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)

Meanwhile over at Oxford where the widening participation programme is showing significant results, is the VC there not the correct ''woman'' for the job?

Of course I knew Toope, I am an alumni. So I get plenty of updates etc into my inbox constantly.

The alumni funding is relevant and the university needs the money. The VC needs to be politically savvy and keep those with money on board to keep giving by following sophisticated & clever communication policies. He is not eating those pesky journalists for breakfast, is he.
If all the business leaders, bankers and lawyers who read the Telegraph/Times etc stop giving money it does affect the university, rather naive to think it wouldn’t. It also affects the bursary schemes, in particular.
They are not all far right, many centrist and some left leaning in there too. And that is a problem.
I am all for a man with a good vision but how it is communicated and implemented is key.
I think the university will take their time with the next appointment.

www.anglomir.net/stephen-toope-destroys-cambridge/

Well I can't speak for "people", but my DS pushed very, very hard to do his A Levels at one of these very selective private schools - one of those who are known in the press to get a significant number of pupils into Oxbridge, after doing his GCSEs at a state comprehensive - and after sitting the exams and getting through the interview he was accepted and did his A levels at this school (yes, huge financial stretch even just for two years, even though I consider us financially well off). This was very much driven by my DS, all we did was support what he really, really wanted. But as I don't think there are that many in our position, here are my observation on the differences:

It was a huge shock to the system going from a school where he was one of the high fliers (remember a comprehensive takes anybody) to somewhere where "everyone is really bright". Bigger shock than the facilities. He found it enormously motivating, although at times highly demoralising. On the other hand, amazing experience to have working lab equipment, and allowed to do dissection and really build up lab skills. At the stage of A Levels, it wasn't so much the breadth of clubs (although he did love having a politics club, and got heavily involved in it - one of the issues at the comprehensive was that debating politics if you didn't necessarily agree with the dominant narrative - eg Brexit, wasn't really possible, and no doubt would have done extra curricular drama, were it not for covid. He had always loved, but not had an outlet at the comprehensive since Year 8,- when the drama teacher left), but the ones that were specifically focussed on STEM subjects especially has he had decided his ultimate goal was medicine.
At the comprehensive there often wasn't enough equipment for the large classes, and the school was so paranoid about health and safety and the fear of what a bunch of rowdy teenagers could do with lab equipment that the absolute bare minimum required by the boards was done, and absolutely nothing more.
The chance to participate in clubs after school/lunch time where one could do dissection, research etc was mind blowing.
Also having a gym (and other amazing sports opportunities) rather than the small patch of concrete at his comprehensive where the boys played football - being the only place to let of steam. The comprehensive was/is scarily overcrowded and there is barely enough room for them to move, certainly not exercise.

But in terms of Oxbridge and academics
Going to the private school was what put him off applying for Oxbridge.
At his comprehensive there had been a lot of encouragement for the high fliers to consider Oxbridge, with trips to Cambridge in Year 9 etc etc. Not saying there was much actual coaching or that anybody had much of a clue, but it was sort of pushed. At the private school, after seeing what the competition was like, he decided he was not going to try. He felt there were far better candidates, and he was very relieved he didn't put himself forward for this when he saw who Oxbridge rejected. He also decided that he wanted a more hands on medicine course, with patient contact as early as possible, and that wasn't Oxbridge.
The one Oxbridge reject that particularly horrified him was the boy who, according to my son, was doing at least university level research and who didn't even get an interview for Oxford. My son got a 9 in Chemistry at GCSE (at the Comprehensive), and an A* at A level (at the private school), but he felt he felt the difference in both knowledge and passion between himself and this boy was vast. On the other hand, the boy had had the opportunity of these amazing labs (compared with the comprehensive), but even so, my son was sure that there was no contest. Now this boy was the most extreme case, but my son felt he was not the only one. That pretty much all the boys put forward for Oxbridge were better candidates than pretty much anybody at his comprehensive and he couldn't dream of competing. He felt it was very clear that in order to get into Oxbridge from this prestigious private school, you needed to be significantly more able than you did from the comprehensive, and that even then,many who would have walked into an interview and offer if they had been one of the very few from the comprehensive who applied, were knocked back pre or post intervew. He also felt that the comprehensive school had very much seemed to suggest that Oxbridge was the pinnacle of university experience, whereas at the private school, my son started considering questions like, did he really want shorter, more intense terms, and an essay a week? No question the private school knew Oxbridge much better than the comprehensive. But some of the coaching was also a winnowing - is this really right for you? And he decided it wasn't.

