Reapply to Cambridge?

[Mollymalone225]

What are your thoughts on reapplying to Cambridge? DC was pooled and rejected for Natsci (physics) this year. Was predicted 4 A*s, had gold in physics and chemistry olympiads that was mentioned in personal statement. Since then has grown to like maths/physics a bit more than chemistry.

DC has an offer from UCL (natsci) to start 2022 and if reapplying only wants the following 5 (in order of preference)
Cambridge (natsci again- doesn't like Cambridge engineering course),
Imperial (2 courses in engineering- civil and mechanical)
UCL (natsci/physics and engineering).

He only wants to consider Cambridge, Imperial or UCL and I'm really worried that second time round he will get no offers from these places even if he ends up securing 4A*s. Why? Cambridge favours state school applicants and DC goes to selective private school. Imperial/UCL are incredibly competitive and nothing is a guarantee- especially if one takes a gap year, real passion needs to be shown. Given DC is so unsure about physics/natsci/engineering and wants to apply for different courses at each of the universities, I'm not sure a single personal statement can deliver passion for all this. So his statement will probably be natsci-oriented with a splash of engineering related work experience if he secures it. Gap year opportunities in relevant areas are so competitive and rare.

I'm so scared he'll end up with no offers - is it better to take the UCL offer and move on? So worried. Thoughts, advice much welcome. (of course, reapplying only applicable if he ends up getting at least 3 A*s in further maths, maths, chemistry and physics)

www.theguardian.com/education/2022/may/14/zahawi-rejects-idea-oxbridge-tilt-system-accept-more-state-pupils

With regard to some of the discussion above it is becoming more apparent the government is taking a view on the declining proportion of private school pupils at Oxbridge.

I have to say it was politically naive for the VC of Cambridge to be so vocal about his admissions for state entrants given the particular tone of the current government and their supporters in the press.

Reduction in the number of private school numbers at Oxbridge has been like a red rag to a bull to the right wing press/establishment and was always eventually going to draw a response. Couldn't Cambridge have quietly reduced private school numbers in time with our being so vocal?

I'm very glad that the Cambridge VC isn't cowed in the way you suggest he ought to be.

Also, what exactly is your quarrel with what's said in the Guardian article?

@goodbyestranger

I don't think it's being cowed as being politically aware. The aims of Professor Trope may be laudable but due thought should be given to the government's response to the explicit aim to reduce private school numbers.

I am sure private schools are not overly happy with Professor Trope's statements and I am sure there will be collective letters sent to our Education Secretary.

I think the concern is that the government could become more and more interested in Oxbridge entrance policies (plus others) and may recommend ways to reduce any bias by suggesting school blind admissions in the future.

OP - DD was rejected from Cambridge Natsci and is currently doing the UCL course. If you want to private message me happy to answer any specific questions you may have.

mids2019 you're not serious that you think the VC isn't politically aware?!

school blind admissions sounds not bad.

Not sure that Oxbridge would agree - they are trying to find the best people and the performance of an applicant's school is important information for that process.

My take on the secretary's view is that the focus should be in improving state schools rather than making more places in HE available to them or facilitating access.

It was a nuanced statement but I think he dislikes the idea of tilting the system towards state pupils without school involvement especially if it biases against those that are performing.

more private schools seem to be increasing their assistance of the state sector through satellite colleges to share their expertise in areas of disadvantage which I assume mean that if these private schools suffer in terms of elite university access then those universities are biasing against the disadvantaged ?

That would need to be accompanied by an outright ban on coaching for interviews and entrance exams, to help to level the playing field a little. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's entirely practicable.

The top universities want the top ability people. they obviously already have to have reached a certain level of attainment in order to access the teaching offered, but top attainment at A level is not entirely the same as top ability. All they are trying to do is 'level up' as the current parlance has it.

I don't know the "soft" subject. For STEM, it is not able to coach unless you don't trust the abilities of the professors of Oxbridge. For the maths subject, the interview normally involves 3-4 professors, the problems will be at different levels and the harder ones need hints; and some may be unsolvable. It is given to assess the ability of problem-solving which is uncoachable. Why do you want to ban entrance exams if you want the process to be fair? I heard people talking about the national entrance exam in India and China. Some countries might have a corrupt system, but left the only fair entrance exam system, which will make them successful.

I didn't say I wanted to ban entrance exams. I certainly don't, but in the school-blind system you advocate, students should be able to access them without coming up against others who have had extra help to pass them.

