RG unis - are they really THAT difficult to get in?

[Tasmania]

The more I read MN, the more my eyes seem to be opened up to a world I don't recognize. I guess it's true that we don't actually live in one world, but rather in smaller worlds that co-exist on one planet.

I have read, for example, that some state schools never manage to send any child to a RG uni, and a lot of people who are very supportive about state schools get very, very upset by that.

As someone who went to a RG uni, whose DH, SILs, friends (and their DHs) and even colleagues also went to such unis... are they really THAT difficult to get in? Some of those listed went to state schools. It didn't look as though they saw these unis as "out of reach".

Sometimes, I do wonder whether it is actually the nation's obsession of getting as many kids as possible into uni that makes the world seem so much more unfair. Because you have to admit that not many people went to uni in previous generations, and it is virtually impossible for everyone to attend Oxbridge (maybe in future, people can attend lectures online, etc.). So some people will HAVE to be left out. Is that really so bad?

We don't live in a communist state... but even the old Soviet Union had universities that were out of bounds for many.

I got an offer from a RG uni of CC for a highly thought of course. Ended up going to a different one that had given me a higher (BBC) but got higher grades than that anyway. I understand some maths courses are spending quite a bit of time in the first year getting students up to the level they would have expected them to arrive at 20 years ago....

coco I am certain that numbers will fall, and the numbers will fall among those already uncertain of the benefits of an RG university education.

The middle class students will find a way - loans, help from family, work.

They will continue to see it as an investment in their future.

Then there is the thorny issue of internships...

It's a muddled piece Wordfactory, but I think you are right. In any case, the comparison assumes that all RG universities and courses are the same, in admissions terms, when clearly they are not. I thought lots of courses had standard offers - which some people will then exceed.

I suppose therefore, that numbers will fall in the universities less popular with the MC.

Oxbridge, Durham, Warwick, Bristol, Exeter et al should remain full.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282615/Top-universities-lowering-A-level-bar-state-school-pupils.html

This is from the online version of the Daily Mail. I read it in the actual paper this morning. Sorry about the delay in linking

badguider I think that is true of a minority of subjects.

However, IMVHO, for many popular subjects (law, history, english etc) the RG universities remain the best, in terms of calibre of fellow students, calibre of teachers and kudos attached.

lol wordfactory when i saw your first line i immediately thought - "no, it's true for everything except english and history!" (i don't know about law).
Then I read on and I guess we sort of agree... but then I would be a bit unsure about advising any DC to study for an english or history degree anywhere these days.

I think Ronaldo is speaking about this www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9885413/State-school-pupils-get-easier-access-to-top-universities.html How did I guess it would be the Telegraph Also here www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=422743 which appears to be based on an analysis of the grades achieved by those going to 19 of the 24 RG unis and finding a 10% gap between the number of A and A* grades achieved by those from private and state schools and that 23.4% of grades achieved by state school candidates were B's and C's and 18.2% of private schools.

Lots of drawbacks to this, it certainly doesn't prove universities are hugely dropping their offers for state school candidates. Firstly, as Professor Vignoles says, it is actual achieved grades, not required grades, some students will exceed the offer, and last year quite a few did not achieve their offer but were allowed in anyway. It may well be that private school candidates were more likely to have overachieved. It also does not take account of any difference in courses applied for, it may be that state school applicants are over represented amongst those applying for courses with lower offers.

What it does tell us is that only about half of all grades achieved were A/A* even amongst private pupils so the idea you have to get 3 As to get into RG unis is clearly not correct. Secondly the numbers of Bs and Cs achieved by state and private school candidates were really not that different, 5%.

I would say these figures may well be consistent with the fair access practise at my uni of lowering offers for those with contextual evidence that demonstrates disadvantage, simply attending a state school will not constitute disadvantage, attending a poorly performing one, poor teaching, poverty, carer responsibilities, learning difficulties etc. will. Pupils whose offers are lowered are in the main, though not exclusively, from state schools. The statistics say that around 5% more state school pupils were allowed in with B and C grades. some of those may not have achieved offers and been let in anyway so we are talking about that process of allowing for disadvantage resulting in probably quite a lot less than 5% difference in the number of state school applicants being allowed in with B and C grades. Rather than saying the playing field has been levelled too far it doesn't sound as if it is enough............

I can't get to the base statistics though because if 66% of grades achieved by state school applicants and 72% of those achieved by private school applicants were As Bs or Cs that is rather a lot of Ds and Es ..............

Our school is in a mixed class, fully comprehensive area. DC's of professionals through to unskilled workers attend. Most opt to stay in the state system as the local indie school don't get better results and do the IB which brings a few of the indie pupils into our sixth form.

I know for a fact that only one, yes one pupil achieved AAB and 2 of those were art subjects. One got ABB in science subjects, however I would estimate around 8 managed to get into Russell Group Universities, even if they missed their offers by a couple of grades and so they should have been allowed giving that the odds were against them in the first place.

This was last year so entry levels being down made a difference but I believe in earlier years a few still got in if they dropped grades.

