Oxbridge 2024 Entry Part 4

[Lightsabre]

New thread as our dc start the rollercoaster ride of interviews.

I think there is definitely a variation of ambition in different schools from the staff. In many, no staff member has any experience of Oxbridge. Some might be actively against the idea or simply have an idea that to have a chance you have to be totally supersonic. So the very able who in reality do have a chance aren’t encouraged. They might not be encouraged by their school or parents and often don’t know anyone else who has been or applied. It is a mythical ‘other’ place where some kind of ‘other’ people go. You see it a lot on MN with people discussing whether their DC will fit in at Oxbridge or other places like Durham, or whether the places will be full of Rahs. In other schools, the majority if a large sixth form are at least considering Oxbridge - quite a few probably shouldn’t be, but the culture is that applying is totally the norm and some have far more self confidence (or pushy parents) than their abilities merit. It creates a very different scenario, where at one you have to be really determined to push the boundaries to have a go and launch into the unknown, and in the other it’s a simple step onto a well-trodden path that many of your peers are going along and is very familiar to the school. Without doubt it’s different.

In many schools and colleges an applicant will be the only one or perhaps there will be 2 who don’t know each other and do different kinds of subjects. That can be retry lonely and very different to a school or college where 10 or 20 or maybe 80 are applying.

I suppose increasingly they are looking to out all types of achievement into context if background and also to assess for potential and not just knowledge. Teams interviews instead of in real life remove another barrier of travel or possibly being overwhelmed by the place. And my impression is, that when things are marginal and between 2 seemingly equal candidates, the one with less privilege (probably measured quite simplistically - although the UCAS Form gives more opportunity now for schools to highlight all kinds of mitigating circumstance) will be chosen.

Probably most people feel they are a bit hard-done by in the process somewhere along the line. The privately educated or those from selective state schools might feel they are victims of possible quotas or attempts to level the playing field and those who are less advantaged still feel the system itself doesn’t look favourably in people like them and the poshos get the interviews and places. I’m sure it’s really hard to decide who to award places to. One one level they want the most able and whilst they hope to spot potential and to be able to deal with possible gaps, there are limits to how many gaps they can accept and overcome and still achieve the academic level they aim to achieve. I suppose this is where the debate lies. Should Oxford take those with very mediocre and poor GCSEs and perhaps A Level predictions of Bs and Cs who seem to have great potential? Should there be more foundation years to cover gaps? And what about those who haven’t had significant disadvantage but are from typical middle class homes with supportive families and have gone to good but not impressive schools, rather than selective schools? People in that latter category are often a signicant number. In wider society they are considered pretty well off and even affluent and their children often do well. But when it comes to Oxbridge applications they often feel like the disadvantaged group, suddenly faced with rivals from too boarding schools and lots of privilege. What, if any special consideration for those students who don’t meet any disadvantage flags and whose solidly mc and university educated parents have gone the state school route and used their local decent but not impressive Comps?

From my admittedly limited experience of universities recently (third child currently applying to O) and quasi Oxbridge experience (town not gown, but a sense of the changing student profile over the years), I was pleasantly surprised by how mixed and down to earth I found students at both O and C in recent visits to various colleges. I feel it’s changed a lot and for the better in terms of intake. Though of course the unfairnesses of getting to the point of applying to Oxbridge, let alone getting an offer, exist from an early age.

Not relevant to current times but when I was at a non-selective comp in the 1980s Oxbridge was very much “not for the likes of us” and some of the brightest sparks encouraged to aim for other (very good) universities. How much that exists now and is a barrier I don’t know.

DS2 attends a grammar school and there are quite a few who have applied for Oxbridge. They were given no mock interviews and the practice they had was the pupils interviewing each other and resources online. I don't know whether i am naive in this but I think maybe too much practice would seem rehearsed and a YP having a passion for a subject would shine through regardless.

And what about those who haven’t had significant disadvantage but are from typical middle class homes with supportive families and have gone to good but not impressive schools, rather than selective schools?

I think if anyone has an advantage, this could be the group actually. For contextualisation purposes it's good to do well in a mixed cohort. So bright kids with support at home and reasonable teaching can look like very good prospects if lots of the intake at their school do less well. DD falls into this bracket - she goes to a massive FE college with a very mixed intake, needed 5 x Cs to get on to the A level courses. She could end up getting some of the best results in the year, which wouldn't be the case if she was at a more selective school, same kid though.

