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.

Can you name and shame these universities that are using a criteria of underperforming at a selective school compared to peers?

We have just finished UCAS application and looked at at least 30-odd uni websites since last year. Not one had the criteria you mentioned as basis for contextual offer. In fact only 3 included disability or (significant) mental health as a criteria.

Unless you can link to the Unis doing this I think you are just ‘baiting’ in much the way those who complain about ND diagnoses complain about the free cars and £thousands being handed out which is lies/gross exagération.

Top uni are open because of parents of said kids so no change coming anytime soon. They get the jobs. They don’t need the diploma but that shows where they coming from.

for other unis, they make money accepting more people for jobs market they will likely not have enough jobs for everyone or/and stay at very low level and wondering why they have no money at the end of the month.

it gives the illusion of opportunities when in reality most will pay for a chance that doesn’t exist. Early management of civil unrest I would say 😒

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.

I think a more interesting point is how often this actually matters.

So if we have Child A who is an intelligent, hard working, motivated student at a super selective; and Child B who is an intelligent, hard working, motivated student who goes to a below average comp but has supportive well off parents who can and do plug any gaps that the school leaves - how frequently is Child B really getting an offer for a specific university place when Child A is not ? And can this actually be definitively linked to contextualisation and not by all the other factors that are in play when making university offers?

Yes, as I said, Oxford tends to do this. Here's an insider's view: https://muddystilettos.co.uk/life/parenting/getting-into-oxbridge-insider-tips-on-admissions-from-the-experts/

I normally go to Muddy Stilettos for tips on days out etc but found this interesting...

True.

Also, I would be interested in knowing if there are studies done on a more individual, rather than population basis, as to whether contextualisation - as it currently stands, i.e. very disparate across institutions - actually makes a difference in outcomes?

I mean, getting data from each individuals and following them longitudinally, rather than looking at a whole cohort?

The % educated at Sixth Form level in that article is incorrect - it’s more like 12 to 13% that are privately educated. It’s 6 or 7% of all UK school aged children that are privately educated.

I suspect the process is in place to ensure that candidates with poorer GCSEs aren't overlooked rather than to eliminate those who've done well. If you've seen Legally Blonde, her ex gets waitlisted but she gets into Harvard as a Fashion major because they're working to ensure that they don't overlook exceptional candidates who might not fit a particular profile.

parents who can and do plug any gaps that the school leaves

I think in this (theoretical) example, there's still a fundamental misunderstanding - supportive well-off parents can't plug the gaps that an under-performing comp has compared to a super-selective. Sure they can support, get tutors, all of that, but it won't make up for every single day of being at an under-performing comp in those classes with those peers, compared to every single day of being at a super-selective in those classes with those peers. There's no planet on which those gaps are pluggable by parents and if they were, then no one would bother going to super-selectives. It's all just a lot of reaching to make out unfairness goes both ways when the reality is kids at super-selectives have the advantage. Obviously.

Afaik, there aren’t any selective state schools at the GCSE level, it’s only a few state sixth forms for A level that are selective.

I thought that the contextualisation for uni offers is only applied to state school students?

I do think contextual offers stop being meaningful when used too widely. They are very important for young people who have experienced real barriers to learning, such as being in care or being a carer, but that value is diminished when it is used for everyone who achieves better than average grades in a comprehensive school.

All grammar schools. A lot of state comprehensives set by ability in STEM and MFL too.

My son received a contextual offer due to being diagnosed as T1 diabetic during an examination year. There was an understanding that whilst he was ill and undiagnosed, his blood sugar significantly affected his ability to concentrate and retain information. He was navigating the cognitive impairment that comes from blood glucose highs and lows all throughout his exam season, and was actually fitted with his pump system the day before a key exam.

Do you not think he should have received this offer?

He was at a considerable disadvantage due to his disability, and the contextual offer leveled the field.

Oxbridge benchmark against the specific state school’s cohort - so a student achieving 8s and 9s in a school where grades are generally 3s, 4s and 5s is recognised as excelling.

https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Tutoring-The-New-Landscape.pdf

the full report is worth a read - particularly the time series graphs plus the regional and various socioeconomic breakdowns.

My dc school for starters.

Indeed.

Your son absolutely deserves a contextual offer. DD has one too. The playing field is never level but this goes a very small way to addressing it.

@verysmellyjelly You just come across as having very little understanding of disability.

Im sure that FSM makes you an automatic contextual applicant? In my experience it seems often its the first criteria

Correct.

Genuinely wild comment, I am very severely disabled. Look up my other comments on MN if you want to see how.

Correct. I think he should have applied to universities / received offers appropriate to the grades he attained.

I agree, it shouldn’t be widely used. Being in care is exactly the kind of usage that does seem appropriate. Looked after children have faced massive disadvantage and all meet a threshold of, at some point in their lives, severe need.

Bristol has been mentioned as having a longer list of state schools eligible for contextual offers, many of which do have a significant proportion of high-achieving students. My (slightly cynical) take on this strategy is that is less about truly widening access, and more concerned with dangling carrots to ensure that the highest-achieving state school students place them as their first choice (with a lower offer) than one of their rivals. Bristol knows that it has a very high proportion of privately educated students, and this is their tactic to draw these state students in, over eg Durham, Exeter, Warwick, UCL, and even Oxbridge.

Then why on earth would you make such an ableist comment?

A disabled person having an opinion you dislike quite literally isn’t what ableism means. You’re cheapening the entire concept.

You are trying to discriminate against disabled people by claiming they shouldn't receive contextual offers.

Contextual offers are a form of reasonable adjustment and so what you suggested is the definition of ableism.

Do better.