Neurodiversity at Oxbridge

[Cheesesamosa]

DC who has adhd starts at Cambridge in October. I’ve read many times on here that neurodiversity is relatively common at Oxbridge and they are very used to dealing with / supporting it. However I’ve just come across the admission report for last year and it’s actually really low in terms of declared disability. 1.4% with ASD and 2.3% with adhd, dyslexia, dyspraxia etc.

These figures come as a surprise though, so far, disability services seem proactive. Interested to hear experiences and advice from those with neurodiverse DC currently attending?

Possibly where we socialised… I had friends in an amdram group that I would say weren’t. My main socialising with men was in nerdy environments- board game groups, role playing games etc. They really were.

Sure, but some people are not commenting on their friendship groups, they are making claims about the student body as a whole.

Right, but if I’d only hung out in one area, I’d assume everyone was similar.

My course was tiny, I didn’t meet other people on it. I was in a women’s college. Most of the men I met were through my two hobby groups and friends of friends, and apart from the am dram stuff they were all with hindsight ND or borderline in some way.
The only one I’m still in touch with was diagnosed in adulthood.
Plus DH who along with his family seem pretty clearly ND. He doesn’t stick out there either. Mixed opinions in the family about seeking diagnosis.

If you assumed everyone was similar just because you’d only hung out in one particular area you clearly were not studying any subject that had a statistics element to it!

I certainly wasn’t! Statistics free zone.

My mates included lots of engineers, maths/computing chaps. A few obscure linguists.

My vocab expanded to include Mandelbrot sets and fractals, which were the poster of choice at the time. Along with Starwars… we didn’t mix much with the Trekkies.

Ah, fond memories.

Particularly in a small college, you would know pretty much your entire year cohort. The two most ND people in my year of 100 were not my friends - and interestingly neither were doing STEM subjects. With hindsight they were very badly supported and I feel quite guilty about how difficult they found the social aspects.

I would say there were a lot of quirky people at Cambridge, people who were different and very interested in certain topics but very capable and generally not diagnosed autistic and a lot I don't think would meet criteria on an NHS assessment. Some subjects seemed to have a lot more quirky students like these than others - natural sciences had a lot. The girl who was next to me was like this and a bit similar to David Attenborough. Often they did have relationships and socialised with similar people. Economics seemed to attract a lot of sociable, sporty types, not really sure why but maybe as is in the middle of arts and sciences so attracts all rounders whereas STEM could have people exceptionally strong on science and more focussed on one area.

Mental health issues are common as is experience of being bullied at school for being different and I found it a very tolerant environment for being different with lots of support. I think mental health can often comes from perfectionist tendencies and it also attracted people who whatever they did never thought they were good enough which from the ones I know continues throughout life despite being outwardly successful in careers. At social events I have been greeted a few times when they ask what you do to you are a success, I am a failure by people who got a First and then have a successful career (one was a professor, one a lawyer) but for some reason can't see it.

My DD is sociable and sporty (economics at Oxford) and NT though scores sky high on ADHD questionnaires and her brother is asd. The others she has met so far have been sporty. The people I met at socials for Cambridge would say a lot are quirky and David Attenborough types but I wouldn't say NHS definition of ND. Though ND ones might not attend social events. But would say its a very good place for ND where being different via having special interests is welcomed and there is a lot of support, more than at other universities with less money. As teaching is in very small groups its also more likely some one will notice there is an issue as well and drop out rates are very low. But individuals vary and best to visit and see for yourself, colleges can vary too, a quieter college may suit better for some.

My experience is old (90s as well) so I'm not up to date with current support. I'd be concerned that Oxbridge would specifically not be a great place for people with ADHD (on its own as opposed to AuDHD). That's because there are a lot of people at Cambridge with ADHD (whether higher or lower than the norm I don't know), but the vast majority will be undiagnosed because if they've managed to hit the academic requirements, they're unlikely to have flagged in the system as needing an assessment. I think this could lead to a 'well I'm like that too, why do you think you need extra support attitude'. Ultimately I don't know current practice though.

