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?

Yes purits, seconded.

Not sure why MN seems to attract (with a few honourable exceptions) excessively self righteous admissions tutors either. On that basis alone I prefer the rather more grounded admissions advice I receive in RL.

And such sweeping assumptions about buying privilege and possessing a set of those middle class elbows!

All seven of my DC have applied early because they had to for Oxbridge so there has been no gaming of the system, nor has their privilege been bought. But each received early offers along with the majority of their friends and these were by no means all 'really strong' applicants. This experience has spanned ten years and so it's worth relating to other parents who check into MN and want to hear RL experience at the receiving end, not merely the web site patter.

Also user645, Durham university said explicity, several years ago when Cambridge introduced A offers, that it had to follow suit so that it couldn't be used as insurance. It also wrote to applicants to whom it had made offers (including my DC) asking why they had insured with Durham and not firmed. I'm astonished that you don't get this is a big thing for the second tier - they absolutely don't want to be the insurance. And then there are the silly 2 A offers Exeter attempted recently. Etc.

How many of your kids did entrance tests like lnat Goodbye?

Goodbye, yet again you are generalising from your limited experiences. (7 children and their friends applying versus 20 to 30 years of working full time in higher education.

First of all, Durham is not one course: different Durham courses take different approaches.

Secondiy, I would not call universities that are in top half dozen for their subject second tier - they are in the top tier of highly selective universities. You have a warped perspective if you are calling Durham second tier for its strongest subjects - this really isn't helpful on a general advice thread like this one as people then extrapolate from what highly selective universities to, do what other high tariff top 10-25 universities do. Even on MN, most students are not aiming for the very top universities.

BTW Leeds English is not in the same league as Oxbridge and cannot pretend that it is by turning away strong candidates for fear of being Insurance - I would bet they would be overjoyed to be an Oxbridge insurance. Durham humanities is in a different situation to Leeds English.

I very much appreciate the advice I have had from this thread.

As a parent I will only go through this process a couple of times. The process is very different from when I went through it myself. This makes me less confident especially as the school's experience is also very limited (low achieving school in a low participation area).

It is important for my DD to get this right. She knows what she wants to do but doesnt want to be thwarted because of a simple 'mistake' in timing. Hence the question in the first place.

What I am seeing on this thread is that there seems to be a great deal of difference between science admissions and arts/humanities.

There is far less emphasis placed on personal statement in the sciences than for arts/humanities. Is that what is making the difference on offers between institutions on the arts/humanities side? Equal grades but very different PS?

My view FWIW.
The non Oxbridge top 5 universities generally aim to select applicants who are Oxbridge level in grades and, for some subjects and universities, by PS and interviews. By virtue of their placing in league tables and reputation they are most likely to pick-up as firm acceptances those that don't get through the Oxbridge pre-test / interviews but still can achieve the top grade threshold. They may also pick -up some students who have 'potential' by contextualised data or more subjective criteria.

Universities in pleasant locations with perhaps more historical than currently deserved subject reputation may also try this approach (to increase the average UCAS points of their entry students) but may have to compensate by later offers to lower grades.

The middling universities for a particular subjects will have varying approaches to ensure they fill their places. At least for some they may apply a standard middle grade threshold, assuming that most with top predicted grades will reject them anyway and not worry about numbers of offers.
Alternatively for middling universities that have a good number of applicants but limited places, they may reserve later offers for those with predicted top grades who have not yet rejected them by mid spring term.
All that will be adjusted according to ratios of past applicants / firm acceptances / enrolled trends
Basically all anecdotes are correct as there is variation despite 'fair' criteria.

IME high academic achievers who are rejected from non Oxbridge universities assume it is due to their persomal profile and therefore do not usually query 'unexpected' rejections.

Send which would you classify as the top 5 non-oxbridge?

The top 5 non-Oxbridge depends heavily on subject.

Also there isn't a clear distinction between universities.

For Maths, for example, people tend to put Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick first. Many people put Imperial fourth (mostly on required tariff). After this it would probably be UCL. Below that it becomes quite subjective and dependent on criteria.

Imo outside these five there isn't so much difference between RG maths courses in terms of content/reputation, even though the required grades may differ - based on overall university reputation, setting (as mentioned above) etc.

Kitten all except one did an aptitude test.

user645 it's not ok to use the term warped.

If you read my earlier posts I refer to the sorts of courses which I know to be highly competitive including a couple at Durham. Obviously I know there are plenty of others too, indeed I know exactly how good Durham is generally and specifically although you yourself have several times been less than fulsome about its maths department and have recently been sniffy about Bristol (in its entirety).

You are entirely unable to judge how I triangulate my experience because I don't declare all my hands on MN and never have, but my goodness what a lot of assumptions are made on this thread! I actually think that some academics seem to have a very narrow prism. Not those dealing at a general university level perhaps, but arguably those operating at a department only level within one institution. Over the years on MN I've seen academics extrapolate from their narrow experience quite incorrectly, giving poor advice to people applying for other disciplines. I'm also always open to listening to others' experience and views, so the 'I know better than/ am vastly superior to you' is slightly alien to my own approach.

