sneakly gcse science results at top indie

Independent Schools as an alternative to Grammar

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

11 Plus Mocks - Practise the real exam experience - Book Now
Minesatea
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:08 am

Post by Minesatea »

Re Hills Road 6th form college

Thinking about it, the Cambridge v Oxford rivialry affects most people in the city (I spent 3 years living there and I now cannot support the dark blues in any sporting event), so I guess their students may be less likely to apply to Oxford. It would be interesting to see the Oxford university admissions numbers. Whereas some schools on the list may have equal numbers going to both universities. Looking at one list we are only seeing half the story.
Sherbetlemon
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:31 am

Post by Sherbetlemon »

I went to a very academic school in Cambridge in the 70s, from which at least half of the sixth form went to Oxbridge. As far as I remember, in my year there was a majority who went to Oxford so that they could live away from home.

I'm sure marigold is right about Hills Road - I believe it's a school with a good teaching reputation, but I remember being at school with very clever daughters of very eminent dons, whose sights were firmly set on Oxbridge from the age of 11.
Flamenco

Post by Flamenco »

ourmaminhavana wrote:Does the percentage refer to the number of candidates out of the year/five years that got in out of the year group or out of those who applied?
Hi ourmaminhavana!

Sorry for having slightly overlooked your query.

The percentages apply to those who actually got in as stated by the report’s ‘Guide to tables’ on page 28.
Guide to tables
This was calculated for a given school or college by comparing the number of pupils in the last five years that enrolled at the Sutton Trust 13 universities with the numbers of pupils that enrolled at universities overall. Hit rates were also calculated for schools in relation to Oxford and Cambridge Universities combined and individually – again by comparing the number of pupils in the last five years that enrolled at these universities with the numbers of pupils that enrolled at universities overall.
Yes, I agree the report makes heart wrenching reading indeed. :(
londonmum
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:07 am
Location: London

Post by londonmum »

To add to the complexity I would suggest that not all pupils at some of the very successful schools aspire to Oxford or Cambridge.

Our experience is that children with 2 British born parents are in a minority, largely reflecting London's status as a world city and the strong international reputation of Britain's private schools. In part because of this there is a sharp rise in applications to, particularly, American Universities. For several people we know with one or two American parents, University presents a great chance to spend time there. Westminster, now, for example, talks about the world top 10 Universities. Parents, assuming money does not matter, can also prefer American Universities because there is less of a drink culture and because facilities and teaching can be far stronger.

For others, especially those wanting to read science, engineering, medicine or economics, other Universities may offer better courses. And many London kids want to stay in their home town. (I did, and even then observed that children from some London communities, including Jewish and Asian, were highly represented, as living away from home was not seen as desirable..)

There is also, and I think that this raises other issues, a real sense that able children who have worked hard and have achieved good results are not really welcome in some English Universities. And a concern that they will not be welcome further down the line either if employers come under increasing pressure to ensure their recruitment is "socially" mixed. So better to step out of it all and go to the States and gain a more internationally recognised qualification.
dinah
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:25 pm

Post by dinah »

flamenco said As for Oxford, they do indeed look further than your academic achievements, so I’m told. It’s the place to go for the humanities, the arts, the classics, the politics etc. Remember the recent C4 ‘Cutting Edge’ programme? Almost everyone at Harrow wants to go to Oxford. I suppose they don’t stand a chance at academic Cambridge where all the scientific minds seem to converge.

flamenco, you seem to be implying that only scientific subjects are worth anything and that the only clever people are those that study science . In what way is a student of classics less clever than a science student? There does seem to be a consensus that Cambridge has a better reputation for science and Oxford for classics but it is hardly something worth worrying about .

Marigold said ' would also agree with the point made regarding Cambridge looking at academic evidence rather than extra curricular activities. A very good friend is an admissions tutor and he is always complaining that too many people assume that a D of E gold medal will ensure entry to his college rather than a deep love and passion for Keynesian Economics.'
I think this applies to most universities. I don't think many of them care about extra curricula activities.I can't imagine that Oxford would put a Ballet exam or Milk Monitor badge before a good academic record and a passion for the chosen subject.
Flamenco

Post by Flamenco »

Please may I ask kindly, dinah from where did you get the conclusion that I implied only science subjects are worth anything and only clever people study science?

But at least you do agree with me (I think) that Cambridge has a better reputation for science and Oxford for classics.

As for the question, which is the harder discipline, the classics or the sciences, and therefore, the cleverer students opting for one or the other, I think this is rather subjective. I have therefore, put this question to a vote by forum members under the heading, ‘Everything Else’.
T.i.p.s.y

Post by T.i.p.s.y »

I am also confused by your comments Dinah. I thought Flamenco was stating that Oxford was seen as the best choice for the liberal arts and humanities and Cambridge for science. One has to be equally clever although I actually think that one doesn't have to be as bright to study the sciences. Coming from a maths/science background studying these subjects was very much the easy option compared to the humanities but this is purely personal.

I actually think some extra curricular activities do need to be taken into account. If one candidate can get straight A's, hold down a job, spend hours involved in community service then they clearly have the ability to cope with a place like Oxbridge. These uni's want students who will become active in the societies and if a student (unless through disadvantage) has shown no initiative in these area then the student with matching grades but with "extras" should get the place over the other student.
dinah
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:25 pm

Post by dinah »

Perhaps I am coming across as a bit harsh on flamenco and marigold but in all honesty and perhaps from personal experience it does seem to me that sciences are given such a hard sell by the government and therefore by schools ,that other subjects are being sidelined. Cambridge appears to have a better reputation for science and Oxford for Classics .I'm not well informed enough really to say if this is true per se.
But.. you have a situation where Classics students are more likely to apply to Oxford and as mostly they come from Independents and so Oxfords reputation for being better at Classics continues and so does the idea that they will take more pupils from Independents.Well, they have to because it is mainly Independents who teach Latin and Greek.Although both of them offer four year courses for those students who haven't had the opportunity to study Latin or Greek at all , if you are talented at languages but went to a school which didn't study Latin or Greek you would have to have some guts to to apply.
What I think I am saying :? is that because Cambrige is better at science people think that means it is better all round because science has been hyped up as being the most difficult thing to do.When you look at how GCSE science has been dumbed down and how pupils who gain A * at GCSE find A level really hard and how science AS and A2 have been made modular so that you don't have to learn too much at once and can resit until you get the grade you need I have serious doubts about the credibility of science .
Thea
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Richmond

Post by Thea »

Top universities want candidates who will go onto get firsts. The extra-curricular activites of candidates therefore serves the same purpose as the peacock's tail - if they can succeeed in getting to a level & gcse grades whil still 'hadicapped with the big tail' ie doing lots of other stuff at a high level, clearly they are top achievers and likely to excel & get a first.
Best Regards,
Thea
Post Reply