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).

This page shows applications versus offers at Oxford by school type, and also how this breaks down compared to total number of students getting AAA or Astar A star A
www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

Spoiler: State school pupils are not over represented

Just to add, I went to Oxford as an undergrad (2015-2019). I studied physics. And my GCSEs were 3 A\s (8-9s), and the rest As (7s). Including an A in physics (missed the A\ by 0.25%, and I'm definitely not still bitter about it xD).

I went on to get 2 A*s and 2 (and half) As at A level, got accepted to study at Oxford, and went on to graduate with a Masters of Physics, 2.1.

I'm saying this to highlight that GCSEs are barely anything. If you prove yourself during A levels, which I'm sure you will, then your GCSEs are barely going to matter at all. I know I could've done better at GCSE, but I didn't know how to, or had the desire to study at that age, and only figured it out at A level. Oxford (and other universities) definitely knows this. So, whatever your GCSEs, if you work hard on your A levels and get the grades, you have a chance at Oxbridge, imo.

Good luck!

Thanks again for all this useful information.

I think what I've gleaned is that I would think it a near certainty that DD would be offered an interview with her 9s and good A level predictions unless her personal statement consists solely of "i want to study geography because I like the coloured pencils".

Now I can wonder how geography tutors view applicants taking sciences rather than humanities for A level...

I don't think any Oxbridge applicant can go into it thinking there is a "near certainty" that they will get offered an interview. Obviously a string of 9s and good predicted grades is a very good starting point.

On whether they prefer sciences or humanities for geography, their website https://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/apply.html says there are NO required subjects, not even geography, although it says almost all applicants have done geography. If you look at other subject pages they do sometimes list recommended or mandatory A Level subjects. So I think you can be fairly sure that they don't have a preference for science vs humanities - you can take what they say at face value - otherwise they would have stipulated specific subjects or subject types.

But why would they not offer an interview to someone with 11x9s and 3 or 4 A star predictions if they give interviews to 75% of applicants? OK maybe near certainty is the wrong phrase. Probable? If they don't do additional tests or ask for school work, what else have they got to go on?

But whatever, it's only one space on the UCAS form and she might as well go for it, but be completely pragmatic. DS tried and didn't get in and had absolutely no regrets. All a useful process.

interview anyone who met a minimum of 8 x 8/9 grades at GCSE (state)

Interesting. My kid was very much on the borderline for interview if that was the case for her course.

Even if this anecdotal story is true, it doesn't follow that students with (much) lower grades wouldn't get an interview.

(My nephew had all 8/9s at GCSE. He didn't get an Oxford interview).

I think you need to differentiate between Oxford and Cambridge. Cambridge interview a higher proportion of applicants, Oxford interview far fewer. I don't know about Geography but STEM courses at Oxford only interview 30% of applicants after the results of admissions tests and other weightings have been taken into account.

Yes agree and actually I rarely use the portmanteau word bc they are different universities. You might as well say Bathborough or Durandrews. Cambridge is different – mate of Ds2's who is a total maths whizz but for a 6 in Eng lang went there (to study maths rather than English as it goes)

@clary - but there are some significant similarities between Ox and Camb which, taken together, mean that those two institutions are different to every other English university. And which make the term "Oxbridge" a helpful shorthand, even if there are, of course, some differences in terms of exact course structures, whether they do an admission test for X subject, exactly how they weight the different factors when assessing an application etc etc. But these are relatively minor differences compared to the significant similarities.

Here are some of the similarities which make lumping Ox and Camb together a useful shorthand for some purposes (and I've picked out humanities as that's what I know more about, can't speak in detail for STEM subjects):

Collegiate system is very different to any other English university. The Durham college system isn't at all like the Oxbridge college system. This makes a big difference to both the student experience and the experience of being an academic at either place.

For humanities: usually a weekly essay. Undergraduate workload is significantly higher than pretty much all other institutions, including other Russell group.

Small group tutorial system. Yes, of course some other institutions might have some tutorials, but they are fundamental to humanities teaching at Oxbridge, in a different way to other places.

For humanities: Admissions aren't just done on application alone. There is always an interview. There may well be a requirement to submit written work or sit an additional admissions test.

