Oxford uni (and just unis in general)

[law4569]

Hi all!

Just wanted some advice. My daughter is applying for spanish + beginners German and wants to do a law conversion after. She's decided she wants to apply to Oxford, Edinburgh, ucl, durham and bristol or warwick. I wanted to know people's experiences with these unis as durham and Edinburgh are very far from where we live + warwick we're unsure if it's good for her degree. For anyone whose children went to Oxford, did they do well at gcse? She got 999888777 but she's worried because of the context of her skl (she did okay) then she'll be disadvantaged. if anyone has any sort of experience on any of this id appreciate it :)

“Everyone knew the rules of the game when they decided to play.”

Really @poetryandwine - you think most 17 year olds understand this in detail that we have discussed here at length? Most of them do not really understand the nuances especially not for the very competitive courses. It reminds me of the ABRSM exams all my kids did where you fight for every random point to get a Distinction.

Also, the State tells us very cleary that if you send your child to the local Comprehensive with a good progress score, and they are high achieving and from a good family with strong educational values, they will achieve their full potential. Oxford’s admissions policy contradicts that - it basically says if the rest of the kids are underachieving so will yours. Or else why give a negative GCSE score based on attainment data?

I think Oxford and Cambridge etc should have a link on their webpage where a prospective student can input their GCSE results, name of their school and then get a contextualised GCSE score (whether positive or negative) so they can decide whether they want to waste their time on an application or would rather use the 5th space on their UCAS form on an alternative uni.
That would be transparency. There is no excuse not to in this day and age.

For grammar schools at 11 plus they give you your results in advance. The processes of admissions of universities funded by the state and given the huge student debt students incur should be fully transparent and easily accessible for all.

Hi - suddenly I think this post reads backwards. The kid from the low achieving comp who does well will get a positive score.

When the school has low attainment data, there is usually a correlation with a lower emphasis placed on education within the homes of most students. Not necessarily that they value education less; to take one stereotype with some basis in reality, perhaps there are a lot of exhausted, struggling single parents who lack the bandwidth to give their DC educational advantages/help/supervision etc.

Oxford then rewards DC for standing out in this environment. I have occasionally wondered whether this is a two parent premium, an economic premium, or a similar advantage, but the larger point is that Oxford is also rewarding DC from struggling families also. The latter is the whole point.

If DC are thought to have every educational advantage (and the system is not perfect) then the baseline is higher. Does this part bother you?

DH attended a well known public school. He didn’t want to stay on the extra term and do the Cambridge entrance exam. His A level and S level offer was brutal. His headmaster was outraged. But DH thought it was fair because although he disliked the school, he knew he had been massively advantaged. (I was educated abroad so I have no experience of applying to UK universities).

Happy to continue this later!

@poetryandwine - I worded that badly. I think transparency would benefit all. A comprehensive student from a comp getting an extra 3 points would maybe be more likely to apply? I just think it needs to be clearer so the students understand their starting points clearly. They get their actual GSCE results and eventually A level results as well as scores for admissions tests so I think the rest of the scores used should be freely and easily available upfront.
It also levels the playing field between other high achieving unis as students from high attaining schools are more likely to choose those from the outset if they know they don’t stand a chance with a minus 3 from Oxford on a highly competitive course.
It’s already unfair that Oxbridge get to cherry pick the best and get them too emotionally involved from the start.

so a very strong interview from one of the twins would've made the cGCSE irrelevant?

It probably would have mitigated it to a large extent. It wouldn't be totally irrelevant. But the risk is that if your cGCSE score isn't good enough, you don't get an interview where you show what you can do.

One of the interesting things about the cGCSE score is that it actually doesn't seem to really be affecting how many DC get in from the most selective schools that have always sent lots to Oxbridge (this is obviously quite a small number of applicants in the grand scheme of things). Those numbers seem to have stayed really quite stable over time. It may well have made a difference to those from non-selective schools and to schools less used to supporting Oxbridge applications. I don't know. I'd be interested to find out.

MFL doesn't require an admissions test or submitted work so getting an interview is the hardest bit.

@Alouest It’s not that hard! Oxford interview around 90% of MFL candidates. They test them at the interview. They do say what they are looking for. These days, no essay submitted but they do require candidates to express ideas orally and in writing. The most common reason for not being shortlisted for interview for languages is GCSE results.

Only Oxford can say. Their admissions process is an art as much as anything. A strong interview is very important.

Depending on the timing of her DF’s death, the relocation to the UK combined with it could be a compelling mitigating circumstance. I advise exploring this with her current school or perhaps a professional university admissions adviser.

