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.

Still - I would LOVE to hear if anyone has experience of how other countries ensure widening participation and, if used, how they 'contextualise'.

maybe stop attacking a disabled person just because you don’t agree with her opinion. You have no right to lecture others on what is “ableist” when you very clearly don’t even understand what that concept means.

Depends when they applied for Uni. My DC was not given a contextual offer, although they received FSM, as it was not the case a few years ago. They missed their top uni choice by 1 mark ( not grade) and the uni would not take them.

I think anything that levels the playing field is a good thing. It’s never going to be a perfect system so there will always be anomalies. I have seen first hand how a child having a tutor in my child’s class is now outperforming them, even though this child achieved a much lower GCSE grade, so these things certainly make a difference. My DC has not had a tutor as I am a lone parent so it has never been an option.

As far as disability goes, one person may be able to overcome their disabilities and be judged on the same criteria as everyone else. This may not be the case for other disabled people, children with learning disabilities like dyslexia etc really struggle for example. If a disabled person doesn’t feel they need the contextual offer, that is fair enough and good for them, but I don’t think the option should be taken away from disabled people whose disability really affects their likelihood to achieve.

It Is time for change, a lot of top unis used to take such a high proportion of private school students compared to the amount nationally that attend private school.
I do also feel that grammar schools should have a different system for admissions that doesn’t rely on children being tutored but that’s another argument.

Again, the assumption that if you don’t support contextual offers for disability you must just have a mild disability that doesn’t affect you much…

That is quite ignorant. It’s not at all the case that I just have a minor and mild disability. I was the most disabled student my uni department had ever accepted. I have experience with literally unprecedented adjustments. I’m not unsupportive of wanting students with disabilities to succeed, and certainly FAR from inexperienced of being VERY unwell and disabled while at school and at uni. This is literally my own life experience.

But I still don’t support contextual offers. Sorry some people hate that so much, but you won’t change my mind, and you can (incorrectly) accuse me of being ableist as much as you want, but that doesn’t make it actually ableist at all. It’s a perfectly reasonable viewpoint held by a very disabled person who has been through our education system, on how best to help disabled students succeed. And that view is that contextual offers are not the right tool. Clearly a view shared by most unis!

Maybe you could do some research on that OP and bring it here to discuss. Generally a better way to stimulate discussion than demanding data from others.

Personally it seems like the wrong place to be starting. I believe the UK has unusually high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility compared with most of the developed world. I'd be more interested in how other countries use their society, and first 16ish years of education, to deliver decent chances to everyone by 18. Contextual offers are just an acknowledgement of how poorly we do this in the UK.

Just because one person (or even some people) says they didn’t need reasonable adjustments in the form of a contextualised offer doesn’t mean other disabled people don’t. It has nothing to do with whether someone considers themselves to be mildly or severely disabled. The statistics show at a population level, disabled students are disadvantaged and some universities recognise that.

In England, dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty rather than a learning disability. A learning disability is a specific diagnosis in its own right.

Doesn’t make any difference. That isn’t my argument. My argument is that contextual offers are not appropriate for disability at all; it’s not a question of what the disability is or how severe it is. Again, you, like other posters, seem to have formed the mysterious idea that my disability is mild or didn’t affect me that much, and therefore I just Don’t Get how disabilities affect study. This couldn’t be further from the truth! It’s just not the actual point I’m making.

I don’t believe disability can or should be compensated for by contextual offers. It’s interesting to me how many posters are furious that I even have this opinion, despite the fact that I unequivocally would have qualified for one if these had been offered for disabled students as a common practice when I applied. In fact, as stated earlier in the thread, they’re not even common practice now! So clearly it’s far from settled that this is how disability should be handled in the education system. It’s also not the mode of adjustment or compensation in the exam system. And yet I’ve been attacked multiple times for saying I don’t agree with it as an approach… Interesting indeed…

Also, it’s not compelling to say some people “need” a contextual offer. There’s no such thing as needing one. If they didn’t exist, the students who benefit from having one would simply adjust their choice of institutions and apply to somewhat lower ranked choices, or a different spread, etc. Focus on more “safeties”. They are a benefit, for sure, when a student qualifies for a contextual offer, but not something a person technically “needs”.

Please quote where exactly I have made a comment about the severity of your disability. I haven’t. Do not imply I have said something I have not.

I said “seem to have formed the mysterious idea”, ie that assumption appears to underlie your response to me. I didn’t claim you had “made a comment”.

Of course if they didn’t exist they wouldn’t be possible. You have misunderstood the context need was used in. I meant need in order to access a particular institution.

Right. So nowhere. I haven’t formed any ‘idea’ about your disability. It is irrelevant what disability you have. The thread isn’t about you specifically.

It’s my comments you are nitpicking so I hardly think it’s unfair to call you out on the wildly erroneous assumptions you’re making. And then you falsely claimed I was saying you’d “made a comment” on my disability, when I actually never said that at all…

I think you need to look at it from another viewpoint. It’s about making it equitable. For example the children in the northeast are not less intelligent than those in the south, however the results indicate that they are. Doing this would mean that a region isn’t being underrepresented because of their background and access to better education. It allows those who work hard and deserve an opportunity to get one. But there are still minimum standards to be met. You aren’t going to get a student with all 8/9s missing out but someone with 6/7 getting in.

@StrivingForSleep It’s odd that you don’t seem to actually have any counter argument…

Again, I haven’t made any assumptions about your disability. None at all.

I have already posted my ‘arguments’ for contextualised offers on the thread. Perhaps you missed them or are just ignoring them. Who knows.

It isn’t nitpicking to say just because one person doesn’t want/need contextual offers it doesn’t apply to all disabled people.

I work in uni admissions.

Contextual offers are not available for those at selective (independent or grammar) schools.

What about if a dc was in an independent but on a bursary. Yes I know many mc people earn 100k and get a bursary but curious how
unis look at this.

Why would the bursary mean the child was having a school experience that was less than his classmates?

It’s the fact that the school is independent that is more significant.
The benefit of smaller classes etc

@Annascaul I don't know hence why I asked the question. Some private schools dc are from disadvantaged background so I questioned if that makes a difference.

@Kandalama thank you

My entire argument is that they shouldn’t exist for disability. You seem to have missed that. I’m not saying “I don’t want one for me” given I have graduated from uni a while ago… lol.

I haven’t missed anything, thank you. Yet another incorrect assumption you have made. As I said previously, we will have to agree to disagree.

Surely that completely depends on the comp? I’d have been more than happy to send my children to the local comp if they could have provided the 10-15 hours of sport a week that my child’s private school could offer. Would have been way cheaper! I have absolutely no doubt they would have got the same academic results whichever we picked.

My child’s private school had classes of about 27. Is that small? What size is considered large?