Do some top ranking universities discriminate (not give offers) because they are oxbridge applicants

[fairycakes333]

OK I know what I am saying will be highly controversial and debatable. It really has only come about got us thinking. My dd applied to Oxford declared her module UMS on her application this itself I assume would give a inkling to other universities she applied to that's she is Oxbridge applicant. She was rejected post interview. One of the other top uni she applied to who requires AAA subsequently also rejected her. She achieved all A's in all the modules with high UMS average. She took the rejection quite well was gutted but got over it as she felt the course is competive (not medicine by the way) anyways and there would be many applicants with her type of grades. However she has subsequently found out on student rooms that quite a few applicants have received offers with a lot lower AS grades as her and GCSE to this particular university and have applied after October 15th. Obviously she's a bit peeved but makes us wonder whether some of these top flight uni are marketing themselves as only wanting top students but in reality are only wanting those applicants that have a higher percentage of firming them, as I would expect that say someone who has achieved AACC would firm AAA as it would be their highest offer. Universities that are offering courses with high grades I'm assuming again would never be a Insurance so top uni would have to be quite sure who they choose to offer places and that they will firm them only makes sense, its as though they don't want to take the risk of giving too many offers to top students as many will have applied to other uni with similar oxbrigde entry requirements. My dd has already got a offer from RG uni AAA requirement she loves and is probably going to firm them although she is still waiting on another uni with A*AA requirement. So my question is do some of these top uni play a game of hyping themselves up as being super selective to boost their reputation. My dd wasn't the only good academic applicant who got rejected from this uni there has been quite a few on TSR same course. I don't want to say which uni don't want to out my dd but its a top 7 uni.

I can't imagine what it would be like to have it hanging over you for months, actually. I remember I sent my UCCA form in on the very first day - just to get it done. That's what DD wants to do too (although because of the various other inputs you now need that might not be possible).

I wouldn't have thought that universities would deliberately reject someone who has applied to Oxbridge because as stated by previous posters, a lot get rejected from Oxbridge so they would be shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting top candidates. But there does appear to be a bit of a game being played by unis to ensure they are not put as an insurance choice. Here is a post I wrote on a different thread a few months ago:
"At DD's Bath interview, they stated that if they wanted them and they are predicted high grades, then they will make them a high offer as they didn't want to be the insurance choice! If they are 'only' predicted BBB then they may give them a lower offer of ABB to encourage them. So the better the AS and predicted grades, the higher the offer - this wasn't how I thought it would work. I assume this is why some of your DCs' offers for Exeter have been so high - so they won't be an insurance choice."

So, does everyone agree that the admission system needs to change so that students apply AFTER they recieve their results. Just think how much better it would be. It would also be much fairer for less well off or less pushy parents.

At our early applicants visit around 25% of the visitors, roughly, are not oxbridge or medicine applicants (I talk to them all personally and get a feel for where they have applied). Often very good applicants who know where they want to go (especially, I think Scottish applicants to Scottish universities, where they will be expecting unconditional offers) apply early to get it all over with. Some say that their schools like to get all their applications in early.

In our prospectus we give the minimum entry requirement (ABBB at Higher) and also the typical offer, (AAAA at Higher). The first is what we think is the minimum needed to get through the programme successfully, the second is where the cut-off will probably fall once we rank the applicants in order to generate the right number of offers. We used to simply give the minimum which did generate disappointment and resentment, rightly, when we rejected apparently well qualified applicants in large numbers.

Quite so Gently. My DC have all whacked their forms in at the earliest possible moment just to get the bloody thing done and out of the way. Also, clearly, some unis have a pleasing habit of dishing out very early offers which always gives a welcome boost.

And I'm sure you find schools' policies vary disturbingly too Magrat. I'm bemused by this thing about so many schools automatically predicting a grade up from AS. My kids' school doesn't do that, not by a long shot, but then hopefully its predictions are taken seriously, not with a bag of salt. I mean the AS grades are all on the form....

hellsbells it's not a game, unis using strategies to avoid being put as insurance - it's entirely legit, necessary even.

