Oxford looking at GSCEs in context of the school - any experts?

[Coffeeismycupoftea]

Hello, DD is thinking about applying to Oxford for geography. I think she'd do well in interview so we're just assessing how likely she is to get one. She got all 9s at GSCEs and she'll likely have v high predictions for her four A levels (three STEM plus geography).

There's no tests or essays for geography.

Obviously I know her academic record is excellent, but how does marking them in the context of the school work? Her school was an academic girls' school where I think something like 15% got all 9s. So although her results are great, they're not that far above average for her school - it's probably equivalent to 7s, 6s and 5s compared to the national average, if you see what I mean. But on the other hand, how could she have done any better than she did? Would her results be seen as perfect or would they been seen as 'mid' given her schooling?

To complicate I've got another child who might apply to either Ox or Cambridge post A levels at the same time - they went to the same school but got three 8s, rest 9s. Which I think was probably bang on average for the school. Would that mean her GSCEs would be seen as 'bad'?

[Yes I'm aware that this is so wanky to be talking about such good results as if they're somehow poor. And I'm also in favour of contextualising entries as my children are extremely privileged, especially given the damage covid did to the educations of the disadvantage).

DD, Year 12, is also considering Oxbridge. From everything I've read about their admissions, and watched on college instagrams, both Ox and Camb take into account a wide range of information when weighing up applications from candidates. So yes, 10 nines from a candidate who went to a school where the average GCSE result is 10 fives is clearly going to be more impressive than a candidate who got those results in a high performing school where several students got those results. Having said that, it's still a very impressive set of results even given her context.

They also look at tonnes of other information when deciding whether to offer an interview or a place, including personal statement, predicted grade, teacher section in the UCAS form, admission test if applicable, written info submitted in advance if applicable, interview etc. And they consider her academic performance in the context of her home postcode (how deprived or not), school average results, factors like did she have free school meals, was she in care, how many students does her school send to Oxbridge a year.

So there are so many factors, you can't do anything about her GCSEs, clearly she did very well even for a very good school, and there are loads of other things they will assess when deciding to give her an interview or place. So if she's keen, there is no reason why she shouldn't give it a go.

Have you read the bit on. GCSEs here (expand the bit on English qualifications): https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/admission-requirements/uk-qualifications and www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/decisions/contextual-data?

Different subjects weight slightly differently but it should be transparent if you Google oxford geography admissions stats or similar.

This has to happen because not all subjects have an entrance exam

However, I would rest assured that those results won’t stand in her way!

Sorry OP but you must know you are waaaay overthinking this. As you say, she could not have done any better; so if her all 9s (an amazing achievement) somehow count as 5-6-7 grades from any other school (and I am far from convinced of that; my DS2, who is by no means a genius, got better results than that (grades 6-9) from a very ordinary state school), well no one would ever get into “the uni that requires all 9s”* from her school would they? And I assume that they do.

15% getting all 9s is very very skewed – in England as a whole last year a lot fewer than 1% of 16yos did that (it’s hard to get the exact figure bc of variations in numbers of GCSEs sat). Fewer than 1300 or those taking nine or more.

There is no uni and no course that absolutely requires all 9s at GCSE. If there were, it would have to have a very small intake as you can see.

Please encourage her to apply where she thinks she will flourish; be aware that Oxford is wonderful in many ways but it will not suit everyone. But if she thinks it will suit her she should certainly go for it. Best of luck to her.

*In quotes bc it doesn’t exist

The way that it might affect her from reading online is that of there is a child with the exact same grades but they went to the standard comp or even just a state school no matter how high flying they will choose them

But that isn't correct. For one, it is analysis against the cohort - a high flying state school may well have cohort results comparable to a state school

But, far more importantly, the interview performance will not be 'the exact same' (whether for better or worse!) and that will weigh much more.

Ha, yes you're right, I am overthinking it! In a way, it's more that I find it interesting how on earth places with more qualified applicants than places choose when they don't ask for any additional tests. I have a friend who's convinced that tutor just know what they want while in my experience, it's a lot more arbitrary than that especially given that the academics I know aren't overly blessed with a high social iq.

She wants to apply so I'll encourage her - she has absolutely nothing to lose and I think it's quite a useful process whatever the outcome (nor do I think it's the be all and end all).

@Coffeeismycupoftea there is a lot of discussion and moderation between colleges on the interview stage, so it isn’t a whim (any more, it probably once was!)

The interviews should also be subject focussed, so social IQ shouldn’t be relevant

@SheilaFentiman it could apply for being rejected pre-interview tho

I agree with the PP who said you're massively over thinking this. Your DD has done brilliantly well and should apply. You can't do anything about any kind of contextualisation anyway, so no point pontificating on the finer detail of what will likely be a very small number of students. She'll either get an offer or she won't, in which case she'll probably get an offer from her second choice.

Yes but I always wonder how academics can recognise ability in a spoken interview given how that's not the way most academic work is carried out in general. But I'm sure you're right that there is much discussion and weighing up and I'm sure they know more what they're doing than I give them credit for (and I'm probably judging it from the amount of idiots I studied with 35 years ago - god knows how they or me got in!).

But yes absolutely take it on board that I'm overthinking - as I say, reading up about it got me interested in theory as much as practice.

Or I got in that should read (the bad grammar alone should have barred me).

I’m not absolutely sure but I think that 1% figure is a stat based on state schools. Not all school.

