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)

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.

For an 18-year-old who hasn't even touched Engineering, NatSci, Medicine or CS,
how can he/she commit to a single course? OP's DC had 4 a-level which can end with any course of Maths, NatSci, Engineering, CS and Medicine etc.

One of my friends asked C about the admission process 10 years ago about how they differentiate the applicants? The answer he got is " for the around 20-30%, whoever interviews will give the offer. For the other 70%, the different tutors will do differently. And choosing a totally different 70% will not affect the qualities." Seems that It is a bit of a lottery. The admission process will disadvantage a group, whether it is Grammar, Independent or State depending on the policy.

but Oxbridge have a cache both here and abroad

100% agree HOWEVER whilst it's a door opener it doesn't guarantee success later in a career. I know of 2 Cambridge grads who stepped off careers late 20s s felt they had been pushed rather than self motivated.

Also lots of companies are now interviewing Uni blind so playing field gas been leveled.

Op, what's his thoughts on careers once qualified?

I wasn't trying to compare grammars with independents, rather campare a candidate from a grammar with a candidate from a failing non-selective state school with no history nor support for Oxbridge applicants. The grammar may have less per pupil financial resources than independents and in some cases less than some state non-selectives but the overall environment is not comparable with a failing non-selective state which is why in the context of making such allowances, allowances may be based on the nature of the state school. In that context, grammars will be brigaded with independents with respect to allowances. The benefit of selection and historical endowments of infrastructure and resources are much more than just current per pupil income. That said, I could be wrong.

Also, I'm not an Admissions Tutor, just speak with one regularly.

I didn't have any help Zilla I suppose my DC did far less out of school activities than other MN DC would think appropriate! Problem solved!

I can only speak for my eight since a few did have more than one subject they really enjoyed and were good at, but got offers anyway.

I suppose, the counter-factual might be simplistically if there's no advantage in going to a selective grammar (and in effect allowances should be made for their applicants too compared with pupils at independents) then I wonder why there seems to be such competition for places in the parts of the country that still have them and they seem to make such store over their Oxbridge success rate?

And I'm astonished often by how many things their friends can do. There just seem to be a lot of young people at Oxford and Cambridge who are just good at lots of stuff, and don't have tunnel vision.

And I find your attitude distasteful. The original post was not saying anything about unfairness or unfortunateness or about which child is more worthy of a university place. It is now a well known fact that Oxbridge will actively continue to reduce intake from private schools. The Cambridge VC said so himself a few days ago. www.varsity.co.uk/news/23651. The target for the amount of private school entrants is 24%. And as long there are targets, admissions tutors and colleges have pressure to reach the target.

Whether this is fair or unfair or just or unjust was not the concern of my post. Nor was it to seek validation for my decision to accept a private school bursary for DC.

I would say that there's a very clear advantage in attending a super selective grammar (providing the leadership is good), but it definitely doesn't lie in spend per pupil.

Which is exactly why they should have points docked at Oxbridge admissions compared to non selective state schools.

OP bear in mind that grade boundaries will be tougher next year so even if he gets his 4 x A stars, there will be people matching that next year and they may be seen as stronger because A stars will be harder to get in 2023. There seem to be lots of reasons to just go to UCL this year imo.

The original post was not saying anything about unfairness or unfortunateness

You literally said "unfortunately that's not correct", about three posts in, when someone challenged your assertion that Cambridge favours state school students.
Pardon me for inferring unfortunateness from your use of the word unfortunately.

Unfortunately @Mollymalone225 you don’t get to police the replies to stuff you post on a public forum. And you may not like my views, but you haven’t explained why they are distasteful, unless of course you disagree with the approach Cambridge has taken?

In my original post I responded to the question with my advice on your son’s situation, but instead of engaging with that you responded defensively with a bit of a comprehension fail. Your son’s bursary is irrelevant; no one was asking you to justify it.

The fact is, he didn’t get a place this time. Lots of able students don’t. If he reapplies and doesn’t get a place next time it will be because they preferred other candidates. You can’t change his schooling any more than you can change his natural ability so there’s no point bringing it up here. Reapplying is a big gamble and if he’s primarily doing it because of the institution rather than the course that would be a mistake IMO.

Good for you and I'm not advocating specialisation nor tunnel vision, just looking for analogies to explain to the OP the risks of falling between two stools. Another way would be to compare medicine and biological sciences, rather than physics and engineering. The overlap is huge and Cambridge Part I used to share subjects like physiology and biochemistry but an UCAS application that mixed medicine and biology might struggle when compared with other applicants who want to be doctors, have worked in hospitals or surgeries or pat labs or volunteered in care homes (and who are equally strong which is the dimension many [not you] often forget. They understandably focus on their DC and can't conceive that there may be hundreds or thousands of candidates equally strong or stronger but different) and 'blagging at interview' as a PP mentioned might be a risk. The analogy can easily break down with 'but medicine is a vocation and so on'.

Some Scholars were Blues or thespians though equally some were monomaniacal about their subject.

Good luck with your childrens' trajectories.

Good luck with your childrens' trajectories

I don't think either they or I see them as having trajectories Zilla1, we're pretty relaxed. I mean, I'd rather they didn't go to prison if at all possible but that's about it. Thanks anyway, despite the lack of sincerity :)

I would add that I used the term 'blagging' lightly. The issue isn't in being very able at more than one subject, the only issue is making a decision prior to application. Then compose your application accordingly. It's not hard.

