Oxbridge applications - requirements other than the academic

[squashpie]

Hi,

I know two friends' children who have offers from Cambridge. They are both great kids, one boy, one girl. They are obviously mega-bright and should do very well on the academic side of things. Also, the boy plays an instrument and rows and the girl is something like grade 7 on the piano.

Do you need to have all the 'extra' stuff to be accepted into Oxbridge. Is that how they distinguish between all the bright kids out there: by their extra curricular achievements?

ECT6, congratulations on your offer and thanks for this advice.

DD will be doing a PS soon but can I ask, as she will be applying to unis other than Oxbridge and Cambridge who might point score on D of E etc, should she just mention them but not go into detail, e.g waffling about team skills and leadership etc but talk more about relevant volunteering, work placements.

ECT well done on the offer, I hope you enjoy your three years.

I think there has been much more openness from universities about what counts in the past few years. Remember, the school has to give advice equally to the lower achievers as well as those at the top. Also, very few students can be so sure of their Oxbridge offer that they can afford not to cover the second string audience. It seems that the very highly sought after universities are all giving out pretty much the same advice as Oxford and Cambridge but that the next tier down may weigh other achievements differently. That's the conclusion I'd draw from some of the offers/ rejections made to students I know this year applying for identical courses at identical universities with pretty much identical grades. Of course there's always a danger of generalising from the particular but on the small sample of students whose outcomes I know, I would say it's important to target the PS appropriately and not exclude anything that might interest tutors in your less preferred universities, you might need them.

Yeah, I think so, that's prett much what I did. If it helps at all, this is my personal statement:

"For all of [the Church's] history it has tried to suppress and control every natural impulse". Reading this, in Philip Pullman's "The Subtle Knife", stimulated my interest in philosophy as a child, and formed the foundation of a stubborn atheism. Years on, having attended five years of philosophy club, a Christian summer camp and stayed in a Buddhist monastery, and with notable influences on my thinking ranging from Aquinas' "On Morality, Law and Politics" to Schopenhauer's "On the Sufferings of the World", I am somewhat more open minded. Now the forum for my ideas is no longer the playground but the online discussion boards of the Philosophy Meet-Up Society and letters to national newspapers. However, I remain interested by the effect of religion on society, and am currently completing a dissertation evaluating the statement that "Even in the 21st century the Church of England represents a form of social repression". During my research, I have established a dialogue with a number of scholars, resulting in the offer of a place at the annual British Postgraduate Philosophy Convention; the only invitation of its kind. My wish to understand what leads 72% of UK citizens to describe themselves as Christian, as well as a broader interest in the human condition, has led me to teach myself the basis of the A level Psychology course. In doing so, I have discovered experimental evidence that can be used to support the theoretical works of scholars; for example Pavlov and Skinner's studies have afforded me an insight into behavioural conditioning, invaluable in defending Spinoza's determinism.
I am also intrigued by the same question that vexed Aquinas - how to talk about God meaningfully, resorting to neither univocal nor equivocal language, which either reduce God to merely anthropomorphic or are devoid of meaning. I seek to find a method more satisfactory than his analogies of attribution and proportion which, to my mind, retain fatal flaws.
I have a growing interest in political philosophy, sparked by my involvement in the Labour Party, participating in two elections, campaigning alongside the five leadership contenders, full time employment in the holidays and an invitation to assist at the Party Conference in 2011. My desire to better understand the philosophical underpinnings of political systems led me to read, for example Rousseau's "The Social Contract", and I concur that an individual can only be free under the law if he voluntarily embraces that law as his own, and so subjugates his idea to "the general will". Perhaps the most rewarding discussion I have participated in debated whether this is a promise of a free and equal relationship between society and the individual, or closer to a blueprint for totalitarianism. I now appreciate that these ideas are not simply theoretical but have a real importance in understanding the ways in which we are governed.
My A Level subjects have taught me valuable skills applicable to philosophical and theological study, from analysis with scientific precision in Biology to concision in writing History coursework. My team also won the National Magistrates and Bar Mock Trial Competitions, which enabled me to gain confidence in constructing an accurate, logical argument that stands up to intense scrutiny.
I enjoy challenging the beliefs of others and defending my own ideas, and have established a Debate Club where I teach informal lessons on such topics as the logical possibility of a disembodied existence and the concept of evil as a deprivation, which are then discussed. We are creating DVDs of teaching resources surrounding philosophical and theological topics of particular interest to us as an identical twin, I am exploring the issue of identity and personhood.
Hence the reason I wish to further my study; whilst I continue these discussions, I am keenly aware of the limits of my own understanding, and the avenues yet to explore.

