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)

Back to my point about favouring students - you’re very wrong. No two candidates are the same so there is no “picking the state over public” scenario that is actually wholly true. Cambridge rely heavily on your interview performance including tests. Many subjects require more than just an interview alone.

being at a private school advantages you and it is concerning that a few here have actually disagreed. Firstly, going to private school automatically gives you a better chance academically- student:teacher ratio, resources, teacher time, etc. then there’s the prep for interviews which is beyond any state school offering.

THEN it’s simply statistics.
7% of the relevant population are privately educated.
31% of students at Cambridge are privately educated

the success rate is also higher for applications vs offers at Cambridge for Private school students.

stop talking crap.

@PAFMO you should also read my latest post because you’re wrong :)

And maybe you should read some of the Oxbridge threads on here, TSR and elsewhere.
(And don't tag me again, I have no interest in speaking to idiots)

Your own school must have been pretty shite at maths, that's for sure.

@PAFMO What sparkling contributions to the debate.

@PAFMO no but I work for a ThinkTank in this field…

I don’t need to read threads of other parents. I know the actual statistics. I have read all the reports and I know all the initiatives.

it’s important OP understands that her son isn’t immediately disadvantaged and assume that’s the contributing factor rather than other reasons - not everyone can get into Cambridge, it’s not the end of the world.

@clematis76

*THEN it’s simply statistics.
7% of the relevant population are privately educated.
31% of students at Cambridge are privately educated
the success rate is also higher for applications vs offers at Cambridge for Private school students. *
It will be helpful to compare the percentage of A stars in the A level achieved by the privately educated group with other groups.

the success rate is also higher for applications vs offers at Cambridge for Private school students.

Not by very much in the last year i can see data for (2020), and probably the gap has been whittled down a bit more now. Unsurprisingly, the success rate is higher for grammars than independents, even though they don't have the advantages of small class sizes, resources etc.

Oh which one (genuinely interested!) -
feel to ignore if too outing!

“Unsurprisingly, the success rate is higher for grammars than independents, even though they don't have the advantages of small class sizes, resources etc.”

From my experience of our superselective grammars, they are very focussed on results and very efficient. We get emailed if any work is not handed in, school reports are very precise, class sizes are OK at under 30 etc. Online schooling was great too.
1 kid was in a supposedly selective independent for a few years - they were far less grade and results and progress focussed than our grammars. Just lots of flattering school reports without the nitty gritty detail we get from the grammars.

The parent group and the intelligence of the kids in the schools does not vary much either. There are not very many genuinely disadvantaged kids at the grammars my kids attend. They are largely from focussed households and very high London BAME population too. The kids work really hard. More homework than at the independent from Year 7 onwards, too many holidays at the independent. The extra curricular at the independent ends up being a distraction for some kids.

What is interesting for me is that not that many kids we know actually want to go to Oxbridge or want to apply, however talented. Many would prefer to stay in London and apply to the London universities or go to Manchester/Leeds etc. So I am not surprised that the applications which are made are proportionally quite successful.
Perhaps selective independent schools are driven to strongly encourage their pupils to apply to Oxbridge in the first place as Oxbridge offers=free marketing?

Given the “ whiteness” at the next rung elite : Durham, Exeter, St Andrews it’s not surprising that London successes stay in London for the elite Unis there.

Clematis what would you say were the main barriers to improving access for State school students, particularly those from non selective schools? What can be done to help dissolve those barriers?

I suspect cost of rents and rooms in Oxford or Cambridge can be quite relevant. If your parents live in London and you have free housing, why move out if you can go to a great uni close by anyway? Equally, if you live in the North of England with cheaper rents and great unis too and like the culture there, why move somewhere seemingly white and posh with sky high rents for just an 8 week term. It is not everyone’s cup of tea. I suspect even for the middle class kids a lot of applications are parent driven anyway. No matter how motivated, how many kids actually want to do that much extra work at a young age, compared to lots of other top unis that don’t set quite so much and in such a short time period.

