Universities should honour all offers and ignore flawed A-level grades

[Notusuallyshocked]

Worcester College, Oxford, are treating this year's A-level results with the scepticism they deserve...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53780498?intlink_from_url=&link_location=live-reporting-story

They've said they will honour all offers regardless of A level grades.

AIBU to think all universities should do the same?

Especially now the algorithm determining A-level grades has been shown to be unfair:

www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/14/do-the-maths-why-englands-a-level-grading-system-is-unfair

Since the results have only a tenuous link with an individual student's ability/performance, no individual student should miss out on their university place due to this complete mess.

Of course with social media being so readily available to us all nowadays, you get to hear so many more stories which do sound 'wrong', but as you say, every year there are people that miss out, but they don't have a common thing to vent at, there are normally individual circumstances.
I'm not minimising the pain for our dc, but, considering the nightmare this year has been, I don't think the overall statistics are showing it to have been the horror show some people are trying to portray.

I would agree. People working at universities aren't callous or unfeeling. We want students, we want good students and most of us care deeply about what we do. We're working with policies imposed on us by government as well as everything COVID related.... we're doing the best we can.

I think what’s really hard is it feels like all control has been taken away from students with these grades as they didn’t do the exams.

But.... even when we do have exams, it’s a fallacy to think that how the student does is entirely down to them, or even their school. There’s a growing body of research that things like vocabulary size when they were under five, number of books present in the home etc are really good indicators of performance at GCSE and A-Level. We just don’t normally notice this unfairness in everything as we assume that how an individual does is totally within their control. Disadvantage in a range of ways comes into play much earlier than that.

I think the assigned grades are awful, by the way.

I don't think the overall statistics are showing it to have been the horror show some people are trying to portray.

All statistics will show is the number of students getting A*s or their first choice or whatever. They won't show if it was the right students.

BackforGood
Thank you. That was the sort of thing I was trying to find, although as a mathematician, I would like to see exact numbers too.
I suspect people reading papers and mn would get the impression it was closer to 20% getting in at all!

Hope your dd is happy with where she's going now, and well done to her for negotiating clearing. Not an easy thing to do.

I saw this online and thought people may be interested. I know nothing more than that is in the post.

‘I hope everyone is doing well. Simpson Millar (a public law and education firm) is in the process of challenging the appeal process in relation to the A-Levels debacle. They have secured funding to cover legal costs so costs are not an issue.

They are looking for young people who have been downgraded by 2 grades or more.

If you know anyone, please ask them to contact Dan Rosenberg (Partner at Simpson Millar) ASAP 0800 260 5010
—
please share widely via your networks.

SoupDragon

Totally agree, which is why I said on an individual level it is unfair.
But they could never have got a situation where it was totally fair to everyone, by looking at the larger picture you can see better how good the algorithm was.

I do think they should have looked individually at any grade changed (either way) by more than 2 grades, and I do think that grading the smaller cohorts by a different system to the larger ones was only going to land them in problems, which they should have foreseen and made sure they were consistent numbers across both.

It looks like Worcester College decided to honour all of offers before result were announced. According to their Professor of Admissions this decision was taken when it was announced that A levels were cancelled as they felt they had all the information then needed about their applicants.

Hope your dd is happy with where she's going now, and well done to her for negotiating clearing. Not an easy thing to do.

Thank you. I was incredibly proud of the way she picked herself up and started the numerous phone calls. I was very proud of the mature way she was able to speak on the phone, and ask sensible questions and methodically work through options and gather as much info as she could before narrowing down all her new offers. Shes still waiting for UCAS to update her choice, but has been reassured by the University that isn't to be worried about though it is making me twitchy.
Though we've not visited in person, we like the look of it on the website and she's managed to have a long chat with someone who graduated from there last year. The course looks perfect for her, so fingers crossed.
Thank you.

But they could never have got a situation where it was totally fair to everyone, by looking at the larger picture you can see better how good the algorithm was.

I don't think you can see how "good" the algorithm was. Unless you mean how good it was at making sure the results didn't look massively increased on last year. I mean how good can an algorithm be if it downgrades any straight A student to a C? If there are clear failures then it was a shit system

No way was ever going to be accurate. The only way that meant the results were based on the students themselves, and therefore fair to them, was the grades estimated by the teachers who know them. Not allowing a student to get the grade they probably deserved because too many others have got it is just plain ridiculous.

Thank god I don't have any children in exam years (at least DS1's degree wasn't decided like this!)

@SoupDragon

But they could never have got a situation where it was totally fair to everyone, by looking at the larger picture you can see better how good the algorithm was.

