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?

Presumably yes - as long as they all went to EC!

I have only skim read, but I have friends with DC at EC and they have chosen the school because it’s less of a pressurised environment (apparently) and also their kids are very sporty. Schools in this part of London (SW area) are ridiculously competitive entry (some are more competitive than Oxbridge at 11+ in terms of numbers of applicants to places). An ‘average’ child (in terms of national standards) may struggle to get into any schools at all. This has been the case for some years and it’s getting worse, year on year as competition for limited places increases. The Oxbridge process is nothing really for kids who have gone through competitive exams and interviews for 5+ schools (some are sitting many more) when they were aged 10 / 11. Rejection is something they got used to early, in the majority of cases. Also, it’s hard to feel outstanding in a school where all 9s at GCSE just makes you average. Some thrive on this, but for others, it can knock their confidence. This is why many families have to go for ‘flexi boarding’ out in Surrey. St John’s in Leatherhead is a similar set-up to EC and kids either get school buses out from places like Putney daily, or they flexi-board. I know quite a few families with kids who do this.

As for the super-selective schools in London, I can only be honest and say that there is no special or discernible ‘extra coaching’ going on at all, My DC only ever had a teacher who glanced through the personal statements a few days before it went off. No advice on college choice, apart from ‘go for ind that feels right to you.’ All the ‘extra’ stuff they did, they did it external to the school and the teachers weren’t even aware. There was a talk about Oxbridge applications in the March of Year 12. That’s literally it. I think some people imagine there is some kind of special intervention going on in these schools - well, I’ve seen no evidence of that. What can the school actually do anyway, beyond write a reference?

About 20-30 get in most years, but probably double that will apply - so they can hardly be giving detailed guidance to 60 kids applying across the two unis for a whole range of different subjects. There was only one ‘Oxbridge Advisor.’ Very nice man, but there was nothing he said that was ‘guidance’ really. He just sent out emails about deadlines. The best source of info was TSR and MN!

It’s hardly surprising that SPGS get about 30-40 out of a cohort of 100 in because it’s probably harder to get into that school (relatively speaking) than it is to Oxbridge. But again, it’s not the school ‘getting them in,’ they are exceptionally bright girls to begin with! Still many will be turned down though. It will vary year to year anyway as some courses are much more competitive than others. I think there a great deal of luck involved and the difference between those who get in and those who don’t is wafer thin. Places like LSE are probably just as competitive and they don’t even interview - it’s all about the PS! Is that fair (given some kids will get someone to write it for them)? It’s all a malarkey at the end of the day and all you can do is throw your hat in and see what comes up. EC can’t be ‘failing at Oxbridge’ because EC is not applying! It’s all down to the individual - whatever school they are at. Everything is contextualised. If you’re at an independent or selective, you may need to do a bit ‘more’ than get top grades these days, but so be it. The schools are full of very high-achieving kids and this is not beyond them. Most are doing it anyway off their own bat.

OP, your DC will be judged against the average grade profile in his / her school. If they are above this, then they are not at a disadvantage. Don’t wait for the school to ‘guide you’ - because they won’t. No school can ‘get them in.’ They have to do it themselves and, in this sense, it makes no difference whatsoever who else from the school gets in or doesn’t get in in any given year. All that matters is their application.

5and5
That’s a great analysis. It never seems sensible to base any projections for your own child based on other DCs Oxbridge results.

Well in terms of International applications:

our dedicated staff will guide you through the Oxbridge application process and what you should do each step of the way to prepare. We identify our most gifted pupils and invite them to take part in activities to challenge themselves academically and to develop their confidence in debate and discussion, skills which are essential for the interview. In the first term of Year 12 there is an information session with our own successful applicants – alumni currently at Oxford or Cambridge - and also a visit from an admissions tutor from Oxford or Cambridge who, comes to talk about what they look for in a successful applicant.

In Year 12, all pupils applying to Oxford or Cambridge are put on a full programme of personal support throughout the process. They are assigned a Tutor – a subject expert who monitors a personalised programme of study to stretch the pupil beyond the demands of A-level. Pupils attend individual and small-group sessions, designed to model the Oxbridge tutorial system and, later on, are given extensive formal mock interview practice.

Wow - that's a scary list of things that the school does for its pupils! My DC has an offer to Cambridge. From a comprehensive that, unusually, does no setting at all - so all the children are together in mixed ability classes for all subjects. There's no extra provision for brighter pupils, and the emphasis is very much on getting everyone up to a basic standard rather than aiming for excellence. They occasionally get one pupil going to Oxbridge. There was a little help with the PS (as in reading it over and commenting), but no interview practice. There are no particular extra-curricular activities on offer.
DC had no intention of applying to Oxbridge, but suddenly decided to after the end of the summer holiday (great timing!). They continued and continue to do their after school minimum wage job.
But the college prospectus page for DC's chosen subject says that they look for people who are motivated and work independently. DC does that in spades - and has covered loads of stuff outside of school. They have a lovely personality and came out of the key online interview buzzing - there was plenty of laughter. The interviewer praised the PS and I can understand why. It was genuine and one-off. DC saw the other candidates at the online test, and said that they all looked rich and private schooly. I'm guessing that DC (who really doesn't look like that) was a breath of fresh air. Perhaps colleges are bored with seeing dozens of over-prepared rich kids who have been spoon-fed? It must be very off-putting asking a question and feeling that the interviewee is parroting a prepared or semi-prepared answer. And the same with the tests.