Stoney mine is the same. Non selective state schools throughout. Got mostly 9s. School found an ex teacher who’d studied at Oxford years ago to help prep but that was all the help. Should tick a lot of boxes but we shall see what happens. Even then sounds like they have tough choices to make from lots of good candidates

To add to the prep debate at Indie schools…2 mock interviews here plus timetabled prep class at a rate of 1 x pw since half term (so not a huge number) and in that prep class, the advice was ‘to do the practice/past papers’. IME Boarding does not equate to on-tap access to teachers, you are very unlikely to have a House Master who teaches the subject you are learning. Prep is optional for day pupils, compulsory for boarders but again, learning under the students own steam. No pupil comes back during the holidays, there is no one there! Teachers take time off during the weekends and holidays very seriously and there are no classes in this time.

In my limited experience of all of this, I do think that the O system is fairer and less opaque. They are clear about their standard offers, and more often than not, the applicants need to clear the hurdle of the aptitude test before being invited to interview.

Oxford is definitely less brutal imo. If you're going to be rejected, the earlier the better. Oxford reject more in November than Cambridge do, and don't have the STEP nightmare in August either, I don't think.

We all know the utter unfairness of the education system in this country whether our kids are at public, private, grammar or state. It is heartbreaking and unjust.

Yet we as a society accept it. Other European countries have far lower % of private/ public and so the great and the good actually care about and invest in regular education because their precious young people use it. Here our great and good protect and defend our own privileged hierarchical system and invest in spectacular education for afew %, while the rest languish in class sizes of >30 amidst crumbling public buildings and limited resources and terrible food and minimal extra curricular.

We all know the facts.

But this thread is about Oxbridge 2024 ❤️❤️❤️

I suppose many people imagine that others are getting a whole host of help that they aren’t. It’s hard to know isn’t it.

From what I’ve heard, some in private schools have had 1 or 2 practice interviews, but I haven’t heard of anyone having more than that unless they’ve sought them out themselves. I also heard of people having maybe 3 sessions to look at aptitude test past papers. I think most schools run UCAS sessions for yr12 into yr13 and give some resources and advice about writing personal statements. I’ve nit heard of anything different for Oxbridge applications.

The things that I have also heard mentioned is people being encouraged to enter essay competitions or Olympiads in yr12 and to do EPQ so they have stuff to write about on their personal statement.

But I also know the bright students in state schools have been offered broadening access courses online or in person at the colleges that I don’t think are available to kids in private schools. People on here are also talking about some kind of seminar about interviews offered to contextual candidates who got an offer.

My feeling is that most private schools aren’t doing hours and hours of Oxbridge prep for their students but little bits. But I suppose that the difference in some schools is that they have lots of experience of students applying and there is a culture of it being very normal to apply and something that many will do. For me, this cultural norm vs it nit being the norm is the biggest difference rather than hard cold targeted prep for admissions tests and interviews. I feel like these good students are able to do the reading, find things out and be ready for interview when called. However, for me the question is more about how many get to that stage of applying. How many are out there who could have been great applicants but no-one ever told them that or gave them the level of encouragement and self belief needed to have a go? I’d like to think that once they were at the stage of applying, good candidates can access some excellent stuff online - it’s all there - resources about personal statements, different colleges, admissions tests, interviews. Being a self-starter and not entirely spoon fed and dependent on the school or college is necessary. You have to find some reading and engage more widely. If a candidate hasn’t done any of that, I suppose natural talent could lead to excellent GCSEs and admission test and a PS that wasn’t so packed with wider engagement. Deodning in how their interview went and was structured it might be more or less obvious that they had engaged beyind the course, but you’d hope there was a chance for natural talent to shine through. I don’t know.

So I suppose I think that by the time they have got to the interview stage - good enough GCSEs, predicted grades, entrance test results…I’m not sure if there is really vast differences based on school/college input about interviews…as so much and so many practice interviews can be seen online which are probably some of the best resources and better than what most schools can generate.