I don't think you can see how "good" the algorithm was. Unless you mean how good it was at making sure the results didn't look massively increased on last year. I mean how good can an algorithm be if it downgrades any straight A student to a C? If there are clear failures then it was a shit system

No way was ever going to be accurate. The only way that meant the results were based on the students themselves, and therefore fair to them, was the grades estimated by the teachers who know them. Not allowing a student to get the grade they probably deserved because too many others have got it is just plain ridiculous.

Thank god I don't have any children in exam years (at least DS1's degree wasn't decided like this!)

My ds1 graduated this year and he would have been hardest hit during A levels

Ds2 would probably be affected badly by GCSE but thank fuck they were last year!!

Dd could have done better during an actual exam...but at least doesn’t ’need’ those grades

They’ve used a shit and unfair system, im deeply sorry for any child affected badly by this...and their parents

Oh

Dd just spoke to a lad at work who was getting a U in his A level as he hadn’t completed any coursework and wasnt going to do the exam

He got a C

The only way that meant the results were based on the students themselves, and therefore fair to them, was the grades estimated by the teachers who know them.

I would disagree that would have been fairer-it would simply have been unfair to a different set of students.
I am totally certain that the 6th form I was at, at the time, would have been announcing "all A/A* results, best year group ever" with any year group they had.

Going by teacher's result, that by statistics were clearly in some cases off means that pupils in the schools where they were better at predicting get relatively unfair grades. What's more that well-deserved grade may be looked down on as "obviously inflated grade", so they'd be doubly disadvantaged, and if they had to fight clearing then there would be fewer spaces, higher grades etc.

Teachers may be able to give predicted grades fairly accurately, but not all of them do. Teachers are human. They make mistakes, they also have their own prejudices. They may try not to let that effect them, but it will effect them-even if it goes the other way and they over predict the ones they don't like because they're trying hard not to.

My mum was a maths teacher. She went on a moderating course on coursework once, which was looking and hoping to improve accuracy for teachers marking. It was around 10 years into GCSE, mostly fairly experienced teachers.
Mum was unusual in that she was the only maths teacher at her school, so was in a group of oddments, whereas all the others were put with their fellow staff members. She said they had some very good discussions. Most of the others were with at least 3-4 others from their school.

They got given some training, then they were given some coursework to grade according and then they reported back.

When they went through the work later dm noticed a couple of interesting things. Bear in mind that there was no knowledge of the pupils, no pressure, simply they were hoping to get it as close to right as possible.

1. Teachers from selective schools where they would have got mostly A/Bs (no A*) underestimated greatly lower ability significantly. Ds were dropped to E to G levels, and at least one of the selective schools didn't think they deserved a grade at all. Even some of the low grade Cs they would have placed as E grade or lower.

1. The teachers from the large comprehensives put far more emphasis on getting C or G. So they awarded almost no Us or Ds, and not many Es, putting them firmly into C or G category. They also were relatively reluctant to award As, with all but the top being given B/C.

Now this is one example. But it shows how teacher's experience can influence their judgement, even when they are trying to be fair.

Also I think it puts a huge burden on the teachers themselves. Imagine being that teacher who estimates a B knowing they need an A, which you don't think they would have got? You and only you were responsible for them not getting in. I suspect teachers would be getting hate mail and being vilified (again) in the press.

And if we end up in the same situation again then the teachers' grades would be even more over estimated to try and beat the other overestimates.

I'm not saying that the current way was fair, but I think teacher's grades would be less fair. It would probably be good for my dd who's expecting her GCSE results, so I'm not arguing against it for that reason. If they gave her her predicted grades from January then she'll be a very happy (and rather lucky) girl on Thursday. But I still don't think it is a fair way of doing it.

I believe students should get their CAGs as their formal grades and based on this they can go the correct HE establishment for them. This will mean those at Eton etc may get lower marks and may have to give up Oxbridge places, if this is the case then I'm sure the Government will intervene to create extra places for them.

Isn't it the case that kids at Eton may have got mostly the CAGs and that's the point? It's not as if they were bumped up especially, but that with smaller classes there were more groups with CAGs.

FWIW I know someone who tried to get her highly intelligent kid into Eton and didn't. I think these days its ultra competitive academically even to get in.

I do think too much nastiness is being directed at kids from places like that, who didn't chose what sector to be educated in, and it's not going to help those who have been unfairly treated by the algorithm. It's the government which is to blame.

Witchend has explained it really well.

I've had to do work on moderating (SATs, not GCSE or A-levels) but it is the same at that level. Staff naturally only have experience at the schools they work at.

