Oxbridge and State Schools

[RiversideMum]

Feeling a bit cross about a presentation DD attended at a local school for all the secondaries in the area. It didn't seem hugely encouraging given that the DCs there had been invited to attend by their schools and therefore had the potential to be applicants. Now in my heart of hearts I'm not sure that DD is Oxbridge material, but for her to come away for the presentation saying "I don't think I would fit in" is somewhat disappointing.

Isn't part of what Propitious describes the crux of the problem? What if a child/school/parent does not have a "network"? If that is what is really necessary, then why was that not talked about at the outreach presentation? The DCs know what the entry requirements are, and they know it will be hard work. What they need is the inside track. Or do they assume we already all know this?

RiversideMum, are you seriously suggesting that the privileged give away anything but the most tokenistic amount of their power?

I am of the mindset that everyone who has 3 As or higher at AL should be put in a lottery for Oxbridge places, and it should be decided on that basis. Why even attempt to distinguish between the top nano percentages of ability? If people with top grades can't cope with the 'system' then more and better supervisions need to be provided for them, rather than the students perceived as failures.

I also think all college endowments should be pooled and/or students allocated randomly by lottery to colleges.

The present system is not fit for purpose, but there are some very determined vested interests propping it up.

Anyway MN people, you have a built in network with me and other people on here who have experience of working within the Oxbridge system and/or being admissions people. So make the most of that. I have a very good idea of how to navigate the system to improve chances. Ask any questions you like.

BTW when we read the personal statements they look pretty scary to most of us. As academics we often were quite nerdy and spent time on intellectual tasks rather than joining clubs, doing D of E and so on. One thing we all did have in common was setting ourselves spontaneous personal intellectual challenges and seeing them through, quite separate from anything going on at school.

For example at one stage I sat down and wrote a book of Lieder translations from the German to English because I felt like it. The translations were pretty good, but the ability to do this was not recognised in my terrible A Level grades!!

Another example. DD won some money from school to do a journalistic article of her choice. Later I found she had infiltrated a group of (male) graffiti artists and basically carried their gear while they carried out their 'work'. This allowed her to gather sociological data of the type and quality of some of the early sociological urban research projects (before ethics committees!) She did this entirely by herself, not least because I would have had a fit. The article was amazing. Oxbridge were quite gobsmacked she had done this and seen it through, and analysed her findings in the way that she did - completely on her own.

That's what Oxbridge wants. Thinkers.

Another useful thing to bear in mind. There are two kinds of Oxbridge person, machers and schmoozers.

Machers make things,or make things happen.

Schmoozers network, and get on that way.

Machers look like this.

Macher

Schmoozers look like this.
<a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01630/cam19_84_1630035i.jpg&imgrefurl=www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/7682276/David-Cameron-the-new-Prime-Ministers-life-and-career-in-pictures.html?image%3D5&h=467&w=620&sz=88&tbnid=YMIyWErcPkEnBM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=116&zoom=1&usg=__2g8RvbcKRJxtVxn4sMJvFXs-u5I=&docid=qir9sNSq38ld-M&sa=X&ei=qzFhUaWNEMqJ0AW45oGQBg&ved=0CEwQ9QEwCA&dur=451" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Schmoozers

At least Varsity are onto the supervision gap thing.

Supervision article

The picture in the article looks very like a typical supervision, by the way.

But without the tea and sometimes it has to take place in a coffee shop if the supervisor is too junior to actually have a study or workplace.

I think the most recent advice on this thread is Cambridge centric and doesn't apply to Oxford. There can be a tendency for those from Cambridge to generalise from their particular. I've no idea if it applies to Cambridge but some of it certainly sounds very odd.

I find the whole idea of networking to facilitate getting in faintly absurd and certainly not necessary - possibly not desirable either. There may be a danger, as there seems to be with mad and excessive tutoring for the 11+, that those who network furiously/ shell out hundreds for 'expert advice' etc. etc. believe that this is what helped secure an offer, when in reality their child would have secured an offer in any event.

The best networking is for kids to join subject associations, eg the Young Archeologists' Club, and become keen members, and be spotted doing things consistently and with great passion by the very people who are likely to be teaching them at university in the same subject later on.

Oxford centralise funding more than Cambridge, Yellowtip, but it is still not perfect.

Oxford appears to centralise more full stop, which is why comparisons frequently aren't valid Boffin. And I don't think even those in charge of the admissions process yet claim that it's perfect, but it isn't all bad.

And do you really believe that 'networking furiously' in the sense that Propitious meant it is necessary or even a good thing to do? I can't think why anyone would emerge from a mock interview 'ashen faced' either - even the real thing isn't that onerous, surely?

Networking may indeed not be necessary if you are white, middle class, university educated and your offspring go to a school with a history of getting their charges into Oxbridge. If you're none of the above (or even can't 'tick' just one of those 'pre-qualifiers') then you're on your own to face a subtle and sophisticated admissions procedure about which you know little.