and yes, Yellowstone, I agree entirely - you really have to include everything that your other choices might want too

Interesting thread.

I too am lucky enough to have an offer from Oxford (for law). Although I'm sure it is helpful of ECT6 to have posted their personal statement, I would advise against relying too heavily on the personal statements of others when writing your own.

By that I don't mean that people tend towards plagiarism after reading someone else's PS; rather I mean that it becomes very hard to write an original, highly personalised PS of your own. Certainly I did all I could to make sure my PS was personal to me, which I did by structuring it around my own experiences and what I had drawn from them, and by avoiding reading anyone else's at all.

I strongly agree with ECT that relating this all back to my interest in the law was crucial. Whilst extra-curriculars are at the very least useful in showing a rounded personality, effective organisation, etc, ultimately that has to be ancillary to your chosen subject.

ECT - impressed by your self-taught psychology. Are you taking the exam as a fourth A-level? Tbh I find three quite enough...

Yellowstone is right. I'm an Oxford admissions tutor and I know we just don't care about DofE or such trifles.

Missingfriends is also right; we don't always attract the best people from the maintained sector, often because they are discouraged by teachers etc.

However, I wouldn't rate someone who organised affairs at Oxfam, I'm afraid. Really most of us want supernerds, not well-rounded people.

She's right about the dress code, though; I never even notice what they are wearing unless it is noticeably strange, like thigh-high croc boots - which really happened once, teamed with a tartan mini, and yes, she got a place. Other things few people care about include accents, parents, school origins, and the firmness of the handshake.

I wouldn't tackle interviews this way either - it sounds a bit coached and mannered. What I tend to want to see is hunger and evidence of it - someone who has tackled something difficult. Quite raw hunger is fine as long as they've done something to feed it.

ETC6, gosh. fantastic PS but I'm afraid it gave me a headache, far too highbrow for me.

Glad DD isn't thinking of applying if all they want is super nerds, she wouldn't fit in at all.

sieglinde 'supernerds' isn't sending out a particularly encouraging message!

If you asked a poll of your students which thought of themselves or each other as 'supernerds' I don't expect you'd get a majority vote!

Yes, you would. I asked them. And if they don't like the idea, they'd probably be happier elsewhere.

Strong dissent from my lot round the supper table last night and on behalf of their friends. Maybe they're doing non-supernerd subjects or are in non-supernerd parts of town....(the second daughter did say there were some about but no more than one in five and that those are the ones who hide in their rooms/ labs/ libraries and rarely come out).

Somehow thigh-high croc boots and a strip of tartan skirt doesn't readily suggest sn to me :)

Seriously though, if the students on the outreach programmes went into schools and said Oxford is looking for supernerds, I think the outreach programme might falter or fail.

