Sadness of Open Days

[Gemauve]

So on the stand this morning at 0905, I was approached by a charming woman and her keen, enthusiastic daughter. It's the first university they're visiting, in fact the first university that either of them has ever been to, but they're really looking forward to ... and they reel off a list of good places. Daughter really wants to do our subject, and has clearly checked out the top places.

And what A Levels are you doing?

Ah.

Well, you can't come here, and for what it's worth, we're slightly more relaxed than the other places you've named and I know that you won't be able to go to any of them to do our subject or anything even vaguely related. I didn't say "and on past experience from when we were even more relaxed to the point that we might have admitted you, you would almost certainly fail, and the last cohort where we did that less than 5% of them made it to finals". Sorry.

"My school said these subjects would be ideal".

They're catastrophically wrong. Did you look at any prospectuses before choosing your subjects? No. And off they went, their hopes destroyed by 0915.

What the fuck are schools playing at? Why do they let children who don't have middle class parents get into this situation?

And that seems like a con.

(Excepting subjects that are clearly very practical)

As regards the demon drink - have things changed in the past thirty years? Certainly the wine flowed during my Cambridge days - but I don't remember a single occasion when non-alcoholic drinks were not also provided or available.

I don't, however, see a problem with expecting universities to go to some effort to help everyone settle in.

We do, and when we fail, we agonise about it. It's a hot topic at this time of year, getting ready for September.

There is also implicit in your position the assumption that traditionally "posh" (for want of a better word) universities are worse at it, and have a bigger problem with it, than traditionally more declasse institutions.

Based on the same litany of anecdote (my children, my friends' children, my children's friends, etc) and personal experience that sadly this sort of thing degenerates into, I'd say traditionally posh universities put a great deal more thought into it than, for example, the post-1900s, some of whom appear to be denial that there is an issue at all.

We do, and when we fail, we agonise about it

Yes ... partly because we hear from those who feel we've failed them. If they complain, we hear from them. We don't tend to hear from those for whom transition from school/home to university/independence has been successful, or feel it's been successful.

It's tricky and possibly one of the reasons these kinds of discussions dissolve into anecdata because we're trying to give individual, tailored treatment to thousands of individuals, in what is becoming a mass education system.

When only 10-15% of the 18 year old population went to university, this wasn't an issue. Now that's more than doubled, without a proportionate increase in resources, it is an issue.

I agree merry mouse. I suppose parity of esteem is something I think about from time to time. I am fortunate to have studied at three different unis and effectively got three degrees in completely different subjects so I suppose I am a good candidate to have something to say on the matter!

merry that's an important point.

There are often undocumented parts to the application "criteria" that are hidden to students who are not in the club. When a course seems to not be specifying a specific A-level for a 2nd or 3rd subject, when admissions tutors are actually looking more favourably on applications with a MFL of History because they are seen as more rigorous subjects.

There is a also the lack if support, poor or inconsistent advice schools provide on personal statements to be considered.

The other is that some a-levels don't seem to be respected and aren't given equivalent value even when the a-level subject requirements are non-specific.

When the analysis is done students with less-preferred qualifications fail the first year at significantly higher rates.

Now that's partly chicken and partly egg: as others have pointed out, drop out rates are also predicated on parental income, parental education, type of 11-18 school, and those (factor analysis ahoy!) probably explain a lot of the variation. Broken down to that level of detail no single department will have the data in sufficient volume. And the coding of "less preferred" is probably somewhat subjective.

But the answer to the question "what's the difference between a student with Maths, History and German and a student with Psychology, Business Studies and ICT for a course which just asks for three A Levels and GCSE Maths?" is "the latter is less likely to graduate". The reasons behind that require unpacking.

Yes Gemauve, the reasons do need further exploration, and was alluding to that further up the thread.

It does seem as if those less favourable choices are taken by less able students and so will end up in a higher drop out. Clearly the admissions tutor will err on the side of caution and we have the self fulfilling prophecy!

When a course seems to not be specifying a specific A-level for a 2nd or 3rd subject

My experience of talking to my children's friends and my friends' children is that a lot of people have their eyes drawn to the minimum, floor requirements, and they ignore the more nuanced rubric about preferred and desirable and "most successful applicants have".