But again, for many when they don’t get a place from any background, it’s natural to gave a feeling that perhaps the system worked against you - and the tutors favoured people from a different background to yourself. I don’t think having a focus on that helps the young people and certainly parents or schools telling them that’s why they didn’t get a place doesn’t help. It just makes them bitter and here’s no point being bitter. Quite simply there are far too many extremely good candidates and not everyone could have a place. Often parents or even teachers forget that these are all students who could easily get all Astar at A Level or the equivalent and all have good GCSEs and write good personal statements. They might be top if their school but there are many schools and colleges and they all have top students. And I think that as parents, when our very clever and capable young people miss out and aren’t selected it can be a bitter blow to us too and we seek explanation in unfairness. I’m not saying there isn’t unfairness and undoubtably there isn’t a level playing field in access to education and opportunity, but most families who have a child rejected from an Oxbridge application aren’t disadvantaged families. They might be what they consider ‘normal’ and which society would call comfortably off, if not rich, but most are interested in education and have supported their kids through school and education. The ones who lack these things and are from genuinely deprived backgrounds and with little or nonsupport are still sadly very low in number.

I don’t think my DC will get a place in Jan. Like most people in here, we are focused on praising his efforts and reminding himself and ourselves what he has gained by just engaging in this very strange but special process and in knowing that there are simply too many people for everyone to get places, and there will be fantastic opportunities for him regardless. And we will move on. And I think that’s what most people on here are saying too. But I’m sure there will be bitterness abiut as well - whether it’s the kids themselves, or their parents or wider families who just can’t believe that someone as great as their young person hasn’t got a place, and concludes the system must be against people like them.

Anyone who makes it through the wild west of our state / comprehensive/ secondary modern pathway to this point deserves a place hands down.

I don’t see any benefit in over analysing the process or worrying that your child has been treated fairly/unfairly. Many excellent candidates will be rejected and will go on to be successful at other universities. I want my dd to be resilient and understand that not everything in life works out the way you want it to and analysing a process in the search for ‘unfairness’ is a pointless and unhelpful exercise.

Totally agree @ShanghaiDiva

Totally agree. All these kids are clearly intelligent, amicable and hard working kids who will thrive anywhere!

Absolutely agree. You have to be in it to win it, but there are no guarantees for anyone. You try and if you get in it’s a bonus. Otherwise you move on.

I agree, although I'm not sure amicable would be my first choice of adjective for DD at the moment 😬

I agree with everything you have written here. As a parent with kids who had one Oxbridge rejection and one who has just started at Oxbridge, we have experienced every emotion over the last couple of years! It’s tempting to analyse and then you realise that as usual, luck plays a part.

(One thing I have realised is that perhaps I could have got more involved. The school and my kids seemed to know what they were doing. But I maybe should have educated myself a bit more about it all).

Something that I rail against in our social group is the fetishisation of Oxbridge. Where it has almost mythical status as the holy grail and anything less than Oxbridge isn’t good enough. This is clearly not the case when you take a step back and see how people’s lives pan out. As I always say to my kids, there is more than one way to live a life.

I agree, although I'm not sure amicable would be my first choice of adjective for DD at the moment

I totally agree with this, in life you win some and you lose some and this is what I have instilled in my daughter while she has grown up. Yes she will be sad for a day or two if she doesn't get in and that's normal but regardless she'll do amazing wherever she goes.

Agree with the sentiments on here. You can’t with the lottery without buying a ticket. I also agree that the view Oxbridge or nothing is not helpful. At the start of the process, School was clear that of everyone sat in the room hoping to gain a place, only 25% of them would achieve a place overall at best.

I also agree that to watch your kids work so hard only for something to go tits up for them at the end must be soul destroying - and this year it has not been helped by the Tata Consulting debacle being thrown into the mix, which has clearly been very off-putting for some.

@Lightsabre@WombatChocolate totally agree that normalising it is key. Going back many (many) years, my teachers explicitly said that it "wasn't for me", and didn't let me apply. I applied post a Levels, got in and had a great time. As with any university, there are so many students that everyone can find their 'tribe'.

It's a bit depressing that DS had the same reaction from one of his teachers. But some things have changed. When I went to interview, the porters kindly told me I didn't need to be nervous, as I'd definitely get in wearing a skirt that short. Kind of hope that doesn't happen any more!!

And agree with everyone that while it's good to try, oxbridge is not the be all and end all. So it's good to get invested in other choices too. DS is currently deciding on his fifth ucas option, LSE or UCL or Nottingham. I'm for LSE but that's mainly because of all the jokes about it in yes minister...

@AshtonAshley I hope not too personal a question, but within '(y)our social group', how many kids will likely end up with offers vs the total who apply?

I've popped back onto the thread and am reading so many thoughtful sentiments so I just just wanted to acknowledge that really.

Oh same here 😂 I have no doubt she managed to win her interviewers over on that front though....

I reckon 70% get offers. STEM more than Humanities.

That’s extraordinarily high. Fantastic!