Sutton Trust Summer Schools. Anyone successful?

[Myidentity]

DC rejected from Bristol offer for medicine. Some 1200 applied and 160 successful.

Bristol says:"There were a number of applications which met all of the above criteria, where this happened places were offered to students with the highest performance at GCSE(or equivalent.)
Criteria were:

• Will be first in generation in family to attend uni. Have achieved at least 5A/A at GCSE
• Are taking relevant subjects in relation to course applied for
• Attend schools or colleges with a low overall A-level points score
• Come from neighbourhoods with low overall progression rates to higher education
• Under age of 18 at time of summer school
• Have been in care system

A number met ALL the criteria. Really! Is this probable? Or do you think people are lying about their circumstances to get a foot in the door.
DC says that people are making up lots of "interests" non academic achievements on applications, knowing full well that unis do not have resources to corroborate them all. Very sad if the insane competition is leading to this deceit.

Wow, dont be silly, why on earth should I be ashamed?

All I've said is that the chances are that out of TEN THOUSAND applicants the chances are that a VERY VERY few could have lied. That's hardly a crazy suggestion.

You even said yourself that Of course it is possible some people lie. They might lie about things that the people involved in selection processes don't care much about. Or they might lie directly about the criteria. How on earth is that different to what I've said.

Ok. Let me make it very simple.

It is not entirely normal to look at a programme designed to give children a good chance they would not otherwise have, and to start speculating about how many of them lied to get onto it.

I have, in response to posts on this thread, acknowledged that it might be people lie. But - because I have no vested interests here - I have no desire to focus on liars. I do not understand why you or the OP would want to do that. It smacks of jealousy and over investment in the lives of your children's peers.

I have seen quite a lot of parents of university-age children, who think they are being very subtle when they claim that 'some' children from (whisper it) disadvantaged backgrounds may be given unfair advantages.

Ok, so we have both agreed it's possible that some applicants may have lied.

However I NEVER said that I thought it was applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds who were lying. You made that bit up. It wouldn't even make sense to say that as the people who would be lying would be the more advantaged applicants who might possibly pretend to be 'disadvantaged' in some way.

I also never said ANYTHING at all about disadvantaged kids getting an unfair 'advantage' You also made that bit up. I am 100% in support of anything that helps stidents from disadvantaged backgrounds get to University.

It's very rude of you to say that I am jealous or overinvested in other kids. None of my DC even applied for a Sutton Trust place as they got places on Headstart 🤷🏻‍♀️

You are making things up as you go along. I've no idea why.

Um ... all these applicants are claiming to be from disadvantaged backgrounds? You think some are lying. It's not hard to understand why I find it a bit unpleasant, because I suspect you simply don't believe in these students' genuine disadvantage. Both you and the OP seem to find it hard to credit. It's a way of thinking that further disadvantages people in the most need.

You are plainly over involved in other people's children and their applications. I've no idea why, but it's the only possible reason you'd be so keen to focus on this aspect.

...you are not making sense. Surely if anyone was going to lie it wouldn't be the 'disadvantaged' students would it? They would have no reason to lie. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I've only addressed the lying because that's what the OPs OP was about so it's hardly a matter of me being 'over invested' in other people children. It's a thread on the internet that I've happened to post on. Just like you.

I don't know what the OPs think as I'm not her but I definitely don't have any agenda against disadvantaged students getting places on outreach programs such as the Sutton Trust ones. I think they are excellent. I'm sure you would prefer not to believe that but whatever....

because I suspect you simply don't believe in these students' genuine disadvantage

That comment is speculative garbage. I've not given any reason to suggest that don't think the applicants are genuinely disadvantaged. You have a wild imagination ...

It is only you who believe that applicants who have come through a rigorous application process, might not be disadvantaged.

I acknowledged that some people might lie, but it is plain that these are disadvantaged students.

You and the OP seem to believe - in the face of all evidence - that they are not. I don't know why, and I don't understand what you get out of the idea that these are students with huge advantages who lie to get onto a summer school.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like an agenda, or like sour grapes. You're not even suggesting these lies concerned things like non-academic interests - you're suggesting there are students lying about the really big stuff. Do you not see how that makes you sound?

the people who would be lying would be the more advantaged applicants

I've not given any reason to suggest that don't think the applicants are genuinely disadvantaged.

Do you want to take a minute to decide which of these two statements you want to uphold?

Ok fair enough on the two statements. They do contradict each other.

I wasn't suggesting that there would be a need for disadvantaged students to lie but I was wondering if VERY VERY few less-disadvantaged applicants might possibly lie to make themselves appear more disadvantaged. I guess things like saying that neither of your parents went to uni when they did would be what I was thinking of. The Sutton Trust Summer courses are well worth going on and I could imagine that some parents or applicants might try and bend the rules to be eligible. I don't know that as I'm only speculating.