For selective courses, it might mean that if you have the minimum qualifications you will only get a place if your personal statement mentions that paper in Nature for which you were the lead author. The reality, that the vast majority of successful applicants (that's successful in terms of getting a place, and successful in terms of graduating) have qualifications much more like the preferred etc somewhat passes them by.

Dh and I are graduates, MC, blah de blah, but one thing that is new for us in university applications is the personal statement. Now, being the queen of surfing I have read a great deal about what universities may or may not be looking for, what they care or don't care about etc.

Ds at college has been told to "put in all your achievements" and "any sports or hobbies you do". He has had to draft an initial ps and I had a bit of a tussle with him telling him that I don't think that certain universities care about chess wins etc. I nosed around some public school websites and found one where they said they got in experts to "help" write personal statements tailored to Oxbridge and their ilk. How is the hapless state school applicant supposed to compete with professionally-crafted personal statements? Theirs must surely look very amateurish in comparison if they're mentioning swimming galas and Scouts.

Indeed Gemauve, but it is indeed knowing what the code really means.

A pupil deciding between say Psychology and French at A-Level, may choose Psych because it is an area they are interested in, feel it is better to broaden their knowledge studying a new subject they haven't before, being unaware that the French would be more a more respectable 3rd subject on their application. It is very nuanced, for a competitive course this could be a deal breaker.

I actually think the personal statement may have eaten itself up now. I have heard rumours that the more prestigious Uni's put little store by them as they know a number of students will not have written them themselves.

They prefer interview...but of course you can now pay for coaching.

Brenda, I've mentioned this before, but DS1 was bloody-mindedly determined to ignore all the school's advice about worthier extracurriculars, and instead include his obsession with Thunderbirds and railways on his PS.

Every single interviewer asked him about either steam trains or Thunderbirds as an icebreaker.

Ds at college has been told to "put in all your achievements" and "any sports or hobbies you do".
Bad advice.
I have friends who are academics and they are supremely uninterested in if you have singlehandedly built a hospital in Mozambique - unless you are applying for a HospitalBuilding degree

Risky tactic re the TBs and railways - you might get away with it, but anything that is a bit contrived or off-piste will turn people off.

I guess it also depends on the grades you are likely to get...if I had to do French I wouldn't be able to get on any course!

Well, that's just DS, MrsC. He wasn't trying to be contrived, and he'll inevitably be off-piste, so might as well embrace his inner geek.

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, Lancelottie, but I think I recall that your son has Asperger's and this was presumably flagged up by the school. In those circs I would expect the interviewers to have been very keen to find a good icebreaker topic and to have taken that into account when reading his PS. Also, I bet they were delighted to have a chance to talk about something other than Grade 8 piano and DofE!

Hives as someone who failed French O-level twice I agree with you

I guess that is the point Gemauve made, Uni's know that students who are not selecting the facilitating subjects are more likely to be unable to cope with the level of academic rigour required and that is why they have selected an "easier" subject.

My son goes to a comp. They don't send a huge number of applicants to Oxbridge, normally one or two per year, sometimes none. The sixth form students get a lot of guidance with their personal statements and most students end up at their first choice university. The teachers seem very clued up on the admissions process.

Gaspode - I don't drink. When I went to Cambridge in the mid 80s not drinking didn't make me a pariah and I certainly wasn't the only non drinker. I felt that reasonable effort was made at official things to include non drinkers. I was more excluded because of being a vegan than because of being tee total (not that I've ever taken a pledge or anything)

But where does that leave higher flying students who have been misadvised or make their decisions based on the reasons I cited?

Ds at college has been told to "put in all your achievements" and "any sports or hobbies you do".

Some courses ignore the personal statement completely, especially if admissions are being done centrally. The advice for Oxbridge is usually that extra-curricular activities aren't worth more than a sentence but the so-called super-curriculars, things which prove your enthusiasm and aptitude for the subject are. So playing in the orchestra is worth more space if you're appling for music, and much less if you're applying for maths.