So who is right for Oxbridge?

[myladyjane]

DD just started a levels - big standard state comp for GCSEs and now state 6th form college.

she did well at GCSEs - mostly 8s with a couple of 7s. No 9s (she was 2 - 3 marks off in a few subjects but we didn’t go for any remarks).

she was never top of the class, she was typically in the top 4 or 5 of top set. She’s not one of those effortless straight 9 types. She has to work but she is a bright girl. She does have a strong work ethic but isn’t massively robust (anxiety issues, possible nd traits).

college have put her in a high performing cohort - this is great and I had assumed she’d be aiming for a RG uni but college are suggesting she considers Oxbridge.

does she sound Oxbridge material (it would be to do geography). I want to be supportive but she is a sensitive little chicken and I’d rather gently steer her down a path she is more suited to.

but perhaps I am not being supportive enough and why not give it a shot if she could have a chance.

So she’s back from her open day and we’ve had a good chat. She really liked Oxford as an experience iyswim, came back full of enthusiasm for the course. She also really liked Mansfield College (they only really had chance to go around 3 but that was her favourite by an absolute mile) which is interesting given the high percentage of state school entrants.

she is going to do more research both on the degree and the application process and everything that entails. She has said it is an aspiration but she’s very well aware that it may not be for her and it’s certainly not the be all and end all.

so let’s see - she does adore her subject (her ex boyfriend still sends her pictures of rocks that he thinks she’ll like) but I am not sure if she quite has that passion that you are all referring to.

she is definitely going to look more closely at Durham now as well so thank you for that rec.

I know a few people who went to Oxbridge, most of them still have many insecurities about their intelligence a decade later. The Oxbridge teaching method is apparently to tear your work apart at every tutorial, no matter how good or bad is. They say it "helps build resilience" but from the people I know who experienced it, it did the opposite. Absolutely do not recommend Oxbridge for anyone, but especially not for someone with anxiety

Nah - it wasn’t tearing apart. At least, not usually. It was more interrogating your reasoning and conclusions.

There’s a habit, on MN threads, of insisting that Oxbridge teaching is terrifying and damaging and that no one could possibly actually enjoy supervisions / tutorials. That cannot possibly be true. I did. Everyone I knew at Cambridge did too. Not a single one of us didn’t (and still doesn’t) feel sorry for undergraduates at other universities who were not taught in exactly that way.

Oxford was tremendously busy today as I was ambling around, going about my business. I assume it was visiting sixth formers being punted along the Cherwell in enormous vessels? They looked very happy!

The supervisions reviewed your work but it was very gentle for mine and DD has said her academic staff are some of the kindest people she's ever met. I never heard of anyone being torn apart. I did come across insecure people but think they were like that before they started, all from private or very high performing schools. I was very quiet and came out much more social and confident and it was much more positive than my comprehensive.

Great that she liked it and interesting what college she picked, if she's goes to visit Cambridge maybe use that as a guide for at least one of her 3 choices. She may find the small teaching groups helpful if quiet as you can't become invisible like in bigger groups.

@mcrlover, that wasn't my experience at all. You read a ton, wrote an essay, then met with an expert in the field to seriously discuss your ideas you had set out there. But the essay you wrote was only the first step of learning, you learnt more in every supervision, every tutorial. Sometimes, that did mean being told that you were wrong, but I found it energizing and wonderful, being prompted to think more deeply, rather than anxiety producing. There was something truly remarkable about the luxury of having time to seriously engage with texts and ideas. I found it almost playful, exciting, fun rather than anxiety producing.

Like previous posters, I really enjoyed supervisions. They were certainly intense and often quite demanding, but they were also hugely thought-provoking, incredibly stimulating and very rewarding. I wouldn't say that the supervisors ever "tore my work apart" - they scrutinised it in detail, told me when they disagreed with me and really pushed me to articulate my thought processes. But they also told me when they felt I had been thoughtful or insightful or when I had challenged their thinking.

It is an incredibly privileged way of learning, and one that I feel so fortunate to have experienced. I learnt so much from that kind of 1:1 discussion - not just about the subject itself but about how to think! I don't think I have ever been so intellectually stretched at any other time in my life.

As I said in my earlier post, Oxbridge isn't for everyone and there are entirely valid reasons why very bright young people might choose not to apply. But it is also an amazing intellectual experience for the kind of young person who would thrive on that level of scrutiny.

That is well said, and captures a lot about how I felt about supervisions.

I did my master's degree from another highly respected uni, but frankly, the depth of thought required by my undergraduate degree was much greater. And like you, I enjoyed that space to engage deeply with ideas and to have my thinking challenged and nurtured by people who had spent their lives thinking about the same things.

