Indie girls school, no oxbridge 2019

[LilyTheMink]

We are looking at senior options for our dd. She is bright, not top of her class in everything, but all round scholarship level according to her head.
There is a very local girls school which went through a good patch a few years ago. I've just had a look at their 2019 leavers destinations- 46 to universities and not 1 to Oxford of Cambs.
I KNOW it's not the be all and end all, but it is used as an indicator of academic success.
The other schools we are looking at ger 15% Oxbridge, but are further away from us - think 45 mins on mini bus.
What are your thoughts on paying (admittedly less than the 15% place) for a school with 0 Oxbrige for a bright child......is it lacking ambition/opportunities for her?

So where did they go? Plus is it a case of never or just not that year

Lots to Exeter, Bath, university of arts in London.
I recall in previous years there has been 1 or 2, but not in 2018 iirc.....

Oxford is taking less and less children from fee paying schools so that might be the blip...the other universities are good destinations though so sounds like the academics are on track.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/4166618-Are-top-private-schools-getting-fewer-oxbridge-offers?msgid=105147043#105147043

No expert on this, but how about asking the school? Not in a pushy, 'why the hell haven't you got any girls into Oxbridge?' way, but just in a general 'what are your university destinations and how do you support HE applicants?' kind of way. Hopefully their answer will tell you a bit more about the school, and you could probe the Oxbridge question as part of the conversation to see what they say.

I expect there is a correlation between how selective they are and how many Oxbridge places they get. We were looking at this recently and the schools with high numbers of Oxbridge and US university places were the schools who cream off the most academic pupils from entrance exams. The schools with lower numbers took a wider spectrum of academic ability.

@JohnnyEnglish Our local comp got three children in to Oxbridge last year and is obviously not selective so not sure that is the case. It doesn't get contextual offers either as is in a wealthy middle class area and is rated outstanding. I suspect there are some unofficial quotas that happen at Oxbridge besides the actual contextuals.

There has been a shift in recent years towards increasing Oxbridge places allocated to state school and disadvantaged pupils. It is quite possibly a backlash from that. Ask if they have a programme for those wanting to apply to Oxbridge, it may be that they do but very niche and those doing so opt for subjects and colleges which are very competitive. Is the person who runs it experienced in the process and advice.

It sounds like a small school, if they have 46 leavers, so I think the odd year with none to Oxbridge falls under natural variation.

But if you don't think the school is sufficiently academic for your DD, then yes 45mins on a minibus is not an exceptional journey and I think you should be looking at a school that fits your family ethos

@Aboutnow think we are agreeing? Schools with wider range of academic ability amongst pupils get less Oxbridge places (your local with 3). Schools that take only very brightest have large number Oxbridge offers (independent I looked at send c.20% to Oxbridge but are super selective). I didn’t say anything about quotas for state/indie schools as I don’t know anything about that. I just noted at independent secondary schools, which is what OP is about, that many Oxbridge offers possibly shows the school took a very bright set of pupils.

For clarity we are not sure if we want a broad range of ability (as likely less of a hot house and all subjects taught well and treated equally) or if we should aim for super selective so DC1 is with similar kids (although then are they pushed towards STEM subjects which they like at age 10 but maybe not by 18?) so our uni offers review hasn’t actually helped!

It could also be a case of the children actually not wanting to go to Oxbridge. My DD is very bright but we will encourage her to find a course she wants to do at degree level and then aim for the best universities that offer it as opposed to targeting a certain university and fitting her degree to that.

I would actually look for children going to a wide range of universities and doing a wide range of subjects as it shows the school supports personal abilities, interests and aspirations as opposed to focussing on Oxbridge. I went to Cambridge from a bog standard comp.......

My DS’ indie struggles to get pupils into Oxbridge despite very impressive A Level and GCSE results. It’s one of the reasons that we are moving DS1 to a super selective grammar. We’re not desperate for him to go to Oxbridge but if he decides that’s what he wants, he’s got a much better chance at the grammar he’s going to.

