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.

I think there should be levels but no idea how you'd police. I went to a private school and there was a whole range of people from those who had stretched massively to send their kids there to the ones who came from generations of wealth. There was a difference in outcomes too that I think was driven mostly by parents understanding the system.

I also had friends at grammar schools and comprehensives that I would say were of a similar level of intelligence (we all went to the same primary so I am confident in this) and the biggest indicator of results at all schools was how much the parents understood how to get their kids good results. I should be able to do this better than my parents could because of my experience but didn't benefit much from it.

However, the biggest indicators of success after school were money and connections. Those were spread amongst all the schools but you'd generally go a different route driven by background. Having money and connections opens lifelong doors that school results don't.

The exact same child born to parents who didn't bother/didn't have much education and didn't understand the system would have had a harder time getting those grades. So I can see why a contextual offer system might want to give that child more 'points'. But in real life it's really hard to judge for each individual child what advantages they've had with universal accuracy.

I’d like to see a source for this. My state-educated DC was never tutored.

I’d like to know where everyone is getting their tutors from. Around here you have to wait years before a tutor has space for a new child.

If you don’t think selective schooling provides an advantage then why would you send your child to a selective school?

I have employed one tutor - but for my youngest who is at a good school and getting 3’s in her maths mocks - not for my other two who are at university

she needs to pass maths - I’ve never been the king of parent obsessed with grade 9’s

Try tutor groups on Facebook if you’re happy with online.

We live in an area of lots of grammar schools, including super selective, so, yes, a large number of parents do get their children tutored for 11+ etc.

And a lot of those who had offers at grammars and super selective grammars have chosen comprehensive schools instead (where they often end up in the top set).

Do they, that's strange as my DS hasn't had one and he went to a comp and has an Architect Director Dad and Data Security professional Mum, no tutoring though, contextual offers are not a thing, nor are they for his friends, except one, who really does qualify for a contextual offer!

Oh and here

"According to a 2023 report from the Sutton Trust, 30 per cent of children aged 11 to 16 (and 46 per cent in London) have had private tutoring."

So 70% don’t?

also why assume they are all middle class - we routinely use pupil premium plus to pay for intensive tuition for our looked after children

I think it should be based on family income, parents' education and occupation - and the school cohort only if the school has failed to send significant numbers to university.

How exactly would you suggest that was done? would it be self reported on the UCAS form? Who would validate the information?

The parents where I live don't believe in that pushiness, it's social suicide to be more concerned with tutoring for the best grades, it's all about letting children be children around here, expressing themselves and being creative! Well, at least that is the image portrayed.

.

Well, this is something that should hopefully not be too difficult in the future with digital/AI tools, and allowing access to HMRC.

I do think a national ID card/number should be introduced - would be so much easier to means test a range of things, not just contextualisation but also in relation to student loans etc and of course things like benefits.

In London, where I live, 46% do - that's a high percentage, no?

We don’t all live in London?

Interesting info on unis contextualisation - varies hugely!

https://suttontrust.notion.site/2025-Contextual-Offers-Tool-for-UK-Universities-4f6da89f96a441828a0a0d31e92e38cd

No, but I was giving examples from my lived experience.

London is a different beast though - we (DH and I) both have extended family in London and we have children of similar ages, it is noticeable how intense the process is.

It’s fair because it is done on basis of progress made in that school. Clearly of school has above average progress it will be easier to do better.

But the 46% would only represent this middle class’ dynamic you keep mentioning if you broke it down in some way and took out groups such as care experienced children?

wait till you hear about the ‘poor money’ my two get from uni just for having the maximum loan - you’ll explode!

And the percentage of that 46% who received contextual offers

You could be right but in reality what you are talking about is years away and very complicated. HMRC doesn't know who your children are and it doesn't know what job you do (only how much you earn). How would you allow for situations where a child's parent is absent and therefore it's not reasonable to take into consideration their earnings or their job title?

Aside from that national ID cards / numbers is quite contentious so you'd have a legislative battle before you even embarked on the technical challenge.

Lots of things seem like a great idea until you think in granular detail about how it would work and then you realise it's incredibly difficult. Also, who pays for it? The universities won't pay for it, they are skint. Taxpayers won't relish the idea of implementing a complex new way to contextualise university offers for the benefit of the tiny minority of kids who might be slightly disadvantaged by the current scheme.

I appreciate the current scheme is not perfect but in reality it probably does an ok job in most cases.

At what point does trying to make up for disadvantages stop because it means that awarding a place to a student from an unfavourable background becomes unfair if it means that we feel sorry for their hardship and give them a prize.
Having myself come from a less perfect background I understand the motives. But do we not need the brightest and best in our Universities from wherever.
My preference would be to put more resources into the later years education. Perhaps even 'cramming' so that the candidates meet on equal terms when at Uni.
There is I believe a high drop out rate of the marginally qualitied going into the second years of courses.