Networking shouldn't be necessary (or desirable?) if, as Boffin suggests, there was a logical selection procedure which was fair to the truly able irrespective of their background.

Bear in mind there was a Russell Group hoo-ha fairly recently over the 'correct' A-levels to take if candidates were to stand a chance of gaining a place at one of these better universities. There are many parents out there whose only guidance on 'A' level subject choice comes from the school who want to shunt a fair number of pupils into hopeless Media Studies-type 'soft' subjects because it improves the school's strike rate in the league tables. Educated and discriminating parents already know these subjects are hopeless for Oxbridge, but there are many who don't have the same explicit knowledge (or ability) to de-code the whole 'A' level/Oxbridge entry puzzle.

If the school is of no help to potential Oxbridge candidates then where do you turn for help? Networking levels the playing field for the uninitiated.

Yellowtip: The Cambridge 'mock' interview. I took DC to Cambridge for the interview when the interview process was in full swing out of term. It can be a hugely anxious time for candidates and certainly the atmosphere in the corridors etc where the interviews took place was a bit like the dentist's waiting room when awaiting root canal work. There were a lot of extremely anxious young people there - most of them ashen-faced.

My DC was sixteen at the time of interview and after the event commented that the stressful nature of the preparation did help on the day. No doubt supremely confident candidates from privileged backgrounds will have had plenty of 'high table'-type discussions (where you're forced to think on your feet, make sense, and defend your position etc) so might even enjoy a bit of verbal/intellectual 'fencing' with the admissions tutors. If however your background is less exalted then you might find the interview a bit of a shock to the system, clam up, or blabber on making no sense at all.....for these candidates intense/semi-realistic preparation will be vital.

Oxford selection process compared to Cambridge. A very good friend is an admissions tutor at a middle ranking Oxford college. When comparing notes/experiences with them there was little substantive overall difference, with similar outcomes. If anything Oxford more likely to select its traditional demographic compared to Cambridge. (I think recent independent studies back this up?)

Re. supervisions - I still remember my (very experienced and elderly) Director of Studies turning to me and saying "If you want to study X, there are two supervisors, Dr A and Dr B. Dr A is mad, and Dr B is a drunk. Think about whether you still want to study X, and then choose which one you want."

In the end she tracked down the very young but very good Dr C, and I studied with him instead.

Yellow to be fair, I have observed just as much generalising from the particular from the Oxford people, you know. However, I must say that a lot of the more recent views on this thread seem completely alien to my own experience and that of the family friend who is currently in his first year at Cambridge. So, maybe things have changed massively, or, maybe not. There were certainly many many people who did do the whole networky shmoozy thing while I was there. But I personally knew far more who, like me, didn't. As for supervision hours - yes, they could vary massively in my time, too. The reason for this was sometimes that a college chose to buy in more but cheaper (eg PhD student) time, and sometimes that people actually opted to have more, or less, supervisions. It was certainly much pretty up to me, in my third year, what supervisions I had and with whom I had them. I shared many with a friend from a different (very ancient) college - some were organised by her DoS, some by mine, some by ourselves, all were signed off by our respective DoSs. Maybe things are more restrictive these days, which would I think be a shame. But certainly all those years ago there was a definite supervisions gap not just between colleges but between different students within the same course at the same college.

Propitious did you really take your DC to their interview? I did get a lift to Liverpool Street, I admit, because although there were trains all through the night from Croydon even in those days, we all felt it was a tad early for me to be setting out from home completely on the train system (from memory my train from Liverpool Street was at about 6am ish). But once I was turfed out of the car (nicely) at the kerb, that was it, I was on my own with my walkman and my book. By the time I reached my future college, I already felt like I had conquered Everest, and it felt like a rest cure to be sitting in a lovely warm room talking about interesting stuff rather than interfacing with British Rail.

Mind you I'm not saying we won't end up chauffeuring our DCs to their interviews/auditions wherever they may be. The trains from here are beyond atrocious. But I don't think we'd actually, you know, come within 50 feet of the actual venues. There will be some sort of discreet turfing out within reasonable-but-not-lazy walking distance.

Propitious so on the tick box exercise, how many boxes did you yourself not tick out of white, middle class and university educated? And I'm interested as to what sort of a state school your son or daughter attended up to GCSE? Was it markedly under performing? Average? High performing? Or a grammar? Clearly there's an inherent conflict in this notion of needing to 'network' since it's precisely those who need to boost their chances by networking (according to you anyhow) who are least likely to have 'useful' acquaintances to network with. I don't think it's necessary at all; just another perceived barrier, or deterrent.

Likewise I don't see hours of interview prep being a particularly helpful idea, even if your home lacks 'high table' (!) level discussion. I can personally vouch for the fact, several times over, that it's entirely possible to come from a home where absolutely no 'high-table' discussion takes place on a regular basis, if ever, and yet still get offers from perfectly acceptable colleges in reasonably competitive subjects.

