Oxbridge 2024 Entry Part 2

[Lightsabre]

Continuation thread (when old one is full) for those supporting dc through Oxbridge applications. All welcome as we enter the next phase.

Very true!

Does anyone know how long it takes for a link to the cambridge application to come through after submitting the UCAS application?

My DS has been a little slow.... UCAS is going in tonight, I realise this all has to be done befoore 6pm Monday...

Don’t worry, the Cambridge extra application is due in by the 23rd, not the 16th.

DD got it the next day - sent application this past Tuesday, SAQ arrived Wednesday and she also got an email from her college (ha - 'her' college!) about deadline for written submissions and when her online written assessment will be.

Walkaround in my defence 'incredibly unremarkable' is a rather different tone to 'utterly unremarkable'. I think also my perceptions may be skewed by the fact that a huge number of DC at school were notching up A* in the years when my DC2 to DC7 did their EPQs.

Completely accept the points you make about the EPQ if done as it should ideally be done - big if there though, that's all.

We also got SAQ next day, but haven’t heard from the college yet. Application went in last Thursday.

Got confirmation from Durham today with details of their application portal - no sign of the separate email with the pin though 🙄.

Only Exeter now that we have heard nothing from yet.

🤞for early offers, but with Durham and UCL in the mix he may be waiting for some time.

I also requested a copy of his UCAS form, complete with reference and predicted grades. They said some amazingly nice things about him😊.

Are UCL usually late to offer? DD is applying there but I don't see much mention of it on mn.

@Jaxx how easy was it to get a copy from ucas?

@Hope4534 really easy. Just phone or message to request it and they will send it within 5 days (he was emailed it the next day).

@Jaxx Did you request fro. UCAS?

Not heard anything from Bath, the rest have acknowledged application.

@Livinghappy yes UCAS.

Thanks @Jaxx . Trouble is I’m worried we’d find some error or misrepresentation and then would worry about it ! Assume the student, not parent, needs to request it?

I’m named on his form as being able to act for him, so I made the call. It got sent to his email though.

It’s very patronising to denigrate EPQs. I’m a teacher and I’ve seen some fabulous ones over the years, there is no doubt they could be an incredibly helpful stepping stone to studying at undergraduate level, and they also frequently result in reduced offers. They’re a great interview talking point too. Of course they’re not for everyone and certainly shouldn’t be embarked on now. I’ll come back on and say it nearer the time but bear in mind some brilliant students I’ve taught haven’t got Oxbridge offers (gone on to do amazingly elsewhere and frankly Oxbridge’s loss), some fairly mediocre ones have. So much luck is involved in this process

Starlette given the whole basis on which EPQs are marked it's perfectly legitimate to question their value. As I've just said, Walkaround's point about EPQs when the substantive work is done to a high and especially original standard is very valid. However, plenty of bright kids are able to knock off an EPQ with minimal effort, tick the admin boxes and get an A*. To my mind that means the qualification is of questionable value. That's not patronising, it's equally as valid as Walkaround's point. I don't know what sort of school you teach at, but that's my experience over around ten plus years.

And as to your point about all the mediocre kids you've seen getting Oxbridge offers - did you follow their progress through? Do you know how these mediocre kids have done? One allegedly mediocre kid from our school (no, not one of my DC) went on to come top of his year at Oxford. Ahead of all the brilliant kids. Too many schools misjudge academic potential because they're too bogged down with across the board good grades and, dare I say it, good behaviour. Chances are the lack of judgment is at the school end rather than at Oxford or Cambridge's end.

How can someone who got into Oxbridge be described as mediocre? Surely they've come out with top a-level results, done exceptionally well in the Oxbridge entry assessments and had outstanding interviews - if that's mediocre, I'd hate to see what someone needs to do to be considered exceptional!

I am fast coming to the conclusion that having a child for whom getting into Oxbridge is a possibility is giving some posters a rather false idea about what "mediocre" and "unremarkable" mean.

Yes, your child might be "mediocre" within their cohort if/when they get to Oxbridge, but it's ridiculous to suggest that they are anything but very high up in the academic tree across the country as a whole.

It also has to remember that many bright children at school are not really stretched by the school curriculum and may not adapt well to the pressure of an Oxbridge environment when they are pulled out of their comfort zone for the first time. Whereas the more "mediocre" who've had to work harder and try harder to do as well, might well thrive.

'Mediocre' is generally used as a pejorative- not just 'ordinary' (within a given cohort) but really not very good at all. Probably not the best term to have used there...I think that bit of that post was perhaps written more thinking of the fact that on these oxbridge threads, inevitably, some of your wonderful kids are going to be disappointed, and there is indeed a fair amount of luck.

