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?

Tutoring is just one of a group of 'educational advantages' that some children get. By taking into account the school/area, whether parents themselves are graduates, or whether the child has been in care, universities are attempting to level out the advantages. Going into more detail about how these advantages were actually put into practice is effectively double counting.

The children who have been 'extensively tutored' may have had parents who worked all hours and couldn't help with homework. Should we be asking who had one (or more) parent who worked part time hours or less? More likely, they had parents who prioritised educational work above other stuff . This doesn't necessarily mean they will be more successful in life, but does give them better grades at this point.

I provide private tuition. Do all my pupils automatically get top grades? I wish! A tutor gives pupils the advantage of more individual attention than they would get in school, and can teach them techniques for learning, but doesn’t necessarily make them better learners - that has to come from the pupil.

In a way, I see what you’re getting at. Will somebody who was tutored through A levels suddenly flounder when they’re on their own? One pitfall of tutoring is that some pupils become dependent on their tutor, won’t work by themselves, won’t learn to look anything up, and their tutor does all their thinking for them. I’m careful to avoid this.

Also, with most exams nowadays, you have to understand the content to do well, not just memorise it. I think this is especially true of the new GCSE maths.

I'm surprised at the overwhelming YABU on this thread - I see where you're coming from. Paid tutoring improves academic performance but only for those who can afford it. Those who can't afford it are therefore disadvantaged and we don't want access to university to depend on income do we? I think it would be another useful bit of information for universities to use when they're looking at contextual offers. As other PP have said though, I don't know how it would be checked or enforced and this is probably why they don't already ask it.

I think some people above have misunderstood what you're suggesting (or there are some prickly people who are paying for tutors on here )

"Why are you tearing down people who try hard?"
The point is that they are not doing better because they try hard but because they can afford to pay someone to help them. Poorer people who may also be trying hard are disadvantaged.

"Life isn't fair so just suck it up / things cannot be totally fair / what if a family member arranges work experience / my DH is a professor / speaks another language etc"
Why not try to make it a tiny bit fairer though? Or are we all ok with children from poorer families getting fewer educational opportunities? They should just suck it up? Surely the fact that the odds are so weighted against children from poorer families for all sorts of reasons means that universities should do everything they can to even out those odds.

"My child didn't have a tutor and went to Oxbridge"
Good for them but there will be people who only get their A levels with help from a tutor and people who don't get their A levels because they can't afford help.

"You are trying to create a world where no one excels and everyone is normal"
No - it's about trying to make further education available to all the able children, whether they can afford extra tuition or not.

"What about when I as a mum help my DC with their homework, would that have to be declared?"
Well, in this hypothetical world (since it's unenforceable) you could make it about paid, professional tutoring only.

"You are saying that only people who learn easily should go to university"
No, but getting into university should depend on how bright and able you are, not on whether your parents can afford a tutor for you.

"YABU because some children get better teaching at school and that doesn't count for anything"
Universities already collect information to help them give contextual (lower) offers to those from less successful schools.

Dd had private tuition for her English gcse as in year 10 they went through 6 different teachers in a year. Teachers would leave the school due to behaviour issues after a few weeks. One teacher sat on the floor crying in one lesson. Year 11 was mostly taught by supply teachers.

Her mock English was a 2. I’m sure due to lack of teaching. So I got a tutor. While I agree this put her at an advantage to her classmates I think it just put her on the same level as anyone who went to a half decent school.

So yes I’d be annoyed if she’d been penalised for this. She already went to one of the worst schools in the country.

The only thing I look at when interviewing potential candidates for a uni course is their name and personal statement.

There’s obviously criteria for getting an interview they need to tick but it’s generally based on the entry criteria for the course they’ve applied for (usually found on the uni website).

Are you suggesting kids with good grades are given a lower preference if they were tutored? Ridiculous. Universities want the brightest kids, however that was achieved.

Tutoring can also be a disadvantage as they go away to uni and are left alone for the first time without that support and expected to do a lot of independent learning and study time and suddenly they struggle as they have always had help and tutoring. I work in HE and see this happening quite often.

Universities want the brightest kids, however that was achieved.

Not necessarily. Uni’s want the candidates most suited to the specific course they have applied for. You can be the most intelligent kid out there with the highest grades but if you can’t demonstrate common sense, empathy, self-awareness or values associated with professionalism and caring you’re not going to do well on a health professions course for example.

I definitely see what you mean and somewhat agree. It’s an advantage that money can bring and makes you wonder what grades children from poorer backgrounds would get if they had the luxury of a private tutor.

It’s the same with Grammar schools, although I actually think that’s worse as it prevents the more able ones potentially getting a place.