It felt very far removed from the real world at times, but oh, what a gift to have inhabited that bubble for a period.

@myladyjane you have had some great advice here about knowledge of and passion for her subject (as opposed to gold DofE) being more important in many ways than top grades.

I am glad she enjoyed her open day as well. All the best to her if she pursues this route.

I just wanted to flag this from a PP Most successful Oxbridge applicants would have at least a few 9s. Many will have straight 9s. Thousands are also turned down with straight 9s and all A star predictions. This is the reality.

The first bit may well be true, but it cannot be the case that thousands are turned down with straight 9s – if by that the poster means with all grade 9s at GCSE. Fewer than 1500 students achieve that in a typical year. Admittedly that figure doesn't include IGCSEs which many private schools take, but even then I cannot imagine that the group "gained all 9s in 8+ GCSEs in a specific year" is actually thousands big.

I imagine that some people with all 9s may well be turned down by Oxford, as high GCSE grades are not the only thing it looks for – but not thousands. And it certainly is not the case, as this quote implies, that it is not worth applying if you don't have all 9s. They could not possibly fill a year of courses with the students with all grade 9s, even if they all applied (which they won't).

@myladyjane Good to hear she enjoyed the open day and it sounds like she has a good sense of perspective. Just to say, adoring the subject is perfectly fine for Oxford - not everyone has an all consuming passion, most have other interests and, arguably, thrive most on the opportunities and lifestyle. DD loves her course and the exchange of ideas, and has one or two specific areas of interest but it's not necessarily where her career will be. If your DD is interested in specific areas, talking about those will help her stand out - DD had modest supra curricular experience for her subject, but being able to discuss the particular aspects and why they drew her evidently showed she was a suitable candidate.

The thing that people misunderstand about Oxbridge is that they aren't looking for people who get the top grades. They're looking for people who absolutely love their subject deeply and passionately, who choose to do extra reading and activities within the subject of their choice because it's fun. Would rather spend a spare couple if hours doing more of that than any other leisure activity. If you love your subject that much you will be more likely to get top grades but lots of people get top grades that aren't suitable for Oxbridge. The schools that are successful getting their pupils into Oxbridge have two separate strategies - one is to identify pupils who genuinely love their subject that much. The other is to teach their high-grade students how to fake that level of love convincingly.

How much does your DD love Geography @myladyjane ?

Any particular reason why Oxford not Cambridge? Anecdotally I have heard the Cambridge course is better, but it's a wide subject and there might be specific aspects that are done better at Oxford.

I'm a state school Oxford graduate and I now teach there PT.

Without doubt, I would say the one thing that Oxbridge academics look for these days is a genuinely curious mind and good critical thinking skills. If she is interested, she should read up widely around her subject (and want to, spontaneously - it should be a pleasure not a duty) and form opinions of her own, be prepared to consider other opinions carefully, not reject them out of hand, and occasionally modify her own views, if she has rigorously thought through why another POV could be more valid. She should (again,of her own volition and with enthusiasm) be active in her subject far outside of the curriculum. I am not sure what that might mean for geography, but attending lectures, maybe getting involved in volunteering projects etc.

And she needs to be aiming to get top grade A levels.

That wasn't my experience, although admittedly my experience is extremely dated. I was from a rough comprehensive and, as I soon discovered, poorly educated by comparison to most of my peers who were from private or grammar schools, but I was never made to feel my work was being torn apart.

I know a few people who went to Oxbridge, most of them still have many insecurities about their intelligence a decade later.

Many highly intelligent people are insecure about their intelligence - having an analytical, questioning mind that is constantly seeking data and recognising patterns means that mind frequently turns on itself and finds itself wanting. It's the Dunning Kruger effect in reverse.

Tbh from the way you have described your background, it’s likely your eyes would have been similarly opened at any good university. That’s the amazing thing about higher learning. For people with backgrounds that have never experienced anything beyond what they already know, university can really expand the mind and ambitions

@myladyjane my DD was also looking round yesterday for geography! Which colleges did she visit? It’s a pity that, unlike Cambridge, only 14 colleges offer the subject. We visited Mansfield and thought the 1st year accommodation was better than most others we saw. However the planned building works are a big potential disruption.