I htink it might be a combination of things. My DS's independent is not very selcetive at all, and has a very broad range of abilities - they don't have huge Oxbridge record, maybe 4 or 5 max in a good year - but pupils wiht excellent results go to a wide range of universities - about 8 or 10 last year to Durham, I think, and many other places. I think increasingly Oxbridge is not viewed as the 'be all and end all' even for very able students, and they are very much encouraged to find the right place / course for them. I'm pretty sure there were no Oxbridge offers last year, and that another contributing factor may well have been Oxbridge making more offers to state schools.

I agree with the PP above who said that, especially since the introduction of university fees, Oxbridge is not always viewed as offering the best courses in all subjects (and certainly not the most relevant in the modern world). Oxbridge is inextricably linked with "the old school tie" and that is fading in modern society. Some students who are capable of getting there choose not to, and with such a small number of pupils at the school you are looking at, that could easily be the case.

It's just about how selective the school is. Lots of interesting information on that other thread about the landscape for independent schools and Oxbridge - basically over recent years as Oxford and Cambridge have (rightly) tried to widen access and take more state school pupils, this has generally come at the expensive of smaller, less selective (and often girls') schools. The super-selectives still have very good Oxbridge numbers. It really depends on your DD though - if she wanted to go and was exceptionally bright and self-motivated, she'd likely still get in.

You can have no way of knowing at 11 whether she will develop in this way. Even if she's clever, she'd need to show a big commitment to the subject outside just doing well in exams - i.e. genuine academic engagement. I just don't think it's possible to tell whether someone will do this at 11, unless they are top of the class in everything and voraciously reading - but there's not that many of those, and you say that's not your daughter. So just put in in the school which is best for her now.

@Zodlebud

It could also be a case of the children actually not wanting to go to Oxbridge. My DD is very bright but we will encourage her to find a course she wants to do at degree level and then aim for the best universities that offer it as opposed to targeting a certain university and fitting her degree to that.

I would actually look for children going to a wide range of universities and doing a wide range of subjects as it shows the school supports personal abilities, interests and aspirations as opposed to focussing on Oxbridge. I went to Cambridge from a bog standard comp.......

Spot on.

Its almost as though for most subjects and for most students Oxbridge do not have the most suitable courses where they the students will thrive.

Also, in terms of other posters being dismissive about Oxbridge - obviously other universities are available.

But - the experience there is generally still a very high level of contact with academics, surrounded by other very bright young people. And in many many jobs in professional services etc they still heavily recruit from Oxbridge because employers know it is highly selective. So it's not a passport to a great life or successful career, but most of the time it certainly wouldn't do you any harm. And since they pay so much for their education, at least their getting very small group tuition from someone who is reading their work.

And yes not all the subjects studied there are particularly "relevant" but that's not the point is it - I know some pretty well-paid lawyers/bankers/civil servants with Classics degrees. What actually passes the test of being relevant? Because if it's just subjects which are vocational and directly applicable to a particular job that's pretty depressing for the concept of academic study.

*they are!

@Wobblybobblyboo I don’t think it’s about vocational degrees at all. I think it’s about “fit” with the subjects these young adults enjoy. More and more students from the U.K. are choosing to study in the USA. The ability to do another two years of broader study before specialising in the final two really appeals. Increasingly people aren’t sure what they want to do with their life at age 17/18. I personally think Cambridge comes into its own on the Natural Sciences degree as it offers a broad level of course choices before deciding what to specialise in. The same flexibility is not afforded in many of their other degree courses though.

Recruiters also look to universities like Imperial and LSE for top flight candidates. Arguably some of their courses are harder to get a place on than at Oxbridge.

I know a boy at a big name boarding school who got four A* at A-Level who didn’t get into Oxford. His interview feedback was that he wasn’t a free thinker. He was very good at learning rote and applying that knowledge in the context of exam questions, but struggled when ask to think outside the box. Perhaps as well children are increasingly being taught to pass exams as opposed to be free thinkers?