Supernerd is just not a good word.

ps - DD1's boyfriend does readily admit that he is phenomenally clever reading a phenomenally hard subject at a phenomenally demanding college, but he's phenomenally put out by the 'supernerd' allegation. He hopes you're not his tutor :)

Well basically Oxbridge admissions are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't aren't they? If they insist on pure academic performance they could be accused of not being open to applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds where an A grade might reflect the same talent and work ethic as an A* from an independent school, but likewise if they reward 'well rounded' individuals they could be accused of restricting access to pupils from schools without debating societies/funds to travel on a gap yah etc

I think as Frak and ECT6 showed, the personal statement is of very little use at Oxbridge because the admissions procedure is fairly unique in that they will have given you at least one interview, whereas most universities have only your forms to go on. If you're committed to Oxbridge it's probably worth utilising that space to focus solely on things that demonstrate your passion for your subject, even if that does make you a 'supernerd' in the eyes of other universities.

I would say, once you've got there, virtually everybody does something extra - drama, debating, sport, music, journalism, posh drinking and networking. There aren't that many Oxbridge students who just study, and play pool in the pub. So it might be worth demonstrating a sort of keenness to join in to demonstrate that you will fit in and contribute to college life - and college life is very different and community based to university life - but equally it'll pretty much be taken for granted anyhow!

sieglinde I certainly didn't look for supernerds when I did admissions. In my field at least, to be a properly original thinker you have to be able to think beyond your subject and be fully engaged in the wider world. Academically highly committed, certainly, but not a 'supernerd' in the sense that you are thinking of.

I hate to ask, but are you a physicist or mathematician?

libelulle, I think we are actually looking for the same things. It's just I'm calling it nerdy because I think in most schools the qualities I seek would be called that, and I want to encourage people who have been seen in that light to see it more positively.

I don't however care much about engagement with 'the wider world' and I don't know anybody in my subject who does. Are you, by any chance, in the social sciences or medicine/law? I'm in the humanities, fwiw, and also FWIW, I've done Oxbridge admissions for over ten years.

and Yellowstone, I think my reply to libelulle above would probably do for the supper table as well. I think we should take back the word nerd. I do sometimes tell students to let their inner nerd out... However, I think we are now in danger of a discussion about logos and marketing. And of course all students do something other than academicals, but I don't really care what it is. That's their business.

'Really most of us want supernerds' - I can't tell you how happy this has made me, Sieglinde! My son is a nerd with very good exam results (so far, fingers crossed for the AS levels). He does have a few extra-curricular things to his credit, but my niggling worry is that if he applies for Oxford or Cambridge (quite likely, I think) he is not a naturally chatty person. Every school report he's ever had contains the phrase 'He should contribute more in class' as from what I can make out he sits there in silence until asked a direct question. His teachers say that he will then give a good answer and I think he tends to be a bit more forthcoming when he knows the teacher, but in an intervew with a pair of unknown lecturers.....

He has not as yet done much, if any, reading round the subject but in my view that is something he has to decide about for himself. If he doesn't buckle down and do that over the summer he will be wasting his time applying to Oxbridge, which he knows. He goes to the kind of school that will give him reading lists, interview preparation etc but that will only go so far.

If he applies for a modern language, I assume part of the interview would be in the target language? Don't know if that would be a help or a hindrance.

LondonMother, do message me if I can be of further help. Most ML admissions involve written and oral tests...

Thanks for taking back the nerd word sieglinde. But the word has such negative connotations it probably goes beyond logos and marketing, though I do now see what you're trying to convey to your current students.

LondonMother DS1 is applying this year too and isn't naturally chatty, though he isn't in the least geeky looking or socially dysfunctional either. The one thing I thnk he will need to do in an interview is to give more than one word answers and show that his reticence doesn't mean that he's not fully engaged, when he is.

It's our experience here though that the tutors are hugely clever at making even the most reluctant students talk. They clearly get the measure of an interviewee very quickly and adjust as appropriate.

Good luck to your son, Yellowstone! I assume the school reference will mention my son's reticence (good word) and shyness.

Interesting how words affect us all differently. I don't find nerd or geek offensive at all. I find them useful words for my household members, every one of whom is an out and proud nerd. I don't think we're socially dysfunctional (except for my daughter, who has Asperger's) but we're not party animals and we do have rather unusual interests - often it's the things we're not interested in that make me think of us all as nerds, actually.