Neither you or I know who does or doesn't lie or if indeed anyone does. It's all speculation. I'd hope that the application process would weed out any applicants from non-disadvantaged applicant on over subscribed courses.

I can promise you I have no agenda and I certainly don't have any sour grapes. It's nonsense and rude to suggest it. I can't speak for the OP but I can speak for myself.

You have been rude in this thread and you have been assuming things that are simply not true.

STOP ARGUING !
It's not helpful.
DS couldn't be arsed to apply for Sutton Trust Summer School.

I know successful applicants for the Medicine course at Bristol for this latest round who fulfil none of the published criteria bar GCSEs and appropriate subjects at A2.

I think the interviewers for the course are likely to be smart enough to work out what a DCs background is, broadly speaking, and quite obviously a child who's been in care or is at a seriously shitty school should be given some advantage in the process.

And quite clearly, as already stated, 'a number' might be as few as two.

I'm surprised at how few applied overall.

Sour grapes OP.

Really! Is this probable? Or do you think people are lying about their circumstances to get a foot in the door

More than probable. The mapping of educational disadvantage onto socio-economic disadvantage is one of the greatest scandals of this rich country. That so many children from backgrounds of poverty and disadvantage are still badly served by education, from the age of 3 onwards is a national shame. And it can't be fixed 15 years later at university.

It is not entirely normal to look at a programme designed to give children a good chance they would not otherwise have, and to start speculating about how many of them lied to get onto it.

And I think it is very sad, and indicative of a particular (unfortunate) mind set that the OP's first thought was that applicants must have lied, instead of being quite rightly aghast at the entrenched level of socio-economic disadvantage still, in this country in the 21st century.

Non-university parents might be wealthy enough to afford the supplementary courses mentioned above, or private education even

I think that may be to do with cultural or social capital, rather than economic capital. If neither of your parents has been to university, then there may not be the easy assumption of knowing how application processes work, and so on. I come from 3 generations of Oxbridge & public schools, and so of course, university was a familiar place/ambition, and I had no sense of it not being for "people like us."

I was aghast at these figures from Bristol. That is why I queried them!
Why can't I ask questions?
You know nothing about my background, yet launch a flaming tirade, sticking not to the question but ad hominem argument!
My own DC is on the index of deprivation and that's why we applied via the Sutton Trust scheme. Do you live in a total bubble where nothing bad ever happens to anyone and all humans are perfect? I feel concerned and worried about my child's life chances. I have a right to question something if I think it is incredible. I don't need a sanctimonious lecture from someone who has clearly never had to worry about their own prospects or those of their children!

One thing on which I do concur is "that it can't be fixed 15 years later."

It should not be up to the universities to socially engineer out disadvantage by holding some sort of poverty contest. Some people do lie, I'm afraid to say. And besides, by that stage, there are too many variables to consider when assessing which factors are impinging on a child's prospects. It is a very crude salve applied after all the damage is done.
Intervention needs to start early. At primary level. And also in the early years of secondary, where monetary advantage really starts to bite in the form of shadow education.

Myidentity did your med school applicant DC get a place on the Sutton Trust scheme?

It would be 'incredible' if all successful applicants ticked every box but they don't and Bristol doesn't claim that they do. It's precisely worded.

Also, a crude salve is better than no salve. All damage clearly isn't done if some disadvantaged but able students can be given a leg up out of continued disadvantage by positive discrimination at the university admissions stage.

I just think it's sad that your first thought was that people must have lied.

And the Sutton Trust does absolutely bloody marvelous work. I've done volunteer work at widening participation workshops in my field. They are absolutely true blue about their work, and their research into educational disadvantage. As an academic, I don't want to teach Tim-nice-but-dim, but his father's something in the City. I want the best brains that money can't buy.

Why is it always Tim Nice But Dim, versus a highly-intelligent, extremely-deprived downtrodden no life chances kid?

There are vast swathes of children who have few advantages in the form of "useful" friends and family, private education or Oxbridge-educated parents. It is all very well to focus on people who are right at the bottom, but realistically there are always going to be very few of these who are likely to be, in the case of this thread, doctors. Yet all those with parents who are "middling" and living "middling" lives are ignored and just lumped together with those who do have a great leg-up.

Plus the Sutton Trust is very London-centric. I was having a bit of a rant about this to dh the other day. Kids who live in London may come from bad backgrounds, consort with unfortunate peers etc, but in terms of location they have every advantage . The kids who are really stuffed are those who are sitting in the middle of nowhere with no enrichment opportunities.

In what way is the Sutton Trust London centric?