In my entrance interview I had to prove the rules for divisibility by 9 and 11, and explain what happens when you balance a ruler on two fingers and move your fingers towards the middle.

I really cannot see the problem with allowing Oxbridge all the tools possible and practical in their search for the best people.

In general:

Private education and/or attending a high performing school conveys advantages

Those advantages mean that it is easier to do well at a high performing school

So when comparing a student from a low performing school with one from a high performing school, if they have the same grades, the student from a low performing school has achieved something more difficult

State school students in general do better at Oxbridge than private school students

Why wouldn't Oxbridge be trying to hoover up all the brightest state school students, and why wouldn't they take into account the context of their applicants' achievements? So not just that they got 9 x A star at GCSE, but did they do it at a school where almost everyone gets those grades, or at a school where that is unusual? It's a really telling piece of information. It's probably safe to assume that the student from the low performing school would still have done well if they had had the other's opportunities, but it's not at all clear whether the reverse is true. The student from the low performing school has demonstrated qualities that the student from the high performing school has not.

Students from high performing schools are still getting admitted to Oxbridge and privately educated students are still over represented, so it's not like they can't get in. But they need to show that they are truly exceptional if they are going to convince admissions tutors that they are a better bet than someone who has managed to match their academic achievements without the advantages they have enjoyed.

God this stupid site and the missing paragraphs

@User11010866 , it is certainly possible to coach in the STEM subjects. The questions that @TeenPlusCat says she was asked in her admissions interview (below your post) are pretty typical and schools that send many pupils to Oxbridge will know them, and similar questions in other subjects. Beyond the specifics, general knowledge of how to answer these questions well is invaluable

Furthermore Cambridge runs the notorious STEP which not only can but should be coached. About half of those receiving conditional offers from C requiring STEP fail this component. I wonder what is the breakdown of failed candidates across the educational sectors?

100% what @Bovrilly says. Context is everything.

The comment at the end by the Universities Minister is interesting about not just getting in but completing the courses. I wonder what the stats are for dropping out of Oxbridge courses and school type.

From a quick google, Oxbridge drop out rates are much lower than elsewhere (1-2% compared to 7-8%). And they don't publish demographic info about people who drop out. So it seems as though the minister is trying to imply something about the stickability of state school students that she doesn't actually have any evidence for and is unlikely to be true. (Given that on the contrary there is evidence that state school students do better at Oxbridge than private school students.)

From a quick google, Oxbridge drop out rates are much lower than elsewhere (1-2% compared to 7-8%).

As DD puts it, ‘The good thing about the tutorial system is that there’s nowhere to hide. And the bad thing about the tutorial system is there’s nowhere to hide...’

All STEP past papers are online. You can find the answers and discussions on the student room. If don't have the incentive to prepare and need to have a tutor to pass it, how can the applicant survive three year intensive difficult math course in C? Regarding the 9 and 11 numbers question, I wonder if it was her easiest question? This kind of question might come up in JMC IMC or or 11+ test, but not likely in SMC and BMO.

Does anyone know how relevant alumni funding is for Cambridge, for example? Wills, donations etc.
Because a lot of the offspring and grandchildren of alumni donating might be in the independent and grammar school etc category so could these kids indirectly being “disadvantaged” in admissions affect alumni funding?
I don’t think it is clever to talk openly about less independent school places or even grammar. It needs to be phrased as very specific positive help cases towards disadvantaged kids (with very well thought out criteria), not the other way round. And once there, surely these kids should not just get funding help but actually potentially some extra academic help to call on, if required. A commitment to that might make an actual difference. Say a commitment to take 5% students in such category to start with (rather than bickering over minor independent school vs top grammar school and who is more or less privileged).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harding_(financier)
This alumni, for example, gave £100 million to Cambridge.
His Wikipedia does not state which school he went to… clearly intentionally. But a google search reveals, he too, went to an independent school (Pangbourne College). His grandchildren will likely be at public school.

Somebody is going to tell me you cannot assume bias etc towards independent schools, he might be like Tony Benn etc.
However, I don’t think the world works like that if you tell donors like him specifically - thanks, we want your money, but people like you or your family are no longer welcome here. So this VC Toope who himself is pulling a salary over £400k needs to be a bit more subtle and wake up to how the upper echelons of British society work.
So I reckon Zahawi has a point there.

This basically exists in the form of the Cambridge foundation year:

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/foundation-year