Super IB scores vs avg Oxbridge offers - Why?

[IBDworthit]

I have been looking at a few schools and some of them seem to have stellar academics in the superlatives (40+ IBD scores) yet Oxbridge offers are left behind.

Pls have a look at two schools, both independents with a wide range of extracurriculars:

Whitgrift School
Avg IBD score 41.6 points!! (the typical offer score for Oxford medicine is 39 according to their website), yet
Oxbridge offers for 5.8% of leavers (or 23% of those applied)

compare this with another IBD school:

Sevenoaks School
Avg IBD score 41.3
Oxbridge offers for 14.7% of leavers (or 29% of those applied)

So less apply from Whitgrift, but the acceptance rate is also lagging by six percentage points, which is not a negligible difference (six pct pts is what separates Eton no.3 and Sixth Form College Farnb no.30 for example).

Think we can safely conclude that the watershed is not in the academics: it is extremely difficult to reach 40+ in IB. Yet it appears that more than half of the students in these schools manage to pull it off somehow, no doubt at the cost of great anxiety. But that is another topic.

Does anyone have any views or insights why Sevenoaks pupils are more into Oxbridge than those from Whitgrift?

The problem with those stats is the cohort size. You’re talking about a single year and small numbers so you’re not going to drawn useful conclusions for them. How much do they vary over a five year period? How many applied?

I always think it's wrong to look at Oxbridge as the measure of success when it is medicine. They are not always the most highly regarded (not going to open the can of worms of the rivalries between London hospitals!)

Whitgift pupils live within commuting distance of several major prestigious London medical schools and that might be a factor in where pupils choose to apply.

Agree with Scary on the sample size. I'd also look beyond Medicine and interrogate that data a little. Which subjects? Which colleges? This does matter. Remember too that Oxbridge is ridiculously oversubscribed with very well qualified applicants. They also still conduct interviews. Plenty of other variables to factor in here before you start drawing conclusions about each school

Thanks for the responses, yoy variations will probably make sense. Not medicine oriented at this stage (too early!) the avg offer IB 39 for OxMed was just a figure I knew from the top of my head.

Can we safely conclude then that there is no particular difference in perception between these schools from Oxbridge's perspective? (IB vs A-levels is a different topic of course)

I don’t think all top students who are strong “free” thinkers actually want to apply to Oxbridge anymore…. Especially the international ones look further afield eg top US universities.
Many of the top students at these schools and Eton etc actually now think Oxbridge is biased against them because of the schools they attend so they are just not even bothering to apply anymore. I have heard this from quite a few students directly. Most are very bright, well off, international- leaving the U.K. again.

Because there just exist too many kids with the very top grades. It sounds about right to me that for every successful oxbridge applicant there will be about 4 or 5 unsuccessful applicants with the exact same academic qualifications.

Also just looking at the 2 schools OP, Sevenoaks has a Sixth Form of 470 pupils so around 235 taking the IB every year and just the IB every year. School vastly experienced with IB and a world wide leader for it.
Whitgift seems to only have around 24 taking IB? So it probably is some of the bravest and brightest in the year doing it but small cohort/different effect on class sizes.
If you want your child to do IB I would choose Sevenoaks.

I wonder whether the oxbridge colleges care about the subjects that are not ‘relevant’ to a degree - I think this may vary between colleges and also subjects. Many oxbridge colleges also do additional aptitude tests eg BMAT (medicine), Step (maths).

If someone gets v high results for maths, further maths and step but does poorly in their other subjects, some colleges would maybe take that person in comparison to someone who did well in all their subjects but did badly in step/interview.

You are overthinking this! You are looking at small differences in small groups of different individuals, it’s pretty irrelevant to your dc. Just go and look round the schools and see which one you like. As a teacher I’d say please don’t have these discussions in front of your dc - very pressurising!

You can't look at Oxbridge offers in isolation. You need to look at the cohort overall. Where are the rest of the students ending up? If your bright, non-Oxbridge student is ending up at Harvard, for example, then that's likely to be a positive choice, not a 'failed to get in' or 'didn't bother applying'. Oxbridge is not the be all and end all, and a good school higher ed department is going to be spending quite a bit of time persuading students not to apply there - not because they won't get in, but because it might not be the best option, depending on the subject and the student. They are actively fighting against the 'Oxbridge is the best' default position (of course, for some students and courses, Oxbridge absolutely is the best). As others have said, the IB is going to attract a lot of international students - not just overseas boarders, but internationally-minded UK students who are likely to be more drawn to overseas universities than average. So a school like Sevenoaks is likely to have a lower Oxbridge percentage than you might expect, given its academic results.

Also, your 'at the cost of great anxiety' comment may be a separate thread, but I do think it's a massive generalisation. No doubt the IB is a tough qualification, but I know a couple of IB schools quite well and don't see a generally higher level of stress and angst than at the equivalent A level schools. Of course, some students do get very stressed. But so do those at A level schools, particularly the more academically selective ones (state or private).

are you searching for a school for 11+ based only on their Oxbridge offers? Seriously?

I agree with previous posters that students are looking more at the courses they want to study and choosing the “best” universities for that, as opposed to selecting Oxbridge and then working back on choice of course.

LSE, Imperial, Harvard, Yale, MIT are just as impressive leaver destinations. If students were leaving to do Madonna Studies at Smallville College of Madeup Degrees then you’d have a point. But they’re not. Schools that show students going on to a wide range of universities to study a wide range of subjects are IMO far better schools as they are working to the strengths of each individual child as opposed to trying to create a “product”.

Your analysis is not something that I would even think to look into.

