Oxbridge minimum 8 A* GCSE results ???

[rhubarbmum]

Is it true that Oxbridge require a minimum 8 A GCSE results for applications? I know a very disappointed 16 yr old who thinks he hasn't got high enough GCSE grades - he got 7 As and 3 As. Please advise. I looked on their website and it looks like they base their offers on A level (and AS level) alone.

[Molio]

No I think results are up this year Womblings: more As, less As and some odd blips here and there such as English.

My older DC at Oxford say lots of student are niche; and that lots also don't have a full bag of As.

Incidentally none of mine have interests which are subject related - interests yes, subject related no. Really not important at all.

[virelai]

Lots of great advice here. I wonder if the opposition between 'academic-related' and 'job-related' interests is a bit of a false dichotomy? If I think of our students, many of what start out as subject-related interests (i.e. writing, journalism, book-reviewing, drama, music, running book clubs, tutoring younger students, setting up websites etc), become job-getting interests in the end. There is no 'formula' for what we are looking for - this is why we look at every single application on an individual basis.

I know it's really important to be honest about our high standards and the competition for places (especially if we are asking applicants to commit one of their UCAS spaces to us), but I wonder whether talking too much about 'stellar', 'exceptional', 'perfect' performance (at GCSE, AS, A2, or aptitude test) leads some students, especially from the state sector, to feel that this is all beyond them, and thus not to apply? Do you think that might be the case? It's very hard to find the balance on open days etc between being encouraging and being realistic.

Keble College provides very useful feedback on the admissions process, written by tutors (the ones for English are particularly candid and entertaining). I think what they say is applicable to most colleges and tutors.

www.keble.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/subjects/past-feedback/

[TheWordFactory]

virelai I'm part fo the widening access scheme for Oxbridge and I know what you mean.

However, I just don't think it's right to give the impression that it's easier than you think to get in.

What I tend to focus on is that the young people I'm targeting are exceptional..they just don't always know it...and then concentrate on all the other stuff that impedes access, much of which has absolutely nowt to do with grades.

[TheWordFactory]

I'll also be interested to see what happens in admission generally (not just the at the Gruesome Twosome) when AS levels are done away with (next year, right?).

Will universities place more emphasis on GCSEs? Will aptitude tests become par for the course everywhere? Will offers be higher to filter at that stage? Musing..

[queenofthemountain]

virelai Thanks for that link.From the physics admissions review 2013

'Oxford Physics has introduced a short?listing process to reduce the number of candidates to around 2.5 per place. The primary short?listing criterion is performance on the PAT.'

It then goes onto say that a small number of shortlists places (10%) are allocated to applicants with very strong GCSEs(ie 9+ A*s) from poor performing schools.

So there are exceptional occasions when good GCSEs can save your bacon, but aptitude test, and after that interview performance are the main determinants.

[Molio]

virelai to my certain knowledge it does put a great many state school students off and too many teachers subscribe to the hyperbole also. My own DC and all their friends at Oxford are very mainstream and grounded and not nerdy in the least. I appreciate that Oxford is quite rightly diverse, but you wouldn't get that impression from reading these threads or much of the stuff in the papers. You'd assume that the students were uniformly geeky, grade 8 everything, Olympic athletes, published authors and utterly off the wall in everything they do or say. By contrast the younger DS celebrated finishing his A levels with a dubiously spent week with mates in Ayia Napa and celebrated his results (which weren't great) by disappearing off to a three day festival from which he is still recovering (it seems to be a long recovery period ). He's annoying everyone in the house by occupying the sofa playing Madden for hours on end, not letting the younger sibs get a go in edgeways.

[TheWordFactory]

I think though Molio that those ill conceived perceptions are about the culture of Oxbridge and the type of student who goes there, as opposed to raw grades IYSWIM.

When I'm visiting schools there are plenty of young people with fab grades and clear ability who are put off by the idea that everyone there is a genius (and a whole lot of other cultural shizzle).

I say look at me. Do I look remotely like a genius?

Then the the next biggest thing is always the same and nothing to do with academics. Is everyone posh? Again I say; Do I look or sound remotely posh?

Then there are issues around finance and working etc.

[Molio]

Sure Word. But it's as well to dispute that there's only room for a 'type', because as you'll well know there are all sorts of types.

[smokepole]

I have read 'Words ' other posts and know about her circumstances growing up and her struggles.

Two points: To get to Oxford twenty years or so ago with Dyspraxia and growing up in socially deprived area = 'Genius'

The second of the points is that Word is now actually 'posh' despite how she may speak.

[summerends]

virelai I don't disagree that the interests you mention can result in transferable skills particularly if you want to enter a profession related to those interests. However there are other extracurricular options or part-time jobs that may have nothing at all to do with your academic focus but develop practical common sense, initiative, teamwork and some grit and determination. All very important in future life. As both a professional and academic I don't think DCs should be advised to have a narrow perspective too early unless it is in their nature.

