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,

Sorry for typos/crap grammar etc

It's because Op, Oxbridge actually look at the individual and not necessarily the grades.

Personally, I consider grades of AAB from a poor performing school to be VASTLY more impressive than grades of A*AA from a top school where virtually everyone gets those grades.

fiona if your kids had attended one of the schools in our area you might understand why contextual offers or extenuating circumstances are considered......There's a very high percentage of kids on free school meals, because parents are either low income, single parent, unemployed etc. The school is sharing a head teacher from a neighbouring comp because head at school has been sacked because of misconduct. School has a shortage of teachers so relies on relief/temp teachers who aren't really qualified to teach certain subjects competently. It's under Ofstead special measures. Added with disrespectful unruly kids to the mix, if your child can do well in this environment just think what they could do if they went to private school?? So with that in mind, if a child can achieve AAB it's amazing considering the circumstances in which they achieved it.

Thank you for all your latest replies.

Regarding the policy on contextual data, as bizeemum and WowProjectingMuch explained, the schools will favourably consider someon who get impressive grades from a disadvantaged school.

May I ask a further question?

What about a student studying at such a disadvantaged school, but he or she comes from a "middle-class background" (no free school meals, parents' income over a certain limit). If that student achieves the same high grades as another poorer student from the same or a similar school/area, will that student be considered in the same way by the university?

Thanks,

Can only speak for ourselves and our own experience as middle classed and dd going to comp that's below government expectations for GCSE and is in the bottom 40% of state school in UK there is a list somewhere highlighting which state comp is at the bottom tier.
DD didn't get any contextual offers, was still the same as published uni standard offer. Some kids did get contextual offers as some uni (oxbridge) apply red flags to areas such as where the kids lived (so postcode) whether they were in care and some others. But we live in generally a nice part of town so no preferential treatment. But to be honest we don't expect any, its more i would say a hindrance to go to bog standard comp because of the lack of support. DD didn't get any kind of support or preparation on TSA Oxford aptitude test, numerical spatial reasoning, critical thinking skills. I'm not sure but I would have thought independent schools do have these critical thinking verbal reasoning test and probably prepare kids better for interviews too. Also not many at dd school are even inspired to go to Russell group uni, many go to ex poly or local uni.

I read a telegraph article last year, somewhere along the lines that some parents were now sending their kids to state comp instead of private because they felt their kids had a better chance of getting into elite universities as they perceived them giving state school more preference (sorry can't provide a link) fiona is this what your kind of refering to, whether middle classes might be better off sending kids to state then private since elite uni's look like they are more forgiving grade wise, towards state than private?

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

Utterly bemused. On what level is an A or A* not considered to be an excellent grade? I'm glad I'm not doing A levels - I mean WTactual F??

To bizeemum: I have not thought of sending my children to state or private yet. But your answer is very helpful. Thanks a lot.

Fiona. If you are already getting worried about things like this before you DC even go to school then you are massively overthinking things. Your OP reads as though you have a 'personal' gripe about this subject??

Also, you would be crazy to think that the policies they have today for contextual offers will not change in the next 15 years

Different universities apply contextual offers differently. I doubt any are perfect.

Mmm, come to think of it, perhaps it's my kids that should be feeling hard done by. They go to a leafy comp so don't have the 'advantage' of private school or the 'advantage' of contextual offers. They are the squeezed middle of the educational world.

Interestingly Durham ( INFO HERE ) considers contextual information but DOESNT make lower offers based on that information.

I think that might mean that they will give applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds a little more consideration than other students. Perhaps, they might make some allowance for less than perfect personal statements or for a lack of stellar extra curricular achievements ? I don't know but it's clear everyone gets the same offer.

the schools will favourably consider someon who get impressive grades from a disadvantaged school

That's not really what those Oxford and Cambridge links say. They just say that if any flags pop up they'll look extra carefully at the application. Oxford say that they recommend that the applicant should be invited to interview - thus giving the applicant as much chance as possible to show their potential (which is a Good Thing). Cambridge don't even say that!

atiao yes sorry your right, my post kind of sounds like im saying Oxbridge red flag system would result in some kind of contextual grade offer and that's not what I meant. As you say It justifies the application to be looked at more closely and rightly too if numerous red flag pops up.

As I understand it, one factor that makes a difference is the school's own past record with Oxbridge "successes"? So the more success there has been consistently in the past, the harder it becomes for those who follow - and in a brand new school, there's a certain level of "first time" advantage, right at the start of the intake - private or state - but with all the shaking up - merger, academization etc, it must get quite hard to keep up with whether a school genuinely has no previous "track record".

Eh? Depends what they are going to do there and above all on what their colleges gave them as offers. For example, a number of music scholars only need their As in music, or in 2 subjects. There might only be one music scholar per year at the college if they do not have a designated tutor there, but you can depend on it that they will be worth their place.

They might be doing a subject which they have not actually done at A-level, or ever before, like Archaeology & Anthropology or Italian/Japanese (but otherwise have done other languages).

Although these days are apparently gone, due to the much higher general number of applications for fewer places (climbing every year and increasingly with international applications), my husband got an offer of 2 Es (plus one A) for PPE and our contemporary, who was a music scholar, had an A-C-E offer for his A level subjects.

They may have considered backgrounds but there are a lot of other factors at work - like if there are 70 applicants for 9 places with 2 places already allocated to people who have deferred; and like what other offers the applicants have maybe already received from other places or years.

They might even - shock horror- have to consider other qualifications that are not A-levels at all, like if the students are applying from Haiti or Egypt or wherever.