On the other hand, maybe you can say that with the advantage of the private school, you don't really need Oxbridge, at least in a STEM subject. The boy doing the amazing lab work will be doing world class research in a couple of years so long as he goes to any university with even half decent research capabilities, of which there are dozens in the UK. Whereas someone from the comprehensive may need Oxbridge to bring out their talent (close mentoring of the tutor system). In addition, despite my son's 9 in all his sciences and maths for GCSE, and having managed to do well enough in the entrance exam in these subjects, he felt he was distinctly behind those in the private school in both Biology and Chemistry (less so in maths, but he had an inspirational teacher in maths at the comprehensive), and it took him all of year 12 to catch up and start getting As in his A level assessments. although luckily he had two years to get the A*s he wanted. He started off Year 12 close to bottom of the class in both of those subjects, which was a bit galling, although he was determined he wouldn't and didn't finish there.

Another factor that really struck us seeing the make-up of the school is that the UK, and particularly London, is a magnet these days for global talent. And while it is a gross over-generalisation, the sort of people who can get a visa to come here from all parts the world based on their skills are often exceedingly bright, and often have exceedingly bright offspring. And a significant number of the children who get into these highly selective private schools are these offspring.
The days when the make-up of these schools were the English upper classes is long gone. That is, there was a sense when discussing the other DC in the school was that it didn't just take the very bright from the UK, they were increasingly taking a significant number of the very bright from the world, albeit the world who are making a shedload of money and have moved to London to do it. And if they have been legally resident here long enough to put their DC through school, good chance won't be classed as international in terms of university application.
Sorry, maybe overlong.

A few thoughts from bimkom's post:

The boy who was rejected by Oxford pre interview - this happens to loads of people. And loads of people from private school get interviews and offers, so more likely to have been some weakness in his application or entrance test than just the school?

*it was very clear that in order to get into Oxbridge from this prestigious private school, you needed to be significantly more able than you did from the comprehensive,
*
I think it's more the case that DC from high performing schools have to demonstrate that they are better than people who are doing something more difficult - achieving the same grades, but without the extra support, small classes, nice facilities and resources, high expectations and like-minded peers. Sounds impossible, but lots of DC from high performing schools do manage this every year and secure their Oxbridge offer.

and that even then,many who would have walked into an interview and offer if they had been one of the very few from the comprehensive who applied, were knocked back pre or post intervew

Well this is the problem isn't it? Would they? Would they still have achieved as highly without all the advantages they have enjoyed at their private school? Would they even have been in a position to apply? Oxbridge doesn't know, so it's not really surprising if they prefer someone who has actually demonstrated that, over someone who has performed pretty much as expected given the school they attended.

someone from the comprehensive may need Oxbridge to bring out their talent

This suggests that Oxbridge students from comprehensive schools are somehow weak - hopefully the explanation above shows why that is not the case. In addition to the qualities they show during the application process, in general they go on to outperform their privately educated peers in their degrees, so it's no wonder that Oxbridge are so keen to identify and encourage them.

Bimkom if all these extraordinary young people at your DS's independent school are so indisputably far ahead of his comprehensive peers, why is it that pupils from these schools - by which I mean comps generally and top indies generally - don't divide into clearly distinct groups academically once at Oxford and Cambridge?

It sounds rather as though your DS's head was turned at his new swish school.

Cross post with Bovrilly's.

Of course children from very successful, international type families are likely - as a very broad brushstroke - to have higher than average ability and will be better educationally supported, regardless of what type of school they go to.

If a London day school takes the top 5% of these children, then hardly surprising that more will be applying to Oxbridge than would be from a comprehensive. And a child who feels "top" in a comprehensive relative to the cohort there, may find they would be average at best in a super-selective. Children in the bottom maths sets still get 9s, this kind of thing. This can affect perception.

@Bimkom do you think it was worth the financial outlay for your DS's sixth form experience? DS had a place at Westminster for sixth form and decided to stick with his grammar school. We were happy to support financially and left the decision up to him. He might have made a different decision had he not been in such a good state school though. The facilities weren't as good but the teaching was outstanding.

I don't think it would have made an ounce of difference to his medical school application had he taken up the Westminster place (his school was contextualised similarly) or indeed how he is coping now he is there. It is definitely not the case on his course that those with the higher examination rankings have all come from top independents.

@opoponax - My DC have been at a school very much like @Bimkom describes. I don't think it was the deciding factor in either DS1 or DD getting Oxford offers. But what it did deliver is a hugely stimulating and enjoyable education. The opportunities buries available to both of them gave them a rich educational experience. I think there is a tendency on MN to assume the reason why parents pay for these schools is the 'destination' but in truth it's the journey.

