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?

It would be impossible for Oxbridge to officially justify a STEM offer based on musical skill. There would be a huge outcry if Oxford admitted that being a cellist in NYO gave an advantage to those applying for Maths or Chemistry. After all, a family struggling financially can hardly afford years of expensive cello lessons. Disregarding the cello is, therefore, in line with the same spirit as contextual considerations.
However, I think you are taking the official admissions statements far too seriously. An applicant should definitely mention extraordinary music achievements in their personal statement, but do it casually. As you pointed out, it proves they have the discipline and commitment needed for a difficult degree. I would bet 100% that it has a positive effect, even if the admissions officers would never admit it publicly. They would be in serious trouble if they openly stated that music skills influenced STEM admissions, wouldn't they?

As swdd says ‘here is proof I have good time management, am disciplined and hard working’, the cello is a good example. So is ‘I have held down a part time job throughout 6th form, to contribute to my family’ or ‘I take my younger sibling to school every day and look after them until my mum gets back from work, after which I do my own homework’.

It is not that the cello is disregarded, just that what it shows can also be demonstrated in a myriad of other ways depending on the candidate’s circumstances.

I think the Oxbridge admissions philosophy is strictly academic-focused, which makes music feel too generic to be relevant to the core subject. It is a world away from the liberal arts approach of the Ivy League, where being an NYO cellist or a rowing medalist carries significant weight. It is also nothing like corporate hiring, where soft skills are prioritized and "purely academic" types are often a turn-off, as companies prefer musical talent for its well-roundedness and teamwork.

Just like there is loads of Chemistry in baking cakes! It is how you present it, right?
There is potentially plenty of Maths in Music, whole papers have been written on it. Einstein was a keen violinist and piano player. If you play the oboe you absolutely have to consider how your reed reacts to temperature, water etc etc.

Does not detract from the fact though that an Oxford tutor got up in front of DD’s school to openly state he does not care about your instrumental playing only your “supercurriculars”. They cannot really win either way. His intention was to guide the superselective grammar cohort to put in a good application for their cohort.

Just apply for the Ivy League if you think music is crucial for STEM, and apply to Germany if you think Oxbridge is too expensive.

I think the point I am making is that ‘disciplined, hardworking, good time management’ is (in the context of an Oxbridge application) a nice box to tick, but minor in the scheme of things, whatever evidence is given.

A key marker like ‘young carer’, along with other contextual info, is potentially much more impactful in putting a candidate’s ‘potential’ vs ‘demonstrated performance’ in context.

It’s also worth saying this is not an exact science. For every candidate who does get an offer and get in, there will be others who would have performed indistinguishably had they been admitted instead. There are more capable candidates than there are places.

“Just apply for the Ivy League if you think music is crucial for STEM, and apply to Germany if you think Oxbridge is too expensive.”

@swdd - if that is aimed at me, none of my 4 children take any advice from me personally past the age of about 10! I have one at PhD level, 1 at uni, one in year 12 and one in year 7.

My ruminations are more theoretical. If the interview process is more accessible and confirmatory these days, that is a good thing, for absolutely everyone. In my days, I did feel I had been put through a good cop/bad cop experience and all quite unnecessary as none of that was ever encountered again once there. However, it is possible I had a dodgy don interviewing me. My issue is that going to a talk again with one of my DD’s recently sort of brought that vibe back. So I hope things have actually changed for the vast majority of applicants, whatever background they are coming from. The context of superselective grammar may look like all A star data to Oxbridge, but the reality is they are talking to a group of immigrant parents primarily and should really not be forgetting that!

Or in other words, if the demographic is now 85% Asian in some superselective grammar schools given what happened in the US with unis and the case there as to unlawful discrimination, I would be quite careful what I am saying to certain cohorts.

I can certainly empathize with how you feel. However, please remember that top research universities like Oxbridge focus on research first, not teaching or admissions. While the process feels like a life-changing event for us, for the academics, it is often just another chore or one more committee meeting. No wonder you might find the interview process a bit dodgy or the supercurricular criteria inconsistent. Personally, I would not overthink it.

The Oxford tutor was blunt and utilitarian, not diplomatic. He cut straight to the chase because he simply doesn’t have the time to "care" about a student as a person, or a group of immigrant parents as a community with a hard-working ethic and high aspirations. To him, it is just a filtering exercise. It is cold, but it shows that for them, admissions is just a functional task to tick off the list. He likely has ingrained stereotypes regarding grammar schools or certain ethnic groups that are impossible to fully eliminate, though equally impossible to prove.
This is why I am seriously considering the grammar school GCSE plus a private school A-level route—to simply bypass these unnecessary complications.

@swdd - it is not about how I feel, I am white. I am just surprised that we get told at work to examine diversity from every angle and constantly and to consider structural disadvantages like sex, race, sexuality, gender etc etc at every point and admissions and training is also arguably a “chore” and non billable, but no way would we get away with making it that in our day to day lives or saying certain things etc. If you are part of the establishment, you have to be self aware and constantly examining etc. That is what I mean. Britain remains a classist society due to not prioritising these things sufficiently all the way up to the political power structures.
Race is a recognised structural disadvantages, by anyone’s measures. I am not comfortable with anyone in a position of power oozing middle class white male privilege and appearing tone deaf to it all on top of that. Don’t care about their research! My organisation would also never send such a type into an inner City school with a high proportion of ethnic minorities either.

a position of power oozing middle class white male privilege @Araminta1003

more like Ivory Tower privilege to me. It is easy to become tone-deaf when your entire life has been spent within the academia bubble.

Yes. And I do think that the admissions system has evolved to make sure that individual voices no longer have total power over admission decisions.

(Unlike in my day - an acquaintance was admitted, post A levels, through their parent ringing up an old college friend who happened to be an admissions tutor in their old college. The student was briefly interviewed by the admissions tutor and given a place.)

Young carer is actually a really odd category and fairly gameable for those who want to.

You would think if you had four younger siblings and had had been made to do lots of childcare to support your family you would be a young carer right?

Wrong. You are only classed as a young carer if you are caring for someone with a disability / mental illness or addiction problem.

And the caring can be emotional support. So you can have a younger sibling with ADHD and if you say you provide them with emotional support you are a young carer.

If you are expected to look after siblings without disabilities after school and cook their dinner whilst your overworked single mum does overtime to try to pay bills and as a comsequence you have no time to study then you are not a young carer.