Need to check but most Colleges used to offer rooms at a relatively affordable rent for most of the time, compared with many universities who have outsourced/commercialised accommodation requiring students to sign up for long term commitments at to me eye watering prices. College rents tend just to be for the 24?+ weeks rather than year round. City rents in Oxford and Cambridge are expensive but I think there is more of a disconnect to College rents than in most locations. No student thinks their rent is cheap but it might be an idea to check rather than contribute to factors that might exclude Cambridge applicants.

Rooms in oxbridge colleges aren't more expensive than elsewhere, and the colleges (especially the old rich ones) can and do subsidise poorer students . They're probably the best unis for bright but poor students to have a shot at!There is of course a barrier for students who for whatever reason need to live at home and therefore go to a local uni but that applies across the sector not specifically to oxbridge... it's probably most applicable to London.

Sorry if I missed anything, but was there a discussion about international students and how they are treated for admissions purposes vs UK students? Because to me that is an important question. From memory, about 1/4 at undergraduate level are international. The universities make lots of money out of them (obviously benefitting research and greater good too). If Oxbridge do indeed treat their own UK private school/privileged kids differently but not those from overseas, then that would be grossly unfair and absurd.

Annual tuition fees at Oxford and Cambridge (2021/22, full-time)
Oxford Cambridge
Undergraduate (UK) £9,250 £9,250
Undergraduate (international students) £26,770 to £37,510 (excluding medicine for 2021 entry) £22,227 to £33,827 for international students (excluding medicine)

No matter how motivated, how many kids actually want to do that much extra work at a young age, compared to lots of other top unis that don’t set quite so much and in such a short time period.

Well, that's a good question. My DD did - one of her reasons for applying to Cambridge was precisely because it would be hard work. Why shell out fees for something that doesn't challenge and stretch you? (The short terms are illusory btw, she was at her desk for most of the Xmas and Easter vacs and in paid internships most of the summer). Her attitude wasn't driven by us.

Some students from more deprived backgrounds may be more self motivated to work hard ... they may need more encouragement to understand that the likes of oxbridge are exactly for 'people like them'.

“No student thinks their rent is cheap but it might be an idea to check rather than contribute to factors that might exclude Cambridge applicants.“
Oxford and Cambridge have very high rents and house prices. A “subsidised” room in College is only 8/9 weeks? So it could be a factor for some.

And what about the big one that you are encouraged not to work and earn money when you are at Oxbridge during term time?

Anecdata but FWIW, the impression I get in a highly sensitive area is that for Oxbridge, it is not a case of independent school applicants being again unfairly discriminated against compared with overseas, rather a much higher % of overseas candidates would be admitted, much to the Colleges' financial advantage, if the applicants were admitted 'blind'. In some subjects, the numbers of overseas students who are gifted or from 'rigorous 'environments are much larger than some might expect. Perhaps the comparison might be with USA 'ivy league' where there is evidence of limiting the % of successful applicants from certain ethnicities and nations to maintain a 'balance' of alum/legacies/white applicants. I've had a few conversations with people who were both adamantly against any accommodation given to disadvantaged African-American applicants in their terminology and simultaneously fiercely in favour of discrimination against certain applicants (in general PRC, Taiwan, Singapore, India and so on) to maintain the 'culture' of the place and, oddly, give their own offspring a greater chance of success.

I don't know about Oxford, but DDs Cambridge college had various options for room rental - in her 2nd and 3rd years she went for a 39 week contract, so she wasn't in the realm of commercial rents. In her 4th year because of covid she opted to share a house with 4 other students, the rent wasn't too bad between them.

Supposedly full time degrees which leave time for paid employment seem to me like they're not providing full value for the fees. My chemistry degree at a redbrick didn't leave time for other termtime work. Anyhow, that's one of the reasons they have bursaries/allowances. So that their students can focus on what they're there for.