The only relevant extracurriculars for Oxbridge is a genuine interest and the resulting evidence of academic achievements and reading well beyond the curriculum.

Plus for some subjects, the achievements/engagement with the subject may be quite practical rather than 'academic' as such.

It must be very off-putting asking a question and feeling that the interviewee is parroting a prepared or semi-prepared answer. And the same with the tests.

From what I can gather, the tests and interview questions aren't really ones amenable to having a prepared or even semi prepared answer to parrot. They're not looking for the 'right answer' so much as the right attitude to thinking about problems.

Daisysway - you say ‘in terms of international pupils.’ Are you talking about a school overseas?

To be honest, there are loads and loads of agencies who provide online services to aid an Oxbridge application. There are all kinds of levels if ‘help’ that can be accessed - from £30 for a mock interview, to hundreds for whatever guidance they offer. It’s hardly as if all families with children in ‘state schools’ are ‘disadvantaged’ - many are quite the opposite and just as capable of accessing this kind of help as anyone else. It’s never as simple as ‘state v private.’ Many private schools are utterly useless, to be honest, not only in terms of Oxbridge, but also teaching standards.

I agree with 5and5. My daughter's old school North London Collegiate is similar to SPGS and not comparable with my twins' easier to get into private day school for example and the numbers going to Oxbridge reflects that. I am not sure to what extent the help schools give in private and state grammar schools gets the pupil into Oxbridge.

However it is not the case that 100% of students who go to good jobs in eg law go to Oxbridge. My other daughter was sponsored through law school by a law firm and she went to Bristol. Looking at this link about 16% went to Oxbridge www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities-2019 which leaves a lot of other universities from which students are recruited into legal careers at the better law firms. That survey is of the top 130 firms and I suppose if you just took the top 10 or 20 Oxbridge might be higher as % but my only point here and above is parents should not worry too much if you end up at Durham or LSE and not Oxbridge - you can still get good jobs as all the other factors like exam grades, how you do in entrance tests for jobs, interviews etc all helps.

Also the comment above about the help some schools offer for Oxbridge is going to be hyped up on some websites as they are trying to make parents pick that school. The only thing I would ever look at in choosing a school at 11 or 13 on that score is "destinations of leavers".

the harsh reality that to have a reasonable shot they need to develop their interest for a course early and deeply

Oblonsky this is very much not the reality and not a healthy approach.

No it's obviously not the case that 100% go to Oxbridge Xenia. I simply said that it made things relatively much easier.

Where do you think the "increased numbers of students" at all the other UK Universities live 🤷🏻‍♀️ Oxford and Cambridge are very wealthy and have plenty of highly intelligent people working for them. I'm sure, if they wanted, they could find a way of increasing student numbers.
Colleges that offer accommodation throughout a UG degree could easily just provide it for the first year.

The local authority would not allow Oxford to expand student numbers without providing more dedicated student accommodation, because of the high levels of existing pressure in the private rental market & housing unaffordability. They don't want any more HMOs off the Cowley Road, they want those houses to go back to family housing.
It's also very very difficult to get planning for new purpose built student accommodation because of the tight greenbelt around much of the city, and the Thames & Cherwell floodplains. Cambridge is similar in terms of restricted land supply and greenbelt. If any new sites are allocated, they are going to be majority private housing, not student-led schemes.

goodbye and I agree with you, but I just don't want people to think it is Oxbridge or your high paid future career is over - it is nothing like as stark as that so in a sense it does not matter that much.

Also if Oxbridge were to move to a position where students from less good schools started there under the standard, eg not having read many books relevant to the course etc and that held back others (I don't think we are anywhere near that yet) then market forces would mean employers would simply move to places where the best students were. In other words the free market would win out.

Oxford and Cambridge admissions tutors often say they could fill their available places many times over with suitable candidates. The universities can’t physically expand but the Oxbridge educational experience, by which I mean learning in small tutor groups and sitting Oxford/Cambridge exams, could be outsourced to other places without standards dropping. No doubt this would require an injection of cash, and careful monitoring, but where there’s a will there’s a way.

With more places available, it would make the process of securing a rigorous Oxbridge level education for yourself less like taking part in a very competitive horse race.

If Costa Coffee can operate as a franchise ....

