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 don’t know if the same is still true, but I attended a Scottish secondary school from 1998-2004 which was in what I now understand to be in SIMD 1. (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation)

Those of us there who chose to go to university (and there weren’t many) were given a chance to take part in a ‘top up’ programme as part of a contextual offer. It involved a project over a few weeks in school and an essay. It was to do with Loch Lomond if I remember correctly! In addition to that there was a chance to attend a Summer School at Glasgow Uni, attending lectures and tutorials in three subjects of our choice, before the university term began. We were to submit an essay for each subject.

I was given a slightly reduced contextual offer. The results of the Loch Lomond (?) project and our summer school essays were marked and if the marks we received were great enough, then if we didn’t get our desired Higher results, then this could be used to ‘top up’.

As it happened, I was fortunate enough to do well in my Highers that year that the ‘top-up’ element wasn’t necessary. However, what the top-up programme gave me was a cushion of familiarity (people with backgrounds similar to mine). Two of the friends I made that summer are still my best friends to this day.

We were all FIF, from SIMD 1 areas. I’m now a secondary English teacher and I do not believe that would be the case if it wasn’t for the ‘unfair’ contextual offer.

That sounds great, @ladyamy! I wish there were more programmes like that.

My kid’s results couldn’t have been lower, all were to comps.

Are those schools setting or streaming?

IME, comprehensives set for maths and English, but other subjects are mixed ability.

But then we deliberately avoided grammar areas so never had to deal with the ‘grammar set’ mentality.

Where's your data from on degree outcomes from?
Thinking back to my undergrad degree the top of the year person went to a state school, of the other folk who got firsts I think both were at private school. Of those who got a 2/2 or a viva to determine 2/1 vs 2/2 one definitely went to a state school (and another was dealing drugs on the side which probably contributed to his degree outcome)

My DC went to a comprehensive and got 8 A stars and 3 As at GCSE, ‘A’ levels 2 A stars and 2 As. I couldn’t afford grammar school fees so it was never an option.

Me too!

Fortismere and Camden Girls were on the list of schools for contextual offers that I have seen (I believe it might have been Bristol uni but not sure)

I work for an RG but not in admissions. Was talking to a student a year or two back who was at a highly selective grammar who was given a contextual offer. He exceeded the offer and got top marks regardless and expressed a surprise when given a contextual offer. We think it was because a) he came from a shit secondary before going to the grammar for 6th and b) his background (originally from ‘a war torn country’, before escaping to come to the uk with his family, and only learned English when he got here. He has done incredibly well.

The school a DC attends does have a huge impact on their chance of achieving good results though. It is perfectly right that their results are seen in the context of of the school they go to.

There was a story in our local paper last summer about a boy who achieved 9s, 8s and 7s. He went to a school in special measures where teachers were literally on strike because the behaviour was so poor.

The Ofsted report mentions virtually every lesson being disrupted, very poor teaching and students and staff being assaulted. Unsurprisingly, pupils’ progress in GCSEs is “well below average”.

That boy’s results should absolutely be seen in that context. There may be students from grammars with better results on paper, but his show far more discipline and perseverance. Even if he has MC parents, he would still be at huge detriment from attending a school that is effectively a zoo surrounded by ‘unaspirational’ peers.

Not on Bristol’s list for 2024 or 2025 (which has decreased from 32 pages to 24 pages for English schools).

Bristol has often included schools and colleges that appear anomalous - BHASVIC and Peter Symonds were on the 2024 list, and I noticed a school that had closed its sixth form several years ago.

ETA: Camden School for Girls was on the Bristol 2024 list, not on the 2025 list (Fortismere not on either).

All universities decide on their own contextualisation policies, and I agree it can seem quite random. My dd applied to four unis and got four offers, two contextual. One of the contextual offers was down to FSM and our particular family situation. The other was indeed Bristol, where she had a reduced offer based on the sixth form she went to. It is a VERY middle class sixth form college in an affluent area, and I couldn't wrap my head round it, but there you go.

So I agree that contextual offers can be a bit eccentric, but it's all part of the strange marketplace of uni admissions which is full of blunt tools, isn't it?

They can be a mixed blessing, anyway. Dd's contextual offer required her to join an access course which required summertime study, including a long essay which had to be completed within about three weeks of exams finishing. (Lord help you if you had planned work or holidays.) This essay had to reach a certain standard for your contextualised offer to stand, so they were really making sure they hadn't pulled in a duffer! I felt a bit sorry for dd - she had done on EPQ and A levels, and STILL had to prove herself when she should have been relaxing!

So you are saying there are some children in overall low performing comprehensives schools that have sufficient high ability children to coral into top sets that are semi-contained from the rest of the school, and that therefore these children are getting education similar to private or selective schools, and shouldn't be getting contextual offers (if indeed, they actually are ...)

