Is it worth switching from independent to state for A level if applying for a highly competitive subject?

[rougheredges]

DS is in yr 10 in an independent school. He’s really happy there- we’re pleased with the academics and he’s got a lovely group of friends. He’s currently predicted grade 8/9 in 9 of his GCSEs (and a 7 in DT which he’s doing because he loves if!) He’s managing this pretty effortlessly.

Currently he’s thinking he’d like to study Economics at one of the tougher universities to get an offer from. He knows he’ll need lots of extra/ super curriculars as well, but his friend’s dad told him today that he might find it harder applying from an independent school. Apparently there’s less wiggle room and the bar is higher.

I’ve looked online and there’s a lot of conflicting information. Most of what’s out there seems to refer to contextual offers which isn’t relevant. I’ve read that it does matter/ it doesn’t matter/ they take where you did GCSEs into account so it’s too late/ they prioritise state schools/ it’s all about grades and PS.

I fear the answer may lie somewhere in the middle of all that but is there anyone who could give more guidance? His current school are keen to keep him (he’s currently an academic scholar with a princely 5% bursary!) so I’m not convinced they’d give unbiased advice.

(Local state school is great. He’d have gone there but it’s C of E and we didn’t qualify being disorganised atheists who figured it out too late. They remove the church attendance requirement at A level.)

Does anyone have any info?

Having a parent who is a teacher or an academic, is also an advantage because they understand “the system” and what is required and can guide their DC.
Just like having a parent in law or finance or medicine is an advantage further down the line. It is not just about nepotism, it is really understanding what is required in different sectors.
It is far too simplistic to look at sector or even achievement on a cohort level.

One thing the Oxford admissions tutor seemed to imply in grammar schools is that a lot of kids are doing eg Science because everyone else is but what they are looking for is genuine aptitude and scientifc thinking.
It is a sad state of affairs that many kids these days are pushed into jobs and sectors when their natural aptitude would have been better in other disciplines/sectors. But that is the way things are. Let’s say if you were in a less competitive comprehensive you may actually spend more time developing the self and your genuine aptitudes and passion, because you aren’t being pushed by your peer group.

I would say - having had DCs in two different 6th forms - that the push for STEM in more competitive 6th forms often comes very much from families. (Often rooted in a desire for their DC to follow certain careers / professions).

This percolates down to the student body in the form of a perceived ‘value’ / status for STEM that is not accorded to other subjects. In turn, this encourages students who are undecided, or able across the board, to pick A levels accordingly. At its extreme - my DC encountered this as they took a mixture of STEM / non-STEM subjects - it can manifest as a perception that those doing non- STEM subjects are ‘less clever’.

Whereas in a more mixed ability setting, a wider variety of subjects and skills may be cerebrated and valued, in the parent body and the students. My DC’s very niche creative interest and choice of onward path were very much fostered and perceived to be ‘successful’ in that context.

It is not just “family” driven, the DFE aims to prioritize funding for students taking four or more A-levels, specifically in maths, science, and further maths. There is a significant uplift there for schools and sixth forms per pupil!

The problem is the unis are running STEM at a loss! So how is that all going to work further down the line, pushing kids into STEM and Maths to supposedly grow the economy but relying on international students to fund it at tertiary education level?

Both sixth forms my DC attended started everyone with 4 A levels. In the event, one continued (mix of STEM / non-STEM); one did not (dropped their one STEM subject after Y12).

It’s not only family driven, of course. In the case of the first 6th form, the perceived ‘higher value’ of STEM was totally institutionalised. Similarly in the second, the value of a wide curriculum choice was ‘baked in’, from the KS3 currIculum & GCSE option blocks onwards.

Every child is different, isn't it? Some have obvious talents from the start, while others know exactly what they are rubbish at. Then you have the all-rounders who find it harder to choose because they are okay at everything. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with just picking a practical route like STEM or finance; it is a sensible way to go. If a child has not found their "thing" yet, focusing on something useful is a perfectly valid option.
The thing is, interests are very vague at that age. Let's be real: most kids love drawing or gaming, but very few will actually make a career out of it. Interests can be cultivated too; parents, teachers, and peers all have an influence. Besides, uni is not the be-all and end-all; so many people change careers later on anyway.
We always hear those extreme stories: the child who follows their passion and is happy forever, versus the one forced into a job they hate. But those are just stereotypes. In the real world, there are plenty of chances to adjust along the way.

Except that if a uni interview expects you to convince them that you were born to be a lawyer because you live and breathe law or you were born to do Econ etc, there is something dubious going on. A healthy interest and some research into making sure it suits you, yes. An unnatural obsession with “supercurriculars”, no!

I thought the uni interview is an assessment of problem-solving ability, structured as a mock tutorial, rather than a test of one's sales skills or a performance of "passion". As long as you can solve the professor's questions on the spot, who cares if your passion is real or fake?

Only the most competitive universities and some more vocational subjects involve an interview (things like medicine, dentistry or nursing) so most UCAS applicants won't have one. But it's an advantage to anyone to show that you have an interest in what you are applying for. If a university can choose who to teach, it's not crazy that they might prefer people who have demonstrated an interest in their subject and therefore might be more enjoyable to teach. I don't think anyone's suggesting that young people should develop an unnatural obsession with supercurriculars! They should just read a few books or watch some online lectures about whatever aspect of their subject they enjoy. A quick google will turn up absolutely loads of free resources.