But IME the majority of undergraduates return home for the c28 weeks rather than renting in the relevant city. City rents might be an issue for some post-grads and some undergrads but for the majority, going to College will be much cheaper and there is no comparison between City and College rents. Regarding work during term time, employment except casual bar work? was discouraged though again the terms are the shortest so if a comparison is made, i suppose it might involve being able to work full time outside term time?

What is the termly rent for most (older, undergraduate) Colleges times by three terms?
What commitment does an undergraduate at a commercialised accommodation provider have to commit to and have guaranteed?

The last time I looked, one was eye wateringly more than the other and that was not to the disadvantage of Cambridge applicants?

Now to be fair, not every university has fully commercialised their accommodation but many have.

Let's just lob this in from todays Times.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/white-private-school-boys-new-disadvantaged-cambridge-academic-bprsdg6kd?shareToken=38c9040320fb66564fdacac03772e8ed

“Well, that's a good question. My DD did - one of her reasons for applying to Cambridge was precisely because it would be hard work. Why shell out fees for something that doesn't challenge and stretch you? (The short terms are illusory btw, she was at her desk for most of the Xmas and Easter vacs and in paid internships most of the summer). Her attitude wasn't driven by us.”

Your DD sounds great. So she had a safe space to study at home and her own bedroom there in the holidays? Did she live at home (in London?) to access internships? Did she organise those herself? Or did the internship places provide the accommodation?

For some poor kids, reality is need term time job, need to pay rent themselves, no bedroom left at home, no where to stay even if you can get an internship of your own accord (I think some big ones may offer help with accommodation).

careers.cliffordchance.com/london/what-we-offer/access.html
We need more of these as well at all the big companies. This are good criteria as far as I am concerned. I would like Oxbridge to do similar, including the type of tests.

The whole infighting about what school a privileged kid has gone to is beside the point, as far as I am concerned.

Requirements
In order to apply to Clifford Chance ACCESS, you must meet the following qualifying criteria:
You are in Year 12 (England and Wales), S5 (Scotland) or Lower Sixth (Northern Ireland)
You are attending, and have attended from age 11, a state-funded, non fee-paying school/college

You grew up in a household where no parent or guardian attended university.
In addition, you must also meet one or more of the following criteria:
You are currently in receipt of, or have previously received, free school meals, Pupil Premium, Education Maintenance Allowance and/or a 16 to 19 Bursary

You are attending a school or college with a:
a) below average A-level or Higher point score; and/or
b) low rate of progression to higher education
You have been, or are currently, in local authority care (for a period of three months or longer)
You are, or have been, a full-time or part-time carer

You came to the UK as a refugee or asylum seeker.
Note: young people who meet the local authority care criterion do not need to meet any other criterion.

So she had a safe space to study at home and her own bedroom there in the holidays
Yes... those that don't would presumably benefit most from subsidised college accommodation?

Did she live at home (in London?) to access internships? Did she organise those herself? Or did the internship places provide the accommodation?

No (yrs 1&2h yes, no. The 3rd year was anomalous due to covid so she was stuck at home but fortunately able to work remotely....other employment options of any sort would have been impossible in our small Lancashire village.

Thank you @ErrolTheDragon He's convinced me. Those poor students with no advantage from their private education being unfairly discriminated against. The brain drain to Harvard sounds terrible with no net benefit as the disadvantaged applicants from the failing school will presumably squander their opportunity. There should be a law.

ME Oxbridge has its advantages and many of the lecturers and College suspervsors are gifted but a conversation at a formal hall or on top table with someone speaking outside their discipline (not that the subject of admissions is outside any fellow's interest) can quickly disabuse someone about theories of global intelligence. Not to say this academic's opinion might not have some nuance that could have been lost at interview, equally I remember some eye watering discussions though to be fair, I expect most of the people speaking with me will rightly have thought I'm a fool.