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)

But is it the course he most wants or the institution he wants, OP?

he wants to reject all his offers for this year including Ucl and reapply next year (for different subjects perhaps) and have another go at Cambridge

'So his statement will probably be natsci-oriented with a splash of engineering related work experience' - and this would be expected to convince engineering tutors at Cambridge compared with private and state school applicants demonstrating aptitude, achievement and with a passion for engineering?

Not Cambridge and not science, so it may well be different, but I know two young men who reapplied to Oxford. One got in on his second attempt (same subject). One got in on his third (different subject from first two applications).

Both were at selective independent schools and it's not that long ago.

If he is really keen on Cambridge, and UCL is only his third choice, I'd probably suggest he takes a chance and reapplies. Obviously he might not get in, but he'll have given it a good shot and it seems unlikely that he wouldn't get an offer from UCL again, especially if he gets the results he is predicted.

For balance, I also know a young man who didn't get into Cambridge and went to Manchester instead. He is now definitely in the ´best thing that ever happened' camp.

OP that post of mine was to the poster who said defer UCL and really and then said she knew you had to withdraw a deferred offer. Not to you!

Phone sorry *reapply (not really)

It’s up to him and he needs to make the final decision, but for what it counts I think he should just accept whatever offer he’s happiest with now. Chances are good he’ll be happy where he ends up, but on the flip side there’s the risk he spends the next year fixating on Cambridge, gets rejected again, and it just hits 100 times worth.

Two other things just to flag from your post:

Private schools are still massively over represented at Oxbridge. If a candidate gets the exact same scores as a private school candidate it’s likely they’re a more suitable candidate as they’ll have had to word harder to overcome barriers to achieve that score than a private school candidate.

Its also highly unlikely he’s going to get 80k of debt off the bat, are you thinking his maintenance loan will be high? He’ll be able to borrow about 4.5k maintenance (assuming you’re on a high income) and 9.25k tuition. Per year across 3 or 4 years this more like 42-56k. You’ll be expected to top up his loan to the max amount.

He needs to make an honest assessment of what might be different if he applied again - why would he expect a different outcome?

Lots of people do reapply to Oxbridge and get in on their second attempt, but just rolling the same dice again and hoping that luck favours you this time is a poor strategy, and often a waste of time.

There will be some people who can say that their application is significantly improved by having grades in hand because their academics were a weak point in their application. This doesn't appear to be the case with your DS.

There will be some people who can say, honestly, that they were completely overwhelmed in the unfamiliar interview setting and if they were to try again now knowing what to expect they are confident that they would perform significantly better. This might apply to your DS, but given that he did well enough to get pooled, perhaps not.

There will be some people who can say that uncertainties around what they wanted to study and why, or a lack of understanding of the process, essentially a lack of preparedness in some way, means that they did not give a good account of why they would be a good student to study the subject they applied for. More time has allowed them to give this far greater thought, they have done a, b and c to further develop their thinking (and also plan to do x, y and z in their gap year) and now they are properly prepared and think they are in a much better position to demonstrate what Cambridge were looking for. It is unclear how much your DS has done this or would do it.

All these are good reasons to try again if you really want to. Feeling annoyed that Cambridge has failed to recognise your brilliance, and that this must be some kind of unfair error on their part or bad luck on your part that you can rectify by just telling them again, isn't.

Reapply.

I did, albeit 20 years ago.

People deny it, but Oxbridge have a cache both here and abroad, that other universities just don't have. You can wang on about ratings tables and student satisfaction until the cows come home, but the truth remains.

Much better otherwise to accept current offer and plan for a postgrad at Cambridge.

Or somewhere better 😉

UCL's natsci course has a great reputation, and there are STEM post-grads at certain London university schools which are higher rated than the equivalent courses at Cambridge – I know because DD2 has just done one of these.

But honestly, his academic preferences do sound uncertain. What it sounds like he knows he wants is Cambridge. And what Cambridge wants is students who land there as a consequence of their extraordinary ability in and commitment to their subject.

Having done a long stint as Admissions tutor in a STEM School just below the COWI group I have interviewed any number of these students. For the most part I am highly sympathetic to those who would probably succeed at Oxbridge, and it sound like your DS is in this group. The reasons pooled applicants are rejected vary and some are better than others

But aside from the logistical difficulties and the very real risks, I think that to reapply without an absolutely compelling gap year and AAAA or a very good gap year plan and four As will be seen as chasing Cambridge and fail. This is aside from the life lesson that maybe obsessing over Cambridge isn’t as healthy as playing the hand you are dealt. None of this is to deny that I feel for the guy.

Your post at 12.11 says you aren’t sure how to respond to DS’s idea that you should pursue the course you most want. One might conjecture that a lack of conviction on this point is part of the problem. Cambridge admissions tutors are looking for a depth of intellectual commitment

Sorry about the formatting of A level grades. Should have said three A stars and an A in the first instance or four A stars in the second

But his own view (I think) is that if he is going to rack a debt of £80k and an interest rate on it at 12% in the current climate, better try for the course you most want and not 'settle'. I dont know how to respond to that one.

