Non Oxbridge early application - good, bad or neutral?

[GnomeDePlume]

DD has asked me to ask this of you wise folk.

DD is applying to Russell Group universities but not Oxford/Cambridge. If her application goes in early is that an advantage or is there a risk that her preferred unis will assume she is applying to Oxford/Cambridge and discount her application?

She is applying for physics/chemistry subjects and is predicted A*AAA.

Any advice please?

titchy this is getting phenomenally boring. Early offers are not the preserve of the 'really strong', as you alleged at the outset. That's fine. And as I say, if that leaves room at the January deadline for absolutely everyone to benefit from 'equal consideration' - fine too.

user645 I couldn't care less if unis are breaching the rule. It's not my problem!

I can say with great certainty that in recent years no applicant who was not predicted to exceed our expected typical offer by a clear margin has been given an early offer. That makes those who get early offers very strong applicants. In the past, when we were recruiting rather than selecting we gave virtually instant offers to all applicants predicted to make the minimum offer, some of those were weak applicants. In some years we have given no early offers at all. In one memorable year we believed we were recruiting but found out part way through the cycle that we should have been selecting, we doubled the class size that year. I see applicants on our offer days who have a range of offers from universities of every type and those same students are often waiting for offers from various universities. There is no one way of processing applications. What is absolutely the case is that all applicants to a course will be considered against the same criteria, irrespective of the timing of their application. If you think that is not happening you should report the university to UCAS.

Of course we are not unanimous, because different universities do things differently! But no admissions specialist will have told you that you will get an advantage by early application, because they would be breaking the rules if they did so.

What you are doing is taking your 'micro' level- i.e. The experience of your family - speculating on the reasons why decisions were taken as they were, and extrapolating on that to give advice to people who may be applying for very different courses and institutions, and who are working in different circumstances. I'm glad your DCs have found the experience works for them, but I could give you anecdotes every year of applicants who have not found that, and their experience is no less valid than yours. It's not all about you.
You are also dismissing advice given by specialists who actually know how this works. You at times also seem to accuse us of ill-will (I can't interpret 'theory and practice are different' in any way other that 'universities say one thing and do another'; and you continue to insist that we must be doing something which people, over and over again, have told you would be a serious breach of the rules) when we are genuinely trying to help people through a confusing process. It would be really nice if you could acknowledge that we might know what we are talking about.

For the record, the only people who can explain why particular people get offers when are the people who made the offers and devised the offering strategy for the course. Courses can be competitive in many different ways: simple volume of applications, (which may not be competitive at all if the quality of applicants is variable); quality of applicants; or conversion rate (how many applicants choose the course as their firm choice). All of these factors will affect how many offers need to be made (most courses make offers to at least 50% of applicants, and many (including RG and similar) to 80 or 90% of applicants - in my experience most applicants hugely overestimate the difficulty of getting an offer) and how precise the number of offers needs to be - one of the answers to your question is that many courses won't need to make a very precise number of offers, because the final numbers can be controlled once A levels are out. All they need is the kind of rough approximation that can be got from past experience - this is the only point that I read titchy as trying to make. And if patterns do change or we get it wrong, either we underrecruit and end up unexpectedly in clearing, or we overrecruit and have to rejig timetabling and staffing a bit. What we don't do is break the rules.

Why should I?! That would be ridiculous! If my DC or their friends get an early offer that's fine by me, delighted for them, especially iif they're not 'really strong' applicants. You don't think that the few tutors on this thread are protesting just a little too much? Average applicants get early offers - the world isn't going to stop turning, is it?

iif if

Gannet you are assuming that my only source of info in MN! The tutors on these threads aren't the only tutors about! How self important!

