadvantage (superselective grammar) and not one of them entered any essay competition or did a MOOC (I've just had to google MOOC to confirm no MOOC ever). Admittedly they had a good slew of A* and they read stuff outside the curriculum but none of the things you suggest that you think makes a 'key difference'. The key difference between getting in and not is about the level of intelligence and potential, not about hard graft in terms of essay competitions and MOOCS. Someone will come along and say but if the applicant is sufficiently interested in their subject, they will do these competitions and MOOCS because that's what that sort of applicant will want to do, but it isn't true for many, many normal but clever and successful Oxbridge applicants who would actually prefer to hang out with friends or go to the pub or club rather than sweat over a MOOC. The idea of doing a MOOC in Y12 or 13 sounds hideous. I would strong counsel against MOOCS and in favour of going out and letting your hair down a bit.

Well I simply don’t buy that ‘intelligence’ is something that can be gleaned through the interview process. I think people are kidding themselves if they believe that ( and I say that with a DC in Cambridge). The interview process is highly flawed and antiquated. There is no attempt to standardise between colleges. Your performance in interview is down to a whole myriad of factors - the whim of the tutors, the topics that happen to come up on the day, nerves, allsorts. Even an educational psychologist couldn’t gauge ‘intelligence’ in a 20 min online random interview and these tutors are not Ed. Psychs. They are academics. Often in very niche areas. It would be highly arrogant if them to claim they can discern ‘intelligence.’ Yes, they can look for someone who is willing to have a discussion and verbalise coherent ideas and who therefore seems suited to the tutorial system. But that’s it. Very few students at Cambridge are ‘geniuses.’ They are just reasonably bright, motivated young people - but we all know, far more of these don’t get in than get in.

I think Oxford may be a bit more standardised in its interview approach. But even Cambridge admit to the flaws in their interview selection. But when you have most / all applicants applying with top grades, what do you do? An applicant from a very underperforming school with all top grades will look impressive and rightly so. But a student from a top performing school now has to do a lot more. Things have changed a lot just in the last couple of years and the very academic schools are now seeing this and starting to advise students accordingly. It is hellish and totally over-the-top, I totally agree. But if that’s what you have to go for a competitive application, they will do it. You should see what some of them are doing now.

randomiser I say what I say with eight DC at or having been to Oxford very recently. I can arguably pull rank on that score.

The information used by tutors goes well beyond the interview, even if that is the clincher.

They also all attended the same superselective grammar, so not even a sniff of educational disadvantage.

Other factors not mentioned

Applications to USA
Lack of preparation by the school for entrance exams
Students unwilling to enter a (supposedly) higher pressure environment
Effect of media coverage of greater weighting towards state pupils discouraging application

VCA even on the basis of the ratio of those interviewed to places offered (12:2) that's a terrible result. OP doesn't say how many applied and didn't get invited to interview. I would expect far more than twelve applied and failed to get to the interview stage.

I doubt Epsom is getting dozens into Harvard or Princeton either. And indeed Epsom isn't full of the super rich in the way that Westminster etc is, so the US is less of an option. Not sparklingly bright and not super rich isn't an ideal combo for top unis in the US.

goodbye - aren’t must of yours now adults?

Anyway, your family is unusual. I’m surprised you’ve not been in the news or something.

I’m talking about the shift in the London so-called superselectives’ that is happening right now. I have kids there attending the talks. There has been a marked change, even in the last two years. It used to be the case that students could get in by mentioning a few things they’d read, but now, not really. Grammars will be contextualised for what they are, but not quite in the same light as somewhere like Westminster or St Paul’s.

Locally - and I can only speak for a small local sample - online interviewing seems also to have contributed to a shift in where successful applicants come from. Local comprehensives have been much more successful and local privates and selective schools less so.

My working hypothesis is that interviewing from a familiar home / school environment, without the somewhat intimidating physical surroundings of a college, and also without exposure to super-confident other candidates who may be more used to 'elite residential establishments built in Gothic styles' has increased the comfort and therefore self-confidence of candidates from comprehensive schools. The limited lens of the computer screen may have also meant that interviewers have perhaps focused more on specifics of what a candidate says, and less on 'the way they present themselves'.

I would be really interested to see the statistics for the last 2 years in particular, and would love to be a 'fly on the wall' to see whether tutors have noticed any change in 'true ability profile' from the change in admissions, rather than simply gaining a group of equally able students but at an individual level a slightly different selection.