Magrat - an example: if a course's advertised standard offer is AAA, and receives 500 applications for 50 places, all of whom have grade predictions of at least AAA, one easy way to filter candidates is by weeding out those with only AAA predictions and giving offers to those with much better predictions (eg AAA A). It doesn't matter whether a candidate fulfils the prediction providing he/she fulfils the offer of AAA. Hence bargaining to achieve the best possible predictions.

With the rise of unconditional offers for applicants yet to take their exams do predicted grades become much more important. My kids school gave all my DC realistic predicted grades but I know other schools over predict.

Getting ucas forms early isn't always good. My youngest got 'ok' AS results and left it until mid November to apply. During the Autumn term her marks and attitude improved drastically so her teachers were able to reflect this in her references and predicted grades. Had she applied earlier then then they wouldn't. It also gave her time to firm up what she wanted to do. In theory ALL applications made before Jan15 must be considered equally.

pirateumm I don't think I resent paying taxes more I like i would like to know where it is going? How it is used? Just because your not overly bothered how it is used doesn't mean I have to too.
ulien if the system was changed so that you apply after A level results would that take a lot of the guess work out of the equation? Would it make your job easier to select the candidates that's bets fits the uni? I know my DS would definitely prefer this she would knock on the door on the uni she would like to go and with the correct grades and published requirements. There's no guess work from teachers predicting grades. KCL as I mentioned above they are not able to offer to candidates predicted AAB on a certain course as its over subscribed by good applicant. Nothing wrong with getting a influx of good candidates well done to them. But somewhere down the line it will have a knock on effect teachers are going to over predict to help the student at least get there foot in the door to this uni. Unless KCL ask for AS module grades to realistically see if student can achieve this. It won't stop a teacher predicting AAA when they achieved at AS BBB. That candidate may get a offer from the back of those predicted grade. Then you have a candidate achieve AAB at AS because the school they attended are being as honest as they can be, predict AAA again no AS grades are revealed on the app and its not been asked to be disclosed. Because this course is over subscribed the BBB guy gets a offer, the AAB guy gets a rejection. Come august results day BBB guy doesn't get his grades as its unreallistically inflated so doesn't get his place. The AAB guy achieves the correct grades but can't go to where he really wanted to as was rejected lost out because of the guess work involved and to a system in which if his school had played it may have raised his chances. Not a good system its open to tactics and manipulation.

Over predicted grades are a high risk strategy though, as some universities (an increasing number?) are offering in line with predictions!

OP,
Was your daughter applying for a compettive course. At the Warwick Open day they were clear. They would receive over 2000 qualified candidates for the 300 or so available places. No interviews so candidates should be careful to make sure their PS etc were good.

I assume something similar is on the website.

The website at LSE says:
"As you will see from the individual programme information, there is a great deal of competition for places at the School. In 2013, we received 17,000 applications for 1,400 places. This means that if you are predicted or if you achieve the grades set out in the standard offer, unfortunately this will not guarantee you an offer of admission."

The ratio of applicants to places on my son's course was 13:1. A proportion of early applications were held in a "gathered field" until all on-time applications had been received, so they can be given equal consideration. Other qualified candidates would have been rejected early.

1. Your DDs school should have helped explain the process. A big advantage of the UK system is that Universities don;'t take all qualified candidates and then have a high proportion drop out after a year. Instead if offered a place it is assumed you will complete the course.

1. The UK is lucky to have a number of world ranked courses and departments. Entry for some is, inevitably, very competitive. We were fortunate that DSs school had warned that though he was a strong candidate and should apply, it would be tough. In his case despite a 4xA* prediction and what would have been a sound school report and PS, he got three rejections. However he also got a good offer. You only need one.

1. University rankings wont tell you how popular a course is. Exeter, for example, is a popular place to study so application numbers tend to be high. (Which may explain their bizarre offers. Perhaps to manage numbers they may want to discourage people using them as insurance.)

Each University will have developed its own selection criteria. Obviously results matter. But for the rest it is good that there are differences. Better to have three good candidates each have an offer and two rejections than for one to have three offers and the others to have none. (Not quite as simple as that, but you can get my point.)

Why did DS get one and not the others. Guesswork only, but we think Cambridge prioritised really strong mathematicians, and Warwick liked languages. He thinks he may have had a bit of an edge at LSE because his fourth A level was humanities rather than science. Who knows.

