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?

Well titchy your post on Thursday 14th at 23.11 seems to say exactly that, and that's the post I've been questioning all along since shedloads of DC get early offers, not just the 'really strong' ones you referred to. If you've shifted on that, that's fine :)

English at Leeds is not so heavily subscribed
Programmes within the School of English are generally very popular and we receive in excess of 1200 applications for the 210 places available Leeds also say most have required grades.

Ratio is about the same as for Oxford English.

surely summer all those figures do is confirm that English at Leeds is not heavily oversubscribed? Given, unlike Oxford, they are going in all likelihood to be making around 4-5 offers for every place available, so a significant majority of applicants will get an offer. Moreover English Lit -Q306 with the AAA typical offer - at Leeds was also in clearing this year.........and last year for that matter too.

Yes, exactly what boys3 said.

The relevant statistics are offer rates and conversion rates. Leeds will mostly likely offer to all candidates who have the right predicted grades (within a grade or so of offer) but the conversion rate will be low i.e. most offers won't be accepted as candidates have 5 choices.

By contrast conversation rates at Oxbridge are very high - almost all candidates who receive offers accept them as firm choice.

Application: place ratio of 6 is not high, outside Oxbridge and the very top university courses. Many courses were in Clearing that had application: place ratios of nearer 10.

Yes of course but since most applicants to Leeds have the right predicted grades they still can theoretically discard about a 100 applicants including a few who would be most unlikely to take up an offer even as insurance because they are predicted 3A* and have a stellar PS.
BTW Clearing is also about adjustment now.

But why would they do this? Why not just not offer to the weaker candidates, instead of refusing to offer to the strongest candidates?

I am an external examiner at several top 20 departments, who cannot expect to get candidates with straight A stars. I know their admissions policies -they still make offers to them. After all, how do they know that these candidates won't accept over Oxbridge for personal reasons?

BTW you can make more than 5 x your offers, because some of the applicants are international and will be applying outside the UK as well. That's why a ratio of 6:1 is not a sign of over-subscription.

Parents here seem determined to assume conspiracy theories on the basis of a couple of anecdotes.

5 x your places, not 5 x your offers.

Nothing to do with conspiracy user. You are using rather a dramatic term for what in most cases are minor variations in how university departments or admissions people try to increase the conversion rate of offers to acceptances.

But this is a course that goes into Clearing so it isn't filling all its places. (Few students use Adjustment so it's unlikely the course was in Clearing just for Adjustment.) What would they have to gain by not offering to top candidates? It just doesn't make any sense as a strategy that they wouldn't make offers to the top candidates.

It makes far more sense - as several academics have now pointed out - that the one (anecdotal) case of rejection was simply a mistake.

unlikely to take up an offer even as insurance because they are predicted 3Astar

Don't forget most of those predicted 3 Astar won't achieve that.

Err.... as far as I know sendsummer is an academic from a relatively smart university....

What is it with these non Oxford academics?

Time for

Tagging on, I agree with the other academics on this thread. And I've observed on this forum over the years how the good will and time taken by academics such as @titchy and @chemenger is regularly treated with suspicion and even insults or snark. Which is not pleasant to see. They give honest straightforward excellent advice. And no, I have no idea who they are IRL. They're in different fields to me, but I recognise the soundness of their advice.

I think part of the problem is, as I say upthread, that parents try to get advantage for their children by thinking they can game the system - or that the system can be gamed.

In my experience (3 different departments all at research- intensive universities in the humanities) there isn't much more to it than the things I say above. A good sincere thoughtful PS (in my field we do read them) predicted grades in the ball park of what we ask for, an open and thoughtful interview demonstrating you can work well with others, be challenged, are not smug or complacent, and you're likely to get an offer.

This weighing up about when to apply etc etc is really alien to me. It makes very little difference in my field.

I sometimes wonder if it's because, for some parents, while they can buy educational advantage throughout their DC's school life, they can't so blatantly buy a university place.

GiantSteps I will say it again. I asked the question because my DD asked me to. This is a new situation for DD. Her school does not have a lot of experience with RG applications and she wanted to be confident in the advice she was getting from her school. We have not attempted to buy advantage for DD at school (state school back in SM for the umpteenth time no one in their right mind would consider it an advantage). Also DD is not attempting to game the system all she is trying to do is understand it.