Ronaldo Not even the Telegraph

I should add it also says 42% of the grades attained by state school pupils were A/A* which given the selective nature of private schools isn/'t that far behind the 52% attained by private school pupils.

info here DS2 has had offers from 2 Russell Group Unis for autumn 2013, ABB Manchester and AAB Leeds. He is at a state grammar and all his friends have similar offers. He will be doing a very popular course. Surely these are not grades a good state school would struggle to meet?

Also I am on a train battling with my ipad so my terminology may not be precise but you get the general sense of the figures not justifying the headlines.

cop that would be my understanding.

A minority of pupils receive a contextualised offer. This reflects real disadvantage and is as it should be.

A few more fail to get the grades, but are still allowed to attend.

And without doubt certain courses are more private school heavy. And these tend to be courses with the highest entry requirement.

I suppose a screaming headline saying state schooled pupils are being allowed in with owrse grades makes better copy.

Not my choice of paper. It is available free online though

Great post Copthallresident, thank you.

Is anyone else frustrated that the quality of reporting on this very important issue is so bad? So much of it seems to perpetuate myths casually, like the BBC piece, and that only makes it harder to identify exactly where inequalities arise and how they can be addressed, or to have a sensible debate about it (apart from on MN ).

Often those same journalists then write pieces about how easy today's exams are - perhaps they should try a stats paper.

Actually I can believe it is true. Much as some may not like it. I am not sure though that it is necessarily always lowering grades. I have as I said b efore a very good student who will get AAB - this is the standard offer of an RG uni for her course choice. She is from a top private school and they made her an offer of AAA , totally discriminatory in my view. They should be sued.

On the other hand I have a lad with a AAB offer from the same university and same course and I have a chineese girl with an offer of CC ( yes thats right) She will get AAA any way.

I also know because I have been told that the local hell hole is being made offers ( same courses) of BBC and CCC for their students. So I ask why?

In my view all offers should be social class and school blind. Its the only fair way. I was never offered a place because of my naff schooling. I competed on equal terms ( and I am proud of that - I achieved without "positive discrimination"). If you give DC places because of social engineering you open then to claims that they are only there because they were helped along and really they are "fick" and shouldnt be there. Never good to do that. It crerates resentment

Perhaps we need our own MN university.

Admission by aptitude test. Designed by us.

Ronaldo The reason I come at this from the perspective of the need to level the playing field is that both research and experience shows that the pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who are enabled to make successful applications (and remember this is done not just by some marginal changes in required grades, it is getting out into some of these "hell holes" and encouraging them to apply, providing them with mentors to motivate them to do well, giving them the right advice about subject and course choices etc etc) do really well when they get to university, better than those who have not experienced disadvantage. They also bring interesting perspectives to the courses, especially in humanities and social science courses, enriching the experience for the other students. Universities are not engaging in these activities as part of some box ticking exercise, they are doing it because they want the best students, that is why the OFA has been dissuaded from imposing indiscriminate state/ private quotas.

Ronaldo, you said the 'local hell hole', where it's just possible bright students might be lurking, the universities know looking at the school that achieving 3 B's is tremendous due to below standard teaching and other circumstances. I don't see why those pupils shouldn't be given a chance.

The widening access course we looked at which was so small in size and super competative proved that students from disadvantaged backgrounds/schools with say BBB at A level did just as well in the course as students from good indie's and grammars with AAA grades.

Cop, cross post .

ronaldo both my DC are in the independent sector, so if I really thought they were somehow being disadvantaged, I'd the first to cry not fair.

But I really don't see it.

The sixth forms at both my DCs schools merrily trotted off to RG universities this year. A few didn't get the Oxbridge place they wanted but that is always a bit of a lottery that one, particularly the highly competitive courses they were after.

The reality is that some really bright pupils simply don't get decent support, either from home or school. With the right support in university, they can do very well. Universities recognise this, which is one of the reasons why they seek them out and help them.

We're not talking wholesale social engineering.

I can see that you have to take into account that some students may come from disadvantaged backgrounds and schools, but it does seem that this is somehow discriminating against other students who are clever and well taught. And isn't it a disincentive to poorly performing schools with poor teaching to actually get their acts together and improve? If they can just tell themselves it doesn't matter because allowances will be made: student X will get into somewhere good with BBB so why push him and ourselves to get AAA?

Scrazy - unlikely that the students are bright. In my area there are three grammar schoiols creaming off the top percentage+ and then there are schools like that I work in offering scholarships. Nothing left and hence it is the hell hole not the other way round ( poor bright kids in a sink school . school is sink because no bright kids in it)

Only 1 person got an Oxbridge offer from the local comprehensive school, it is a true comprehensive due to no grammars.

The offer was missed and they bent over backwards to try and get that student in. They were prepared to accept lower grades but it was missed. They have made a new offer this year with a retake. Now this student isn't disadvantaged, oxbridge educated parents etc, but the school definitely is way down in the league tables so even Oxbridge recognise this and said student will be the first in many years to get into Oxbridge.