OP don't worry. Your DD has done well. And I doubt anyone thinks you are stupid. However some may be surprised that the school did so little to ensure students and parents understood how the process worked.

Fairycakes - do you expect the NHS to justify its spending simply because you're a tax payer? Do you expect to a surgical consultant to justify why Ethel is getting her hip replacement this week and Mabel isn't? I assume you're quite happy to trust the consultant's judgement and experience? I assume you trust Railtrack engineers to know how to fix rails? I assume there's a whole gamut of public money spent with decisions made BY EXPERTS that you're happy to accept as you're not a professional? Why not Admissions tutors? (And that's leaving aside the fact that universities are categorically NOT predominantly publically funded.)

The broad facts for admissions are laid out for all to see, but unlike other countries, in the UK we simply do not offer to all students whose grade point average is in the top 100. It's not like school admissions where the nearest 200 get offered a place. It's a softer decision making process, much like a job application. I assume if you applied for a job that asked for 5 years experience and a degree, and you have 10 years experience and two degrees, that you'd be outraged that someone with less experience and only one degree was offered the job? I assume you'd be able to understand that much softer skills came into it, and that someone else may have been a better fit for that post despite you on paper being the best qualified?

You said your child would much prefer to apply after results - why didn't they? It's an option open to everyone? They'd go a year later, but the option is there.

And please don't confuse offers with places. The BBB guy with the offer based on inflated predictions probably won't achieve his offer and will FAIL to get a place. The AAB guy may not have had an offer from the place that offered the BBB guy, but he'll probably get an alternative offer or two (or three or four) that he would be likely to achieve.

I have to say, too, that teachers, with the best will in the world, have never worked at University (in general) and do not have some special insight on how to "play the system". An article was published last year about the large percentage of students who were given inaccurate advice regarding A'level choices for degree subjects and/or provide poor advice regarding University choices (often pushing students towards the Universities which will look best for the school, even if the course is less appropriate).

I have come across many teachers who have claimed to be "experts" in higher education by virtue of having gone to University, but who have never held a University position. The candidates in the strongest position are not usually those who rely in being guided by the school, but those who have taken the time and effort to research their choices, requirements etc etc etc themselves.

needmoresleep thanks for being understanding. I am extremely lucky my dd has offers from the uni she has. If she was in the country i am from she may be attending uni much later than 18. Where I am from there is no GCSE or a set grades at 16 if you were not going to uni, you would leave with a overall certificate to say you finished high school that's it. Hence parents would pay extra to get international IGCSE exams for there kids if they want to study abroad or they would like there kids to hold something tangible. Kids stop on till they sit university entrance exam at 18 that involves set amount of subject areas you get a score on. Come results days applicants are then at the university those that have the minimum correct score to attend literally queing round the block to register. The uni will take the best scoring applicants that apllied. Those that didn't make it can go and apply to another university maybe with a lower minimum score and hope to get in there and if all else fails repeat the year until you get a high score. The amount of pressure these kids are put under is immense extra tutoring is a norm every day after school, My dd is very fortunate to be in this country in a less pressured educational system than over there. We are grateful that she can attend a university. Many in the country I am from do not get that opportunity. Over here I do find that there are more university opportunities available for applicants whether they have low grades or high theres a good choice and mix. But the system of applying is so complicated so much variable's to consider.

titchy don't agree with everything thing you say but the middle bit, yeah that is very helpful and insightful I completely get it if when you put it like that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again but I find talking to admissions staff at the Unis your kids are looking at is really helpful. I've three kids in Uni and another going next September. We have always found the admissions staff to be helpful and informative regardless of the type or 'level' of university.

Op.
In which case perhaps our system is not so bad. DS was at a very academic private school. Maths teaching was superb, and overall his grades are likely to have been better than an equally able child at a school without the same resources or selection.

Universites want to select the best candidates. Grades are not everything. The DS' maths results would have been the same as a talented mathematician from a mixed ability sixth form. There is no way my son should have applied for a maths degree, and ultimately this is the sort of thing Universities are trying to work out. Similarly Universities may be wary of students who have been heavily pushed and tutored and who "blow up" once they away from parental pressure. Or who do 20 hour stints in the library but who contribute little to general academic life.