As others have said, many of the brightest are now looking to the top US colleges, partly because of the fact that their attendance at an independent school counts against them. Head girl a couple of years ago at my DCs school was predicted (and got) 3A*s and no medicine offers. The system is messed up. Ten years ago, applying to the US would be very unusual, now there are a good number applying each year.

It’s all “lies, damn lies and statistics” anyway.

If Oxbridge is your key metric the you need to know whether the school encourages vets and medics to apply there (dd’s actively discourages).

As others have said, a “better” metric might be Oxbridge, top 10 USA (that’s not Ivy League definition), plus medicine plus vet.

But it’s not the best place for a LOT of subjects!

@cloudtree

As others have said, many of the brightest are now looking to the top US colleges, partly because of the fact that their attendance at an independent school counts against them. Head girl a couple of years ago at my DCs school was predicted (and got) 3A*s and no medicine offers. The system is messed up. Ten years ago, applying to the US would be very unusual, now there are a good number applying each year.

It doesn't count against them. Indie pupils remain vastly over represented at Oxbridge. A better way of putting it is that Oxbridge are (rightly) looking for the best across ALL sectors.

Well it counts against them in that if there is one place and there are two children of equal merit with the same predicted grades and one went to my old school on a council estate but the other went to Eton, the Eton applicant is unlikely to get the place.

@cloudtree

Well it counts against them in that if there is one place and there are two children of equal merit with the same predicted grades and one went to my old school on a council estate but the other went to Eton, the Eton applicant is unlikely to get the place.

Which would seem perfectly fair wouldn't you agree? And on balance the council estate pupil is probably brighter. It's the 'count against' phrase I object to. I just wanted it turned around. Pupils at indies have so very many advantages when it comes to Oxbridge. It's not just the class sizes, it's the preparation. In most comprehensives the pupils have zero prep for entrance tests or interviews; their schools are too busy scrambling to pull up the kids who are struggling lower down the grades.

Which would seem perfectly fair wouldn't you agree? And on balance the council estate pupil is probably brighter

No I wouldn’t agree. You can’t get higher than an a* so no way of proving the assertion that the council estate pupil is brighter. They’ve both got top marks. No child should be automatically punished for the fact that their parents chose to pay for their schooling.

Of course I would agree that an A* pupil from a council estate should get the place over an A pupil at Eton.

Not everyone wants to go to oxbridge! Plenty of youngsters in south london with high grades want to go to big city universities up north, they don't want oldie worldie quaint - they want clubs and fun. I know, I was one. None of my whitgift friends chose oxbridge, they all wanted cooler places like Manchester and ideally to upset their parents if possible

@cloudtree

Which would seem perfectly fair wouldn't you agree? And on balance the council estate pupil is probably brighter

No I wouldn’t agree. You can’t get higher than an a* so no way of proving the assertion that the council estate pupil is brighter. They’ve both got top marks. No child should be automatically punished for the fact that their parents chose to pay for their schooling.

Of course I would agree that an A* pupil from a council estate should get the place over an A pupil at Eton.

But Oxbridge don't contextualise A level offers. So a hypothetical poor pupil with an A wouldn't win a place over a rich pupil with an A star. Believe me the hoops a comprehensive pupil has to jump in their own to get a place at Oxbridge are considerably tricker than those a contemporary at an indie negotiates in the same journey. And clearly the OP's question, focussing on Oxbdige proves that May parents choose to pay in order to gain this perceived advantage. Look I'm not saying parents shouldn't do this. I'm just saying own it - admit that's what's happening rather than bleating about being discriminated against.

@gogohm

Not everyone wants to go to oxbridge! Plenty of youngsters in south london with high grades want to go to big city universities up north, they don't want oldie worldie quaint - they want clubs and fun. I know, I was one. None of my whitgift friends chose oxbridge, they all wanted cooler places like Manchester and ideally to upset their parents if possible

This. It surprised me a bit tbh but I've definitely known kids to do this

@cloudtree
Much harder to get those top grades at a school in the middle of a council estate so of course it should go to the pupil who has had more stacked against them. Otherwise why do people choose private education? To give their children 'the best'. You aren't going to find many people agree with you I'm afraid.

Best way into Oxbridge is via superselective grammar schools. If that is what you want OP. Top independent schools offer so much extra curricular and broaden the child but very generally speaking they tend to spend less time on academics alone. But they come out more rounded as a group, more confident. You are paying for an experience not just academics. The schools will tell you the same.
Those rich kids leaving the U.K. and not contributing to the economy in the future is a loss for U.K. society as a whole. US and top European unis are more than happy to have them. There is a strong bias in some Oxbridge colleges against eg Eton types at the moment. It is fact. Many of the top have stopped applying for this reason. Why go to Oxbridge if you are eg fluent in French and can do Science Po in Paris or engineering at MIT. In addition, the IB is broad and so the fit with US unis is better anyway with not having to narrow too early.
Interestingly though some of the Oxbridge courses are widening too though eg new engineering course at Cambridge with a more tech focus, can’t remember what it is called.

I agree with you @cloudtree

Can we safely conclude then that there is no particular difference in perception between these schools from Oxbridge's perspective?

Oxford and Cambridge are separate institutions and the things they take account in admissions are quite well publicised. Their "perception" of Whitgift vs Sevenoaks is really not an issue.
If anything, they might be more interested in the excellent candidate from a school that gets a smaller proportion of offers in a typical year.

Choose the school that feels like the best fit for your 11 year old. All of the kinds of schools you are looking at will be perfectly capable of helping them prepare for higher education when the time comes.