There is also the point that, however scrupulous you aim to be, when you know the person you are talking about, it influences you.
There is also a natural self preservation thing about needing to prove you have x% passes or X% "improvement". You also are 'willing' the child to achieve, so anyone you think is on the border you will give credit to. I presume the pressure is even higher when the parents have paid out tens of thousands of ££ over the years for their dc to 'get a better education'

This was what St Edmund Hall Oxford said yesterday explaining why they are hounouring all their offers:
Over the weekend, St Edmund Hall has reviewed the applications of all students who missed their conditional offers when A-level grades were released last Thursday. It is apparent that a disproportionally large proportion of those students that missed their offers were from the state sector. The college had already taken the decision to make offers unconditional for a significant number of students but, in light of the growing concern around the process by which grades were assigned and can be appealed this year, it has looked again at the cases of those students whose places were not initially confirmed

Paul Johnson in The Times today also confirms who was advantaged by the Ofqual system and who was disadvantaged
First, and most obvious, the process adopted favours schools with small numbers of students sitting any individual A-level. That is, it favours private schools. If you have up to five students doing an A-level, you simply get the grades predicted by the teacher. If between five and fifteen, teacher-assigned grades get some weight. More than 15 and they get no weight. Teacher predictions are always optimistic. Result: there was a near-five percentage point increase in the fraction of entries from private schools graded at A or AIn contrast, sixth-form and further education colleges saw their A and A grades barely rise — up only 0.3 per cent since 2019 and down since 2018. This is a manifest injustice. No sixth-form or FE college has the funding to support classes of fifteen, let alone five. The result, as Chris Cook, a journalist and education expert, has written: “Two university officials have told me they have the poshest cohorts ever this year because privately educated kids got their grades, the universities filled and there’s no adjustment/clearing places left

I think its probably too late for all that now.
Students have lost courses and some have gained new ones - either insurance or through clearing.
Accommodation has been allocated, or it being allocated. Those who lost first choice also lost their accommodation places, so that adds to the mix.

It's such a mess full stop now.

I'm just leased DD's insurance got in quick and changed her offer to unconditional, based on her interview and supporting statement, references, etc.

It's a shame the Government didn't let, or even encourage, all universities todo this - at least for ones were interviews had happened or where they could get extra 'evidence.' They could have even encouraged some universities to hold telephone or zoom interviews for other students - one of DD's original universities did this as her interview was set for after lockdown started.

Universities were told NOT to make blanket unconditional offers - unless it formed part of their usual practice.

Additional interviews and evidence gathering takes time and staff - every single academic i know was working flat out during lockdown and just wouldn't have had the time to do this and do it as a fair and transparent admissions process.

I know they were told not to but I actually think for courses which already have interviews this would have worked better in some ways. It's only have been useful for courses which routinely hold interviews, as DD's courses did and like some others do. Like the oxford colleges do. Those interviews are probably more useful in judging the candidates.

We were just fortunate that one of DD's did just that as the entry grades at all the universities were the same, so she'd have lost her first choice place where ever she'd put.

But I find this whole debacle contrary to everything the university admissions process stands for...which is centred around determining, as far as possible, the individual potential of each student and their suitability to study the course in question. That students can have their marks 'downgraded' based on factors which have nothing to do with their individual achievements is an affront to natural justice. They have not 'failed' to make their grades, they were never given the chance to do so in the first place

OP this debacle has very little to do with universities. We are at the mercy of a shambolic and incompetent government, that did no modelling of the algorithm - or if they did, just Did.Not.Care about its effect on pupils, especially those in State schools.

We do "over offer" - because: applicants have up to 5 choices via UCAS, so we can't be sure that all students to whom we make offers will accept our offer as their first confirmed choice.

I'd imagine, however, that Oxford & Cambridge (and LSE and Imperial, I'd guess) can pretty much count of pupils accepting their offers. And of course, the medieval regulation that if you apply to Oxford, you can't apply to Cambridge, and vice versa, means that each of those universities can determine far more accurately than the rest of us, how many offers they need to make the quota.

Unusually for a non-Oxbridge place, we interview our applicants, so exam results make up only part of our judgement of a candidate, but exam results (usually) give an idea of their capability, and how they'll manage on our course. This is an advantage, as we can make judgements on a more wholistic basis.

However, we've found in recent years that it's harder & harder to get applicants to attend an interview day - it's often an overnight visit, and they can't get the time from school, or their parents don't want them to travel by themselves, or the cost is too much. We've been cutting interview and general application visits back. We also get complaints from parents about them having to be there (they don't have to, but hey) and nothing set up for them. We simply don't have the staff to handhold parents, while we're interviewing applicants.

So it's a really complex process.

It normally works pretty well.

But this year has been a year where nothing is normal. And we have a government that is driven at the top by their sense that they were born to rule. But they actually have neither the intellect nor the ethics to govern the country.