Sorry, yes, that post was written in a hurry. Mediocre is not the right word to use, but I would say some “unexceptional“ students get through and some really special ones don’t. Many exceptional students have decided not to reply to Oxbridge at all for all sorts of reasons. No shade on anyone here whose children are at Oxbridge, I’m sure they are super talented, just a warning that other equally super talented people fall by the wayside for all sorts of reasons. Some get nervous at the interview, some are just unlucky with the questions, some have bad chemistry with the interviewer who seems to instantly take against them, one student had a nightmare last year with a printer suddenly packing up when they had to print out reading materials seconds before the interview started on zoom and was very agitated. Others are particularly lucky in the questions they get asked, and – though I’m not going to enter into any further discussion because I can just imagine some posters’ there is some box ticking i.e. if you are a boy applying for “girls” subjects, you definitely stand a better chance and vice versa. I’ve been doing this for decades and I do do keep an eye on all the students who get through and yes - I would say some of the ones who got lucky struggle.

Anyway,, I predict all sorts of objections to what I’ve just said and it seems to me this isn’t really a thread where you can post an (experienced) opinion without being shouted down, so will add no more. I really just wanted to stress how much of a lottery this is. If you’re good enough to be in the game, you’re going to do well wherever you and you certainly shouldn’t let it define you

You wonder then why Oxford and Cambridge bother with all the additional pre tests and interviews etc if you're correct that to a great extent it's a lottery. What a massive waste of the tutors' time.

Judging from my own school alone over fifteen or so years (during which time the admissions policies at both universities have developed significantly), the cleverest kids of those who apply tend overwhelmingly to be the ones who get in. Obviously some extremely bright kids choose not to apply, or aren't encouraged to for whatever reason. But there are only very rarely major shocks and that usually tends to be in the direction of seriously top of the class kids not getting in (but they very often reapply to the other university and then get in the following year). It certainly doesn't tend to be genuinely middle of the road kids getting places to the great surprise of the teaching staff.

That's simply the experience at our school and no voice is being even slightly raised tbh. Your experience at your school is clearly different and there seem to be more surprises. Perhaps that's to do with more accurate talent spotting at our school, who knows? But the experience certainly doesn't seem to be the same.

There may be an element of luck in questions etc but it will be marginal rather than major.

Not at all clear how box ticking works in this context?

Clearly yours is a marvellous school. There aren’t often major shocks, there are often mild surprises. I think a teacher with 30 years of experience of teaching the sixth form of a selective school does have a better idea often of who is suitable for Oxbridge than a don who gets 20 minutes on Zoom. My dad is a don at one of these universities and he would agree. The point is they’re infinitely more suitable candidates than there are places – all the near misses would have flourished had they gone, and the people who my opinion got luckier stumble the way through. In any case, this is not addressed to someone whose children are already at Oxbridge it is to people whose children replying now and to reassure them that if it doesn’t work out it doesn’t mean their children weren’t worthy

There will always be an unknown factor when humans make decisions. Unconscious bias, a bad mood, whatever, who knows? I think we can all accept that some truly excellent candidates don't get a place for a multitude of reasons. There are finite spaces after all.
My own daughter is hopeful, and has the relief of having grades in hand. But she is also well aware competition is fierce and that she will likely not get an offer. While the application process is arduous, she is finding the decisions by other universities based on three grades only (after being told at Exeter the PS matters 'not at all') strange. As if they don't care about the individual at all but just numbers. At least with Oxbridge you feel they have given you several opportunities to shine.

It came be simultaneously true that it is not a lottery, and that some luck is involved in getting in. There will be students who apply for whom it really is very aspirational (I’ve been looking at the excellent reports published by the Physics department on their admissions process; every year there are students sitting the PAT who get less than 10% on the paper; they were never going to get in). There will also be truly exceptional students for whom no luck is involved - their ability and aptitude for the subject will shine through the admissions test and interview process. And then there are, as @Starlette says, a whole group of similar ability students who will thrive if they get in, but for whom some luck is involved, given that there aren’t enough places for all. For physics, a few careless errors could mean being just off the cut off point for interview for example, or through nerves or just being a bit unlucky with the questions, they could fail to score well enough at interview and not get in. So without doubt there is some luck involved in the process too.

I have no experience of this at all but from what I can tell, the interview is really important in Oxbridge admissions and they are trying to assess whether someone thinks in a particular way and suits their particular style of teaching.

Assuming that anyone who applies has good grades, it might be quite difficult for schools to tell who will thrive in a tutorial / interview situation, as that is not generally how schools teach. DD's teachers have never seen her respond to questions she doesn't know the answer to under pressure, and they are too busy delivering the syllabus to notice or care whether she thinks in a certain way, even if they understood what that certain way is, which I doubt they do.

So I am telling DD that it's not really about where you fall on the brilliant/exceptional - mediocre/unexceptional continuum, but about whether they think you are a good fit for their course and teaching style. If you're not, fair enough and you will find the right course for you elsewhere. She really wants to go to Oxford because the course looks so fantastic, so she will definitely be disappointed if/when rejection comes. But hopefully she will come to accept that they are very experienced at assessing who will do well there, so a rejection might even be for the best, and certainly doesn't mean anything about her potential for doing great elsewhere.