Kitten, why are you asking about my DCs' aptitude tests, out of interest?

I have now had 5 through the process but as a parent so have no admissions officer experience. On when to apply if not Oxbridge (none of mine tried Oxbridge and all were at day fee paying schools), they all applied I think by about half term, may be one shortly after. I think it just gets it out of the way so you can get on with your A level work. As said above it does not make a difference to the universities or your admission. Also if it is a subject with an interview (just about none of my children had a single interview) when that might be and how it might fit around your A level work might be relevant to timing.

I think your grades matter more than your personal statement and the state should concentrate on the university subject. (My twins started at Bristol this week which is the latest of our to go and last and I was surprised by the Exeter offer they got or one of them got - was too high to make it the back up but clearly was Exeter's desire to be put first for non Oxbridge people I suppose. They both "firmed" Bristol over Durham although either would have been great places to go and one had Edinburgh and the other Nottingham as back up).

Ah top 5 non oxbridge - what a question. If you know your likely job look at where people doing that now who started recently went which can be a fairly good guide.

This list is not too bad
www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities although I would say Nottingham is only that high because it produces a lot of students and law firms need a reasonably high number. My lawyer daughters were at Nottingham and Bristol which are high on the list. They and the twins all applied to Durham, Bristol, Nottingham and a few to Warwick and Exeter.

I think the grade requirements are a good indicator. If London Met is taking people with CCC you can probably assume it is not as "good" as somewhere where you might need A star AA to get in. Perhaps judge by what grades are required to get in.

I know better than/ am vastly superior to you' is slightly alien to my own approach.

Very amused, after several years of watching experienced academics leave HE threads because of precisely this.

The top 5 non-Oxbridge depends heavily on subject.

Indeed.

And I'd be sceptical about league tables really - although I know it feels like they are very useful. I think you need to drill into the data categories which make up league table. For example, the Guardian doesn't take any account of research.

Which might be OK for some undergrad programmes, but really, if you're a high achieving young person interested in the more generic arts/stem subjects, you need to be where the top researchers are - they'll push you. They're the ones writing the books etc that you'll consult in the library. And so on.

I've seen only the same academics on these threads for the past few years, albeit some with name changes (in your own case, frequent). I can't think of any one in particular notable by their absence or any instance of any academic huffing off. Anyhow, a little civility would go a long way and I still find the term warped a little over the top, even in context.

Sorry - pressed post to soon is there an internet word for esprit d'escalier?

The top half of universities in the UK system are excellent: in some more generalist area, wherever you go in the top 20 institutions for your subject, you'll get a good learning experience.

In my subject, I talk to likely applicants at Open Days, and once I know what they're really interested in pursuing within my discipline, if they have a particular interest they want to follow through - then I can suggest a number of places to look at (I don't only push my own institution at Open Day, if there's somewhere else they might look at - I try to give good advice, not sell!)

But I also know, that of the top 10 or so places for my subject (my place tends to be in the top 3 or so) a student will have a fantastic time, and get a good education.

So - with her projected A Levels, and choosing within the institutions which ask for those grades - wherever your daughter goes Gnome she will likely receive an excellent education. Future employment is as much about what else she puts into a whole picture of her education, as only thinking about the "status" of the place at which she studies - for example, taking up employability offers, such as placements, internships, meetings with employers coming to campus. In my department, we have something like tat happening every fortnight & offer fantastic opportunities to students to engage with likely future employers.

So it's also in her hands once she gets wherever she's going!

It's great that we have such a wonderful HE system in this country - it's one of our strongest exports - and does a really good job with domestic/EU students also. In contrast to what a lot of politicians are trying to get you to believe at the moment.

That's what I thought about the 'top five' hence my query to Send as she (he? no idea here!) because I didn't think there was a top five and was curious about their definition.

There is always lots of good advice on the Higher Education threads - but they are ridiculously snippy. I don't why. There also always seemed to be posters that are constantly desperate to boast about their kids amazing grades. It's weird 🙄

Anyway OP, sorry if someone has already mentioned this but how about suggesting to you DD that she doesn't apply for all 5 Uni in one go. She could apply to her favourite a in the first place and then wait and see how things are going to apply for the remaining spaces. It gives a little leeway for changes of mind or re-evaluations. It's a happy middle ground between applying early and applying late.

I forgot to mention that I have been given some stellar advice from some of the posters with admissions experience on Mumsnet. One of my DCs was applying for a brand new math course a few years ago and whilst it looked amazing on paper and during the open day etc Mumsnet posters (inc titchy 😊) suggested a few things she should consider and on the basis of that advice it turned out that it wouldn't be the right course for my DD.

It's really helpful to have some insider advice and we were very grateful. . DD ended up at the the 'perfect' Uni.

The general advice that universities admissions are meant to be clear and transparent is spot on.

Only two children...but both applied for very competitive subjects.