Every single set of grades mentioned in the op are either excellent or stellar, given the description of the school. What surprises me slightly is that the school has secured four places at Oxford/ Cambridge and another at Princeton. That suggests that someone in the school is doing something very right.

Some more insight for Fiona on how it works in practise www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work

Seems fair enough to me.

Not least because there are many many more very bright candidates apply than there are places for and Oxbridge tutors will admit that whilst they do their best to identify the students who will make the most of the opportunity and be most successful (as opposed to getting the best grades at A level, a different challenge) they can't always get it right, in fact I think as many as 30% wrong according to one on one of these threads. Of course someone who has already battled adversity has demonstrated determination and resilience and the stats back that they do better than private school pupils.

So there are plenty of other courses that all the exceptionally bright candidates that do not get Oxbridge offers or fail to achieve them end up doing well on and enjoying. Nobody loses out.

And this establishment has 1500 students in each year so getting 5 students into Oxbridge is not exactly levelling the playing field, let alone tipping it and discriminating against any decent private sixth form in the top 100 or so of the tables where it would not be unusual for 10 to be getting places

Everyone else has explained things really well but one thing that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think) is the College system. Because you apply to a particular College then each College will have (say) 22 applicants for 5 places. So each College can look at the 22 carefully and select the 5 they want. That College is then "stuck" with them so they will consider it very carefully.

Other universities will have 880 applicants for 200 places. So using A levels is the easiest way to do it.

My DCs college has 2000 students in the sixth form. Some years there are no students at all going to Oxbridge and none doing medicine.

I think the college system at Oxbridge is very off putting to applicants who are not familiar with it. It comes across as complicated and elitist. I understand why it exsists but it doesn't help with encouraging applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds. The early application deadline is also another perceived barrier.

I didn't read in the op that the school has 1500 students in a cohort so in that context I agree that5 isn't great. The grades are though.

The 30% wrong thing is of course rubbish, even if someone did post that on MN. A lot of things posted on MN are rubbish. I think I very vaguely remember challenging it at the time and the poster in question revoked whatever it was that had been said, or explained that it had been misconstrued. Clearly 30% error would be completely absurd.

As I recall it was based on who failed to get above a 2.2 which I agree does not necessarily reflect a mistake as such, all sorts of reasons why a student fails to achieve potential, but I don't think it is an unreasonable rate in terms of reflecting that in those cases there was a possibility that they missed candidates who would have gone on to higher achievement. They have an incredible number of bright candidates to distinguish between and no doubt there is a normal distribution of those clearly meriting a place, most of whom do well, some who don't for personal reasons, and those clearly not and then between a large proportion at the border line with some tough decisions that could go either way. Add in the subjectivity of interviews and "the pleasure to teach" syndrome, the vagaries of those most applied to colleges and courses and the not entirely perfect pool system and I do think they do not get it perfectly right and I have never known an academic or teacher who claimed they did. The Telegraph just posted the latest list of "easiest courses to get on to" based on success rates, 8th or 9th was History. I don't believe for a minute a clever candidate has a better chance of getting on to the History course than an equivalent student for a course with a lower success rate, far more likely that many able candidates just don't bother to apply, and then next year they all will and the success rate will fall......

And as I say it does not matter to the student, unless they or their parents have invested too much self esteem in the process because there are other good courses out there.

Yes I read that photo list this morning. Just on a point of detail, I would add that the Telegraph only mentioned History at Cambridge, not Oxford (but if you notice it also lists significantly more Cambridge courses than Oxford across the board).

Perhaps we're recalling different threads Poison. But anyhow, on the 2.2 front, around 70% of my peers at Durham in the Law faculty got 2.2s and no-one slated them as having failed to achieve their potential. I'm not sure that just because someone on MN aired the opinion that that should be a litmus test, it should be. The fact remains that a 30% error rate is completely absurd.

The 30% wrong thing is of course rubbish, even if someone did post that on MN.

I think it was me who posted on this topic, though not in this wording.

I wrote that more than 30% of Oxbridge maths students get 2:2s or below, with at least a third of maths undergraduates seeming disengaged to an extent which is surprising, given the high entrance standards. Meanwhile the top maths students at other very good universities (many of whom were rejected from Oxbridge) significantly outperform many maths students at Oxbridge. Oxbridge quite frequently misses students who go onto stellar academic careers (but also itself produces a large number of stellar academics).

I don't think I wrote that Oxbridge maths gets it wrong 30% of the time -I can't quantify getting it "wrong". I do however think that selections made on very small differences between students are not reliable and the results quoted above support this.

Speculating about a 30% error rate is not absurd when you factor in that the differences between applications can be very small. The very top candidates are often "obvious", the weak candidates are obvious but decisions about those at the cutoff are much more subjective.

It's not sensible to compare 2:2s from 20+ years ago with 2:2s nowadays. In the past most students got 2:2s or 2:1s. Nowadays working reasonably hard usually suffices to get a 2:1 or above.

I have (in the last 15 years) known very few maths students get a 2:2 or below if they worked and were engaged with the material. A few worked hard but just couldn't get it (surely this counts as "wrong" selection?). I have never known a student get a third unless they were really not working and were absolutely disengaged from the course.

Spinosa quite, on my History course back in the dark ages at a now RG uni two of us got 2.1s, no firsts, and the rest of the 70 or so split between 2.2s and thirds. Not that I worked particularly hard for the 2.1.

A few parents I know keep their degree class quiet now and quite honestly being able to hold my head up high with my children is probably the most use it has ever been outside the academic world. Just having a degree was enough to guarantee a job, so most of us could just focus on the beer. Now both of my DDs were far better equipped academically than I was, work harder and regard getting a minimum 2.1 as win or bust. The pressure on universities not to confound those ambitions is also greater.