DS2 is still at school and astonishingly (to me) has made it to the national squad for his chosen sport. He took an opportunity at school to try it out (he tried out a lot of sports) and found his natural talent. That to me is probably the most valuable thing the school has delivered, entirely unexpected and never on our horizon.

I think there is a tendency on MN to assume the reason why parents pay for these schools is the 'destination' but in truth it's the journey

The truth in your case HoneyMobster. You probably can't reasonably generalise.

But I would echo your approach, in terms of not just secondary education but also Oxford. So many posters on MN obsess about Oxbridge in terms of employment prospects in competitive areas whereas I've always been delighted for my DC when they get Oxford offers for those years it affords them at a wonderful age in a fabulous place with for the most part fabulous teaching and bringing endless opportunities for making friends and having fun and exploring new things or improving on things that they already do. I've never really considered it as a stepping stone in any long term plan. But then I prefer to think short term and let the medium and long term pan out. It's altogether less tiring.

I just don't think that you're correct about all parents at the top indies. I think some/ plenty exhaust themselves with looking far into the future and planning their DCs' lives, along lines that they themselves see as successful.

@goodbyestranger - I don't think all parents at schools of top independents think like me. Many that I know do but not all of them. My point was that so often on these threads people generalise and presume that all parents are obsessed with Oxbridge. Some are of course but not all of us are.

I think, on this point, that it is interesting - anecdata alert - that the remote online interviews last year seemed to admit a slightly different range of people. Local comprehensive had a bumper year. Local privates (lots of Gothic architecture) not so much.

DD, as an even more personal example, was MUCH more comfortable in her own room, talking online to two people after a night in her own bed, than she would have been after a long journey to intimidating architecture and super-intimidating fellow interviewees. She got in.

That's interesting about the sport, Honey, is that something he could not have experienced elsewhere?

My DC are not at a private school but between them have tried a lot of sports outside of school. At various age groups, their comprehensive school has a world and European champion karate player (?), national champion gymnast and kids representing their country (not always uk) at rugby, football, hockey, sailing and basketball. DS is in Y13 and his friend has a full sports scholarship to a US university lined up. Several are in rugby and football club youth academies. those are just the ones I know about, but I don't think this kind of thing is unusual in the state sector. Not that it's not a good reason to go private but opportunities are around for everyone.

I don't want to go into detail @Bovrilly but it's a sport that fits into his school day really smoothly. It would be possible outside of school but I strongly suspect he wouldn't have stuck at it to the point where his ability really became apparent and he fell in love with it. Plenty of state school pupils do it, I just don't think DS2 would have found his way to it and 'clicked' if it hadn't been for his opportunities at school.

@HoneyMobster that's good to know but you also can get a hugely stimulating and enjoyable education outside the private sector. DC in state schools can also try a wide range of sports and also make national teams. I can vouch for that.

I know that @opoponax - I'm talking about DS2 and his experience. It's entirely possible he could have achieved what he has so daft from a state school but knowing him I think it would have been less likely.

@opoponax Yes, I do think it was worth the financial outlay, but mainly because DS so desperately wanted out. It might well have been that at a grammar he would have stayed, but while there were a handful of very bright DC there (a few of whom pulled some fantastic GCSEs out of a hat, while messing around in class the whole year), he felt like he was fighting the system to focus on academics and getting the grades he needed for medicine, oreven to be genuinely interested in the subjects being taught (except maths, the maths teacher was amazing, he had them eating out of his hand and completely focussed on maths - it was extraordinary) and he really was not convinced he could learn properly there for something more challenging that GCSEs - and if he did, he would have been such a loner. It was so exciting to be amongst peers who were also academic and interested in global issues and aware and who pushed one another along. At the comprehensive, while the maths teaching would presumably have continued to be outstanding, the rest would not have been, very mediocre, and the classes were not focussed or particularly interested in doing well. If you had taken those handful of very bright DC and put them in the private school where they were egged on and learnt from their peers, maybe they would have settled down and performed at a much higher level, but you needed to take them out of an environment that really didn't care as much for them to be a match for his private school peers. The point is that the peers are key, isn't that what they also say about Oxbridge, that suddenly people find themselves in an environment where everybody is bright, and spark off one another.
I will note, btw, that DD is still in the school, and is planning on taking her A levels there. But what is important to her is her friendship group, without whom she will not move. She is also not nearly as ambitious as DS (and probably not as able, although sometimes I am not sure). That is, being a girl, and a goody-goody girl, with goody-goody friends she does try, but trying means reading over textbooks and notes rather than making her own, as do her friends. The way DS approached things, as in, if this method did not get the results he wanted in terms of studying, he developed a different one, just is too much hassle and work. She doesn't want high flying peers to bounce ideas off or exposure to exciting ideas and is just not excited by academics. She feels comfortable in the comprehensive, and doesn't want to move, even though I suspect her A levels will not be great. That is her choice. I just console myself that if she does find her passion, at some later point, there are ways back in, and we will support her to do that.