Supercurricular activities need proper achievements, not just turning up. Being obsessed with competitions in your favourite subject but not actually winning anything doesn’t count for much. They’re more about demonstrating your ability than just showing passion. It’s like people who say they’re fascinated by quantum physics and watch through internet all that stuff, yet can only get a grade C in physics at A‑level.

Most super curriculars don't involve competing or winning anything though. Reading around your subject, listening to podcasts, attending talks - all those things count.

This isn't correct at all. Universities want genuine interest and aptitude - a home-directed project can demonstrate that as effectively as competition entry.

This absolutely isn't true. I know a fair number of young people currently at Oxbridge or about to go. The vast majority of them just read some books and did a bit of research online so they had something to write about in their personal statements and hopefully get to talk about at interview. It absolutely is about showing that you have an interest and are prepared to spend your free time pursuing that interest.

Grade C at A Level is completely irrelevant because nobody applying to a highly competitive course or university is likely to be getting a C in anything.

Have you recently had a child apply to university, @swdd? Because schools are really helpful and clued up on this nowadays and explain very well what is required generally.

Sure, but aren't these activities pretty standard for all candidates—things like reading widely, listening to podcasts, or attending talks? For those who don't get an offer, is the failure truly down to a lack of engagement with such content? I believe there is a clear distinction between enjoying physics as a form of entertainment—much like watching a film—and truly grasping its essence through rigorous study. Participating in a physics competition is a way to demonstrate that you have the technical edge. It proves you aren't just an enthusiast who enjoys the subject; you have the actual problem-solving ability to back it up. All else being equal, I suspect interviewers would prefer to give an offer to the latter. Am I completely wrong?

Here's Oxford's list of example supercurriculars. Essay competitions are just one example.

I used competitions merely as an example. Of course, you don't necessarily need to win awards if you have a self-directed project that demonstrates your aptitude just as well. My point is that if one wants to significantly increase his chance of getting an offer, one needs to be more "hardcore"—for instance, self-studying advanced curricula or conducting independent research—rather than just passively watching YouTube or attending a few lectures and somehow demonstrating your interest is genuine. Ultimately, I find it hard to believe that top-tier universities would rely so heavily on such "soft" criteria. I could be entirely mistaken though.

We have an Oxbridge offer of AstarAstarAC.

@swdd They will assess your interest and aptitude (as well as suitability to benefit from the tutorial system) in any interview. I don't know any young people currently at Oxbridge who took the sort of hardcore approach you seem to think necessary.

That's so interesting, @mumsneedwine - is there a particular reason for that, like the C grade subject being something unrelated to degree choice? Or is it just because they are doing four? Is your young person likely to actually get a C?

That must be unusual as my understanding is that Oxford usually offer based on 3 A-levels even if you're taking more.

Edit to add: I've just realised you said Oxbridge rather than Oxford so I assume this is a Cambridge offer.

They will assess your interest and aptitude (as well as suitability to benefit from the tutorial system) in any interview. I don't know any young people currently at Oxbridge who took the sort of hardcore approach you seem to think necessary. @Alouest

From what I understand, first you list your super-curriculars in your personal statement. As @sixsept posted, it is true that no competition awards are necessary for the application. However, during the interview, the tutors may ask questions about those specific interests; if you have only a superficial understanding, you won't be able to answer. For STEM subjects, they will probably give you problems to solve on the spot, which is where you really need those hardcore skills. The super-curriculars show your interest, but the ability to handle the problem-solving is what actually secures the offer. Good to know that the Oxbridge students around you did not take a "hardcore" approach to their super-curriculars. However, if someone truly stands out in a particular area, it certainly gives them a distinct advantage.

However, if someone truly stands out in a particular area, it certainly gives them a distinct advantage.

I think it depends on the package ‘in the round’. If the candidate is the highly-prepared product of a school where ‘the top set always enters those high level competitions’, then that is maybe not as impressive at interview as if the candidate is a minimally-prepared product of a school that hasn’t had an Oxbridge entrant for years, who has nevertheless found an open MOOC and discusses it with enthusiasm. Equally, the first candidate may move smoothly and in a practised manner down ‘standard paths’ to solve the problems presented, while the second may need some help, making leaps and bringing a range of knowledge and skills to bear, not always successfully or conventionally. It really isn’t as binary as ‘solves problems = offer; doesn’t solve problems = rejection’.

first you list your super-curriculars in your personal statement

Having observed someone writing a personal statement which did get them an interview, it seemed like a bit more than that! The personal statement was carefully crafted with only a small number of words (4000 characters) to work with to show the links between the things she'd done and how it had deepened her understanding of other parts of the statement and fed into further intellectual inquiry. None of it was mentioned at interview! She spent days, maybe actual weeks, on it and perhaps did not need to!

But tbh she really enjoyed writing it - these are similar skills to what will be needed at university so maybe it had value from that point of view. It was a clever piece of writing IMHO. I guess it will be obvious if someone has worked very hard on the PS to make it interesting intellectually and it costs nothing apart from time and thought.

The interview does indeed tend to focus heavily on academics from what I have heard.

The interview does indeed tend to focus heavily on academics from what I have heard.

Depends on the course - if not a ‘standard school subject’ then the interview and associated tasks may be more broadly based.

I don't know any young people currently at Oxbridge who took the sort of hardcore approach
@Alouest

I'm curious about which majors these students are in—specifically STEM vs Humanities, and subjects With vs Without special admission tests. It would be interesting to see how the interview style and the weight of super-curriculars change across these disciplines.

That makes a lot of sense.