Grace was rejected from Oxford the first time she applied (in her last year of school). She re-sat some exams in her gap year and re-applied and then got in.
Yes! If anything this shows the irrelevance of fabulous extra-curriculars. Despite all the brilliant experience Grace earned to help her become a rounded person she still got rejected for PPE! Why? Well, in part, because for all candidates there’s an element of luck but also because I can’t imagine anything a PPE admissions tutor would be less interested in than 6 years in a choir or an uncompetitive internship at an investment bank. The two things they care about are academic potential and an interest in the subject you want to study. The PPE admissions tutors clearly realised she wasn’t 100% committed to the subject and by all accounts she thrived doing music so that worked out for everyone.
I am not denying that privilege is still an important factor in the quality of an application as better schools will naturally, on average, produce better grades and better applications. Nearly everyone at Oxford recognises this but also Colleges can only contextualise grades so much.
The one thing that Colleges absolutely can contextualise, however, is extra-curriculars. Everyone understands that someone from a low-income rural comprehensive just doesn’t have the opportunity to do the same extra-curriculars as someone from a London private school. Because of this, for most subjects extra-curriculars are irrelevant and for the ones where they are relevant, what they look for is evidence of relevant extra-curriculars not what they actually are in detail.
I am sorry for derailing this into an oxbridge thing but I just felt that I really needed to put out something to try to challenge the totally false narrative that Oxford love privileged extra-curriculars - they don’t. If your reading this and thinking of applying please don’t be discouraged at all because of your background - there’s still undeniably work to be done but Oxbridge are doing great work in this area.