What has gone wrong with Maths at Westminster?

[committedparent]

Only 1 pupil applied from Westminster to do Maths at Cambridge. 13 pupils applied to Oxford for maths or computer science. There were 0 (zero) offers from Oxford maths. Staggering.
Does anyone know what went wrong this year?
I am told that overall 25% of pupils took a gap year to re-apply last year. I don't know how this group have done with their applications.

I am not surprised by the low success rate, the French education does not develop the flexible thinking required.

I think it is also that schools/parents outside the UK in general aren't very good at judging whether students are good Oxbridge candidates. Germans have quite a long tradition of studying STEM and economics at Oxbridge - I recall a thriving university society of German students when I was an undergraduate, and lots of Germans in my lectures.

"Most of the French who would contemplate British university would be from an international French school with a bilingual course, not a normal French school with relatively poor English language skills."

summerends - in 2013/14, 4 370 French nationals applied through UCAS. Now I realize that not all French nationals take the French bac, but the vast, vast majority do. If you add up all the entrants for the OIB in English (so British plus American options) there are only 1 300 or so entrants. So the majority of French nationals applying through UCAS have a normal Bac.

I have counted 7 agencies guiding pupils through UCAS in Paris alone and they help pupils with the normal Bac, not the OIB.

Quite a lot of candidates for the OIB are not French nationals.

Interesting link from uilen, it says the success rate of independent school pupils applying to study Maths at Oxford is 1 in 5. So perhaps a couple of Westminster's 13 wouldn't be an unreasonable expectation from the OP?

Bonsoir your numbers are interesting. They perhaps camouflage though that there are a number of those French nationals taking the French Bac that may have one UK parent or a previous prolonged stay in an English speaking country.
Uilen you may be right but I also think there are some highly intelligent French candidates, extremely successful in the French system who will not be able to shine as they should do for their relative intelligence.

Thanks Bonsoir.

skylark the interesting thing to me is that the application to acceptance rate for Westminster doesn't appear to be that great. Westminster is clearly great at getting kids to apply, but then doesn't seem to surpass others schools spectacularly in its acceptance rate, in spite of its hugely selective nature. You would expect some kind of parity. Is that because Oxford and Cambridge are actually extremely good at divining potential regardless of educational advantage? Or is it the product of an anti top school prejudice at the top universities of which so many top school parents complain?

Molio These are interesting findings you cite about Oxford applications v acceptances at different schools. Where can we find them?

No stats that I know of published. I doubt schools would want to publish the stats.

Westminster is highly selective - but most of the selection has nothing to do with academic ability

maybe shock horror their candidates just were not the best on offer last year.

The link that uilen posted makes interesting, and rather reassuring, reading.

summerends - you are hypothesising! From someone "on the ground" and who personally knows large numbers of both French applicants and French students in the UK, and knows the IELTS situation in Paris extremely well: believe me, the French bac holders who apply to the UK are mostly in French schools not bilingual ones! And don't have an English parent.

Is there any possibility Cambridge may have reduced the number of offers given?

I know they have come under criticism for having given so many maths offers (is it about 3:1 offer:place ratio?) then simply setting the STEP paper grade boundary to suit their purposes and control their admissions. Hence a large number of extremely able mathematicians are left scrabbling around for their second choice places.

I agree with Talkin that Uilen's link is very interesting. What stood out to me (and let me know if I've read this wrongly) is the 17% of State school pupils with AAA + who applied for a course Oxford doesn't actually offer. Am I naive or is that not just . ?

Bonsoir you are absolutely right I am hypothesising based on a different anecdotal experience to yours. Apart from the affluent in Paris and some other hotspots (who would use these agencies and could afford the UK experience) or those with a connection to an English speaking country, my anecdotal experience suggests very few French pupils would be able to or be motivated to navigate the UCAS system without agency help during their terminale year.

molio you asked a question up thread as to the cause of the relatively low acceptance rate at W.

I think one of the main reasons is that is many apply. Where some schools manage expectations and discourage ( to protect against stuff like this ) W has an in it to win it culture.

I can't criticise that. After all it's what I say all the time in the state sector. And most of those kids won't get a place either.

Another is that Oxbridge is getting better at choosing. Aptitude tests, requests for portfolio work etc are a useful tool ( though conversely they put off some state schooled applicants).

The widening access scheme is doing well. I am very proud of my involvement. But of course there is always going to be a loser. And those losers will come from the most selective public schools.

It's not that those applicants are any less well taught or any less bright than before, but ...

That said I an still a whole hearted supporter if widening access and I will still send both my DC to W..

Molio TWF If stats aren't published, how do you know that the applications v acceptance rate at Westminster is "relatively low"?

No stats that I know of published. I doubt schools would want to publish the stats.

I know Cambridge does make lists of schools application v acceptance rates and these are public but I can't find the public links right now.

Westminster and other top schools generally have a pretty good acceptance rate because they put in top and borderline candidates but generally don't put in weak candidates.

I know they have come under criticism for having given so many maths offers (is it about 3:1 offer:place ratio?) then simply setting the STEP paper grade boundary to suit their purposes and control their admissions.