The idea that if you are focussed on one subject you can devote more time to it and thereby glean an advantage is flawed in a lot of respects. More time yes, obviously, but glean an advantage? Questionable.

No insincerity.

If of interest, I only used trajectories as with several children they may be at different life/education/career stages.

Looking wider, I suppose there may be advantages to the US system where specialisation happens later at university. Similarly, the Bac in Europe forces more generalisation in secondary school. I'd have hated it as I specialised at 16 then 18 to drop the subjects I didn't want to study though have more interest in now.

Hi OP. unfortunately gap years are not usually favoured for Maths, engineering or sciences - UNLESS there is something he can do that would make him more equipped to 'hit the ground running' when he got to C.

Also, he really needs to decide on a subject and go for it if he's going to reapply to C. Otherwise, if reapplying, maybe go for a Scottish uni where they have a kind of foundation year when they can explore lots of options?

Having said this, 4 A stars achieved and relevant gap year experience (plus an extra year of maturity) would put him in a stronger position and more of a 'safe bet' than other applicants who are yet to take exams.

I have a DD who successfully reapplied to C (not for Nat Sci though) and she had friends who did too. All from a similar school to your DS. It is possible and there are a few things they can do to help themselves. PM me if you like.

But UCL is just as good really and hardly likely to hold him back in life! I guess it comes down to whether he wants to be a student in London as it doesn't suit everyone.

Did you get feedback from C this time?

OP, has your DS actually looked at the Physical NatSci course at Cambridge? You write that he doesn't like the look of a component at UCL. Well, there are compulsory parts at C too. My DD graduated with her Masters in NatSci last year from Cambridge. In her 1st year she loathed having to do some sort of Computing thing. She didn't really get it and in the 4 years since then, she hasn't used it at all. It wasn't until year 3 that she could finally do exactly what she wanted, and that was hampered by Covid in March 2020.

Your DS needs to work out what he wants to study first. If he is happy with the UCL offering, go there. If nothing else, he will be paying his loan back for a lot less time if he goes in September 22. However, if he would benefit from taking a year, finding a job which offers relevant work experience and giving Cambridge another go, do it.

On the school funding question, I teach at the grammar school that @goodbyestranger refers to. Our per pupil funding is some of the lowest in the country due to our local authority. To say that it is on a par with the local independents is completely untrue. We get less per pupil than the local comps due to having fewer pupil premium students, although that number is rising for us too. We don't have many behaviour issues, but class sizes of over 30 exist throughout the age-range.

Cheers Malbecfan. I wasn't referring to a specific grammar but of course I'm aware that our location has historically put us as one of the lowest funded schools in the country. All grammars have shared the basic problem of poor funding relative to other sectors. Yet there's a persistent myth that grammars are more generously funded when the opposite is true. That said, the relative lack of premium which comes with disadvantaged pupils is never going to get the sympathy vote. But then, as you say and as I've said for years (and it takes literally years for this work to bear fruit), there's a very strong movement for widening participation at grammars. It mirrors the Oxbridge work but focusses on primary schools. Results are becoming more obvious now, which is why Cambridge saying it will dig a little deeper with grammar school background is helpful, not a hindrance, in terms of boosting social mobility especially given the lack of enthusiasm that a lot of academics have for grammar schools. But the basic principle remains the same: grammar school pupils have an advantaged education and the bar for them should be higher. Completely fair.

The point has been well made hat lots of excellent pupils from state schools get rejected too. A group I know in y12 are not reapplying but positively taking up places in London, Durham or elsewhere.

I wonder OP if there might (might as I could be wrong) be something from being on a bursary and seeing peers get into Cambridge and deep down feeling the rejection more keenly or feeling he has something to prove (to himself) maybe?

If he actually wants to eventually be some sort of scientist or engineer, he'd do well to consider a couple of our other excellent unis in addition to his preferred three. Cambridge is such a very different type of place to London that I'm assuming it's not the locations which are the reason. Has he considered Manchester for instance?

Personal Statement is a sales pitch which answers the question "Why Should You Give Me a Place on Your Course?" It's really not the place for doubts.

That is something the students should be finding out by themselves via extra curricular activities (reading, lectures, hobbies, work experience, experiments etc) prior to their application.

C doesn't care the PS.

If the target is for 24% of Cambridge offers to go to private school pupils (who make up less than 7% of the school population) this is a bias towards private school children.

You could argue that children who go to fee paying schools are naturally more academic - and therefore more deserving - but there's no evidence to support that. You could also argue that these children have a superior education with lots if opportunities to excel - there is plenty of evidence to support that. How would they do in a local state school? Probably not so well.

If a private school pupil ends up competing against his classmates for an Oxbridge place that is fair enough. Even if this 24% target is met, private school pupils will still be taking 4 x the number of places their group would have if places were distributed proportionally. If a child isn't offered a place it will be because they didn't win the competition.

There are also of course other advantages to a private education - small classes so a more focussed education, facilities most children could only dream of, wide ranging extra curricular activities and access to influence and opportunity.

If the target is for 24% of Cambridge offers to go to private school pupils (who make up less than 7% of the school population) this is a bias towards private school children.

It's 7% for all ages. The percentage for sixth form (the relevant figure) is around 20%.