[wulfstan]

The truth is that if you have an intelligent child, independent school is a complete waste of money. In the UK you will be spending in the vicinity of £200k over a child’s education to finish a levels, and although they will get better a levels on average, their results at university do not reflect their a level achievements. This is why independent schools find themselves downgraded in university offers.

This isn’t a surprise, because independent schools hothouse children to ensure they peak at a levels, whereas what universities want is students who will continue to improve at university.

I have two children (3xA*, 1A for one and 3As for the other) who were not interested in Oxford or Cambridge. My experience of Cambridge students (I live in Cambridge) is that I have seen many burn out. You also end up with a very narrow program of study which for children with broader interests forces them into a box very early. It’s also a 3 year undergrad program with 24 contact weeks a year, which is insanely short.

My children have gone to Scotland (Edinburgh and St Andrews) which allows significantly more flexibility than English universities offer in choosing subjects outside your chosen degree pattern. St Andrews even lets you change degree completely if you find something else you like.

If you really really want to be a mathematician at 18 then I can see why Cambridge or Oxford might appeal; for kids with more breadth, I think it’s a poor choice.

[rcxdude]

>You also end up with a very narrow program of study which for children with broader interests forces them into a box very early

To some extent, but one of the things about it that I liked was the course I was on was more general than most other English universities. But still, it's not as broad as e.g. a US university, so it's pretty relative. (Basically, for engineering the curriculum is basically 'all engineering' until the second year, where you then can pick specific modules to go into specific areas. Natural Science and Mathematics are similar. But, relevant to your point about burnout, they didn't really cut anything from each area compared to other, more focused courses, so the workload was definitely intense). For me it was a perfect fit because I knew I wanted to go into engineering but I didn't really have a strong preference for which type (still haven't really given up being a generalist).

[growse]

I agree with a lot of this.

> My experience of Cambridge students (I live in Cambridge) is that I have seen many burn out.

100%. I "burnt out" (actually, I think I discovered there was more to life than the academic slog I'd spent my entire schooling immersed in) and despite 6 A levels came 94/97 in my third year.

It happens a lot, and my suspicion is that the burnout is caused by the whiplash of going from a high intensity/pressure school environment (where you're likely told you're the smartest person in the room), to a more adult, self-driven one (where it's clear you're not).

> You also end up with a very narrow program of study which for children with broader interests forces them into a box very early.

This depends on the course I think. I did natural sciences which is extremely broad, and allows much later specialisation. Other courses are far narrower d think.

[physicsguy]

> You also end up with a very narrow program of study

This just isn't true in my area (Physics), the courses at Oxbridge are just as broad but go much deeper than you'd study in another University.

I don't think it's true of written subjects either, from friends that studied there it sounds like the cranking out of essays is weekly or more at Oxbridge whereas my housemates at University were doing termly stuff.

[wulfstan]

By narrow program of study I don’t mean “breadth within the discipline” I mean “credit for work outside the discipline”. My son is studying maths but has taken two semesters of biblical Greek, previously did a music subject and this term is doing Hebrew. Can’t do that at Oxbridge.