From what I understand, each piece of the admissions puzzle contributes towards whether a candidate is successful but primarily it’s the interview that they need to excel at to gain entry. This is where their unique abilities are assessed (because a lot of people applying have top grades!) and their individual way of thinking reviewed. I applied but didn’t get in, despite getting almost 90% in the admissions test and having (at the time) 3 A*s and 2 As at A level. A friend who got much lower on the admissions test and just about had minimum grades got in (I don’t remember her exact scores). The difference? I was boring and bland at the interview and she was always very creative when it came to critical thinking. On paper, I should have been the one getting in. In reality, that’s not how it worked out (and they were 100% right!).

I think (and I'm not an expert at all - I had an Oxford interview 30 years ago and DD has had one this year), the interview bit is basically seeing how you'll get on in the tutorial system, which is why there's so much emphasis on speaking in it.
DD is one of the people the contextualised GCSE system is intended to benefit - achieved all 9s in the context of the school's negative progress and attainment 8 scores. She also did an entrance test, which I think they do for most but not all subjects.
She wasn't well in the 10 days leading up to the interview so didn't do any preparation. But afterwards she said that felt fine, as there was nothing she could have prepared for - it was a very intense and focused discussion on one small aspect of how the human body works (science course), and intended to make her think out loud rather than demonstrate or apply knowledge.
It actually sounds remarkably similar to how I remember my own (English) interview - an incredibly intense dissection of a poem, line by line, that I could not possibly have revised for.

I think attempts to level the playing field are always going to be imperfect (my kids are also contextual based on our postcode, whereas DD's best friend, who lives so close to us they could throw a ball in our garden, isn't. But it's good that the attempts and recognition are there.

I'd say it'd be worth both of your kids finding out more and applying if they think they'd like it. I wish them luck if they do.

I don’t think so actually. The figure I am going off is on Gov.uk and nowhere that I can see does it say it is referencing only state school pupils. If you look at 2024 and take off the DC sitting 6 or fewer GCSEs (because the figure for all 9s looks at those doing 7 or more) that leaves more than 500,000. Of those, 1270 got all 9s. That’s less than 0.3% if my maths is right. So actually not even close to 1%. Obvs it varies year on year – 2024 is probably the lowest figure sinc e2019 bc Covid.

As someone who did geography at Oxford, I think what you have to remember is that the tutorial system is a huge part of studying there. Choosing people who perform well in interviews is quite literally choosing people who should thrive at Oxford because a lot of the teaching is not that dissimilar to an interview (honestly, I don't think I've ever been grilled as much in any job interview, than a did on a weekly basis as a student).

The reality is most students with mainly A*s at a level could do the work in general, so the interviews allow them to select those who are best for the Oxbridge approach.

Just because it is spoken, doesn't mean it isn't structured - also, it may not be spoken - for engineering, the candidate has a remote whiteboard software and draws/does sums on it. I don't know about geography (there will be examples on line) but it might involve diagrams, graphs etc in response to a field work report given to the candidate shortly beforehand, or similar,

Contextual offers are not about disadvantaging pupils with top grades from top performing schools, they are about levelling upwards, so a kid from a school with a lower average grade profile, can benefit from a bit of leeway. Getting into Oxbridge is a dark form of witchcraft, but your DD is starting from the strongest possible position.

https://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/oxford-interview.html

more info (haven't had time to watch the video)

I don't think they include IGCSEs though? Most private school seem to take a mixture of regular GCSEs and IGCSEs. So AFAIK that is why private school pupils aren't normally included in the stays of all 9s.

That’s a good point, fair enough. I still think my overall point that vanishingly few DC gain all 9s still stands. So ignoring IGCSEs it’s less than 0.3%. If we included IGCSEs I bet it wouldn’t be above 1% as such small numbers are at private schools anyway.

I absolutely love the way you've phrased this. I really hate the way private school parents (and obviously I'm part of this world) make out that their poor children are being unfairly disadvantaged, diddums. Thinking of it as raising upwards, is a far healthier perspective.

The exact way they take into account all the information they have about a particular candidate is really quite rigorous. Eg see this manual for admission tutors for PPE which sets out in lots and lots of detail exactly how they score and weight the different factors.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202223_oxford_ppe_admissions_man/response/2297706/attach/3/PPE%20Admissions%20Manual%202022%2023.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

They also have a lot of different information about a candidate to take into account - see my previous post.

If you haven't already, have a look at Caius Schools Instagram - official outreach account of a Camb college. An admissions tutor has done loads of reels about admissions and busts quite a few myths along the way.

@NancyJoan @Coffeeismycupoftea I totally agree. DD is at a semi selective state school (30% get in on an academic test). They get great results compared to most state schools. However, a passing comment from a friend whose DC is at a high-achieving private school made me do a bit of research into successful Oxbridge rates from that school compared to DD's school.

27 PERCENT of 6th form leavers at that private school go to Oxbridge compared to something like THREE PERCENT from DD's school, which is known as the best in our area. I checked a few other private schools and compared to other excellent state schools. Almost all state, including the very "best" are sending 2-5% ish of their leavers to Oxbridge. The good privates are sending 15-30%. (Caveat: in my personal selection of a few schools I analysed - happy to post the exact stats o found if anyone would find that useful).

There is absolutely no way that private school pupils are disadvantaged or discriminated against in Oxbridge admissions, despite many years of Oxbridge outreach. It's just that they are slightly less massively advantaged.

The other thing that annoys me is that there is a greater proportion of private school pupils at several other universities, including Durham and Bristol, but Oxbridge seem to get all the stick...

DD’s course doesn’t have an admissions test. Her tutor told her cohort that the college interviewed anyone who met a minimum of 8 x 8/9 grades at GCSE (state) and 10 x 8/9 (independent).

DD’s interviews included interpreting data, handling obscure specimens and answering questions about them and panel type questions. Her interviews were in person - I don’t know the format if online.