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.

When people complain about widening access, they usually just want their own family's advantage to remain but don't want to say it out loud.

How long ago did you look at Bristol? This list is much shorter than it was. In general, though, a profile of even a very good comprehensive versus a selective grammar will be quite different.

See above.

Look up Bristol Uni's list of comprehensives and you'll see. Something to do with % of kids going to uni. But those in the top sets are almost all kids of middle class, professional parents, at least around here.

My son is disabled and didn't qualify for a contextual offer. He has dyspraxia, replaced hip, hypermobility with scoliosis, exam anxiety and has to type everything.

He went to a top state sixth form where they ask for certain GCSC attainment level as entry requirement. He got top grade A Levels.

I would caution to pick unis very carefully and get recommendations and as much in writing before going as some unis are not good at providing support and expect back up arrangements from the student/their family.

I disagree. As I said, I have friends with kids at grammar and comps. I'd say that the kids in the very top set of the comprehensives (many of these had offers from super selectives but, wisely, chose the comps) get more support and focus. Perhaps because the schools know these kids will potentially make a real difference in terms of their stats.

I work in uni admissions.

Contextual offers are not available for those at selective (independent or grammar) schools. Schools would only be considered contextual if they are underperforming (so a lower than average number of students obtain at least a 4 in 5 GCSEs). So not all state comprehensives fall into this category either.

Not sure where you’ve got your info from that a student in a private school can be contextual if they’re getting 6s instead of 9s?

Then there are the struggles to identify truly talented kids. Our local private schools have 30-40% of children getting 5 x A at higher. The state school rate is 5-10%. This is due the private schools being selective and the parents more invested in education but also that there being real issues with disruption in state schools and performance is poor as a result. Should exams be made harder so private school pupils can be separated?

I'm so sorry, this is very the system is completely daft.

As mentioned before, we're very happy with our kids' situation but I'm interested in the wider topic and how it affects children in other walks of life.

Here they give extra weighting to those who come from a household where neither parent went to uni, which I think is fair.

Maybe the debate should broaden, to include questions about whether going to university should be the default position it appears to be now. Particularly in a job market where so many graduates have been and are, unable to start a career and are struggling with debt.

So this is actually a post specifically about Bristol then? Unless you can give us names of other universities?

An "excellent comp" will not attract a contextual offer.

My DD went to an "average comp" (actually the school's GCSE results were below national average). They get very few A* results at A Level. DD was still not eligible for a contextual offer.
(Bristol is an outlier and known for including a range of schools that is significantly wider than anywhere else).

Most recently on MN but seen mentions elsewhere:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/higher_education/5023700-contextualized-gcse-score?latest=0

Again, to emphasise, no skin in the game as my kids didn't apply to Oxbridge but I have friends' kids who have (one absolutely brilliant but was in selective indie; others in grammar).

I understand that Oxbridge also has a ranking system as to where you compare against your GCSE cohort (see my post upthread)...

These sorts of things are compiled of averages though. Not just self-selecting friends who usually are like us. As I said on average, the comprehensive will achieve a much wider range of grades and children going to those schools with have been exposed to a much wider range of behaviour and achievement. Don't forget a quarter of students don't get a four at either maths or English at GCSE.

Maybe it's not called contextualisation but I understand many universities will compare how you perform against your GCSE cohort? See my previous posts upthread...

Is there any data on what the outcomes are for those who receive contextualised offers?

Are they given any further support at uni?

I'm just wondering as whilst I agree that when comparing, for example, an A private school student with a B student from a deprived area, first in family etc the B student may have more natural aptitude or have worked harder (or as hard) to achieve that but the A student will in theory have a better grasp of the fundamentals and applications of the subject and therefore is more likely to succeed at uni due to this?

I've never been to a brick uni myself but it feels to me like we're levelling the playing field too late unless they are given a decent amount of support at university to fill in the gaps so to speak?

Is it not going to do that inevitably if there are limited places and your child, plus one whose grades have been contextualised, go for the same place?
Or are you only OK with students' grades being contextualised if they did worse than your child?

I'm not really sure what you're asking OP. My son got an offer of ABB to read History at Bristol a couple of years ago. He was in the top set for most subjects at his fully comprehensive all boy's state school in SE London where the headline GCSE attainment across the school as a whole was notably below the London average. Are you saying, because his Dad and I are both University educated and took an interest in his education, that he should not have received a contextual offer?

In the end he got A*AB and chose a different course and different Uni anyway.

It's not unfair. You're just salty your own DCs advantage is lessened.

I'm happy your son got contextualised but, yes, in a way, I do think that there may be perhaps kids at grammar - from poorer backgrounds with parents who have no university degree - who possibly should have priority over your son, yes.

Just as they should over my kids who are at private.

I just don't think the contextualisation works always to the benefits of those who are most in need. And is probably why - as several have said on here - the various schemes and programmes are still not really working.

No, we really don’t! If you go to a private school you’ll get the standard offer. Those who go to state schools and who hit contextual markers (whether they’re to do with home address, school attended, parents education etc) get a lower offer.

It’s that simple! We don’t have time/capacity to be looking up the ‘average’ grade profile of students from every single school.

As a disabled person I’m offended by the idea that disabled students need contextual offers. I was one of the strongest students in my sixth form and at uni despite myriad challenges (ND and physical). I honestly feel it’s insulting to suggest we can’t be considered on the same playing field as everyone else. We are still people!

Contextual offers should be only for poverty and care leavers.

My eldest 2 went to our local comp which was either RI or inadequate the whole time they were there

DD 1 had a contextual offer of AAB from AAA hardly unfair and she gained AAAA* anyway - her best mate got into Cambridge with an offer of ABB but got higher anyway

of their entire friend group only one other went to uni - so anything that makes it possible for kids in schools with low attainment and low expectations is a bonus in my book.

i work with care experienced young people for whom it’s a godsend