That is a really interesting perspective @Bimkom. I can totally see where you are coming from and I suspect my DS would have been exactly the same as yours in the environment you describe. The bouncing off peers aspect is really important too. I agree that it is wise to take the lead of the individual DC on where they want to be too and I think with girls particularly the fit and happiness factors are so important, and the tightness and supportiveness of friendship groups can make or break the school experience.

I agree @HoneyMobster that it is all about the individual and finding the best environment for them to flourish in the widest sense of the word.

@Bimkom I recognise a lot of what you are saying about London super selective independent schools. My DNephew is at one and didn’t apply to Oxbridge for exactly the same reasons - by contrast my DS (at state comp) was practically forced to do so, even though he was not too keen to go (and quite rightly didn’t get in). If CAT scores (back from 11+ days) are anything to go by, my DNeph has far more potential than my DS!! I think because of the nature of the 11+ in London you get a few schools (Indy, comp and grammar) that suck up all the talent across London - their cohorts are not “normal” by any stretch of the imagination. Also if you look at the populations of the kids at the super selective Indy schools there are loads with hugely impressive parents who are world leaders in their respective industries - not the stereotypical “landed gentry” who inherited money (who tend to gravitate towards the big name boarding schools). While a gradual reduction in private school kids at Oxbridge across time can perhaps be expected as more excellent state candidates apply I DO think the high profile slashing of Oxbridge numbers at super selective independents smacks of culture war point scoring. We all cheer when Brampton Manor gets 60 kids into Oxbridge, and we all cheer when the London super selective Indy has their numbers halved over a 3 year period.

I have DC at various London super-selectives (girls and boys) and totally agree with HoneyMobster and other posters above - that people chose the schools as 'ends in themselves.' It's fiercely competitive to get in to these schools (possibly more so than Oxbridge at 11 plus). But the schools are there to be tried for so, locally, those who can will have a go. Nobody is thinking "Oxbridge" at 11 plus. Well, I guess some people may be, but nobody I've ever met in all these years. Most people are just delighted the kids actually got into the school and anything else is a bonus, frankly.

Also, once in the schools, there really is not a culture of "anything less than Oxbridge is a failure." Anyone who thinks this, really needs to go and spend some time in these schools - in 2022 - and they would soon discover this for themselves. The schools know they have very bright pupils who will do great anywhere, as long as they are happy. Also, it's a very international set in these schools and many parents are more familiar with the US admissions process. So this is top and forefront of their minds. There are lots of European families as well who will make applications to their relevant countries. This is the demographic - I don't know any families who are obsessed with Oxbridge. Nor any aristocratic types! The schools are very international and global in outlook. Also, in the end of year newsletters or whatever it may be, they never simply list the ones who got into Oxbridge. This does not happen. Nobody knows who even applied. They are just as likely (if not more so) to feature someone who has got into RADA, or the Royal Academy of Music or the many many other degree programmes elsewhere that they know full-well are more competitive than many courses at Oxbridge.

Also, what is happening at Oxbridge re- WP is also happening at the school level. 11 plus performance is contextualised, as is the entry process at 16 plus. Two of the schools mine are at have programmes where they go out and actively 'recruit' able pupils from disadvantaged primary schools (for 11 plus) and secondary schools (for entry to the sixth form). They run Saturday classes to prepare these students for the exams. At one school, 25% are on some form of bursary and it's rising. Once in the school, there is a policy that no child will miss out on any extra-curricular or trip because of ability to pay. There is a fund that covers everything - even trips to China or whatever it may be.

I just wanted to dispel this myth that these schools are full of kids whose parents have put them there because "Oxbridge." This could not be further from the truth - many parents are international and have no idea. Even the British ones don't really have much idea or start thinking about uni options until Year 12.

And I also agree 100% with the posters above about peers being the most important factor in terms of how DC perceive their academic ability.