He should be aware then that if he starts next year his loan will be paid back over 40 years. If he starts this year it finished after 30. (Interest rates capped from next Easter btw.)

What would he plan to do for his other options in the NatSci course alongside Physics, if he doesn't want Chemistry? He can't take engineering as a subject. Materials Science and/or Earth Science? (Maths goes without saying; assuming they still insist on 'proper maths, evil maths and maths for dummies biologists', as they did years ago, though I may not have remembered the correct names.)

If he really wants an engineering bias, is that really the best place for it?

I didn't know that. So loan repayment-wise better start next year?

If there are two candidates with same scores on paper and interview well, the preference is for the state school/grammar school candidate.

This is not favouring the state school student, it's simply recognising that they are likely a stronger applicant, because in general it's more difficult to achieve those scores from a state school.

So if state school students are getting offers ahead of your DS, it's because Cambridge think that based on all the evidence they are better applicants, not because he goes to an indie.

Is it a case that he likes all the courses equally, or that hes not keen on any of them particularly? Putting aside the whole reapplication side of things, he should really consider the course first, then university. If he did end up at Cambridge but ended up doing a course he didn't enjoy he would be miserable. It is so intense, the pressure and workload is really high, even for the brightest. He would have a horrid time if he wasn't enjoying it.

Oxbridge don't favour state school applicants. Their student population is still dominated by the private schools. What they do is make some positive allowances for state school pupils - e.g. understand they might not be as well prepared for interview/debate etc as someone who may have been schooled for that. They look for potential and make allowances for background. They also look for passion about the subject - someone who won't drop out or shy away from the slog of study. Finally, I think they look for kids they will get on with. In the tutorial system you spend a good few hours hanging out with your tutor so they need to like/be able to relate to you. My tutor at Oxford admitted they rarely looked at evidence of extra curricular activities etc - it was your passion for the subject they wanted. (Was 20 years ago mind 😂)

No, outstanding loan wiped out after 30 years if he starts this year. Only wiped out after 40 (having had more time to earn more and pay more back) if he starts next.

Yes, he can take earth sciences or geophysics. But in his first year he will do chemistry as well. He likes physics/maths more than chemistry but does not dislike chemistry. According to DC, UCL does not have a natsci department and students do courses from various departments such as physics, chemistry. Sometimes this does not align nicely, and you need to take 15 credit options as 'fillers'. Like a stand-alone elective option. This maybe seen as a positive or a negative. Also something about a 15 or 30 credit scientific communication module that to him wasn't too exciting.

@catsnore spot on. I wouldn't like to assert that as favouring the state sector in an interview without being able to justify the massive advantages instrinsic to the private sector and why I'd chosen to focus on that as 'favouring the state sector'.

IME when people talk about the wonderful candidates from the private sector who didn't get a place and this is clearly unfair, they can't conceive that equally strong state sector candidates may also not have been offered a place.

What you say is correct if the state school applicant was from a poorly performing school/area. But if the state school was a grammar school or a better performing one, this is not always the case. For example, DC was the only boy from his primary school who went to an Indie. The rest went to two local comprehensives that are excellent. The Oxbridge candidates from these state schools are a select pool, majority of whose parents are qualified professionals. The state school used many techniques such as streaming, extra clubs, to coach and prepare the kids for Oxbridge entry. In bigger cities, many I know whose kids go to state schools send kids to private tuition classes and send them to oxbridge interview preparation classes. The bottom line is that the state-private divide among those make it to an Oxbridge interview is narrowing, in terms of being coached and being prepared. If you make it to an interview, you are probably a very capable student.

Best ignore the average funding per pupil difference and the resulting class size difference and the facilities that accrue from decades of those differences and the relative ability to exit difficult pupils and relative under-achievers or all the other reasons.

Actually you've convinced me. No parent selects a private school because of attainment, resourcing, class sizes, facilities, ability to exit poorly behaved pupils and all the other reasons that the schools publicise and parents ask about on boards to help make their decision that a reasonable person might link to attainment. It must just be altruistically to relieve pressure on the state sector and the agonising about which private school to choose must be for entertainment. All of those points of difference and more must not feed through to attainment hence all pupils must be treated the same for one event in their education, the Oxbridge interview.

I'm not against private education but am mildly sceptical at the contortions some acquaintances have gone through to argue their private educated children aren't relatively advantaged and that everyone should agree any allowances made for some of the state sector by tutors are clearly unfair. I guess I'm even more stupid than I thought I was. All those £1000s or £10,000s per pupil per year contributed to the school must be spent on things that have no relation to attainment at all. Gardens, perhaps? Charitable donations? It's a shame as if the school reduced the fees by that wasted amount, it might reduce the pressure on any parents feeling the pinch.

I didn't know that. So loan repayment-wise better start next year?

No! Better to start this year.