How can these students go to Oxbridge?

[Fiona2011231]

To protect the privacy of the students, I do not include their names and their school here.

I read the article in our local newspaper about some students at the local state school, which is not exactly famous for their academic performance.

These are their grades:

"Student, 18, achieved 4 A*s and will be studying Politics at Cambridge University.

Joining him at Cambridge will be A, who achieved 2 As and 2 A grades, and C, who gained 2 A a B and a C grade.

D will go to Oxford to study Classics after achieving 4 straight A grades and another E is USA-bound after securing a place at the Ivy League University, Princeton, to study Liberal Arts. E achieved 3 A grades in English Literature, French and Maths.

It seems that some of the cases here did not achieve excellent grades.

If this observation is correct, why were they accepted by these most prestigious universities? In the case of Oxbridge, do you think it may be because the universities considered their background, perhaps being poor, and that they come from a state school. So by accepting these students, the universities can fulfill their quota imposed by the government?

Thanks,

Just out of interest, what are the less competitive course at Oxford and Cambridge. DD is very bright, fancying history or English, likes the idea of classics but can't find anywhere to do A level Latin.

do you think it may be because the universities considered their background, perhaps being poor, and that they come from a state school. So by accepting these students, the universities can fulfill their quota imposed by the government?

Yes.

But this is not really news.

I simply don't understand how anyone can read that wonderful, positive article about young people achieving their goals and decide that they need to shit on it a bit...nearly 12 months after the event.
The OP manages to combine pointless and mean-spirited in a single thread.

Am I missing something here? How are these grades not "excellent"?

Weird.

There is no government imposed quota on state school students at Oxbridge or any other UK university. There are also no quotas for students from disadvantaged backgrounds or ethnic minorities, or for students with disabilities etc etc.

Oxbridge admissions decisions are in any case made at the college level and only after all colleges' decisions are put together can one see the breakdown of offers by school type and other criteria. No admissions tutor will feel a pressure to socially engineer their offers: they make offers to the candidates they consider the best, taking into account their whole application (and thus these candidates may not be those with the highest grades). I think it demeans the achievements of these students to imply that they were accepted just for social engineering purposes.

If this observation is correct

the thing is OP it absolutely is not and I, along seemingly with numerous others, am at a complete loss as to why you would possibly think it would be correct.

Standard humanities at Oxford AAA, at Cambridge AAA. In all bar one of these instances, assuming these were the offers and there is certainly no reason to think these DC had received higher offers, the required grades were achieved. For the fourth we do not know the UMS, or mitigating circumstances, or indeed if the B went up to an A or A following a subsequent remark.

what are the less competitive course at Oxford and Cambridge

public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissons/Courses?%3AshowVizHome=no

Thanks name, that is really interesting. I have also discovered that you don't have to have Latin A level.

The problem is that you don't care how many people applied; what you need to know is (assuming you are a credible candidate) is how many credible candidates applied.

Suppose you're an AAA student who will interview well and has done the appropriate amount of middle class networking extra-curricular and broadening activity. In short, you look like the sort of people who get places on selective courses.

There are two courses you are choosing between. One is niche and has two applicants for every place, all of whom are highly qualified and motivated, with massive preparation and extra-curricular work; in short, they look like you. The other is a mainstream course which attracts a large number of speculative applications from students who are not even studying the mandatory entry requirements and who have no realistic chance of admission, a huge cohort of so-so candidates and a small number of top quality applicants; overall, there are twenty applicants per place, which puts many people off from applying.

Which do you have the better chance of getting onto?

It's very hard to tell, isn't it?

Maybe student C got a 2E offer? It still happens. Normal offer is A*AA, only three subjects required. All of these look fine to me.

Maybe student C got a 2E offer?

Indeed. And because Cambridge typically ask for 90 UMS in three ASes in order to even interview, someone who has that can cash in their ASes for A2s without taking any more papers, having an overall 45 UMS and therefore having EEE at A2. So unlike in the past where you could in principle miss an EE offer, now you can't. Which is why other universities just make unconditional offers: you still (I think) need EE for a course to qualify as "advanced work" and be eligible for student loans, but now anyone with AAA at AS automatically has EEE.

I think the OP may perhaps have had a dc with better grades who was rejected from Oxbridge and feels somewhat hard done by. Grades are not everything, they are just one part of the selection process. Rather nasty to imply those students are undeserving of a place - well done to them for getting in I say.

I wonder too if OP feels its unfair, maybe its someone she knows or her own DC who has got better grades but was rejected by oxbridge, goes to a independent school (maybe) and feel state school has some kind of advantage. So feels hard done by paying fees etc.... I hope not.....
If it makes you feel better OP my own dd goes to very bog standard comp bottom of the pile let's say. She got all A's at AS and very good gcse. She was rejected by Oxford, her TSA was mediocre/average was never interviewed she was also rejected by LSE and UCL. She was gutted but it was expected if she got any offers from them it was a bonus at the end of the day she only needs one offer. We don't feel she was hard done by at all, we just proud that she atleast had a try. The universities have their reason to reject dd and we respect that. They have to pick who they feel will thrive at the uni, if they feel dd is not right for them then that's that no point feeling angry that others that have done lesser and got offers and got in, dont deserve their place, they do. It's not all about grades. My dd demonstrates this. it shouldn't be all about grades either. OP just let it go and not get yourself too bitter about things.

I think you need to bear in mind there are Oxbridge degrees and Oxbridge degrees.For example Maths at Cambridge is insanely difficult to get onto requiring excelent STEP grades, wheras something like anthropology has fewer than 2 applicants per place.

Dear all,
I am the OP. Thank you for all your honest replies.