My DS always perceived himself as very average at best at his super-selective. But, in his case, he was ok with being very average. He's quite laid back. They learn from an early age that no matter how clever you may think you are, there is always someone ahead of you! Put it this way, they are under no delusions of grandeur about their ability. My DS never had a prize in anything or recognition for anything from age 11 to when he left at 18. Always very middling. Yet, because he perceived his peers to all be 'cleverer' than him, he pushed himself that bit harder for his GCSEs as he didn't want to be "the only one to get a 7" (!). It was his peers - not me, or anything the school could have said or done - that made the difference in his case. He got ten grade 9s and nobody was more surprised than him! Then he started to believe that perhaps he was on a par with his friends and this coincided with him being able to focus on the subjects he was stronger in for A-level. This is when he started believing in himself and he achieved 4 A stars and got into Oxbridge. But only because the course he wanted happens to be offered there. But many of his peers who were the ones who inspired him, didn't even do UCAS and have gone to the US. Also, DS can see that some of the most able in his school didn't apply to Oxbridge at all; while others are elsewhere because they applied for courses that are more competitive and for which success is always going to be something of a lottery. But they are all at other fantastic unis and enjoying other benefits you don't get at Oxbridge such as placement years and years abroad studying at other unis. In fact, many of the most exceptional ones from his school are not at Oxbridge. When DS got into Oxbridge, no teacher said anything or made any more of it than if he's got into any other uni. That may have happened once, but not any more.

There used to be some wooden boards in the school that listed the Oxbridge scholars earlier in the schools history. I think these have been taken down. Also taken down are all the portraits of past head teachers because they realised they were all white males and not exactly representative of the majority in this London school!

@itsinmybag - do you think some of the brightest at Westminster are self selecting out of Oxbridge, because of the positive discrimination they might perceive against them?
To me that is the crux of the matter.
Your DS sounds wonderful and very humble and so do you. I am sure he is exceptional!

It's hard to say, Abuilding. I'm not sure it's such much a case of self-selecting out, but more a case of casting the net wider perhaps? So whereas they might have once done Oxbridge or Ivy League, now they might do both and see what comes up? A lot if these will have some US connection though. But it's very course-specific and very hard to generalise. US unis also seem to offer a lot of scholarships for all kinds of things which can also be relevant "pull factors." On the other hand, many families can't afford the US so that solves that dilemma! Thankyou for your kind words about DS. He knows he's really not 'exceptional' at all and nor does he need to be, but he knows he's been very privileged with his education and support from home and just wants to do justice to the opportunities he's had.

Thanks @itsinmybag - doing Ivy League and Oxbridge at the same as A Levels/Upper Sixth sounds exhausting to me. Such a student must be truly exceptional & energetic! The idea of studying for STEP and filling in US uni applications as well as all the extra curricular on offer at some of these top independent schools (I assume some intense extra curricular would be required for US uni) would send my own children running a mile off in the other direction… They are bright, but will do the bare minimum. I think local state grammar suits them very well indeed. So it is very helpful to get your perspective.

The reason I raised the question is because my brother lives abroad so I have done the public school tours with my nephews. On the Eton tour there was a lovely French/international boy doing 5 A-levels with a very critical mind, fully bilingual in 3 languages etc (he did not mince his words in respect of anything, not least his own school) - he told us he is not applying to Oxbridge because they don’t want them there so he won’t be wasting his time.
So I was just wondering whether this might be more widespread. I did also get the impression though that this student had exhausted what was on offer in an traditional English setting and had a thirst to explore yet another highly privileged world, eg. Harvard/Princeton. So I do also partly think that for some of these students Oxbridge is just not exciting/new etc enough - the facilities etc are not astounding to them after e.g. Eton. They have had so many amazing opportunities already (which includes not just the school trips but the international travel with parents) they are looking for the next thing, in a different context.

I can't really speak for the vibe at boarding schools because I have no experience of those at all but yes, we live in a rapidly globalising world, so I guess it's not that surprising that students in boarding schools who are already from international backgrounds and used to living away from home, might think like that. Sounds a little defeatist to say, "they don't want me," but the press don't help this type of attitude. I really couldn't comment on whether Oxbridge actively discriminates against students from Eton or not really. I mean, boarding schools are probably viewed as more 'elitist' than day schools anyway (fees considerably higher and they draw from a more narrow demographic). I would only hope every student is being looked at fairly - ie what opportunities have been available to them and how they have used these opportunities. But I don't think it's a perfect system and it's obvious that for every applicant Oxbridge turn down, there are multiple others who applied and would have equally thrived, if not don't better. There's nothing in it most if the time. The key is for nobody to be put off applying, but to be realistic that these are just two unis in the entire world and not the be all and end all. You can only throw your hat in and if it comes up, you've been lucky. If not, your luck will come elsewhere.