Also external prep for the aptitude tests isn't in any way necessary. They weren't devised to pander to those whose school could prep.

But also, independents have quite a lot applying to the US. That looks absolutely exhausting and far more hoops to jump through, even compared to Oxbridge. It’s seems to me it’s verging in the ridiculous, but this seems standard in the US. Basically, it’s upping the ante everywhere and god only knows where it will all end.

@goodbyestranger

I think around 20 applied, 12 interviewed (6 at each) 2 offers for C, 0 for O.

Someone will come along and say but if the applicant is sufficiently interested in their subject, they will do these competitions and MOOCS because that's what that sort of applicant will want to do, but it isn't true for many, many normal but clever and successful Oxbridge applicants who would actually prefer to hang out with friends or go to the pub or club rather than sweat over a MOOC. The idea of doing a MOOC in Y12 or 13 sounds hideous. I would strong counsel against MOOCS and in favour of going out and letting your hair down a bit.

DD's school - she is now at C - strongly advocated (and gave time to) MOOCs and EPQs, as well as relevant work experience if appropriate. Wide co-curricular interests were encouraged AS WELL AS, rather than instead of, this evidence of deep interest in their chosen subject.

Re the classic comment below
A growing number of MATs/academies in socially deprived areas now teach Latin and Classic to all pupils
I am sure that will fill the gap from a few of the lesser independents dropping it

I am not saying that EPQs / participation in online courses are NECESSARY for a successful applicant. DD also did lots of things that were not in any way related to her chosen course, from trips to talks to competitions related to subjects she was taking no further than A-level, as well as many hours in her main co-curricular, so she was not exclusively focused on these 'application enhancing' things.

However, especially for someone applying for a 'non-school subject', having this suite of things to write about in her personal statement and talk about at interview was really useful, if only because she had so many things 'within her comfort zone' to discuss (her interviewers' research interests were linked to her EPQ) that she was a more confident interviewee.

randomiser my youngest is a second year at Oxford.

I'm not clear that my DC's experience can be easily dismissed as merely 'unusual'. To be honest, that's a bit weak. Their novelty is in the combined volume rather than any one of them being 'unusual', so I would say that their experience is as valid as that of any other successful recent applicant. In fact, they are strikingly normal young people which is exactly my point. Your claim that the entry process is 'hellish' is precisely the sort of nonsense which deters those not at an educational advantage from applying. It's also palpably not true. Another false suggestion is that things have changed dramatically in the past two cycles. They haven't.

As far as full page spreads in the Daily Mail go, almost all of my DC are absolutely adamant that they won't do a ghastly photoshoot for any paper (my brother was super keen, but heavily outvoted). Nor will they agree to be cited in the Guinness Book of Records (my brother was super keen, but heavily outvoted #2). I think an Irish family with six who all went to independents and were middle aged did a photoshoot a few years back and that's fine but mine have said categorically no, certainly while any one of them remains at Oxford.

@goodbyestranger

There appears to be some surprise this year at Epsom as there were a few sparklingly bright pupils (straight A* types) who didn’t get in. One of whom I’ve heard was offered Westminster for 6th form.

I guess if the trend continues a move at 6th form for those with Oxbridge aspirations is essential.

I certainly agree that the numbers are dire OP. Do you know how many applied in the first instance?

There appears to be some surprise this year at Epsom as there were a few sparklingly bright pupils (straight A types) who didn’t get in.*

It does sound, if this is the 'word on the street' as if the school is complacent about 'the type of candidate who will get into Oxbridge', so perhaps they aren't working as hard as is now necessary to get them the right side of the borderline.

There are many, many, many 'straight A* type' students nationally.

Only a few of them get into Oxbridge - alongside those who are not 'straight A* types' but are exceptionally gifted at or interested in a specific area, or those whose educational background means that their slightly lower absolute grades indicate a greater ability and drive than those from schools where those grades are commonplace.

Assuming a 'straight A* type' SHOULD get a place implies a degree of naivety on the part of both parents and school.

@goodbyestranger

I think around 20

Assuming a 'straight A type' SHOULD get a place implies a degree of naivety on the part of both parents and school.*

Well, quite. It has always been the case that lots of straight A* type students don't get in. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of Oxbridge applicants will fall into this category, and they can't all get in.

It might be the case that the school isn't advising them well. Equally, it might just be that there were other better candidates.

@cantkeepawayforever

No assumption. I was responding directly to a comment made by another poster.