Would a person need to be officially GnT to consider Oxford?

[ZombiesAtYourCervix]

D1 is 15 and has decided that's where she is going. She is nice, sweet and hardworking but not brilliantly clever (predicted mostly As at GCSE). She just asked if she could go to an open day sometime to have a look around (very forward planning I know but that's her)

DO I encourage her or redirect her?

What BoffinMum says sounds right to me and as I said I have done admissions interviews very recently (though not this year). Some subjects have strict guidelines on offers across the university (e.g. maths at Cambridge I think?) but others will have more leeway and show some variety between colleges and subjects - e.g. Christ's Cambridge which until fairly recently (but I think no more) still gave some EE offers.

I do think too that parents'/schools' impression is bound to vary depending on their context - so for instance if your children and those of most of your friends are at top-rank schools with very good A level results and lots of Oxbridge entrants each year the offers are likely to be high and students are likely to be rejected if they miss them. A group of students who applied following a Sutton Trust summer school might have a slightly different experience.

I don't think Oxford have started demanding an A* yet, but perhaps they're going to this year?

Oxford is asking for an A* in certain sciences this year but not Medicine and not in the Arts.

Thank you Kalidasa.

The Outreach team certainly are not going around telling everyone that they need a full clutch of A stars in order to apply, and if you have heard this them please PM with the name of the person or school involved, and I will raise it with the relevant people.

'Ella what I'm saying is that if students are turned away with A*AA having missed one grade in STEP then it's going to be very unlikely that many students will be allowed in with AAB. '

Why, though? There's no reason why one student's offer should have any impact on another student's offer, is there? Let alone why any student's missed offer should have an impact on the offers other students in the same year will have received several months before the failure you claim is so crucial.

I am not especially knowlegeable, just puzzled by that chain of reasoning. And I do think in all areas of academia, a lot of people seem positively to want to say it is harder than you can imagine. I find it depressing.

I think people have misunderstood how it works. Everyone who interviews is supposed to have attended the Staff Development training course, and on that course we are told to screen applicants for the whole of Cambridge, not just the college we are interviewing for that day. We give marks for the interview (and the other stuff on the UCAS form, plus any tests done on the day) and if the candidates reach above a certain threshold, they are pooled regardless of whether we offer them a place. That means other colleges consider them as well as our college. So that means if there is a good haul at one popular college, it does not mean that other good candidates lose out, because in theory they will be accepted elsewhere. So you are not necessarily competing for a place at one college, but rather across the whole university, and the number of places in each college has a little flexibility (it also depends on how many people are accepted for deferred places and so on). We start from the premise of trying to accept people, not reject them.

i know a few people who went to oxford/cambridge. only one was your typical genius. the others had 3 As at A level but were more rounded with extra curricular activities, things like volunteering schemes not things that can be gotten by simply paying for it. i think oxbridge admissions comes down to more who you are rather than down to grades, i think they would took someone with 3 As but who volunteering with a charity for a long time rather than someone with 4As.

Wrong Ella I make a point of doing exactly the opposite. It annoys me a lot when people claim that 10 A*'s the norm. I said precisely that on another thread a day or two ago. It deters talented applicants so isn't good.

That having been said, I do think representing Cambridge's standard offer as 5A at GCSE, 2 A's at AS and 3 A's at A2 isn't helpful. There's no suggestion that OP's DD is likely to be a Special Access applicant (though I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something above).

I'd rather not name names BoffinMum, I'm not convinced it would serve any purpose. I've had reason to listen to a number of different outreach officers speak and all have been completely consistent. In each case the audience was high achieving however, so Kalidasa's point holds good. The message was: over 90% in AS modules (94% and above) and no question of any offer less than A*AA, preferably with a fourth subject at A2.

I'm very keen on the idea of differentiated offers becoming the norm. The new A must be extremely difficult for students in some schools to achieve. But I still believe that the overwhelming majority of offers made at Cambridge are currently at AAA. Again, I'm happy for you to tell me that across the university and all disciplines I'm wrong.'

V few geniuses at Oxford. I'd say out of those on my course at my college, there was 1 girl (German) in the year below who I would say was exceptional. The others all fall into the hard-working quite bright camp. (Myself included.)

By the way, G&T is hardly 'genius' - just top 10%.

I might be able to clarify the stuff about applying to do maths at Cambridge, and not meeting your grade offer but getting a place anyway.

The thing that really matters is STEP - the special maths papers. So if you got the grade you needed in STEP - say, an S or a 1 - but fecked up an A level completely and got a B, then you really should still be given a place, because skills at STEP level are far, far more relevant than being able to jump through hoops at A level. And if you got a B, it's most likely because your Gran died or something.

All of this is based on my reading of the matter, but I think it offers a clue. Apologies in advance to anyone who knows better than me, though.

AFAIK to get an S in STEP is really quite brilliant, so to not let you in because you got an A level B would be bonkers.

Boffinmum - an oxford outreach (?) person told my friend that the minimum A* was really 7 maybe 6. She has still applied with less so it did not faze her

I think it's absolutely right that outreach people aren't putting students off by saying you need a perfect clutch of GCSEs. In the real world, all kinds of things can muck up your life and affect your schoolwork, especially if your school is too big and busy to really notice and help you out. If you get your act together in time for AS levels, then you should be allowed to make a full recovery.

And, as someone else has said, it depends on the subject as well.

I think it's absolutely right that outreach people aren't putting students off by saying you need a perfect clutch of GCSEs

I agree.

I certainly haven't heard any outreach officer claiming that a straight run of GCSE A*'s are required.

Agree about subject making a difference, even within Oxford and Cambridge. On MN, entrance requirements for the two universities are often conflated and that causes confusion.