Autism (and AuDHD) I feel differently on because I think the reality is the structure works quite well for a lot of people. Again there will be a lot of undiagnosed autistic people who have been keeping up and masking through school, but the structure and the fact that bring single mindedly dedicated to your subject isn't unusual, probably means that it's easier to fit in. Core to this for me (as late diagnosed AuDHD with a Cambridge first), is that a lot of autism is about the issues with social communications. Being in an environment where having issues with social communications is more normal helps you to fit in. I don't think the same really rings true for ADHD - having lots of people around me who also struggle with concentration, doesn't help me concentrate.

Reality is that not everyone at Oxbridge is ND - of course they're not. The vast majority aren't. But there's enough autism in particular that it's easier to find your tribe.

Vast majority of people at Oxbridge are NT. I agree that exceptionally high intelligence can actually be a form of neurodiversity (although I don't think this is completely accepted just like it's not accepted that low IQ= neurodiverse). I suspect that people saying that means everyone at Oxbridge is ND hasn't been to Oxbridge. Yes there are geniuses. The majority are in the high end average with strong study skills though, rather than the top 2%. There is an enormous group of people who are bright enough for Oxbridge (and other top end courses - Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all) and not enough places for all of them - realistically we're looking at the top 5% that are the target cohort. A lot of the actual top 2% never even apply, or for various reasons don't get an offer.

It was the late 90s, but Cambridge completely missed my autism despite my mental health being bad enough for emergency referrals for support. Looking back, the issues were textbook for an autistic girl. Hopefully, that at least has changed!

Because I got sidetracked and looked at the figures (see AuDHD reference :) )

Last year 94% of students accepted to Cambridge undergrad got A star AA or above. Of those that applied and were rejected, 28% went on to get A star AA.

It's hard to find the stats on what % of the population gets A star AA or above, but last year 26% of a-levels were at A or above. I'd guess of the a-level taking population we're probably looking at somewhere around 10% or above who got A star AA+. We're probably looking at roughly 5% of the population given not everyone does a-levels. Then of course there's not a direct correlation between intelligence and A level grades, and those A starAA grades can most definitely be bought by tutoring/private education/plain hard work for a lot of kids who are bright but not super bright, and also just not not going to happen for some highly intelligent kids who don't engage with education for whatever reason (my dad's one of the most intelligent people I know - failed his a-levels completely).

Overall, as I said Oxbridge (or at least Cambridge) students are the top 5% (or maybe 10%) intelligence-wise, but not just the top 2% (and I say 2% because low IQ is considered bottom 2%). Some are so intelligent they can be considered ND just because of that, but the majority are just pretty bright, hard working and (for some but not all) privileged enough to have a background that supported their education. A small number of my year were probably about average but super hardworking and focused (and I know at least one of these who has gone on to do very well - super hardworking and focused goes a long way in life), and (although this may have died out) there was the odd public school boy doing an obscure subject who just happened to be very good at rugby and quite frankly shouldn't have been there.

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/ug_admissions_statistics_2023_cycle.pdf

I agree, this thread is quite odd.

Quirky, highly intelligent, not interested in or good at sport - these aren’t ND criteria on their own or collectively.

Also - early, self taught reading is not the same as hyperlexia. It can form part of an Aspergersy type ASD profile but there would need to be a lot more clear and obvs ND for diagnosis.

@Hargao Both your posts above entirely parallel my experience there, including the rugby players who shouldn't have been there and the Tim Nicebutdims who breezed in from snooty schools to do classics.
I'd probably use the term outlier rather than genius. Also, not all courses are the same - maths and CS are courses in which the incidence of ASD is notably raised above general population.

@piisnot3 @Hargao Also the very rich ones doing Land Economy to learn how to manage the estates.

My DC2 is at Oxford and rang me up one day in her first term very chipper to say, "It is wonderful to be here - everyone is neurodiverse." She doesn't have a diagnosis but is probably on the AS as is DH (Cambridge Mathematician)

DC1 has just graduated from Oxford and has classic ADHD tendencies that mostly present through total lack of organisation (executive disfunction to use its fancy term). It was much more apparent once the scaffold of school and home was removed. In the end he didn't progress getting a diagnosis not wanting a label. Then after his first two finals papers he rang in a state regretting it - he only wrote 2 out of 3 essays in these two exams. But he pulled it together and has a respectable 2.1. We met two of his tutors at graduation and they say there is no reason he can't do post grad work - but avoid exam based assessments.