And that these schools presumably also don't have the issues that beset other comprehensives, like a huge top set of 60 because there is a teacher shortage, no teachers at all in some subjects (or a standin whose not a subject specialist), that they don't experience any peer pressure at all from the rest of the low ability year group, that the school has adequate resources ... (or if they do experience these issues they are entirely unaffected by them).

I'm afraid I think these sound like unicorn schools. I'm not doubting that they may exist, but I doubt they are so numerous as to be a huge blip in the contextual stats. Same way as some people live in million pound mansions on otherwise deprived estates and might pick up contextual offers that way.

Contextual offers are never going to be perfect. I think it's more important that they are given to those who deserve them, rather than getting hung up over a few students who arguably don't deserve them, getting them.

I appreciate students complete the form to say if their parents went to University or not, but how is this checked, if at all?

This ‘grammar school set’ in a comp is very much not the norm. I think your local take is skewing your view of what comps are like.

I think this is just sour grapes. It reminds me of the Oxbridge threads on which it seems someone kicks off every year as their privately educated child didn't get an offer and they are convinced there is a 'quota'. I understand the disappointment but, like on this thread, a lot of it comes down to the (understandable) desire to see our own kids doing well and getting what they want.

Each University is free to use its own criteria though - and it has more subtlety than you are suggesting. My son applied for medicine and the only course to consider any contextual factors was Birmingham. Most non selective state schools would qualify based on GCSE results across the cohort but they also looked at POLAR quintiles for home address. We are the naice middle class educated parents and there is a high uni educated population in our area so his score dropped to 6/15. So when deciding who to interview he had 85 possible marks based on GCSES and UCAT and 6 that the poor underprivileged selective private school kid wouldn’t get. And a student from a deprived area and a state school would have 15 marks. That only gets each student as far as interview where I assume the private school has much more experience in prepping the candidates - nobody at my son’s school has got into medicine for years so they have not been much help. The grade offer is one grade lower (only 3 A’s) for a contextual student.
There are other huge barriers - chiefly financial - for students from less privileged backgrounds.

I checked DS’ application for him this year, and I don’t recall that this question is even asked any more. I don’t think it is still a factor for contextual offers.

Those who resent kids getting a contextualised uni offer need to swap places with them for a couple months. When they experience the shit circumstances many face pretty sure they’d go back home and be grateful. Many kids who come from the most deprived communities and face other difficulties do not even get close to applying for uni let alone the top ones so don’t worry they won’t be rubbing shoulders with your precious darlings.

You make it sound like it's all comps that are eligible. Its certainly not around here.

But yes, I also share some of the frustration you have.

Very few if any ‘excellent’ comps will be eligible for contextual entry. The whole point is to support applicants from schools which get poor results.

The majority of these will have disruptive behaviour, bad teaching and/or an unaspirational cohort. This means that students will not have had the same opportunity as others to demonstrate their potential.

I know at DS’s school for example, the HoD had to regularly leave their English A level lessons to go and deal with students who were removed or walked out of other classes, so they got less teaching time.

I don’t imagine that happens often at grammars or more MC comps, I imagine some schools will be even worse.

Thanks all. I should really clarify that when I wrote the initial post, it wasn't about 'normal' contextualisation being unfair.

Rather, it was re Oxford Uni; understand that if you are at a selective school where maybe 20% get all 9s, if you get 8/9s you are somehow 'marked down'. Perhaps this is not called contextualisation so I slightly derailed the discussion by not being clearer.

I suppose I was saying that it seems a bit unfair when at that school you were selected for your ability in the first place, especially so for the super selective schools.

So it wasn't actually about state v grammar / indie, but more a case of it seeming a bit harsh to being 'down graded' if you're at a super selective (indie or private), when you perform brilliantly but not in the very top compared with your OWN school year cohort.

But, as I said, I wasn't clear so I digressed in response to the comments on the thread. I absolutely support widening participation. That being said, I do find it's a bit odd that unis have such different criteria.

And I would still love to know how other countries do it - Europe, US, Far East etc.?

Although it's not possible currently, I do think that at some point income of parents should be taken into account. But that's for another day. ;)

Many Mumsnetters frustratingly don't read all the messages by the OP (me!) before responding so just to emphasise here again: there is no skin in the game for me as my kids didn't have an interest in applying to Oxbridge and they have done very well (8/9s GCSE + A*s / all 9s GCSE).

I have an interest in a lot of things beyond my own situation.

My son did not get a contextualised offer and he was on free school meals. He is in his third year of uni now. It was done on postcode - so we live in an area that was not considered deprived (in a grotty flat above a shop) and his friends a mile down the road who were vastly more privileged, not on free school meals but in a postcode that is considered deprived got contextualised offers.

Agreed..we are living in an age of Mediocrity.
"Dare you excel...we shall take you down"

I don’t accept teachers ‘only want them to pass’. Good teachers of pupils, working at any level, want them to achieve their best.