listening to the radio abt Oxford admissions made me wonder what gives kids the best chance of getting in?

[hatwoman]

I didn't catch the whole program but what I did hear was interesting. lots of talk about looking for kids with potential, with ability to probe, and spotting the ones who've been coached but aren't actually up to it. We all know that, whatever the reasons, private schools do better at getting kids in, but does anyone know what impact the educational level of parents has? I've always argued the impact is considerable, in general terms, but just wondered how significant people think it is is for the specifics of Oxford or Cambridge or other top universities.

Neither DH or I went to Uni. We have good O levels and not so good A levels.We are however both fairly intelligent. DD is the first one of our family to go to Uni and she is at Cambridge.

I am glad that our lack of Academic qualifications has not held back or discouraged her. DS is also aiming high.

(She was very worried that she would be marked as a likely drop-out because of us).

congrats to your dd and good luck to your ds .

Thank You :)

The one thing we could and did do, was support and encourage them all the time. When you hear parents continually bad-mouthing teachers & schools in front of the children then those kids don't stand a chance.

The best thing is to have parents who encourage you to try for Oxford/Cambridge. There are lots of parents who for whatever reason try to reduce their kids ambitions. I'm in the go for it, but you'll have to work hard category (with the if you don't make it there are lots of other good Unis, great careers).

My DH and I heard this program. My DH read Math at Oxbridge and he was unconvinced by it. He thought it was a bit of PR by Oxford after a few recent negative stories.

We've had dinner tonight with two of his friends that did PhDs in Theoretical Physics with him at Oxbridge. Both are now Readers in Theoretical Physics, one at Oxbridge, the other at a college that is part of London University.

They both thought is was pretty off the mark. Neither really cared about the candidate's confidence, "chutzpah", passion, enthusiasm etc. Far too subjective.

It was simply how the candidate had done at STEP papers, predicted A level results and how the candidate could solve mathematical problems (beyond A level) on the spot with no preparation.

They did agree they couldn't give a damn about how well-rounded the candidate was or extra-curricular activities. They just
wanted the candidates with the raw intellect to be the best mathematicians or physicists.

interesting. I did PPE and thought it was quite close to my experience. I ballsed up my O levels and also my mock A levels, but did very well in the Oxford exam - which is meant to emphasise independent thought. I had to provide a convincing defence of my mucked up exams - and it was very much along the lines that someone mentioned - about A levels holding some people back. DH did engineering, and then a DPhil - he's not here tonight so don;t know if his experience was much more focused on O and A levels etc.

siasl, what you say about going by STEP/A-levels etc sounds right for science and the more 'quantifiable' subjects, but I think the 'chutzpah', willingness to debate, thinking around the subject and so on is more relevant when they are selecting for arts subjects, particularly ones that the candidates haven't done at school.

I have a relative who teaches an arts subject at Cambridge, and interviews for admissions, and although the department does also run its own tests, from what he says a lot does depend on interview performance.

Heard part of it - I thought it was pretty sloppy production - agree about the PR bit. Not very illuminating.

From what I have heard- and from what I see at my own (RG but not Oxbridge) university, the most desired quality in a student- apart from good grades, evidently- is the ability and will to think and engage in questions, the sort of stuff that comes out at interview. So I would say the best thing you can do for your children, after hounding them to do the work, is to talk to them, encourage them to question your assumptions, be interested in the world yourself.

I think something worth guarding against is using our own experience.

Unless some posters are a lot younger than me .

In ye olden days when I applied I think Oxbridge were looking for that spark that they could nurture. And the admissions tutors had time to try to identify it.

Things have changed, in as much as the sheer amount of applicants and the competition for places, make the tutors' job much much harder.

Without doubt, your raw grades must count for much. And how you present yourself in interview is important. You don't only have to be bright and interested, you need to show it.

there's an article in the education supplement of the Guardian today about step exams - being increasingly used apparently. and, suprise suprise, private schools are starting to tutor for it but "pot luck" in state schools.

