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)

I’ll repeat that your DS has my sympathies, because the final selection of successful applicants from pooled candidates is inevitably imperfect and excludes many who could succeed. But to hold one’s lack of enthusiasm for ‘a 15 or 30 credit module about science communication’ against UCL merely reinforces the obsession with Cambridge rather than the subject.

@OhYouBadBadKitten is right: to be at C without an abiding love for one’s discipline is miserable, because of the workload. Your DS should be aware that the trend is moving slowly towards suppressing one’s alma mater on applications for employment, but degree classification matters more than ever. A real risk of being a low priority admission to Cambridge is finding yourself struggling to keep up and ending up with a 2.2 or worse, which will not make it past HR screening these days.

But students can actually become smarter during their UG years if they are in the right place intellectually - usually this means they are being challenged but thriving. We see it all the time. Might UCL be better on these grounds?

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.

But a student's performance is looked at in the context of their school, so students from high performing grammar schools are in a similar position to those from indies. High performing students from low performing schools are "favoured", if you want to call it that, because it's acknowledged that they have achieved something more difficult. They have reached the same standard as someone from an indie, but they have done it without the support, small classes, extra resources, nice facilities, lack of disruption, high expectations etc etc etc

@Bovrilly spot on. The last time it was discussed, I was told no allowance was made for selective grammars that are, in substance, private schools in resources, selection and such like. Some allowance is made for strong candidates from set ups of the type you describe. It's partly why I find the assertions of unfairness mildly irritating. IME there is a n unsuccessful state-educated counterpart as good as each private school-educated 'strong candidate' who must have been discriminated against unfairly. Usually the complainants have little insight into the cohort of applicants to provide any substance to their assertions.

FWIW I know quite a few people who reapplied and were successful second time.

I really feel this has to be your DS's call. I do think the range of subjects and the effect on his personal statement is a problem- frankly, I don't see how he's going to get into Imperial for engineering with a nat sci statement, even with his great academics. Universities can spot a mile off where a statement has been worded to try to cover different courses and it's a problem, as passion for the subject is perhaps the number one thing they're looking for. So either he focuses entirely on nat sci (in which case he won't get the other places) or he writes an unfocused and general statement (in which case he might not get anything). He really needs to reconsider this.

However, that's not a reason not to reapply to Cambridge, only a reason to think a bit more about the other courses he's applying for. What has the school said?

Re state v private- Cambridge rightly takes into account the opportunities a kid has had, as it's obviously easier to get great grades if you've had small classes and top facilities etc etc. But many, many privately educated students are still getting places- I wouldn't let this put you off reapplying, just make sure that he has a good plan B as Cambridge isn't guaranteed and never has been.

He should be predicted at least one A to get an offer from Cambridge. That is most likely why he didn't get one. To reapply, he needs to make sure he gets at least 1 A at A-Level AND put in a substantially stronger application - he needs to do more activities, reading, competitions, etc. He needs to be productive over the summer.

If he can do that, he could reapply. Natsci is highly competitive though. I've been mentoring Oxbridge applications for 4 years (state and private) and I've not personally encountered a Cambridge offer without an A* predicted except in one case of highly adverse circumstances (privately educated).

Apologies - predicted at least one A-star. Stupid formatting.

Wait for his A level results. Don't worry about this now, he should just focus on his exams and try to do as well as he can.

If he gets great grades, try again!

I see OP had similar formatting issues and he was predicted 4 A-stars. In that case it is going to be down to performance in interview, or they don't trust his predicteds - perhaps interview performance didn't match, or the school has a reputation for inflating predicted grades. A big part of it is also whether the tutor wants to actually sit opposite a table from you for 3 or 4 years - it could be as simple as something seeming too arrogant or too uninspired.

See what the results are. Spend the summer improving the application - more for the personal statement, get him talking about the subject fluently and coherently, get him tutoring friends and family. He's got a good clutch of offers, and Imperial is better than Cambridge for some sciences anyway.

Advice to friends’ stem children was strongly not to mix natsci and engineering , at least where imperial is concerned. Two duly ignored the advice and got offers for C natsci but were rejected early for imperial engineering. They really don’t like being a back up to C natsci. For these children it worked out ok - they got Cambridge, but it easily have gone otherwise.

FWIW.

so I am firmly with the decide what he want to read gang

selective grammars that are, in substance, private schools in resources [etc]

Absolutely wrong in terms of resources. Completely and utterly wrong. Grammars achieve whatever it is that each one achieves on a small fraction of the resources of the independents.

My own DC went to a grammar and I've been absolutely consistent for years in saying that contextualisation is absolutely fair in terms of Oxbridge admissions. If I've never had a gripe about contextualisation then goodness knows why so many independent school parents on these threads in recent years seems shirty about it and determined to do down state school students who get an offer. Perhaps it's as simple as they've paid fees. Or perhaps they really don't understand just how different trying to provide a decent education on a shoestring really is, and how much impact desperately stretched resources inevitably has on teaching and learning and by extension outcomes.

The suggestion in the OP that your son has somehow been or will be disadvantaged by his no doubt ludicrously expensive Education that you chose for him is quite distasteful OP.

Bottom line is, he doesn’t really know what he wants to study and it seems like his main concern is going to Cambridge. That’s not going to do him any favours. Reapplying is a gamble. How would he feel if he doesn’t get it next year and also doesn’t get an offer he’s as happy with as UCL? That’s the risk he’s running. Fwiw there were a couple of people in my year at Cambridge who had reapplied, but in arts subjects where an extra year of reading was beneficial. In maths and natsci as far as I know gap years are positively discouraged.

Re-apply C if your DC insists. I will always support my DC decision.

