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)

@Abuildingwith4wallsandtmrinsid - our school advise against a US and Oxbridge application. It's just too much for a student to cope with. So those who are aiming for the US do de-select.

I think that's the best approach - there are still lots of students from "elite" schools getting places at Oxbridge, but there have always been too many good candidates for the places available and it's worse these days because more people are applying than ever. The odds are against you wherever you study.

In that case my own DC de-selected the Ivies.

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

There's a wonderful synergy in that case, since Oxford and Cambridge appear to think that these students aren't intellectually exciting enough for them either.

I'd disagree @goodbyestranger. The students I know who are getting accepted at the Ivies are some of the strongest candidates I know. If they applied I suspect they'd have a good chance at Oxbridge.

@goodbyestranger - as you know, I was referring to the type of child who is getting into Harvard.

So are you claiming that it is easier to get into Harvard than Oxbridge and where are your sources? Are you claiming Oxbridge is intellectually superior to Harvard? In which fields specifically, which subjects etc…

Some rich kids at private schools are incredibly bright, motivated and dedicated, just as many children from properly disadvantaged backgrounds are. What is so hard to understand about that? What is so hard to understand that many are now choosing Ivy League over Oxbridge? Crux of the matter being whether Oxbridge even cares as they recruit plenty of privileged other international students who pay the extra dosh into the uni coffers.

I think they do care because their bursary type info often alludes to the fact that to be competitive with Harvard etc they need to become more needs blind. They actually mention the competition of elite US universities. If they can’t offer needs blind funding, then they are forced to care slightly about those that can afford to actually attend university in the UK, whilst have to come across as if they don’t. Their funding, donations, politics and social face must be a nightmare to balance.

If a family earns under £50k, it can work out cheaper to go across the pond to a uni with vast funding pots that offer a near full ride ( assuming of course your child can get in… ) instead of the current 60k student debt then hanging attend your neck.

"There's a wonderful synergy in that case, since Oxford and Cambridge appear to think that these students aren't intellectually exciting enough for them either."

Hmm, that's a bit snarky, if I may say so.

Its not as if there's a cut-off point for "intellectually exciting." There will be students in just about any uni anywhere who will be more "intellectually exciting" than most of them at Oxbridge.

Just as the top schools hardly have a monopoly on the most academic, well, nor does Oxbridge. It's exactly the same thing, just a few years down the line.

Of course there will be super "intellectually- exciting" DC in all comprehensives and just about any school in the world - as many as exist in the general population. But that doesn't mean students at Westminster etc are any less "intellectually exciting." It's just a process of selection leading to a greater concentration of very able students in certain schools and they work bloody hard to get in there in the first place. Nothing is a certainty in terms of admission - just like Oxbridge. In fact, in terms of numbers, competition can be more intense to get into top schools than it is to top universities (relative to age of course).

And yes, I can think of quite a few who have gone to MIT or Harvard having also been offered Oxbridge.

Some seem to like the idea of a broader first two years and then "majoring."

I have no experience of US applications personally, but it definitely looks like a totally different and very exhausting process, based on what I've seen with DC friends. The way the personal statement is written is totally different and it seems like every uni has its own requirements for this. Sometimes it's a random essay question, so they may have to write about five essays for as many applications. They also have to tick far more boxes - eg. a sport at a high level; involvement in charity / community work; evidence of leadership; etc etc - many "broader" qualities that Oxbridge don't really care about. Not to mention SATs and ACTs. People start planning for US applications much earlier because you can't suddenly produce all that extra-curricular 'evidence' last minute. They've often been at it for many years, building up a kind of 'portfolio.' It's like you have to sell yourself as an 'all round' product they want.

The way I see it, if you are talented in a sport to the extent you do it at a national level, such as HoneyMobster's DC, why not use that to your advantage if given the opportunity? Some DC are just like that and want a broader experience. DC friends at US unis get points that go towards their final grades from their extra-curricular involvement. It's not optional there.

Also, apparently hardly anyone pays full fees as there are so many scholarships for all kinds of things that just don't exist over here. People that would never in a million years qualify for financial assistance here, are getting bursaries because they meet some diversity criteria or something else they never realised they were eligible for. Rowing seems to be a big one - people get full ride scholarships when they weren't even in the A team for rowing. Also "soccer" players are another fave and I know two girl "soccer players" who were offered scholarships for this and went because women's soccer is a bigger deal over there. So many factors.

Some seem to like the idea of a broader first two years and then "majoring."

You can do that at the Scottish Ancients too.

Some of my DCs' closest friends have gone to top Ivies and a cousin went to Stanford recently. Actually knowing real young people who attend these places isn't exclusively the preserve of parents at expensive London indies! That might astonish the well off London crowd. Even country bumpkins get to Ivies, sometimes!

(That said, Stanford cousin is super clever as were the friends who went to Princeton etc. Would have cruised into Oxbridge on fourth gear).