Sorry, I always type too fast: in is

I'm not assuming that at all, and I cannot for the life of me see how you get that from my post.
But if you think we are lying, you should say so upfront and give evidence as to why. Anecdotes as to what happened to your children are not evidence that we are lying- quite understandably, you're not going to tell us which courses and university they applied to, and, as I say, you can't explain their specific situation without knowing that because every course and university are different. I don't know if you alleging that equal consideration rule doesn't exist, or that it is routinely broken, but in either case you have provided no evidence of that. What you do seem to think is that the rule doesn't matter to you (I find it rather extraordinary that you think that breaching a rule is fine if it benefits you and your children, but hey....)and therefore it doesn't matter, but it would matter to someone who lost out on an offer because they applied a little bit later - and, as someone who'd probably lose my job if I breached it, it matters a great deal to me which is why I don't breach it (I also think that rewarding early application is profoundly unfair and a poor basis for selecting onto an academic course, but that's a separate matter....)

Am I protesting too much? No. 10 years of admissions experience tells me that there are a lot of myths and misconceptions out there about the University admissions process, which cause great anxiety, particularly in families who have no experience of higher education. Over that time, I have worked hard to be as transparent as possible to our applicants about our processes, in order to demystify, and I've made a bit of an effort to do that on Mumsnet as well. Lots of people will read this thread without posting on it, now and in the future, and I think it important that they get a clear message as to the rules that apply. That's my protest. To be honest, my real advice to anyone who is worried about this is to speak to the admissions staff at the universities they are interested in, either at Open Days or by email, and ask. At least then you have concrete information as to the particular situation of the particular course, and you'll know that the source is reliable (people on the internet could be anyone....). And if you think that the equal consideration rule has been breached in the case of someone you know, ask the institution for feedback as to why the decision was taken and, if you are not satisfied, complain.

And that's really my last word - I have better things to do.....

I agree with Gannet entirely. She and itchy have given detailed axplanations, only to have insults thrown back at them on the basis of the vaguest annecdotes. If your family has benefited from improper practices that is nothing to be proud of let alone put forward as common experience. No academic in any of many the threads that I have seen on MN over the years on this subject has ever said anything other than that all applicants are considered in the same way irrespective of when they apply. There is no benefit to the university of doing anything else, for one thing.

And from a parents perspective it is important to understand that subjects other than medicine can be oversubscribed and use the gathered field approach described above to ensure all applicants have equal consideration. If this happens, it is a long wait.

And that the differences between those who get early offers and those who are kept waiting and may ultimately be rejected, can be very small. Like medicine, it can be useful to treat applications for top courses in popular subjects as a two year process. We know two would-be economists who struggled first time round, but were offered Cambridge on reapplication.

This talk of accusations and all the bluster is very silly. Anecdote is useful, especially consistent anecdote over a ten year period. If my DC and all of their friends have got early offers despite only being in the 'averagely strong' frame then that must somehow be consistent with 'equal consideration'. But really, there's no need to posture. There's no need to assume all admissions tutors everywhere have the same approach and the discussions I have with the ones I know or am related to are illuminating, if only for their variation.

No-one has answered my query about early rejections for very strong candidates from non Oxbridge universities. Leeds (English) for example. How does this work? Do they think the candidate is a shoe-in elsewhere because they have applied before the Oxbridge deadline? I think that is more worrying than having one rejection in March but other offers on the table.

I do think institutions vary and there is not consistency everywhere. However I do do know goodbye is very keen on evidence - normally!

You are also dismissing advice given by specialists who actually know how this works. You at times also seem to accuse us of ill-will (I can't interpret 'theory and practice are different' in any way other that 'universities say one thing and do another'; and you continue to insist that we must be doing something which people, over and over again, have told you would be a serious breach of the rules) when we are genuinely trying to help people through a confusing process. It would be really nice if you could acknowledge that we might know what we are talking about.

I agree with all the above.

Multiple academics have weighed in on this thread but we are all dismissed as if we are unrepresentative.

BubblesBuddy - how can anyone comment on specific rejections without knowing the details of the course and the contents of the UCAS form?

That's leaving aside the possibility that presumably an occasional mistake might occur i.e. admissions team administrators click on reject rather than offer.