LondonMother very good luck to yours too! If it's of help, my DD2 was incredibly shy with new people/ interviews and the tutors gave her a completely different interview from the interview they seemed to give the others at her college. She applied for history so the sort of subject where you'd expect opinions and a requirement to speak! I'm sure the school reference will mention shyness etc. especially if your DS thinks that that's a good idea (universities must surely read the reference, regardless of their attitude to the PS). The tutors have said they want a mix of types, not everyone always singing and dancing, a diverse range of types, because that's life and that makes their teaching more interesting quite apart from being mutually beneficial to the students.

If there are school teachers listening, PLEASE LET US KNOW if someone is shy - we can make allowances then. No, we DON't always want very chatty or gabby people! I'm with LondonMother, too - we are a house of nerds, out and proud. But none of us are shy; we're talking nerds.

LondonMother my shy DD's reference didn't allude to her shyness at all but the tutors were still very quick to be responsive to her quieter style. She wouldn't have wanted it mentioned; that's just in case your DS is the same. It was never raised as a possibility, but I'm sure she'd have thought it might have deterred some of the non-interviewing universities where seminars are the more usual type of teaching and where they might want students to be more outgoing and bold. In fact one thing she did give as a reason for wanting to apply to Oxford was precisely that: that she would feel less shy in a one to one or one to two situation than she would in a group.

sieglinde you must be a hard nut in tutorials! You've re-adopted your first position having said you'd give it up! Or is that just flexibility? The students Libelulle recruited weren't nerds, my three aren't nerds, their friends are overwhelmingly not nerds. They're open-minded and inclusive enough not to shun or look down on nerds (who they think are likely to be more purely intellectual than they are themselves) but they really do dispute and abhor the label.

In addition, my DD2 is shy. Her appearance belies the fact but she nevertheless is properly shy with new people, though getting less so as the system bolsters her confidence.

Oh, snivel, I think I've been misunderstood. I'm just - as said - trying to reclaim the n-word, but I'm fighting in a bit of a mist, because not sure why your dcs hate it...? and of course I'm a dreaded tutor . No, seriously, I do think enthusiasm and even passion are horribly underrated in life by comparison with social skills. Your dcs sound lovely, Yellowstone; it's nice when you can have many gifts. Not all kids can, though.

Oh sieglinde I'm stupid. I've re-read your post: I thought you were referring to your Oxford family -all the students- as a 'house of nerds'. I'm an idiot. Hence the thing about DD2 being shy: I sped read (in a very busy kitchen) and thought you meant Oxford nerds weren't shy nerds and that you were moving on to a new and dubious point.

Why do they object? Nerd to them implies cut off from peers somehow and other worldly; it also implies geeky - physically and sartorially weird. Now mine are likely not to be at the upper end of the cleverness range at Oxford but I think they like the fact that they are normal and they believe others are more likely to apply and go to Oxford if they understand that it accomodates the normal but bright and enthusiastic and that it's not a place only for the stratospheric, even though clearly some absurdly brilliant people are there. That's the message they take back to school.

Incidentally, none of mine have done anything hugely notable in terms of extra curricular, it's been all very mild. So on that sieglinde, their lack of anything stellar on the sports field or in the concert hall shores up your point!

You're not stupid - I'm glad to have been understood. No, I meant my biological family. They - the dcs - are Goths, so no hope even of looking very normal.

DS has a rock band. DD doesn't even play an instrument. They have friends, of course, as odd as themselves. Don't think this is something we've done, except by tolerating black leatherware. Yours sound lovely and I'm sure their message is a good one.

I think all I'd say is that Oxford is really for all stripes of clever human, but my niece e.g. was put off applying because her friends said it was only for nerds, and she later said to me, in a surge of empowerment, 'ok, I'm a geek. So???'. That's the spirit.

'Oxford is for all stripes of clever human' : perfect phrase! :)