I agree completely on the need for transparency, and you are right that if the use of the cGCSE were more widely understood Oxford might attract more talented candidates from a wide range of schools. Progress is slow. I think the reasons are complex but yes, Oxford (and Cambridge) could be doing more. OTOH I have occasionally publicised outreach efforts on the HE Board and response has been minimal. This is typical - it’s very difficult to shift people’s thinking.

I agree the Oxbridge mystique is completely out of hand and this is unhelpful. The early Oxbridge deadline was said to be integral to the interview-intensive applications process, but plenty of us manage.

I wish applicants (and their families and schools) would change perspective and focus more on which university is most likely to help them thrive. Doing well and taking making the most of their opportunities, and the confidence, mindset and self discipline this inculcates, is going to be much more valuable to DC careers than the name of the university they attended.

Goodness, just caught up with this thread - it's drifted a bit from the OP's question.

I don't know much about Oxbridge admissions processes. One thing though is that they clearly take it seriously enough to devote a lot of academic time to interviewing. Interviews are extremely rare elsewhere.

I'd happily bet a substantial amount of money that there isn't a fixed algorithm. For one thing, colleges have substantial autonomy.

Contextual GCSE and progress scores mean there is more information available to have a sense of student trajectories.

Some variance in student performance will be school-level, some variance will be student-level. (And some will be teacher-level, some class-level....) But there is no bullet-proof way of assessing how much is student-level. Those metrics don't exist.

Imagine that the MFL admissions tutors for College X have 50 applications for 10 offers available, and interview 45 (I haven't looked up application rates, this is just a rough assumption!)

They will have a bunch of guidance from the central university, and also the department reminding them of admissions policy and how to do fair assessment.

They will have college policies too. And undoubtedly mandatory training on how to interview effectively while accommodating needs, e.g. students with disabilities, even if not notified in advance.

The grades are all impressive, the personal statements near-impossible to differentiate meaningfully, some possibly drafted by paid advisers or AI.

Then the interviews, which are intense because you have to be focused, and time is so short. This is followed by collective ranking.

The top handful are really exceptional - everyone agrees. For the remaining five places, imagine that the interview has managed to differentiate 20 really excellent students from 20 excellent students.

Of those they have to work out which five to offer places to, and a few to recommend to the pool.

They do have sight of the GCSE scores - but some of the applicants are Scottish, some are international, one or two are mature students, one or two have first degrees already, and some are applying via the Foundation degree, just a few weeks into the Foundation year.

Imagine that half the ranking meeting is then taken up with one particular case where judgements differed wildly - until everyone realises time is running out and they need to make a final selection.

On balance it's a good thing that there is an attempt at a holistic judgement with human decision-making - which is extremely resource-intensive.

But it should be understood as partly a lottery. That's life though. The labour market is where the fun really starts.

From my experience at other universities, offers are made automatically if predicted grades met the grade requirements. The system as a whole is heavily demand-led now. There was very little human judgement involved - the resources aren't available.

@poetryandwine I wish applicants (and their families and schools) would change perspective and focus more on which university is most likely to help them thrive. Doing well and taking making the most of their opportunities, and the confidence, mindset and self discipline this inculcates, is going to be much more valuable to DC careers than the name of the university they attended.

Yes! I've taught exceptional students elsewhere who have gone on to elite careers, so it's possible.

They had to be much more proactive in creating their own 'elite education experience' - but they were able to create packages which were not dissimilar.

Examples: taking advantage of office hours to have one-to-one discussions with academics about academic work, choosing to attend graduate-level departmental seminars for wider enrichment, chasing opportunities for years abroad (often at elite international universities) or competitive internships, ambitious dissertations, using universities' mentoring opportunities to connect with alumni. Also - having a growth and openness mindset, rather than zero-sum thinking.

@poetryandwine That is very wise advice.

I didn’t know mn existed when my DD applied for Oxford and actually got in. I have been often criticised on mn for being an academic lightweight and not knowing the time of day. True I’m afraid!

However, dd had very little help from school and it was a steep learning curve! Although a couple of MFL teachers were encouraging and helpful, the deputy head said she was wasting her time and they didn’t include her on a trip to Cambridge for “likely” Oxbridge applicants or give her any “extra” help. In the end, she didn’t go but did go to a university that suited her better. I did all the legwork but no family history of Oxford, no tutoring, mock interviews, intense training or even encouragement. It was suggested she read a few books and watched a few films, which she did. She did have great GCSE results but the DH said they were a fluke. This was a private school.