Bubbles - to be brutally honest, Leeds probably made a mistake and processed the application incorrectly. It happens. 700,000 applicants apply through UCAS each year, each going to up to five institutions. That's over 3.5 million individual course-applications to process manually. Mistakes will happen.

No 645 there are I think four MNers who say that they work in admissions. That's not legions of them. One, titchy, is a bit touchy because I queried what she said about only 'really strong' applicants getting early offers and indeed she still hasn't replied to my specific query. I'm not actually at odds with any of these MN posters who've told me I have to accept what they say about equal consideration. I'm quite happy to accept it but more as an ideal of good practice because I don't really see how early offers to only averagely strong applicants chimes with it. It's also of very little consequence to me. As I say, all my DC have had early offers and so have all their friends including medics and I'm fine with that and fine with the theory of equal consideration too. Only one DC left to go now anyhow, who will hopefully submit her UCAS form early, if she decides uni is for her, and avoid any late application problems. I must say that I'm glad the academics I know in RL are a little more chilled :)

What was your specific query?

(And I'm not touchy because you queried what she said about only 'really strong' applicants getting early offers - I'm 'touchy' because I didn't say that!!!)

Loads of people get early offers - in fact across the sector I'd imagine most get an offer within a few days of submitting the application, even if early in the cycle.

Just tagging on to say that yes, lots of departments/universities make early offers. We know what we're looking for so we make offers when we get applications which look like they'll be a good fit.

Going back to the OP - I really think that parents should stop trying to game the system.

Broadly stated, Universities want some, all, most, a mix of these:

• the brightest applicants
• the most likely to be best qualified
• those most likely to be suited to professional work in the field they're training for *those who will thrive in the programme they're applying for
• applicants who are a good fit for studying the discipline they're applying for
• applicants demonstrating potential, in addition to, or beyond A level grades (that latter point is important for universities' Widening Participation ambitions & aims)

We're not going to turn down a good applicant because we think they've applied to another university! Really. Seriously get a grip.

@chemenger

Yes I know! You're right...!

Needmoresleeep To add to the anecdotes I know that some of the strongesr academic candidates for medicine, who get places by early spring term for the most academic medical schools, only get offers from middling medical schools near the offer deadline despite being interviewed early. My best guess is they are on the reserve list as their personal profile does not fit with the medical school and / or the medical school prioritises earlier offers to candidates who are likely not to use them as insurance.

GiantSteps telling me to get a grip was a little harsh. My DD asked me to ask the question which I have done. This is all new for DD and her school does not have a lot of experience in applications for RG universities so she's keen to be sure that she will be making the best application possible. She is not attempting to game the system.

So if a really good applicant is turned down in a matter of a couple weeks after an early application, we are to believe it was a mistake. Really? Admissions officers are not so perfect then. I think sendsummer has nailed it - they do not want to make offers to students they think will use the university as insurance. Where they are oversubscribed, they can afford to do this.

I also think, Gnome, that you just say to your DD to put her application in on or before the deadline set by the school. My DD2 put hers into school just after half term, as requested by the school. She knew which course she wanted. If DC need longer to choose and write the PS, then take longer. A good candidate should get offers but for some courses they do not get any.

She is applying for physics/chemistry subjects and is predicted AAAA.*

Physics and chemistry are under-subscribed subjects except at the very top half dozen or so universities. Grades of AAB/ABB will get you into Physics and Chemistry at many RG universities in Clearing.

So, outside the very top few places which are genuinely selecting, with her grade predictions she is just automatically going to get an offer whenever she applies. Angsting is not necessary for these subjects with her grade profile.

(English at whatever RG is just not comparable, because Humanities are still more heavily subscribed than Physics/Chemistry.)

English at Leeds is not so heavily subscribed. They (administrators, who deal with most standard applications) just made a mistake is the most probable explanation.

One mistake in so many applications is not something that one can use to make generalizations.