The Oxbridge system costs a lot of money, and Oxbridge subsidises its students. My guess is that if the Tories are in power for much longer they will allow Oxbridge to increase fees, and will eventually remove the fee cap altogether for Oxbridge. That will mean a far higher percentage of students from wealthy backgrounds, and a watering down of student quality, in terms of basic brightness. For the moment, Oxbridge is actually cheaper for poor students than other English universities are.
A lot of the colleges are wealthy because of endowments made 100s of years ago. That wouldn't apply to a new set-up. So I'm not sure how a new Oxbridge could be financed, without basically only taking wealthy students. I imagine that the colleges have to be careful with what they use their endowments for.
I sense a frustration among some wealthy parents - that it's not currently possible to buy your child a place at Oxbridge, although privately educated people still have a far higher chance of getting in - and far more so those who are at very academic private schools. I'm not arguing that that is always a bad thing. Realistically, those who have had a fantastic school education can start ahead of those who haven't, and Oxbridge moves so fast that there isn't always time for bright but poorly educated students to catch up.
There are many reasons for paying for a good private school. A better chance at Oxbridge is surely only one reason among many.

I actually don't agree that Oxbridge is that competitive. A quick search online will tell you that it is far easier for an English child to get into Oxbridge than for a French child to get into one of the "Grandes Ecoles" or for an American child to get into Harvard. And far, far, far easier for an English child to get into Oxbridge than for a Chinese child to get into the top Chinese university in Beijing - where they have a 2% chance of acceptance. Obviously, it's more complicated than that due to the differences in the application process, but it does seem to be considerably easier in the UK.

have seen a considerable decline of Oxbridge offers compared to other similar Independent Schools.

Once there's a set of moves which start to level the playing field, it's revealed that, you know, DC whose parents pay for their education aren't actually any brighter than other children.

These applicants may not be “better” but are seen as more deserving.

That's not quite true - indeed, not necessarily true at all.

The Sutton Trust makes a rough estimate that a paid-for education adds something like one grade to A Levels. So a comprehensively-educated pupil with 3 Bs is likely to have much the same potential/ability as a privately-educated pupil with 3 As.

It depends on the subject, @Inebottle, though I don't think any undergraduate course anywhere in the UK has an acceptance rate as low as 2%, whether the students are 'English' or not. But I assume the OP's child is not planning to apply for a place on a course in Beijing.

There are of course different acceptance rates for different parts of the UK, with Scotland getting fewer places than elsewhere (pro rata applications).
There are also different acceptance rates for international students. It can be much easier for an international student to get into a top university wherever, because they usually have to pay higher fees.

@Inebottle As I'm sure you know, however, that international students are in a different quota category than Home students. Acceptance of International students has minimal impact (if any at all) on the numbers of places for Home students.

Most of my friends went to Epsom College. Now this was a long time ago but it certainly wasn't a "feeder" for Oxbridge back then!!

I think a lot of parents (and kids) have no idea what genuine passion for a subject looks like. They think that students chugging along doing the bare minimum, who scrape an impressive range of grades at GCSE must be suitable candidates.

Many people can’t imagine kids who love their subjects and read widely through choice, and who are just hungry for knowledge on that topic. It’s not unhealthy to have that hunger and passion, alongside excellent GCSE results and great A Level predictions. It’s what they’re loooking for and to be honest schools can’t generate that hunger. Fee paying schools which run Oxbridge programmes that give out reading lists, run groups to discuss books or papers (that half the group won’t have got round to reading) and practice interviews, cannot and do not replicate the true genuine interest.

In the past, when applications were lower, some of those who’d been prepped by their schools but weren’t that bright or genuinely interested could get places. Those days are going, because with so many more state school entrants actually applying, amongst them there are numbers of genuinely passionate high achievers…and they are the ones who are pushing out the middling, good GCSEs on paper but limited genuine interest candidates.

The non-top tier independents have hoards of kids who achieve good exam results but lack the genuine drive. Unless they are really top tier, most of these schools will see numbers drop. Even the top tier will see numbers drop a bit, it’s quite simply a much more competitive market. Yes, independent schools will be digging around to find mor sways to polish their students and help them compete, but the bottom line and trajectory is that with Oxbridge feeling like a genuine option for really clever state school kids, instead of the previous ‘it’s not for people like us and only for the rich’ a higher proportion of places will go to state school kids.

As much as independently educated kids and parents might like to think it, fee paying schools don’t by their nature have a monopoly on clever kids….most of them of course are in the state school system. Fee paying schools might have more clever kids than their numbers would predict, by dint of clever parents (with clever kids) being more likely to be able to afford fees, but the vast majority of clever kids are in the state system. And there are also lots of bright but not top notch kids and decidedly average kids in the independent sector. Money still buys privilege without a doubt and it still buys options and opens doors….but the extent of this is shrinking. It’s gradual, but it’s shrinking. And it results in posts like the OPs, where fee paying parents are outraged that Oxbridge numbers are down at their school and looking to blame the school or the system, because surely the kids who have had fees paid all their lives should be getting the places. They cannot conceive of it being simply that in a wider market, most of the fee paying kids won’t be good enough, or that throwing money at the issue cannot rectify it. Because surely by paying you can have whatever you want??