I don't think Harvard, Princeton and Stanford calibre kids are the issue. What seems to be happening (and I'm sure you'll be very quick to correct me if this is wrong, or you don't like it said), is that those Etonians etc. who are middling enough to be nervous of a place at Oxbridge in the harsh new world where merit actually counts, are giving it a swerve and applying to much smaller US names than those mentioned above (MIT etc too etc I know). Getting into a second or even third tier US college has more cachet for parents who have forked out tens of thousands a year for their DC's school than a uni in the north or west of the UK. Honour satisfied. Investment arguably less so.

they work bloody hard to get in there in the first place

No kid aged ten should need to 'work bloody hard' to pass the 11 plus for any superselective in either sector. There's something very wrong if that's required. I mean, it just isn't required.

Well some may be doing that, but equally others will be applying to the US for other reasons only known to them. It's easy to speculate, but who can tell, unless you've been in and conducted a survey. Why does this matter anyway? Eton is just one school. I'm sure most of them will manage in life.

@goodbyestranger - do you know where the Eton students are going in the US? They don't publish destinations.

Kids do work hard for the 11 plus for the top schools as there will be 10 or maybe 15 applicants for every place. Forget 11 plus - you should see what goes on for the 7 or 8 plus! It's possibly even worse for the super-selective grammars where parents are even more likely to shell out thousands from Year 4 onwards for "secret" tutors which claim to have good success rates of "getting them in." Hours and hours of pointless VR / NVR for somewhere like Latymer in North London or Tiffin in Kingston. I agree it shouldn't happen and all the schools are constantly banging in about how they have now managed to "tutor proof" their exams and, just like Oxbridge, claim their tests and interviews can weed out the 'real talent.' But they probably get it wrong as often as they get it right and this is the nature of it when there's limited places and huge numbers of applicants.

HoneyMobster yes, weirdly I know a lot of people with kids at Eton, or who are recent enough alumni to know this stuff.

I think if you look at my post I said Etonians etc.

Bit strange as that doesn't match what I've been told @goodbyestranger - difficult to know what's true.

That’s not really favoring state school candidates, it is recognizing that the state school candidate is nearly certainly the better one. For candidates of equal ability they aim to give equal probability of entry.

I strongly disagree about the need to work hard for the 11+. Parents are flawed if they pressure a ten year old to work hard. It will make remarkably little difference.

Well I think most people would disagree with it goodbyestranger, but that doesn't mean it's not rife.

If you go in the 11 plus threads it's exactly the same type of debate as on here, just seven years earlier. Are the prep school children being discriminated against? What are the schools really looking for? Are people using tutors? Where are the mysterious secret tutors? Will the DC have to go to a - horror! - lower tier school??! Will we also have to apply for boarding in case they don't get into a day school? It goes on and on, year after year. Parents may be flawed but so is the system. Even the brightest six or ten year old at least needs to know how to approach an exam - whether it be writing a short story in 30 minutes, or VR or whatever. Same with interviews. Not ideal, but this is how it is and they have to select somehow. Odds are such that kids are applying to anything between five and ten schools at aged 10. It can feel more competitive than UCAS, to be honest.

If, at the end of a private education, they have not made the grade for Cambridge, then that probably suggests that they aren’t at the right level.

There’s no reason to assume that they will do better if the reapply after a year out of school, during which time their knowledge will fade.

A gap year before university does not look great on a CV to potential employers, who’ll want to understand why it was there.

Yes, it’s hard to not make it to your first choice, but I think it’s better to move on. They can do a masters or a doctorate there if they choose afterwards.

They can do a masters or a doctorate there if they choose afterwards

If they get accepted. Not a foregone conclusion.

The US university system is fundamentally different from the English one. Whether it's better or not is a subjective judgment, but I think we can all agree it is different.

In the most general terms, it is broader but not as in depth. And this breadth is further reflected in the importance of extra-curricular activities, which can even affect your grade score. Compare that to an admissions tutor at a 'top' university in England who told me he 'couldn't give a toss what students do in their spare time'.

Some students might prefer / be more suited to a US-style approach of taking lots of courses for the first 2 years before specialising; others won't like the fact that a lot of the first 2 years will seem quite superficial compared to the English system. That there is a demand for more US-style education isn't in doubt – several universities in England now offer something similar to the US Liberal Arts programme, and one could argue that Natural Sciences is not that different in that you can take your time to decide which area to specialise in.

The disadvantage for English students – if they are intending to return to England to work, at least – can be that they won't know as much about their main subject as their English university-educated peers who they are competing with for jobs.

This might be true in parts of London, but London is not the whole country. I work in a grammar school which achieves excellent results. There are around 3.5 - 4 applicants for each place. How do I know this for a fact? I volunteer to supervise the 11+ and have done for the last 14 years. I know our PAN and how many y6 children are scheduled to be accommodated. I can do the maths.

Regarding comparing Oxbridge and the Ivies, when my DD was in y12 she did some work experience in a different part of the UK. The people she was shadowing in the lab asked her about where she was planning to study. At the time, she was dithering between MIT/Stanford and Cambridge. The people there advised her that UK first degrees went into greater depth and were more highly regarded than US ones. If she was keen on US study, she should do a PhD there or post-doc research.

Just realised that @thing47 has stated the same thing!