I also disagree that students with ability should aim low, by playing some sort of numbers game with applicants per place. They should just choose a college they like the look of and apply. Have faith in the process, it really is not so bad.

Ah hello Russsian :) You managed to do three posts in the time it took me to type out one. I was idling too long wondering just how far our supper conversations are adrift from those at high table (conclusion: very far).

Hang on, I've just re-read your post Propitious: you took your son or daughter as far as the corridor where the interviews were taking place ?! [fainting emoticon which goes well beyond shock].

Yellow Fast typer, me. All those scales in my youth had to bring some fringe benefits, right? Also - so much more interesting noodling around on here than the work I am actually supposed to be doing.

When I was applying all those years ago my parents ticked the box of white, although my mum also ticked an ethnic minority box (although it wasn't recognised as an ethnicity in those days, legally). And that was it. Not middle class, not university educated (although both easily clever enough to have been and indeed my dad (who was quite old) did pass his higher cert at school which in those days was the sort of thing you did if you were going to go to uni but poverty and parental death and war stopped him ever going.) And as for 'high table' conversations - we didn't have a dining room in our council flat let alone a dining table, we used to eat off our laps in front of the telly. And talk about stuff that was important to us. Thus I was as it turns out more than adequately prepared for an interview which was approx 4/5ths about the relative merits of various TV sci fi shows. Possibly my interviewee thought that I was relatively incapable of talking about anything else (not entirely the case but perhaps then, as now, not as far from the truth as I might pretend to my professional colleagues). Or, possibly, it was a standard interview. I was told after I joined the college that they always tried to offer places to people they thought they would enjoy teaching. And that can't really be prepped for.

InterviewER not interviewEE.

Although, people who I interview these days for jobs etc are always well advised to get on to the topic of culture (ie sci fi) as early as they can. And I do have a slight suspicion that the person who interviews them first tips them the wink about this if they have done ok in their first interview.

Cambridge law degree here, 1996. State school, Scotland. RiversideMum, please assure your DD that nobody at Cambridge does any exam in a gown (though I believe that Oxford do finals in theirs).

I found a lot of time for drinking, lounging about my friends' rooms for hours on end, parties, meals out, being a college student Union officer, playing in the third hockey team and rowing in the fourth ladies' boat, and a fair bit of casual sex too.

I got a 2:1. The thing is that it's all so compact and rent is cheap and there's no living in dingy shared houses and all your meals are cooked for you and your room is cleaned daily, so you can easily fit in both work (of which there is a manageable amount, I work a hell of a lot harder now) and play.

I was at a very old and rich college and it was extremely diverse, I never once felt socially out of place and in fact I quite enjoyed meeting people from public school backgrounds who were by and large extremely pleasant- don't forget the upper class twits no longer get in as the academic criteria are too strict.

Glad your DD got the opportunity to go to the talk- when I was an undergrad the "target schools" office askede to talk at a school in Cumbernauld but the Sixth Year head teacher told me not to come as none of them were interested...and she wasn't having it when I suggested that that was perhaps the best reason for me to come...

Yellowtip In answer to your questions:

#We tick all the boxes.

#DC's school was a very small rural comprehensive, middle to lower order with greater than average free school meals take up. No history of Oxbridge success. Low output to other universities.

#Networking. Yes, there is an inherent conflict. Point is that those who aren't connected must try to network in the best way they can..perhaps a distant relative went there etc. For those who aren't effortlessly superior it's a strategy that might pay. Ditto 'high table' talk & interview prep.

#Numbers game. I have no faith in the selection process & it is that bad! Oxbridge has been favouring the privileged for generations. Us lesser mortals have to 'game' the system in order to get past the gatekeepers. A bit like question 'spotting' at 'A' level (probably not necessary for the effortlessly superior?)

If there was a reliable and fair selection system designed to select those with the greatest raw intellectual horsepower, then all of what you say would be true.

Well tbh my cockroach issues appear to have garnered the same sort of success at interview as your encyclopediac knowledge of Ford Prefect's idiosyncrasies and Dr Who's too Russian. Although I think I was skating around the fact that I knew little of the subject in hand, whereas you quite evidently could have knocked them for six.

Jessie that response from the teacher was bad. Oxford does do living in shared dingy houses though, even if Cambridge students are above it. That said, many seem to warm to the dingy house experience, as an enjoyable rite.

Propitious I'm sorry but I can't help feeling that maybe you didn't need to try so hard and I do believe that the system is fairer and more discriminating than you think. Dismissing all those who get offers without being so try hard as 'effortlessly superior' is good tactically, but only up to a point. The reality is, your very young DC was probably pushed very hard by a very well positioned parent, but all your efforts probably made not a jot of difference to the final result. Why did s/he go forward at 16 btw? I'd hate any of mine to up that young - so young (especially if they need chaperoning to the corridor of interview).