AIBU to think you should have to declare if you've had private tutoring on your UCAS form?

[ArcheryAnnie]

DS and his mates are at a state school and have sent in their UCAS forms, and are getting offers. They are all good kids of varying ability, most of whom get their heads down and work, but it is really noticeable that the kids who have had extensive tutoring in addition to school are the ones who have the best predicted grades and who are therefore getting the offers they want.

This is obvious, of course. Tutoring works, otherwise people wouldn't pay for it. I have no criticism of anyone who can afford it helping their kid in this way - and plenty do. 42% of kids in London get private tutoring, and the national average is something like 27%.

But other factors in your life that might confer advantages or disadvantages - like going to a private school, or growing up in care - are asked for there in plain sight on your UCAS form. Tutoring, which has such a big impact on your A-level grades, isn't asked about at all. It seems only fair that this is asked about too.

So - AIBU to think the UCAS form should ask how much private tutoring you have had?

How would you prove it - and who would answer honestly if they felt it then disadvantaged their child? And what if you don't pay for tutoring, but pass on your own knowledge of languages/maths whatever? If it comes to that, should parents with more practical skills have to declare that they taught their child to change a plug/maintain a car/do a bit of plumbing ... I was definitely disadvantaged there as nobody taught me and I've been forking out for professionals all my adult life! Life isn't fair, there's no level playing field and there never will be.

Some children get better teaching at school than others , should this be declared too? It sounds like you are the type of parent who thinks children should not have competitive sports days in case some kids don't win any of their races. Get your child a tutor or tutor them yourself. Don't be jealous of kids who give up more time to study. We have child who has tutor 3 hours each week. 1 each for English, Maths and Science and it is s committment on their time.

What would you like to happen to those who declare tuition? That they are penalised?
Some people need extra tuition. Are you suggesting only those who able to learn easily get into university.

Honestly one of the most ridiculous threads I’ve read.... and I’ve been here for years.

Sorry not threads, interesting contributions, ridiculous idea.

Was going to type out an answer then realised LEM has done it already, almost word for word, what I would have written. YABU.

I teach my kids. I’m not a teacher, but I am a university lecturer and have decent GCSEs and A levels in most of the subjects they’re taking. It’s not formal, but I do go over things with them before exams, explain things they’re a bit confused about, and check their homework. Is that tutoring or a mum helping out with school work? Are they lucky? Hell yes. Do they appreciate it? Hell no!

Would you be saying this if you had paid for tutoring for your child? I’m assuming you didn’t btw. People have to take every advantage in life and unfortunately this is just one. I had private tutoring for my 11 plus and my sister had private tutoring to get a full bursary for private school. We both got in and our mum thought the money was well spent even though she’s not loaded.

Jealous much? They did extra work to get a better grade. So what? With internet available anyone can have ‘extra tutoring’ if they have the drive to arse themselves.

It would be another example of nannying state interference which adds no value. Like the stupid question about whether parents have a degree. Dooohhhh..and who is stupid enough to answer yes if kids are applying for Russell Group universities as we all know why it is asked.

I think the idea comes from a good place, but you must know yourself that it's unworkable. People lie, and will continue to do so. Plus there's a difference between a child on a housing estate getting an hours help with their homework from the student next door, and the intensive hot housing that can accompany 11+ prep / Oxbridge applications and similar. All tutoring is not equal.
Interesting discussion though, if you leave out the unnecessary rudeness.

I completely agree with the general sentiment that some kids have educational advantages that others don't, and how unfair that is, but this isn't a workable solution. Tutoring doesn't necessarily prove that someone is from a "well to do" background or not, there is no way of checking up on whether someone has told the truth or not, and I don't really see what they are supposed to do with this information anyway. Should they not grant someone a place on a course if they got top marks, just because they had a tutor? They still did the work and have still demonstrated excellent subject knowledge and work ethic. And should someone with sub par marks be given a place just because they didn't have a tutor? It's really sad that some students haven't been afforded the same education as others but that doesn't mean we can ignore something like a lack of work ethic or lack of subject knowledge.

It just doesn't work.

Never heard such bollocks in my life. Should they be declaring parents' income too? How about how many hours homework they do (which is basically what you're suggesting...) or how many parents they have? How about whether there are any problem siblings or illnesses in the family? No?

Do people not answer honestly re parents having degrees then?😱Had no idea you get asked on uni applications or that people lie.

A better suggestion would be to have free fire walled/supervised internet for learning resources for kids from disadvantaged areas (eg after school or in libraries). A lot of stuff can be found online these days.

I don't see the point of collecting the information. Will those who have been tutored be penalised in some way?
They are all good kids of varying ability, most of whom get their heads down and work, but it is really noticeable that the kids who have had extensive tutoring in addition to school are the ones who have the best predicted grades and who are therefore getting the offers they want.
Sounds like those who are getting the offers they need are doing more work - which seems reasonable to me.

But how is this different from going to a private school where a more personalised and often better level of education is provided?

University places are offered on grades, interview and other activities. Declaring extra tutoring won’t make a difference to the application anyway.

Lots of good universities have a reduced entry for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, I know Leeds university did when DD applied.

What if you had tuition but still got crap grades and had to declare that? It does happen and would make you look even thicker and more useless.

The same person can have a mix of different forms of privilege and disadvantage, including a learning difficulty, divorce, bullying alongside side things like access to tutors... I think if you cast the net too wide it gets to a point where it's not easy to see what the implications should be in terms of what is looked at, particularly in terms of university admissions.

You don't know what else is going on for those other students other than the tutoring.

I said no because its unworkable too.

It does make you wonder what the point of exams is anymore ?

Postcodes and other factors can influence an offer due to widening participation targets when applying for University. We live in a target area it’s very deprived but there are literally five roads in our area that have very nice housing that’s costs far more than the rest of the town, we live in one of them.

I know postcodes do play a part in Uni applications. I know a kid who was knocked back and told if he was in a postcode a stones throw away he'd have got a place with the same results. Which in my mind is totally wrong.

Seems to be an assumption that if you live in a private estate that you are being tutored anyway.

Inequality of opportunity is sad but inevitable.

I remeber how shocked I felt when mine started in Reception and the whole class was taught what a book was - how it has a front and a back and a story on the middle. My dc had been taken to the library at least once a week since tiny, read to every single day, had bookshelves in their room with their own favourites on etc etc. I was horrified to relapse the disadvantage that some children were at already by 4. But that disadvantage will have continued. My dc have been to museums, we discuss what they've been learning about and visit related places, we still go to the library, we listen to audio books as a family and discuss them... It goes on. It's not fair and it's not right but it is entrenched and impossible to mitigate.

Many believe that taking part in team sports or learning a musical instrument is beneficial overall to a child's attainment but you don't necessarily denote that on a ucas form either.

What benefit could this have when there's every incentive to lie? Universities will get an actively inaccurate picture.

Ridiculous notion! Get back in your box!

(And no, my DC didn't have tutoring, we couldn't afford it!)