I asked for advice on DD's behalf, received it and said thank you.

Goodbyestanger - have your dc mostly been doing courses where they have pre interview entrance tests?

An Oxford academic is far less likely to know the procedures used by RG universities outside the top group than an academic who actually works for such a university...

Gnome I hope you've received useful advice, and you're clearly not trying to game the system - indeed, your DD (and her school) are the kinds of applicants that people like @titchy and @chemenger and my colleagues at various highly-ranked (elite if you will) universities want to encourage.

As I said, I was tagging on to make a general point about the kind of discussion this thread has morphed into - and a lot of discussion re Admissions to high-ranking places by highly qualified applicants on Mumsnet - my comment was addressed more generally to those parents who see the whole University admissions thing as a game in which they have to try to find advantage (the sharp-elbowed middle-class, if you like).

And in the process of that, they manage to insult hard-working generous academics who take the time & trouble to post here.

academics such as titchy and chemenger are regularly treated with suspicion and even insults or snark ... those parents who see the whole University admissions thing as a game in which they have to try to find advantage (the sharp-elbowed middle-class, if you like).

Ha. So you don't like snark aimed at academics but don't mind dishing it out yourself.
There are many, many threads on MN about the Admissions system. Academics tell us how clear, fair, etc it is. Yet the questions persist. Why do you think that is? Perhaps your end-users are telling you that the system isn't as transparent as you seem to think it is.

The other thing that amused me was academics getting in an indignant froth about fair access and 'report us to UCAS if you think there is bias' and 'I'd get sacked if I did that' but then quite cheerfully saying 'oh yeah, there might be computer errors by admin but what do you expect'.

I suspect purits that the myths and fallacies shared by parents (I fell for one myself -oops) probably will always outrace any efforts by universities to put things straight. From what I can tell, us parents seem to think it's a lot more complicated than it is.

As far as I can tell the system seems to be: put in applications to realistic universities before the deadline. If the university thinks you have a good chance at doing well there and meeting the offer they ask for then they will give the student an offer.

I think that's all there is to it.

'oh yeah, there might be computer errors by admin but what do you expect'.

That's an unfair representation.

If the story told above is accurate in terms of predicted grades, then the candidate involved could have contacted Leeds directly to ask why she was rejected. If there was indeed an administrative error, this would have brought it to light.

Note however that human error - rejecting somebody who met the requirements, accidentally typing the wrong grade requirements in an offer - is not actionable by UCAS. Direct discrimination - routinely treating people differently who apply before the deadline - is actionable. These are just not comparable.

These are just not comparable.
They are to the applicant who doesn't get their offer!

Are you suggesting that applicants, who have the required predicted grades but not an offer, should routinely query a rejection?

Yes they can query it and many do. On the UCAs webpages here UCAS advice, it says
"Sometimes they'll give a reason, either with their decision or at a later date. If not, you can contact them to ask if they'll discuss the reason with you."

@OhYouBadKitten Yes, the process really is that simple.

I think where it's tough is:
working out what programmes at which universities might suit you

Then getting the required results!

I think what happens sometimes - perhaps? - is that people (parents in this case) project anxieties over the things they can't control, onto the things they think they can.

It's like my students' ferocious questioning about every detail of a referencing & bibliography system, as if that's going to get them a high mark for their essay, rather than the research and independent thinking and writing - the things that actually will get them a good mark ... Projecting anxieties about the big stuff onto the apparently controllable details.

We all do it about something or other (well, I know I do it over difficult stuff - not writing essays though)

Are you suggesting that applicants, who have the required predicted grades but not an offer, should routinely query a rejection?

We're told, in my department, each year when we starts our admissions activities - interviews etc - that we should make brief, clear notes on the candidate's form (our form, not the UCAS form) explaining why we've suggested either Offer or Decline - and that such forms & our notes, may be made available to the candidate if they ask.

Our central Admissions Office deals with this, rather than within the Department, but I've had enough feedback about my note-taking to know that the information is requested and given, regularly apparently I write good clear useful feedback

Are you suggesting that applicants, who have the required predicted grades but not an offer, should routinely query a rejection?

Well, actually, as another academic wrote, people do.

But this case is more extreme - apparently the candidate was predicted well in excess of the published offer for a course with a high offer rate. So queries would be quite reasonable.