Admissions procedures also vary between subjects. What holds good for Medicine may well not hold good for History (etc.).

The extent to which subjects are directed from the centre also varies. A number of these procedures appear to be in a state of flux.

The synthesis?: it may be wise to ignore a lot of advice and apply anyhow, if a student is so minded!

But there's a significant difference between 5 A's and 7 A*'s.

As well as a difference between both of those and a straight run of 10, 11 or 12 A*'s.

I understand as well that it's about showing an upward trajectory - so, adequate GCSEs (whatever that means ), followed by promising AS levels, with really good A level predictions.

And onto a first...

yellowstone is right, it is subject dependent, but even so Boffinmum clearly works in one of the less fussy subjects. Keble College (Oxford) provide admissions feedback by subject on their website and below are some quotes Link Here:

Economics and Management (one of the very most oversubscribed courses). In the list of reasons why candidates might not be invited to interview it said:
"Results in official examinations, especially GCSE, which are not at the highest level ? candidates should have virtually spotless GCSE results to secure an interview."

For Engineering: "Almost all candidates have all or mostly A* at GCSE and predictions of straight A grades at A level"

Law: "Almost all candidates had all or mostly A at GCSE and were predicted a run of A or A grades at A level."

Theology: deselection if: "results in official examinations, especially GCSE, that fall significantly short of the minimum achieved by successful candidates in recent years, virtually all of whom show a run of consistent A or A grades at A level and predominantly A at GCSE."

MFL - No mention of GCSEs talks only about language abilities.

Physics - deselection based entirely on PAT results (ie: GCSE independent)

and so on - pretty much the full range of GCSE results needed from perfect to doesn't matter, but very dependent on the subject chosen.

"Spotless"

I'm glad that what the outreach people are saying is different. I understand the line, but it is very daunting, nonetheless.

I don't interview for Oxford. I interview for Cambridge. So comparing it to Keble is a bit pointless. And the subject I interview for is one of the most oversubscribed at Cambridge, at the most popular college for the subject.

I am being very patient with you ... our advice is always if applicants think they might benefit from the course, and they are amongst the top candidates in terms of GCSEs and A Levels in their school, they should always apply. Please everyone, there is no need to get completely hung up on exam results. It's the love of the subject and the intellectual engagement with it that is the top priority. Obviously you need to have proven a good degree of intellectual stamina, and this is usually done via GCSE and A Level results, but even with a complete set of A stars you are not guaranteed a place unless the rest is there.

I am going to duck out of this thread now, as it's getting a bit circular. Thanks to everyone who has sent me supportive messages, especially my colleagues. I will raise the conflicting reports about advice from the Outreach people when I get chance, though, as I'd like to clarify whether there's any kind of gap between theory and practice in admissions at the moment.

NotAnOtter, I?m really about your ds being given a hard time at Cambridge for having a Northern accent, coming from a state school and having to work to pay his way. That?s awful for him.

If they recruited a higher proportion of state school students it would help no end. At my dc?s huge state school, just about every race, religion and political tendency is represented. From day one they have it dinned into them that intolerance is completely unacceptable, that difference is to be celebrated, that community is all, and that social justice is essential. If they didn?t hear that day in, day out, there would be chaos.

Also, by the sixth form, probably a majority are doing serious work for money ? and are respected for it. They are certainly hard-headed realists where economics are concerned; and motivated to work.

I?m glad for him that NatSci gets better in the second year, and I hope things go much better for him from now on. Sadly I know a few former state school pupils who got into Oxbridge and then were utterly miserable, but I had hoped that it had become a thing of the past.

Everyone who applies, their application is read.

There is not a computer that says "no" based on GCSE results.

Every personal statement, every extra piece of information regarding schools or illness or disability or SN or extenuating circumstances is read, by an actual human being.

Universities are academic centres of learning and research. It is not their job to embark on social engineering ? that?s best left to other (governmental) institutions. It follows therefore, that the best and most suitable candidates are admitted to their respective courses irrespective of their backgrounds or postcodes. I stand corrected but I cannot think of another university anywhere in the world that operates a flagging system in admitting students.

Little wonder British universities and educational standards are slipping down the world league tables. Emerging nations such as China, India, Korea, Singapore etc. have universities filled with some of the poorest students I know doing the most demanding science/maths/engineering courses. And yes, even Oxford and Cambridge today are beginning to be flooded with these students from the East and they didn?t get there on charity or postcodes or head starts. Admittedly, many of them are on scholarships because they are poor which goes to prove you can still make it whatever your background.

Yes, OP like I said before, please encourage your DD ? at least for a visit at the Open Day. A few years ago that?s exactly what I did when I took my DD there but she decided she didn?t like the university but loved the city.

As for Oxbridge, can there be anything more ridiculous for a current Cambridge admissions interviewer for ?one of the most oversubscribed subjects at Cambridge? and ?at the most popular college for the subject? to be told that her advice is ?completely out of touch??

Please don?t duck out BoffinMum, you are one of the most refreshing breath of fresh air that has ever blown this way.

You can only apply for a certain number of colleges?

Not going to comment on grade requirements as I have no clue what they need these days, but I just want to comment on the experiences of state school applicants to redress the negative comments on this thread, as I would hate anyone to be put off.

I went to a state school and studied at Cambridge in the mid -90s. I had a wonderful time, met some great people from all backgrounds and really can't recommend it enough. Certainly, I never experienced any snobbery from other students or dons and I think the college system really encourages a friendly atmosphere.

Before I went I had all the usual worries that I wouldn't fit in, but really, it was never an issue. I did struggle academically in my first year mainly because A-level really didn't prep me for a degree in my subject (and my school taught to test- non-selective 6th form) but I got a 2:1 in the end, so I managed.