[TheWordFactory]

smoke I'm dyslexic not dyspraxic, and certainly not a genius ...

I think I look at the world in a very different way to other people. I'm a writer now (as well as a tutor, which is not my main job) and I think I see the world through the prism of narrative. This also makes me an interesting cadidate for studying law which is what I did at Oxbridge.

The starting point of 'what if' is a good basis for both professions. Which is probably why so many lawyers become novelists. That and we have a lot of practice of writing shed loads of words every day!

Am I posh? Nah. I'm a working class northerner . Just rich now. Which doesn't give me entrance to the middle classes as any MNer will tell you .

[LadySybilLikesCake]

Oh, TheWordFactory, what do you write?

[TheWordFactory]

I write novels (mostly crime fiction), radio plays and now have a television series in pre-pre-pre production.

[Hakluyt]

You are Ian Rankin and I claim my £5..............

[TheWordFactory]

Occasionally posters PM and ask 'are you...' the funniest one was the author who wriote the Bad Mothers Club...

[Hakluyt]

Actually, you can't be Ian Rankin, you never mention whiskey.

I shall continue to think of you as Dorothy L Sayers. In my imagination she lives on.

Hmm- maybe your last post was a clever double bluff misdirection........

[virelai]

summerends That's absolutely right of course. As someone who is in both camps, you prove that one can't contrast this as a simple opposition (i.e. academic = all theory, whilst non-academic = practical, initiative, teamwork, grit, determination). I know many scientists (and some of the rest of us too!) in our Senior Common Room who have exactly that second list of qualities, and it's possible to develop both via both routes. 'Teamwork' may be the exception (though not in lab practical work of course).

The point is just to be accurate about the current state of Oxbridge admissions, where extra-curriculars are not as relevant as they are sometimes thought to be. If I'm offering advice about how to make a realistic application, then in this particular case, it would be sensible to focus on subject-related activities which allow applicants to develop and practise the sorts of qualities which are listed in the selection criteria. They also need to think about how to hone their skills and aptitude in their chosen area, just as one would do with drama or sport (I'm often surprised at interview by candidates who don't seem to have done even some very basic preparation and 'training' relevant to our set of procedures - the sort of thing you could easily work out from the advice given on the website). I'm not sure I see much of a difference between academic and non-academic, it's just horses for courses.

I don't want to give the impression that the admissions process is 'easier' than it is, but it is often depicted either as irrational, or full of hidden 'codes', or of an impossibly high standard. 15 years of experience tells me that that is not true. I too am looking for exceptionality (which we tend to call 'future potential') in students who may not themselves realise it yet. But in order to have the chance to find that future potential at interview, we need to see the widest possible range of candidates who are in the right ballpark for entry. And I think that ballpark is somewhat larger than is often depicted, and that it is possible to prepare yourself for admissions, just as a sports player or musician would prepare themselves for a competition.

[Waitingaround]

My son achieved 10 a* at gcse and 3 a's from a standard comp- he has now got 4 a's at As, has lots of relevant extra curricular stuff as well as a participation at a national level in his hobby.

However he is choosing not to apply to Oxbridge as he feels that those who do are overly interested in grades and exam results- after reading threads such as this I'm inclined to agree. There is more to life than public examinations.

[exexpat]

People who apply to Oxbridge have to take an interest in grades etc to get in, but once they get there I think their interests usually expand into all sorts of academic and extra-curricular activities. The work is intensive, but neither university is populated by people who do nothing but swot. Look at all the actors/journalists/writers/politicians etc who started their careers by focusing more on the non-academic side of life there.

[CatherineofMumbles]

It really does amaze me, the fixation with Oxbridge on MN, and the search for 'the formula' to get there..

[Beastofburden]

Oh word factory I am a huge crime fiction reader but I guess I can't find out who you are without outing you.....

[virelai]

Aren't there lots of niche topics on MN? I could pop up on the mum boots threads to say that I was amazed by the mum boot fixation on MN...Or I could pop up somewhere to say that my DD wasn't planning to join a famous ballet school despite her obvious talents (if the obsessive twirling is anything to go by) therein.

This is a thread like countless others, for sharing opinions and expertise about a particular subject. Hasn't the thread been discussing how this is more about potential, passion and aptitude than particular grades, and how there isn't a particular formula? I'd be interested to hear about the reasons why such a discussion gets critical interventions like these.

If anyone has any other Qs, do message me direct. Now off to the pub (well, even academics are allowed out occasionally...)

[Beastofburden]

Enjoy virelai !

[exexpat]

CatherineofMumbles - I'm more amazed by the buggy-obsessive threads (luckily they have a topic to themselves, so I've hidden it), or the ones about expensive handbags, or precise details of weaning or reception reading levels...

People get worked up about all sorts of things, but luckily there is space on MN for everything, and you can ignore threads with Oxbridge in the title if you're not interested.

[LadySybilLikesCake]

I used to work in Law, but now I'm trying to write children's fiction