I don't accept that this is what has been happening. The STEP boundary is set rather more objectively than that.

Word, would you say that Westminster is highly selective academically? I would have thought the undoubted answer was yes? I assume that Talkin merely means it selects only from those who can pay the fees, but I would have thought that despite that, it was one of the most academically schools in the UK, independent or state? I certainly wouldn't ever scoff at its academic standards - they seem second to none.

In reply to your Oxbridge points, what you say doesn't really answer my question. When Needsmoresleep, who obviously know the school very well, said that only 50% of those applying get in, I'm sure that figure will be correct. It surprised me because I'd previously, perhaps naively, thought that given how extremely selective the school is, its extraordinary exam results, how many resources the school has to recruit fabulous teachers and the almost legendary preparation and help that Westminster offers its Oxbridge hopefuls, that the application: acceptance ratio would be nearer 100%. Not so long ago I heard a seasoned Oxford history don say that the (now former) Head of Westminster told him that if what Oxford required applicants to do at interview was stand on their head, that's exactly what Westminster would teach them to do. Compare that to no help at all with the HAT and perhaps one short mock interview which is the situation for most state schoolers....

granola Needsmoresleep who has said her DS left the school in 2014 has told us the stats for Westminster and I am easily able to compare that to the schools whose stats I also know first hand, which is enough of a sample to be surprised that Westminster doesn't do significantly better.

"Westminster is clearly great at getting kids to apply, but then doesn't seem to surpass others schools spectacularly in its acceptance rate, in spite of its hugely selective nature. You would expect some kind of parity."

I don't quite follow this. I would expect a school which is especially good at getting kids to apply to have a lower acceptance rate, not a higher one (because kids from that school with relatively lower ability will be applying, whereas kids with that same level of ability from a school which isn't good at getting people to apply won't be.)

I don't think we can possibly know if universities are biased too far one way or the other. If they don't take into consideration that some kids have had much less suitable teaching, parents whose kids don't get in from state school comps will scream "bias towards private schools!" If they do take it into consideration, parents whose kids don't get in from expensive selective schools will scream "negative bias for kids who have worse results than mine!"

I imagine Molio works in admissions. When DH was marking entrance papers, he could have told you, for schools which had lots of applicants, which tended to get more in too.

FWIW, I got in to Oxford, many years ago, from a state open entry sixth form. I'm quite sure that there were kids from academically selective private schools who got better A levels than me but didn't get in. But then I was the second person from my school to take Further Maths, and the first to pass it (there was one other in my year who also failed).

I was about average ability at Oxford. I guess the question would be whether the people of lowest ability there (or at least lowest achievement at the end of the course) there tend to come from top academic private schools, less academic private schools, grammars, comps, sixth form colleges...or whether it's a mixture roughly matching the mixture at intake. If it's a mixture, the selection process is probably about right.

That's a statistic I'd be very interested in.

most academically selective schools in the UK

We cross posted skylark but the reason I'd expect Westminster to be doing better then one in two is for the reasons set out in my post, though I follow your logic too, but Westminster's constituency is a bit different to most.

Although there may be subject -dependent bias in success rate, Westminster usually have about 40% of their pupils going to Oxbridge (possibly just offers?). Extrapolated from above does n't that mean almost all pupils apply? Those seem very respectable proportions for a superselective school.

summerends - if you want more information on this subject the French weeklies (eg l'Exoress, Figaro Magazine) regularly do specials on "etudes a l'etranger" which provide a great deal of info aimed at precisely those French candidates and their families who are not in International Sections and/or don't have an English parent ie the vast majority.

molio I would say W is probably one of the most academically selective schools in the UK.

talkin has ishoos about admitting that. Dunno why.

So it stands to reason that a lot if it's pupils will make good candidates for an application to Oxbridge.

I admit that I swerved part if your question; is there now a bias against applicants from schools like W.

My honest answer FWIW is yes and no.

I don't believe that there is any policy to reduce numbers of students from schools like this. And I don't believe that anyone in admissions feels the education on offer there is anything less than exceptional.

Most tutors will have taught students from W and similar schools and enjoyed the experience.

However, every admissions tutor I know us committed to widening access and every admissions tutor I know concerns themselves with the constant appraisal of how they're doing on that account.

I think they would not be human if that did not result in a tiny bias. Even if that bias were only sub conscious and exhibited itself in nothing more than holding applicants from said schools to higher standards.

I dunno - I think what you're suggesting is that everyone at Westminster is Oxbridge level so the tailored preparation should then give those who apply an advantage and most of them should get in?

That doesn't really tally with their A level results. 19% of their A levels were B or below in 2014, and it's never been less than 8%. Fantastic results, sure, but still a sign that they have plenty of students who are going to be at best borderline for Oxbridge. If those students are encouraged to apply if they want to, I think that's a good thing. I think it would be awful if only dead certs were encouraged.

summerends, that's what Needsmoresleep said, and I would expect her to know. 40% is a huge number of course, but it's just that I would expect that particular school to do better than one in two. Perhaps I'm alone in my surprise, but the school has a well known reputation for doing everything it possibly can to give a fabulous education coupled with massive Oxbridge prep.