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 absolutely support widening participation for those who are or have been in care, disability, from poor/disadvantaged backgrounds i.e. free school meals, or tick some or all of the previous criteria plus been to a poorly performing school (in terms of Progress 8 score - i.e. not looking at the entry cohort but what the school do to get results).

I also think an 8 from a kid with no parent having gone to uni, with a lower household income and attending a poorly performing school should be seen as equal to someone who had an 9, e.g. in a highly selective private school where one or both of parents have been to uni.

I DON'T think someone at a highly selective grammar school who perhaps get 4 x 9s and 6 x 8s (from a family where neither parent have been to uni, for example) should be seen as less worthy of a place than a comp educated kid with 4 x 9s and 6 x 8s (from a family where parents/generations have been to uni, wealthy) - just because the grammar school kid is not in the top of an already extremely highly performing cohort.

PS - the above example about the grammar kid has nothing to do with my kids. As I say, I do have interests and queries relating to issues outside that which relate to my own situation.

Most contextual offers have several layers of contextualisation. It isn't just the school or whether parents went to university, it comes down to individual postcodes (not wider postcode areas) among other things. It is designed to create a level playing field so affluent children of graduates at comprehensives schools do not get contextual offers.

Moreover, the social group most likely to achieve a 3rd class degree are boys who attended private school. If that doesn't shout private education gives an unfair advantage, I don't know what does.

Yes, we did some kind of quiz online assessing eligibility and despite a tiny house, I think was the postcode.

Don't try to bring the actual facts into it

@mugglewump Interesting. I'd love to see the source?
Would also be interesting to know generally what subjects across the board those with 3rds did. E.g. STEM/maths possibly being considered more difficult?

I'd also be interested in how other countries do this, i.e. widening of participation at uni?

Europe, US, Far East?

I thought it was only Oxford that contextualised GCSE grades against the kid’s school cohort in this way?

The Bristol example you gave is a different situation. The uni has identified whole schools to be eligible for contextualised offers. Presumably highly selective schools wouldn’t make it onto this list, so pupils at those wouldn’t get a contextualised offer regardless of how well or badly they did compared to their peers.

In any case, I think Bristol is a bit of an outlier in how it decides on contextualisation criteria.

Agreed. I thought most unis only contextualise for looked after/estranged children and children from post codes that indicate social disadvantage. My DS and DD go to a college that is on the lists at every uni as being weighted for contextual offers… however their home address post code overrides it and so it is not taken into consideration, which is fine as they are not ‘disadvantaged’ vis a vis many of their peers (as far as I can tell, it’s not as if they wear bracelets indicating their social status… yet). However, they are both SEN… and that doesn’t get a look in!!

Actually the affluent children of graduates at comprehensive schools do get contextual offers the postcode does not drill down deeply

I don't see how the individual postcodes would work in rural areas. We used to live in a lane with some "ordinary" houses in, some tiny ex farm workers cottages and a couple of huge £Million++ houses. We all had the same postcode.

@verysmellyjelly statistically, disabled young people are less likely to go to university, and where they do, they are less likely to graduate. Where they graduate, statistically, they are less likely do so with a first or 2:1 compared to non-disabled peers. Brilliant if it doesn’t apply to you, but it does at a population level. Hence some universities including disabled young people in their contextualised offers.

@BiancaBlank @CautiousLurker01

Yes as BiancaBlank said, it is probably only Oxford who does this particular type of GCSE 'contextualisation' against the cohort.

@AnnaQuayInTheUk I think it has caused some people to be bemused to get contextualised when they were living in a big house - saw a poster on another thread comment on this!

It’s offensive to say that students with disabilities can’t get in on our own merits. Believe me, we can.

That isn’t something that should be fixed with contextual offers. It’s an achievement gap based on poor provision earlier in education. Disability really is not an appropriate category for contextual offers and I’m surprised others can’t see why this is offensive tbh. There are loads of people with disabilities who achieve just as highly as abled people.

@verysmellyjelly
Of course but I'm assuming for many disabled it is harder to achieve those top grades, even if many do.

Refer also to what @StrivingForSleep says further up - that "statistically, disabled young people are less likely to go to university, and where they do, they are less likely to graduate. Where they graduate, statistically, they are less likely do so with a first or 2:1 compared to non-disabled peers."

But that's true of a lot of those students who get contextualised - they go on to do equally well, or if not better, even if from e.g. poorer background etc. I don't think it should be seen as offensive?

But I agree, a lot of this would be better if gaps/issues spotted and rectified earlier.

Still keen on knowing how other countries do this?

It isn’t just about lack of provision earlier in education. The issues go beyond that. And it isn’t saying disabled people can’t be as able as non-disabled peers.

Bristol is not an "eg", it's an outlier that casts an unusually wide net in their definition of disadvantage. Even then their contextuals are as @Ace56 describes. Grades are king in many subjects. Some unis and subjects look at the personal statement, others don't.

For the vast, vast majority it's standard offers for most and contextuals for a few who are disadvantaged by pre-determined criteria. If there is the odd niche counter-example I don't think that screams an unfair disadvantage that some of the most privileged kids in the country need to have corrected for them.

Online. There’s loads. You’re spoiled for choice.

Yes, it is. Disability isn’t the same type of category as the truly valid reasons for contextual offers like having been a looked after child. Someone with a disability who has otherwise led a privileged life, been to a top school, had supportive and affluent parents, etc, shouldn’t be accessing the same bonus (contextual offer) as a child who struggled with living in poverty or being in care. I genuinely think it’s outrageous to suggest they should!

No, it isn’t. At a population level, there is a disadvantage in relation to university compared to non-disabled peers. Even for those who had an otherwise privileged life.

Do you think including those young people from poorer backgrounds means young people from a poorer background are less able? Of course they aren’t. It is the same for disabled young people.

There are people from poorer backgrounds who achieve just as highly as those people from an affluent background. It doesn’t mean they aren’t disadvantaged statistically.

Many parents - myself included - use tutors to support their DC with their SEN issues just to try to keep up and not fall behind. It’s not all tutoring for top grades and top unis, you know. So those stats don’t necessarily prove what you think they do.

Overall I’m in agreement with those saying that highly selective schools clearly give kids an advantage which is why the parents want their kids to go there. Non-selective comps that underperform, as defined by the PP in uni admissions, should absolutely get contextual offers to try to give them a fairer chance.

It’s not about your exact postcode, it’s about the local authority/borough/council you live in.

We look at the poverty levels and education levels in your local authority as a whole. So if you live in a massive house in a shit area, you would still be contextual.