There’s a local one here that’s renowned for private tuition pre-entry exam, but they have a huge problem with those kids that have been private tutored not being able to keep up. If they need that much extra support to pass the exam it’s just a complete farce and makes a mockery out of the grammar system. It’s evident to see those that have the natural ability on their own merits and clearly those that don’t.

I feel like that should be put in the application to a grammar school before they make a decision but of course how do you police that.

So yes I agree with you OP

Universities want the brightest kids

This is exactly the argument for contextual offers. But looking at just A level grades is not the best / only way of determining who the brightest kids are. Universities already recognise that and use other information too.

A lot of the YABUs are because this wouldn't assist with preventing money improving uni chances muriel. As it's unenforceable, people would lie so institutions could be lulled into a false sense of security and get an inaccurate picture, so it could make things even worse.

And in the implausible event that it became trackable, those who could benefit from informal arrangements with friends and family would be advantaged: it's easier to access £30 a week than it is to access a network of expertise from people who know and love you enough to give it for free when they've popped over.

Side note- I think grammar schools should look at the overall performance of a child their current school. That would be more indicative of how well they are likely to perform in a grammar as oppose to a one off test

Where would it end? Should they also have to declare this when they apply for their first job?

At some point young people have to learn to live and compete in the real world, where some people have advantages that others don't.

It's ridiculous
Let them get there on their merits
My dcs have been brought up on the poverty line
I have no GCSEs
Dcs old enough now both at Russell group universities

I'm fluent in three languages and dh and I have a PhD each, I used to be a uni admissions tutor. Our DC will be able to call on pretty specialist help from us when the time comes. Should that be declared on their UCAS form too? Where do you stop when listing family advantages?

What about level of sickness or other absence of your school subject teachers? Or their teaching ability? That should surely go on the UCAS form too? Teachers coming and going off sick had huge impacts on some of my school mates - no one passed french ‘A level’ because of it. Tutoring was the only thing that enabled a friend’s son to get through the curriculum when his teacher was constantly going off sick for a couple of weeks, coming back for a week, then going off again.

Yes I make the point that it's unenforceable myself. And that just because there are many other ways in which poorer students are disadvantaged, doesn't mean any of it shouldn't be addressed.

It's ridiculous
Let them get there on their merits

You think tutoring shouldn't be allowed at all?

some people get tutors to fill in the gaps of their school education.maybe the teacher has been ill a lot, high turnover of teachers, child has been ill and missed school etc.

Should you also grade schools from high achieving to low achieving and factor this in.

Also, what about parents. Supportive parents, families who have experienced hardship, divorce etc

I can see where you are coming from, but are there too many factors to count.

Sometimes tutoring doesn't always advantage students. I've seen students who have done sweet FA with regards to independent work because they assume that their tutor will iron out any issues for them. Not possible on an hour or two a week if they're doing nothing outside of that. I also had a student who was coping fine in the subject I teach. Around about the middle of Y12 they then started to go downhill, with essays being constructed in a way that went totally against what I'd taught as both teacher and examiner for that subject. When I talked to them they said their tutor had suggested doing them an alternative way.

As others have said, privilege and advantage can influence lives in a way that's not always tangible or measurable.

Surely those questions are just for data collection though? Surely a university doesn’t care where you went to school or whether your received free school meals?

They do - as part of their funding they are required to attract students who fulfil their widening participation criteria. Some also place priority on certain criterion like the school and whether you've been looked after.

If a student feels they are somehow disadvantage in comparison to their cohort then by all means raise it in a personal statement or during discussion with the Uni. However, in this day and age any student can do extra learning from the comfort of their own home using Youtube or other more subject specific websites.

All that would happen if you forced disclosure of tutoring on UCAS forms, would be wealthy parents will be able to use their social networks to circumvent this with parents using and swapping their own expertise with friends, to help their children without actually purchasing tutoring. Self perpetuating the advantage that the children of university educated parents already had.

Unfortunately it's impossible to strip out the effects of advantage. Life isn't fair. Really bright kids do well regardless.

By that logic you should add a rating of how good each teacher was for each subject for your whole school life too.

Life isn't fair. Really bright kids do well regardless.

And kids who are hard working and bright enough to go to university but missed out because they couldn't afford a tutor to help them through their A levels, tough shit, they should just suck it up.

I honestly don't think it's relevant. I have 2 DC, one had tuition for 2 subjects... the other didn't.

The one who didn't have tuition is naturally academically gifted and always had higher predicted grades than the other.

She's not had a day's tuition in her life and is predicted all A* in her A levels this year.