Of course it does no harm going to Oxbridge. But then again I know a girl who got an apprenticeship to work with the Formula 1 McClaren team a few years ago and never went to University. She is now very high up in their engineering team. Until her school pointed out this was an option, she was going to head to university to study engineering. She is super bright - Oxbridge bright for sure - but she doesn’t for one minute regret not going. She has got her dream job. If she had gone to a different school then she probably wouldn’t be where she is now but I wouldn’t say her pursuit of academia has been compromised.

So of course aim high. If your child is academic then do look into number of Oxbridge leavers. But it’s not necessarily an indicator of a schools success or how academic they are.

What you're talking about is STEM. For
Arts and humanities subjects the offering at Oxbridge really is great. Not everyone wants to do a science degree.

In the US it's double the cost unless you are eligible for support. And it's definitely less of a meritocracy in admissions.

I don't believe Oxbridge is for everyone by any means and obviously it's not a good route into being an F1 engineer but if you want a degree in History, English, Languages etc like many young people do then the it's a great learning environment.

With the example of the 4 A* student - do you mean it's a good or a bad thing that Oxbridge accepted him? Perhaps they chose at that college for that subject to give an opportunity to someone not from a big name boarding school with more potential. Would that not be a good thing? I would be very surprised if he didn't get offers from his 4 other UK choices, and this is one of the benefits Oxbridge are able to get by interviewing. Imperial do that too which I'm sure is to their benefit, and I do know exactly how competitive it is to access their courses.

My point being more that you can be predicted (and get) four A* but still not get a place at Oxbridge. So choosing a top academic school does you no favours at all when it comes to Oxbridge admittance if you are unable to think for yourself. Admittance is based on the person not school they went to so looking simply at Oxbridge stats is a bit of a red herring. The OP was asking if the academic success of the school could be measured by Oxbridge admissions.

I think we basically in agreement. Oxbridge is fab and offers an amazing opportunity for further study.

It’s not, however, the be all and end all of assessing the success of a school. What if 90% are going on to study medicine, veterinary science or dentistry elsewhere, economics at LSE, architecture at Bath, French at the Sorbonne, Liberal Arts at Yale, law at UCL, history at Durham, anthropology at Exeter, classics at St Andrew’s. You get the drift. These are huge academic successes at the top three universities in that subject. But would you say the school isn’t good because nobody went to Oxbridge? I doubt it.

State Dd looked round Oxbridge. She didn’t like it as much as other universities, and it didn’t have the course she wanted to do. I disagree with a pp about History/English/MFL degrees because it implies the courses are generic and they are very different between universities. Dd didn’t apply. No one went in her (large) year.

A boy I know from the local independent was very much pushed to go to Oxbridge. Got in. Had to leave due to stress after first year though I believe they were accommodating and allowed him to go back after a year.

Everyone was very much pushed to go to Oxbridge at my Public school. It’s a business and that’s what sells it to potential customers.

But maybe this school just doesn’t have the culture of pushing them to go?

@zodlebud I completely agree with everything you've said there. I also totally agree with your earlier point that both are missing a trick by not offering liberal arts/combined humanities courses of the sort available at Durham and a few other places. Educational from 16+ in this country is way too narrow.

@zandathepanda. I don't mean that arts and humanities degrees are generic at all. Obviously the specialisms and modules available vary wildly by university. What is true is that often at other universities teaching for these courses is done in large seminars and lectures with minimal contact time. At Oxbridge you get tutorials and supervisions, so much more contact time. And very, very well-resourced libraries and faculties which is a large part of what you are paying for. Obviously if you want to study say, only 20th century History then Oxford is not going to suit you, but if your interests are pretty general then both universities do a good job of these courses.

Wobbly yes I know what you mean, the tutorials and supervisions attracted Dd but not the Oxbridge course. She has small group seminars (over zoom) instead. But on the subjects she really wanted to study. Her seminars are 3-20 people. 20 obviously split into sub-groups. This of course also varies between departments and universities! Dd had researched all of this. Didn’t factor in not actually being there due to a pandemic however!