So, looking back, I thought going elsewhere would harm her career goals of being a barrister. I was upset for her that one A level didn’t work out by a couple of marks. Looking at MFL stats at Oxford, this is not unusual as around 50 a year then don’t get over the line or decline their place for MFLs.

The big message is that dc can thrive elsewhere and hone far more skills than academics and they really can excel in what they wish to do. I now see academics as opening a door. They are only part of a career, but dc need to push through the door and that often requires different skills. DD has a great career in her chosen branch of law. I really do want to say to the intense Oxbridge parents: there are brilliant alternatives and dc can succeed in their goals and Oxbridge isn’t a unique passport and everyone else is swept aside. Dc still have fantastic qualities and it could be the stress of Oxford is not for everyone and they absolutely can flourish elsewhere.

My DD certainly doesn’t have the career she now has due to her degree. I accept lots of posters here are academics and haven’t looked at alternative careers, so academics is all. Most dc going to uni don’t follow this route though and therefore pure academics is not 100% necessary. Other skills and attributes are definitely needed as well. I welcome a balanced approach but we do get caught up with the Oxbridge hype, and it’s not healthy. My dd was far more sensible than me at the time! I honestly thought she would not have her career. What a complete idiot I was - trust your dc!

At the school DD went to, about 40 or 50 would get straight 9s. There are about 6 or 7 schools within a few miles radius with similar, if not stronger results. These schools get anything between 95-99% 9-7 at GCSE, year on year. But 7s are actually quite rare. If I remember, they don't do IGCSEs across the board, but the odd subjects may be at IGCSE because the school prefer the syllabus topics or something like that. So maybe the results from the top independents are misrepresented via National statistics because it would show up as say, only 8 Grade 9s achieved for a given pupil (because 2 or 3 would have been IGCSE).

There is one school now - Latymer Upper school - which has dropped GCSEs altogether. It was something about not wanting to hold students back with making them limit their thinking to conform to GCSE curriculums! So no idea what Oxbridge (or other unis) will make of that.

A few of the other London schools -. eg. Kings College Wimbledon or Godolphin and Latymer - also offer the IB as an alternative to A-levels. They do very well with IB and are ranked in the top few places globally.

Many independent schools expect 4 A-levels as standard. This is maybe less workload if the fourth A-level is FM. The ones doing 4 essay subjects may be more inclined to drop a subject, which also may be 'contextualised' as a negative in Oxbridge applications.

There is no definitive algorithm!

PS Great post, @maybedomaybedont and I agree with it.

FYI I have heard that LUS may be resuming GCSEs.

You are completely misunderstanding Oxford, though. And ‘academics’.

I am in STEM and we are the tier below COWI, still very highly ranked. It is also worth noting that many, many universities have pockets of excellence even if they aren’t highly ranked overall, and employers know this.

I too have seen what you describe time and again. This is largely within my university, but I also know students in certain programmes at our local post 1992 university develop great careers.

I agree completely with your post.

The DD got an offer from Oxford, so I think @MeetMeOnTheCorner has some idea of what that entails.

I read her post as an argument for balance in life.

were her gcse results not good for her school? considering you said someone said it was a 'fluke'. Also, did your DD miss her offer? and if so, which university did she end up picking?

@law4569 Went to Bristol. Yes, missed a grade on a non MFL A level. Yes, her GCSEs were good for her school. 9 A star, 2 As. I think only 2 students got better. Ones who didn’t do as well were supported for Oxbridge. The Deputy Head didn’t think she was particularly bright and we all know she’s not gifted, but she didn’t need to be to get an offer. She’d always been top 10 in exams but the Deputy thought she winged it and got lucky. She did loads of extra curricular and maybe wasn’t what he thought of as a worthy student? She has a strong character but that’s proved useful in her career. I think the Deluty thought she was outspoken. Teachers can be very odd and don’t always hone skills or even recognise them. DD says she’s a barrister in spite of school and that’s about right. Anyway, success isn’t just about going to Oxford, it really isn’t.

9a*s + 2 a's!!! clearly she is very smart. what are her thoughts on bristol? did she manage to get her dream job?

@law4569 Yes. I think I said earlier, she’s a barrister. It’s what she always wanted to do. It’s hard graft and you need to be super organised to apply for Mini pupillages, scholarships, get the cv up to scratch and hone your skills, but Bristol was no barrier because dd could do it and had the ambition. She liked Bristol and it’s good for MFLs. Durham would be too.