My advice to anyone looking at "top" courses is:

1. Go to the Complete University Guide, pick your subject and then sort by entry standards. Most subjects have a bit of a cliff with four to six Universities taking students with average qualifications well over the published entry requirements. This is economics www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Entry+Standards&s=Economics where places at the sixth and seventh ranked Universities (UCL and Warwick) will still be very competitive.

1. Then decide how much you want to go to a "top" university. To some extent this depends on which doors you want kept open. DS' ultimate ambition was economic forecasting so he wanted a demanding and technical course. DD, applying for medicine, was far less bothered, and other things, like where she was and the availability of sport, also came into play. She thinks she will be a better doctor if she enjoys her time at University and is able to develop a range of skills.

1. Depending on this, either apply for several of the top ranked courses and expect to be rejected for some, if not all. (DS had three rejections, despite the 4xA* predictions.) Plan B is either work hard, a gap year and reapplication (and if you have good results your chances appear to be better on reapplication) or a fifth "safe" choice. Remember you only need one offer. Or if you value aspects of the wider University experience, put down a couple of aspirational choices, but also include less competitive choices in nice, convenient or cheap places.

As others suggest, once you get below the top five or so, offers are probably made to most/all who are expected to achieve published entry standards. There is then a bit of gaming in terms of guessing who might accept you if you drop some grades.

Absolute observation, but there does seem to be a difference in courses between "top five" Universities and others. Certainly the ground covered in quantitative subjects seems greater. And from observation students seem to be expected to work a lot harder. But in the end, technical skills are only part of employability, and we know of bright students who deliberately opted for less competitive courses (for sport or because of course content or specialisms) who have done very well and who will be very employable.

And a further observation is that course ranking seems to have had next to no correlation with how much DC's friends have enjoyed University, and student satisfaction indices even less.

student satisfaction indices even less.

In some cases NSS satisfaction seems to be inversely correlated with depth of study i.e. the less you challenge students, the higher the NSS scores may be.

LSE is certainly an interesting one in that respect: world leading university and very challenging courses but very low NSS scores and bronze TEF.

I do think Economics is a relatively unusual one in terms of the gap between top courses and others, Needmoresleep. The top courses are definitely more mathematical (more into econometrics etc).

Yes and no. Economics is unusual in that it sits midway between science and humanities. DH studied PPE, and can't even start to understand DS' lecture notes. I assume (and again I have only limited observation) that you get similar with other social sciences and some sciences. Ie some psychology, physics, biology etc courses will be much more mathematically rigorous than others.

Which is back to keeping doors open. What do you want from your degree? If you want to be a professional engineer, a good degree from a redbrick which delivers the right professional qualification will be fine, and perhaps better to have enough head room to polish leadership, organisational, communication and other skills alongside your degree. If you are interested in a specific area (automative engineering at Surrey or a chance to work in industry) then prioritise course content. If you want to do cutting edge research exposure to leading academics/research at somewhere like Imperial or Cambridge is probably the best option. Ditto with economics. If you want a solid, not too mathematical, economics degree with accountancy options, and a year in industry, then Bath is as good an option as any, regardless of ranking or RG status.

I suspect where student satisfaction goes wrong is when the fit is wrong. DS has been blissfully happy at LSE. Last week in his pre-Masters summer course, an internationally renown economics Professor turned up unexpectedly to teach the complicated theorem which was named after him. DS was thrilled. Others will have loathed the lecture notes which look as if a demented spider has walked over them, and a third will switch to a less quantitative Masters before term starts. Prestige and ranking only tell you so much. Squeezing onto a sought after course because it is sought after can be a disaster. DS says he was lucky that he has retained his enthusiasm for his subject. Without that it would have been heavy going.

That said, and now he is applying for a PhD, it is clear that having been through a rigorous course at a well known institution will serve him well. If he were considering the Civil Service fast stream or to a management consultancy, I don't think it would make much difference which of a dozen or so Universities he went to. And indeed an overspecialisation could be a disadvantage.

Delighted to have helped aunty!

In some cases NSS satisfaction seems to be inversely correlated with depth of study i.e. the less you challenge students, the higher the NSS scores may be

user this is so true!

I try to talk to my students about what they think they get from a university education, and what they would want that would "satisfy" them.

I think the other misunderstanding about the NSS is that a "satisfied" student means one who is well-taught & has learned.

The connection between teaching and learning is a delicate one at university level; as is the connection between student satisfaction and student learning.

Last week in his pre-Masters summer course, an internationally renown economics Professor turned up unexpectedly to teach the complicated theorem which was named after him.

Wow! I'm nowhere near being an economist, but wow!

I still get enthused by meeting and hearing from the greats in my field. I was at a conference in August where one of the keynotes was an utterly utterly eminent person in my field - hearing him speak was extraordinary, & I experienced why he is one of the greats (and I got to sit near to him at dinner so could actually chat).

Those moments make you remember why you're studying what you're studying. Your lucky DS, Needsmore - I hope he has a great time in his PG studies.