Hi OP, I'm a Cambridge grad but English Lit and 2 decades ago, so not hugely relevant to your DC's situation :)
However, what I do want to throw in is whether your DC is aware about the enormous difference in experience they'll have at different Unis? Regardless of subject (to an extent) and regardless of any Oxbridge fetishisation in the wider world, it's just a massively different thing going to UCL and being in the midst of a capital city and being part of a huge population... vs being in sleepy Cambridge with barely anything going on outside of term-time because the University completely defines the town...?
I was completely blown away by the romance and history and charm and loved every minute of it, but I also had friends who dropped out, citing the 'provincial dullness', and went to London Unis instead.
Finding a place you will thrive is more important than anything else, IMO. Perhaps doing a couple more campus visits might help DC to decide where they feel more at home?
Best of luck. (Also FWIW I'm a grammar school girl and no, I don't think I was given an advantage over the Oxford High contingent - I was just clever than them, and far more personable! :) )

I don't think it's the private school that's the problem. I think it's more like lack of dedication shown to his chosen field of study, as evidence by applying for different courses.

My son (state grammar) has the same predicted grades as yours (3A*) and a similar catalogue of achievements. He did the better in the ENGAA than his schoolmates who got offers. He thought the interview went OK. His tutor complimented his personal statement but it fell a bit between 2 stools as he applied for General engineering and Aerospace engineering. He also didn't have much in the way of work experience.

We've given it some thought and we've come to the conclusion that the Cambridge admissions tutors have a tough job trying to differentiate between thousands of exceptional and excellent students. And given the choice of a student who has lived, breathed and loved their subject for years and one who can't even commit to a single course on their UCAS form, they are going to give the place to the former.

I also think they like students of a particularly diligent & studious personality type whereas my son is more in the streaks of genius tempered by occasional flakiness.

Such helicoptering.

Let's hope he develops some social skills along the way if you ever let him

I also think they like students of a particularly diligent & studious personality type

On what evidence?

I was thinking this.
Literally trying for the name of the Uni rather than wanting to peruse a career in the subject. What happens when Uni ends? What do they see themselves doing?

Grammars achieve whatever it is that each one achieves on a small fraction of the resources of the independents.

I would certainly agree with this @goodbyestranger. And secondary moderns have a fraction of the resources of grammar schools, where I live at any rate. Having had DS at a grammar and DD2 at a secondary modern at the same time, I saw at first hand the vast differences in nearly every aspect of education, in both the narrow and wide senses of that term.

Was it harder for DD2 to get good grades than DS? Absolutely, 100% yes, without a shadow of a doubt. I would say par, at A level, was probably 1 grade lower in each subject, possibly more. If that what contextual offers are attempting to address, then they have my backing.

Why would non grammars have fewer resources than grammars? That's incredibly unusual. Generally speaking across the country grammars have less to spend per pupil than non selective schools in their area.

Cambridge favours state school applicants and DC goes to selective private school.

Just out of interest, do you regret wasting your money now? You could have saved your cash, your DS might not have had the burden of grade 9s and A*s and he might even have got offer for a degree course at Cambridge that he isn't really convinced he wishes to study.

would it be viewed differently if he applied for engineering at Cambridge next time round? his preferences are so volatile.

From what you've said, the difference might well be that he wouldn't get as far as being pooled. Cambridge engineering has a higher applicant to offer ratio than NatSci and the same sort of very high grade requirements. Volatile preferences and an unfocused PS wouldn't be a plus. And he doesn't like the Cambridge engineering course so why the heck would he apply for it?

Cambridge does not favour state school pupils. Quite the opposite.

30% of Cambridge places are taken by private school students yet only 7% of children go to private schools - meaning private school pupils are over four times as likely to be given a Cambridge place than state school students. If a student with multiple A* A levels (from any school) isn't offered a place they will have missed the mark at application and interview stage.

There are brilliant students at all schools and your DS's failure to get into Cambridge with phenomenal grades is echoed among pupils in state schools too. It is diminishing and incorrect to suggest state pupils don't deserve their places when they are offered.

You will never know how well your DS would have performed had he not been to a fee paying school but I'm sure the advantages of his education will continue to serve him well.

I applied to Cambridge many moons ago and was pooled then rejected.

I didn't enjoy the rejection and being the first in my family to go to uni perhaps was hasty in the choice of other uni to study physics. London universities sound fantastic if there is the means to financially support children (bit far from my native NE).

With the wonderful benefit of hindsight I think thinking about careers even at this stage is as important as university choice, it is after all a path not a destination. Your son is obviously very talented and A levels and degree classification will always be apparent on job applications....thought just needs to be given to where he thinks he will be in 10 years time.

society is starting to recognise that the brightest and the best not necessarily end up at Oxbridge simply because of the competition.

I think being a nerdy physicist I would have perhaps loved to go MIT or Caltech but alas money and distance....

Oh it was NatSci

Oh you're right in terms of government spend, of course. Comprehensives on average receive about £700 more per pupil than grammar schools. I really meant in terms of additional resources – for example fund-raising is of a totally different order; where I live wealthy parents are so relieved not to have to pay school fees if their DCs get into grammar schools that they willingly hand over large donations, some on a regular basis. Building a new sixth form centre or sports hall typically takes in months what will take the secondary modern several years.

And then there's teaching resources. Because the secondary modern has to cater for more vocational subjects and therefore a wider range of qualifications it has fewer teachers for the core subjects. If DS's chemistry teacher was absent, another chemistry teacher was assigned to the class; if DD2's chemistry teacher was absent the class got whoever was available to babysit and the pupils had to manage on their own. When it got to A level, not all subjects were taught by teachers with a degree in their subject, some were more 'keen amateurs'; the grammar school would never have got away with that.

Those are just a couple of random examples, I could supply many more, but I'm sure you get the gist.