@Cornflowermeadow ohhh jinx! She looked at Mansfield, Hertford (liked a lot) and St Hilda’s (not keen). It was a college organised trip so no parents but also whilst they were told they’d be put in groups and things would be a bit organised beforehand, that actually didn’t happen at all and they were put out of the coach with a map and a ‘good luck’. I actually think this was great (as a child of the 90s, my parents didn’t do a single open day with me or have any idea which unis I applied for) but it did mean like a little bit of aimless wandering with a mate who also wasn’t clear what he wanted to see by the sounds of things.

i think Oxford is on the radar rather than Cambridge a lot to do with distance tbh. So far she’s said she doesn’t want to be super super far from home and Oxford is within a couple of hours. But I do wonder if that will flex as she’s feeling less daunted/anxious and more mature - for all she’s 16 it is a young 16.

what was lovely to see was how excited she was about doing more study - whether at Oxford or elsewhere and then next steps after that. Apparently although she has always been a physical geography girl, there is a unit in geography and War that she said sounded fascinating (I will take her word for it) and she was going to find out more. She was bubbling up with things she wanted to know more about which was great.

and re top grades, I am kind of not worried. She’s a bright and focused girl who works hard so she’ll get what she will get. She aspires to top grades but she’s only 2 weeks into her a level courses. If she gets lower grades then she’ll be happy somewhere else.

@myladyjane sounds like she really enjoyed it. I didn't register she was yr 12 (mine is yr13 so got to make decisions fast). At least if she's still keen next year she can go back and visit again (and see what impact the building at Mansfield is having! I understand it is meant to be finished by summer 2029 and will mean most of accomodation is onsite for all 3 years - so might be worth one year of disruption for your dd). Interested to hear she loved Hertford - we didn't go there because of the lack of green space (as I understand it) so maybe we missed a trick there?! What did she like about it? I do know that Geog at Cambridge is less competitive generally (and is offered by all colleges) - mine wont consider it as already too familiar with it as a city.

Wait - is that true, that teachers are asked to rank the students in the year??

Actually would love to know the numbers of private school students who achieve all 9s (or 8 or more 9s)! I would guess the number is comparatively a lot higher as there are many very selective independents. At my DC's school, there were more than 25 who got all 9s. Think 10 kids got 11 x 9s!

I don’t think you need to prepare for the interview particularly. You do need to be engaged with your subject and to enjoy talking about it. Oxford look for a very particular type of person, the interview is to establish whether you are a good fit, which isn’t something you can manufacture. Both dd and DH (different subjects) were shown something they hadn’t seen before and asked about it.
Neither of them prepared for the interview. It’s more of a chat to find out about you, it isn’t a test as such. Yes, most people will get turned down either pre or post interview, it’s best to think of it as a way of finding out if it’s a good fit for you. It’s a very intense environment and a huge workload, compared to other universities.
Oxford do care about GCSE results but it’s part of a whole picture. They don’t care at all about extra curricular stuff that is unrelated to your subject.

The style of the interview depends on the subject. Interviews are verbal assessments though and subjects will use a scoring systems such as numerical systems or bands. If there is no entrance exam in the subject then the interview carries a lot more weight. Most very bright children will be a good fit, so it has to be a more specific criteria than that.

@larkandowl To be fair, I'm not entirely sure that they are asked to rank them exactly but DS showed me his reference and it said he was top of the cohort for GCSEs and top of his subjects in A levels (average comp). I have been asked to provide similar information for students applying for Oxbridge in my subject but have not been the one writing the whole reference so I don't know exactly what they ask for. I definitely see why teachers would find it useful to say where a student sits in their cohort, perhaps especially if the school is a very high-performing one.

As for the interview, it was definitely more than a chat. He was emailed a source 30 minutes beforehand and had to speak about that, and then was asked a bit about what he had written in the PS. I'm sure that there would have been several ways of approaching the source and there wasn't one correct answer they were looking for but it was pretty intense from what he said - the most memorable bit for him was one of the panel of three snapping, 'Stick to what you know!' He told me it had gone 'shit' afterwards, but obviously he got in and is doing well so it can't have been that bad!

Agreed it would be of interest. How many in a year group at that school though? And was it selective at entry? A friend teaches in a private school with about 100 in a year group (not very selective at all) and usually 2-3 students get all 9s.

Rough calculations based on available figures suggest about 45k students in year 11 at private school in a typical year. If 5% of them gain all 9s (which is a much higher % than state schools!) that would still only be about 2250. Add that on to the 1300 state school students and it's still well under 4000. Oxford takes IIRC about 3000 students a year. And not all those who gain all 9s with even apply there.

Yes, highly selective at entry (not as selective as super-selective but not far off and most of those with all 9s would have had places at super selectives but turned them down). Think the year group was 100-120? To be fair I think it was an exceptional year, think usually maybe 5-7 get all 9s (most take 10/11 subjects).

Again, stressing that my experience is very dated, I think what impressed them when I applied was that absolutely nothing I relied on in my entrance exam or interview was on my exam syllabus. It was all topics I had researched independently and formed my own opinions on.