Unfair contextualisation for uni entry

[helparoundthehouse]

I'm absolutely supportive of the efforts to widen access e.g. considering applicants being the first in the family to university, receipt of free school meals, and CERTAIN contextualisation of attainment.

BUT, I don't agree with the contextualisation where a student is judged against the cohort & their school's GCSE/A-level results when that school is selective.

E.g. 'strong but not as strong as peers' applicant, who attended a highly selective school at GCSE, might have a contextualised GCSE of zero or even below/minus even if they have all 8s/9s!

I get that highly selective schools MAY provide superior teaching but, frankly, in a lot of cases - whether grammar or indie - the results are more likely a result of the school being selective in the first place.

So AIBU to think that this type of contextualisation is not helpful and, in fact, rather unfair.

Highly competitive course.

Predicted grades triple A* A so doesn't need a contextual offer.

Maybe it makes their stats look better if they have a higher uptake from areas with low progression. Every state school the child could have attended is classed as deprived.

I doubt it. Gorgeous child with lots of additional interests and triple A* A prediction.

My child has an EHCP and is placed in an independent school thus won’t get a contextual offer. But if the LA comp had been willing to meet their needs in the state sector, they would. We fought hard for them to remain in stage with their friends but LA didn’t agree and pay fees for independent and they were the only local school prepared to take a chance on my child. . How is it fair?

If they live in a low progression postcode then that might trigger it - maybe? Does seem like it could be one of the quirks of the system, which is a bit of a blunt tool.

Oh, absolutely. As I said, they had no idea what it was, let alone that DC would be eligible.

Oxford don't give contextual offers, in the sense that they don't lower their A level grade requirements based on the contextual info they have on an applicant. They do however take it all into account when deciding who to call for interview.

Were they explicitly told it was contextual and not, for example, simly a lower offer because the university thought they were particularly good candidates (which also happens).? And if they were told it was contextual, presumably they were also told on what basis.

I know that at least one used the word 'contextual'.

Actually I know someone at indie who did get contextual. Not sure whether he or his brother are bursary students, though it wouldn't surprise me (they're very driven and smart). They themselves were very surprised they got the contextual.

Different unis have different policies when it comes to contextual offers, so I’m not surprised that some will include students from independent schools.

I know from reading the Higher Ed board that Surrey will not make contextual offers to pupils at independent schools, but that doesn’t mean other unis don’t.

DS has applied this year and is eligible as he has caring responsibilities. His offers were all over the place - some were contextual and some were just standard. Only one (Exeter) asked him about the nature of his caring responsibility.

They all do their own thing, it might be worth some more detailed research. My DD had 2 grades dropped at 2 unis, one grade at another, no difference at 2. I don't think 3 unis were fair and 2 weren't, they're just different. We don't even know what factors they counted or didn't count - she had 3 potential reasons for a contextual offer. I hadn't even clocked state school as a criterion TBH.

Some Universities take it into account if the student is staying local and continuing in their responsibilities as a carer.
Others, like Exeter, will question the extend of responsibilities as often they do not impact greatly or at all in fact ( my cousin was a carer but only because the school told her she could get a contextual offer as her mum gets PIP. She doesn’t do any caring though 🤯 )

Theres so many variations it seems

@verysmellyjelly
I was the most disabled student my uni department had ever accepted. I have experience with literally unprecedented adjustments

But I still don’t support contextual offers.

I am reading this as you want pull up the ladder behind you for younger disabled students so they do not benefit from the adjustments to access to University that you benefitted from.

It’s a perfectly reasonable viewpoint held by a very disabled person who has been through our education system, on how best to help disabled students succeed

Please tell us what a better method is? And what would be your life been like if you had not gone to University? Can you clarify if by “most disabled” you mean most learning disabled, most physically disabled or most mental health disabled or a combination?

@verysmellyjelly
Ah. My mistake
I unequivocally would have qualified for one if these had been offered for disabled students as a common practice when I applied.

It isn’t pulling up the ladder behind you, but perhaps a bit of resentment and envy of younger generations having it easier than you.

Thats quite a common opinion really on all kinds of things. For example, many older women don’t agree with paid maternity leave and free childcare hours because they didn’t have it in their day and they just got on with things.

We saw the family I mentioned upthread yesterday.

Definitely a contextual offer; DC has been invited to apply for a bursary specifically for students with contextualised offers 😆

This. I work for a top college in very famous university. They have recognised that they need to broaden their selection process otherwise they do just end up with all the same type of mediocre student that has been helped and coached all their life for achievement, rather than having something outstanding or special about them. Believe me, there is nothing much special about most Etonians, they get a lot of extra help to complete the exams and gruelling university application process that state school pupils would never have access to. This in turn also gives them the feeling that they have a right over others to be there, some become lazy and entitled (think Boris Johnson). Some crash and burn under the stress of expectations from their overachiever parents; once you come to university the help and coaching they got at their top school stops and they're on their own for the first time, some simply can't handle it.

I don't know the figures on all of this but I'm sure that this happens, i.e. kids being overly spoon-fed and tutored.

However, and I have friends in academia, also say there is a huge burnout / MH issues in some cultural groups where, although they've not all gone private, they are doing lots and lots of extra work outside school, often tutored (perhaps not 1-2-1 but group or online).

Presumably, a lot of these students would also be 'mediocre' and have reached their goals due to extreme prepping and working all hours to the detriment of receiving a well-rounded experience (i.e. many stop doing sports and extra curricular activities and socialising).

Possibly, yes. But if we're talking about oxbridge, they wouldn't be changing their selection process if it didn't get the best results in terms of the outstanding students, presumably they have a way of filtering out the most coached candidates. They continue to remain at the top of the global league tables for a reason.

I think it's a good thing. Do we really want our best universities just churning out classics students that want to become out of touch tory politicians, or entitled twats who are only destined to work at daddy's London firm anyway. Surely we want the next top engineers and cutting edge scientists that want to make a real difference in this country.

Not sure why you’ve mentioned private kids.
Most private kids have small classrooms, are in school 6 days a week, may be boarders, do masses of extra curriculas at school ( 2 whole half day sports for example ) and as such don’t have 1/1s. I don’t know of any from the two large privates my kids went to.

Grammar kids and those at selective schools are quite another matter I understand from friends though. I don’t know a single one that doesnt ( didn’t ) have 1/1 private tutoring for at least one subject.

Burn out = absolutely!

I didn't say it was all private, it was the previous poster - whom I quoted - who mentioned the 'mediocre Eton students' who don't keep up at uni.

So I was trying to say that, actually, you don't have to be in private to have all this extra 1-2-1/tutoring that the previous poster aimed at private schools. So you got slightly the wrong end of the stick.

I agree, grammar school and top comp state do have a lot of tutoring outside of school. But actually, I've seen it at lots of the private schools too as they know they have to get the very very top grades to have a chance at the top 3 unis nowadays. Competition is fierce nowadays, such a shame it's come to this really.

Every private school in my area (and there are quite a few) run cramming courses and exam coaching over the Easter break. They are usually open to external students as well as their own, it's a massive money-spinner for them.

I sent my eldest son to one as he is academically clever and works better under pressure, it did boost his results. He's actually ended up doing an engineering apprenticeship rather than university, which was the best option for him. To be honest I was glad he decided to go that route, he's done really well and loving it. I went to a private school myself, but ended up doing an occupational qualification (accountancy), I don't believe in channeling every kid down the academic route even if they are very smart. It doesn't suit everyone and it's not the only route to success.