I want to make two points to clarify.

First, I was wrong to think these students’ grades are not excellent. They are excellent. I’ve found out from an 2014 article which confirms that for Cambridge, “almost all students who were admitted applying with the equivalent of an A* and two A grades at A-level”. So in this story, these students are really excellent.

Second, I am not alone to think that students from state schools “are significantly more likely to win places at elite Russell Group institutions with B or C grades than contemporaries from the independent sector”.

This view was informed by at least one study in 2013, as told here:

“In official guidance, the Office for Fair Access says universities can admit poor pupils with lower A-level grades to mark out those with the potential to succeed.

Anna Vignoles, professor of education at Cambridge University, admitted that pressure to hit targets had encouraged some institutions to admit candidates with worse A-levels.

“Universities are very alive to these targets, contrary to what is often reported,” she told Times Higher Education magazine.

“When universities have good quality state school students, albeit with slightly lower grades, you can see there is a willingness to get them in."
The website BestCourse4me.com analysed the A-level grades held by students entering 19 out of 24 Russell Group universities.

The figures showed that more than half of qualifications – 52 per cent – attained by successful private school candidates in 2010/11 were A* or As. By comparison, the proportion fell to 42 per cent among those from the state sector.

At the same time, 24.3 per cent of grades achieved by state school candidates were Bs or Cs, compared with 18.2 per cent of those from independent schools, it was revealed.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9885413/State-school-pupils-get-easier-access-to-top-universities.html

But back to the particular story, I am wrong. These students are excellent.

I'm not sure of the point of your last post. You don't actually think that it's the private school children who are disadvantaged do you?

The stats you are stating don't help. Of course kids from 'poor' schools should be given every advantage possible. It's hugely impressive for kids from the very worst schools to do well academically. Surely no one can object to contextual offers being made to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is nothing shady about contextual offers being made. Universities have to offer a fair and transparent admissions policy and publish details of how they interpret applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The website BestCourse4me.com analysed the A-level grades held by students entering 19 out of 24 Russell Group universities

The figures showed that more than half of qualifications – 52 per cent – attained by successful private school candidates in 2010/11 were A* or As. By comparison, the proportion fell to 42 per cent among those from the state sector

This is of no significance whatsoever without further data. I imagine private school candidates apply for higher tariff courses than state school applicants. .

I curious why you are posting?

I don't know. Maybe they are very bright.

A relative of mine with 11 A at GCSEs, top results at AS, due to get A at A2, interviews well and has a better cv than mine.....rejected by Oxford.

To WowProjectMuch: You said, "Of course kids from 'poor' schools should be given every advantage possible. It's hugely impressive for kids from the very worst schools to do well academically. Surely no one can object to contextual offers being made to students from disadvantaged backgrounds."

If I understand you correctly, you think elite universities should give advantage to students from poorer state schools even though their grades are not as high as students from private schools. This was exactly my question - is it true that elite universities like Oxbridge give advantage to students from state schools? Of course, as I already admitted, I used the wrong example - the students in this story were excellent. But it seems you think it is true that elite universities should, and do, give advantage to students from state schools.

Universities can, and do, quite rightly give lower offers (typically one grade lower) to students from POOR PERFORMING state schools.

They categorically do not give ALL state school applicants a lower offer. In fact contextual offers are only made to a minority of state school applicants. Going to state school isn't an easy way in.

As I understand it (and I am no expert) offers to Oxbridge are given taking a variety of factors into consideration - including student's personal statements, academic references, Thinking Skills Assessment (if required), interviews AND exam results. Therefore I am under the impression that an extremely bright and motivated state school student who demonstrates potential (through the tests, interviews etc) might sometimes be more what the university is interested in for their academic potential (even with a an A grade lower) than a private educated student (or it could be another high achieving state school applicant) with the 'right' grades but where they have been let down perhaps by the other components of their application.

I was discussing it with a friend recently and we explored the analogy of someone with sporting talent - do you choose the person who has the best PB who you know has had all the opportunities from early access to top coaching or do you take the person whose results whilst not as impressive show massive potential and determination to achieve if they had access to quality coaching?

Sounds to me as though OP paid for private education and didn't get the result she expected. I did Oxford entrance (a long time ago) and got a two Es offer. Tutors have told me they use the interview to test whether you're genuinely interested in the subject and whether you'd be interesting to teach. I gather a lot of private school product falls down on the latter.

Fiona.

Have you tried researching this topic yourself at all? Universities are required to publish and to operate a fair and transparent entry requirement policy. The universities are clear about using contextual offers. It's not something new or shady? HERE is information about Bristols Entry Requirements and their use of contextual offers
If you try doing a bit of googling you will find similar information for other universities.

Universities do not want to exclude DCs who have a huge potential to succeed at university because they went to a crap school. There is a local private school that offers further math A Level - the class has FOUR students and they do twice the amount of lesson than they do at the local comp the local comp has about 25 kids in the class. I wonder which students are more likely to do well. All the Universities are trying to do is make things a little fairer for the most disadvantaged children.

They are NOT giving contextual offers to give the children 'an advantage' they give contextual offers to try and negate the fact that some children are hugely disadvantaged

I still can't tell if you are just trying to wind us up or if you are genuinely aggrieved. I'm not sure which would be worse I'd love to know why you are so angry about this. Has it got anything to do with medicine offers?

OXFORD UNI's use of contextual data is explained here

....hardly a state secret is it

and here is CAMBRIDGE UNIs take on contextual data

Quote (with my highlighting)

In order to ensure that all applicants are assessed fairly and holistically, the University considers additional information that provides a more complete picture of the educational and social circumstances that underpin students’ applications and performance in our assessments.