UCAS deadline is earlier than other institutions.

I went to a semi selective state school where I was probably the highest achiever academically in my year. Oxbridge appealed to me because I was absolutely passionate about my two favourite subjects (eng lit and modern history), but I was also keen on a joint honours in Russian and History at another university that was promising language tuition and a year out in Russia! I still feel a slight pang that I missed out on that although my mum was very relieved.

I had an exceptionally kind history teacher who leant me some of his undergraduate texts so I could extend my learning in year 12. He set me extra essays and he marked them very harsh and we’d chat about technique.

I was a nerd as a teen - devouring classic literature, learning calligraphy, started to teach myself Russian as I was getting bored of French. I read the Times as that’s what dad took but I was left-leaning so we argued a lot. He was a scientist at heart, so I read all sorts of his books including Richard Dawkins and Feynman simply because the books were on the shelves and we didn’t have the internet back then! I I loved figuring out the history of industrialisation and how science has changed society. And I got very caught up in my gran’s stories of the early 20th century Labour grass roots movements. I was also musical/theatrical so I had about 6 hours a week of performance groups too.

I didn’t do this “because Oxbridge”. I was no genius which became obvious when I got my place at Oxford - I grafted and I loved learning.

i personally think that your grades are just a filter to see if you can “be in the room”. You need a spark in your personal statement, and you need to be able and willing to share your ideas 1:1 and argue a point with an adult who is intimidatingly knowledgeable and will throw you a curve ball that you have to bat back. If you demonstrate genuine intellectual curiosity you will do better. Emphasis on genuine.

It is not about you at all, op. It should ALL come from your dc. It’s your dd’s job to know how explain why her love of science led to her choice of a geography degree; how the scientific mindset helps her and what her scientific knowledge brings. I mean I could have a stab at answering that in a personal statement so I’m sure she can! Do NOT coach her. Do not do that. Let it be an authentic statement . Allow her to think through ideas by asking questions but do not try and answer them. So you might ask around the dinner table, what might a person studying Geography, Economics and History at Alevel be missing from their skillset for a geography degree? Or, if she has an interest in a particular subject geography how has studying science helped you get a better understanding of that? What’s more important for city planning, science or social policy (you should take the opposite point of view)?

If it’s not already too late, maybe she could join a debate team or enter a geography or science essay competition with an interesting theme that she can mention in her PS, it might enable her to bring into interview the fact she CAN write well.

But frankly to do these things only to spice up her application may look forced and if she can’t carry it off better not to bother.

@Unbeleevable I completely agree don't worry - I couldn't coach her in geography/science even if I wanted to. We have an evening meal together every night where we frequently debate/argue. Nothing to do with UCAS although undoubtedly an advantage that children like her have without having to add on additional ones.

I was no genius when I got into Oxford nor was I grafter nor particularly passionate about my subject nor did I go to a good school nor did my parents go to university. I was just a moderately academic child with a quick brain and excellent writing skills. I therefore have some scepticism about the entrance procedure - this was a long time ago though.

@SongShan I totally see what you mean about subjects with an entrance test and where only 30% of applicants are interviewed. However, with geography it's around three quarters and there is no submitted work or tests. So they only things they have to go on are GSCEs, predicted grades, school reference and PS. Of those, only GSCEs are concrete. The other three are very much influenced by the school and by any additional help given. Plus there are cultural capital things that can creep into the personal statement - I know a girl who did work experience for a US senator who happened to be her godmother!

Yes all true @Wigeon and fair points indeed. I agree they are similar to each other in ways that differ from other universities. I still hate the word tho!

This is probably quite late but their gcse results for both place them in the tool applicants, contextualised offers are only on the basis of converting a students gcse results if they are less than an 8/ A to an 8/ A. Both of your children

Think she has a fair chance if you went to Oxford too and is articulate.

DD went to one of the highest performing schools in the country and got a couple of 8s. She still got an interview so I don't think you need to worry too much.

In the cohort of all 9s and A*s, it is a lottery. You only have a chance to win if you're in.

The OP of this thread is just over a year old - the DC in question will have applied (or not) by now.