I guess my interest in all this is mainly self-interest. (well, self-interest by proxy).I periodically get panic aatacks that I'm not giving dds the "best" chance (NB that's a phrase I, when not in panic mode, which I'm usually not, boak at). I panic that by sending them to the nearest comp I'm putting my principles and my wallet before their future. I got the help of a private education. dh had the help of an academic father. So I'm kind of hoping that having 2 parents who went to Oxford will help ensure they reach their potential. (I'm not pushy mum who's decided only Oxford will do, btw. tbh I've always maintained that I don't care if they don't go to university at all - I always felt I was never given any other options in my academic high pressure school and have always slightly resented that. As long as they find something that makes them happy and as long as I've done my best to facilitate that.

oh - and litchick - I agree with you about our own experience being out of date! Things have so moved on. My O and A levels are a positive embarrasment by today's standards

No they're not. Grade inflation, remember?

hatwoman, I sympathise - I also worry about whether I am giving the DCs the best chances, though I have actually chosen to send them to private schools - I now worry whether that is going to count against them....

I am following the debates about the disproportionate number of independent school applicants getting into Oxbridge/RG and I agree something needs to be done, though I think it should be improving the quality of education at state schools rather than trying to compensate for it rather crudely and belatedly at university admissions stage.

I do also wish that they could go to schools that were both academically challenging and more socially diverse - at the moment, at least in my area, you have to choose, and I feel my DCs are going to be happier at schools with high academic standards.

If that means they don't get into Oxbridge (despite coming from three or four generations of Oxbridge graduates) then so be it. The main thing is that they are happy.

I read the article as well hatwoman and think it was about nothing really - to prepare for STEP you just need to work through past papers and there is masses of help on the internet particularly The Student Room if none is available in school. To be honest I'd rather DD2 wasn't tutored through it but was just given guidance when she asks for it which is what her Maths teacher(state school) has offered.

I thought that the programme was strange in that it only gave the perspective of interviewers (who were cagey) and interviewees (who do this only once). It would have been interesting to also hear from teachers (who do this year after year) and who have tales of those that unexpectedly got in and those dead-certs who didn't.

senua I agree.

Some schools clearly have it down pat.

Obviously, their pupils must be bright enough, but they must be helping in other ways. It would be interesting to know what.

Certainly a headmistress of a highly academic london day school told a group of us parents that she was preparing her girls for the best courses at the best universities 'from the day they walk through the door'.

Highly impressive, but also a little scary.

Senua - precisely! It was lazy - no proper research just a collection of anecdotes. Exexpat - i would not worry about the type of school your child is at counting against them. Someone recently commented on a thread that a friend of hers doing admissions at Bristol checked school names and then chucked out those from Eton/Harron/St Pauls/Winchester etc... Heard yesterday that a friend's son at one of theose schools did not get into Oxford (not bias - he just wasn'r good enough!) but was eagerly snapped up by Bristol.. So ancedotes are just that.

I mean - take anecdotes with a pinch of salt...

I thought it was a pretty lightweight programme and didn't really say anything in the end.

When I applied (20 years ago) the people who got accepted tended to be the brightest - irrespective of the type of school they went to. They rejected me .

I just listened to the programme - with much interest as we live in the area and I'm familiar with all the schools.

Obviously it was difficult to tell who should and who shouldn't have gained a place in a 30-minute radio programme, but the "runner" did come across as a little arrogant and keen to go to Oxford because it was Oxford, rather than because he loved English. The others seemed more passionate about their subjects.

"think it should be improving the quality of education at state schools rather than trying to compensate for it rather crudely and belatedly at university admissions stage." exexpat - couldn't agree more. I get fed up of the blame being put solely on the universities.

Gramercy, I'm an admissions tutor, and I was a little put off by the running guy too; poor lad, I think he'd been told we search for arrogant people...I really heartily endorse the programme's connclusion.

My son's brilliant state sixth form college persuaded him to apply even though he didn't think his GCSEs and AS levels were good enough. They set up Oxbridge groups which were about debating and building confidence and which prepared them to think flexibly and resposnively to the exam (he is doing literature so sat the ELAT paper). They gave him mock interviews and a pat on the back and sent him off. The interviewers were not remotely interested in his extra curricular activities, wider reading, past grades etc. They gave him unseen pieces of text and quizzed him on his responses. Where they asked questions about books he had read, they were left field - what other literature of the period does it remind you of/what do you think the play reveals about Elizabethan attitudes to theatre etc. He LOVED being interviewed - said he felt like a grown up, intelligent being, and he got an offer. There was little anyone could have done for him that wasn't done - at the end of the day it's your child in a room and they're trying to get into his/her head, see how flexible, responsive, passionate, interesting they are. Now he just has to get the grades of course.....