General PS advice given at Open Days was 70% related to the course, and 30% other things. Academics may correct me, but I assume this sort of reflects the balance in terms of Universities decision making. This will also vary by subject (lots of drama and other experience might help an English applicaiton but perhaps do little for a would be engineer), and by University. Speculating, but Cambridge may be more interested in candidates who are likely to contribute to College life, whilst Imperial may be more focussed on straight academic potential.

May I also add if I may, that I think it is important to know where the 9k fee is going in terms of lecture, contact times, seminars etc. How many hours a week, is it value for money on some courses this is very important.

fairycakes - that data is readily available.

But PLEASE don't fall into the trap of thinking you're paying for contact time. You really aren't. My institution's electricity bill is a million quid for example. It costs significantly more than £9k a year to teach a science student as well.

The income to individual universities hasn't increased just because students have to pay £9k. That chunk of money just comes from a different (non tax payer) source.

If students think all they need to do is pay £9k, sit in a lecture theatre for two hours a week and wait till they graduate, without using any of the resources the university provides for them, they shouldn't be going,and if they do they'll be wasting their money cos they won't have anything to show for it.

OP, I agree that some courses at some universities are very very poor value for money. Hardly worth the investment of money and time and effort.

But, if I'm honest, I don't think that can be measured in contact hours etc.

And of course value is subjective. There may be those who place great value on a degree in Central Heating studies from the University of Candlewick Green.

titchy you see when you explain as you do, I am more getting it like things are put into context for me to understand in real terms the impact and contraints my brain is less fuzzy with a load of Why's?? I know I've created a rod for my own back as dh says its slang for what I have opened myself up to he says. But I think I might have turned a slight corner of at least understanding the grey bits black and white bits whatever bits there is???
Its not easy trying to understand it all. My older dd is at uni in my own country so gone through that system. Or dog eat dog system wouldn't wish it on anyone. In contrast to this one its very complicated. I've learnt loads from contributers. In a way I wish I didn't say dd had applied to Oxbridge when I started this thread and said it was a relative or something?? But i wanted to put my experience from start to finish so that u get the full picture, much to my detriment! But I really didnt understand, like on the face of it are some uni hyping the grades up for reputation sake if they were accepting lower grade applicant. I'm not saying its wrong what uni doesn't want to be desirable. Where I come from its less uni selling to kids to apply more are you good enough? So I am trying to understand the niggly bits.

We have an early applicant visit in December we expect most of those applicants to have applied to Oxbridge and/or medicine. They are very good applicants and we try hard to show them that we are a good option. Rejecting them would be completely pointless. I don't understand what people believe we could possibly gain from rejecting a whole set of good applicants

What chemenger says (and I'm in the humanities not STEM).

I think parents on this thread may have to think this through a bit more.

One the one hand, you want us to treat your DCs as individuals -- to see their individual & unique qualities.

On the other hand, you want a "black & white" rule bound and predictable system.

Well, unless all your DCs are the same, you can't have both.

Of course, most university staff are doing their best and are totally honest but many schools are aware of seriously good candidates being rejected from universities other than Oxbridge, in November. This means that not all applications have been received before the candidate is rejected

I think university staff in here have commented on this before -- I know I have.

It's not a huge conspiracy: I have 25 years of experience of teaching in my field in 3 countries (3 different HE systems) and I know what characteristics an applicant needs to have for them to thrive in my course. I can make that judgement about each candidate as I see them (and at my place there are around 5 people involved in making every single offer ).

So yes, I am confident about making an offer (or not) to an applicant at any stage in the admissions cycle. And because I'm confident (as are my colleagues) there are no great advantages in applying early or late.

I really wish the minority of parents, applicants and schools would resist the temptation to try to game the system.

Cambridge may be more interested in candidates who are likely to contribute to College life, whilst Imperial may be more focussed on straight academic potential.

This is one of those awful rubbishy myths. God knows why it persists, but I'll do my bit to help scotch it:

Cambridge colleges are only interested in academic potential, full stop, end of story.

And what Chimney says. Always.