Worth applying to universities if you're not forecast correct grades?

[Tigerblue]

DD has been doing her research and is very interested in some courses she's look at requiring AAA, AAA-AAB. She's just sat exams in Year 12 and the initial forecast for predicted grades is A BB. Predictions will be reviewed in the summer, so she's going to work really hard and has asked to resit one exam.

Worst case scenario, she's forecast ABB. Is is worth applying to the unis that require AAA/AAB, especially as the A is relevant to what she'd want to study. I don't know what else they consider, at GCSE she got AAA in the subjects. Her school report is likely to say she's a quieter pupil in class, but takes a full part in school life contributing to it and already has one Upper Sixth role and is applying for another.

By people whose full time job is reading applications! In the UK Admissions tutors also have a full teaching load and research.

Ah, so basically everyone ends up doing a slightly crappy job.

I'm not saying that in a blaming way BTW. It must be tough to have both jobs to do.

Why would Universities need to read to read every application in full. Most courses will offer places to all qualified applicants. Others will interview or ask for the results of aptitude tests. For a small number of courses, one example being economics at Warwick, LSE, UCL, or Durham, there are more qualified applicants than places and no interviews, so the paperwork relating to the application will be read carefully.

From observation applications to top American Universities are seriously competitive, and these Universities are looking for something far broader than straight academics. Consultants in London earn good livings charging parents £10,000 or so to help with US applications. Kids DD knew started SAT practice three years in advance and took tests multiple times. Kids hone their achievements: sport, music, leadership.

Though some of the best and brightest did choose to go to the US, It was not obvious that the US resource heavy approach did a better job in selecting the best applicants. There were always surprises. But then Oxbridge regularly threw up surprises as well.

Why would Universities need to read every application in full

I can only speak from my own experience. I was predicted BCD by my school, I actually got AAB.

Luckily I applied to universities that DID read personal statements and applications in full, and I was accepted to one of them.

It was hugely life-changing, especially for a student like me coming from a deprived background, from a school that really didn't have much clue about how to get students into universities, and without any parental help.

My application made this clear, and it was all taken into account.

Interestingly, during our US university tours it was obvious that this was exactly the kind of student they were trying to attract into university against the odds.

I didn't meet the entry requirement for my course, you needed AAAA and I got AABB but my personal statement got me an unconditional offer. She should definitely apply.

LSE will probably accept that. Sustainability isn’t a popular course there

Could she possibly speak to her teachers about predicting her higher to play the game? I know five years ago is was widely known that Edinburgh uni required AAA for Geography but would give an offer of BBB.

I graduated two years ago in Geography and I would highly recommend researching each department of what the lecturers research is in. I went to a uni which was fairly high in the tables but once I got their I soon realised that none of the units reflected what I was interested in (as each unit is biased on the lecturer).

It's so easier to get into a course that isn't Geography say International Development/sustainability/Urban Studies and then transfer over.

It's all a game and lots play it.

I read something a while back on how inaccurate predicted grades are and how certain categories of pupil (white middle class, surprise, surprise) get overestimated predictions and other categories underestimated, so I agree with PPs that she should put in a spread of applications, including one or two aspirational.

I agree with PPs that she should put in a spread of applications, including one or two aspirational.

The problem with that advice is that people end up, if they are not careful, accepting as firm and insurance two quite wide-spread offers, miss the higher by a grade and end up at somewhere with a substantially lower offer (I've seen several people with firm UCL/Imperial/Cambridge and insurance places around BBB, which is absurd).

With a tiny number of exceptions, anywhere which is below about ABB will be in clearing. It is not worth insuring them. If you have an A*AA firm, then an AAA or AAB insurance makes sense, because those courses are not in clearing. If you in turn miss that, then you can just go into clearing.

The crucial fact which is not drummed into people's heads enough is as follows: if you miss your firm offer but are accepted by your insurance offer, you cannot go into clearing or adjustment. It is routine to hear people deny that this is true, or fail to see the consequences.

anywhere which is at or below about ABB will be in clearing

if you miss your firm offer but are accepted by your insurance offer, you cannot go into clearing or adjustment.

You can go into adjustment - that's the point of it.

You can also withdraw your application, then enter clearing, or take a year out. No one holds a gun to your head forcing you to take your BBB insurance offer when you've just got AAA.

No it isn't.

www.ucas.com/file/15811/download

"Adjustment is an optional service for students who meet and exceed
the conditions of their firm choice. It gives them an opportunity to
reconsider where and what to study, without losing their secured place"

My emphasis.

You can also withdraw your application, then enter clearing, or take a year out. No one holds a gun to your head forcing you to take your BBB insurance offer when you've just got AAA.

Yes, you can take a year out. But you always had that choice.

You need to get the institution which holds your insurance offer to release it prior to going into clearing. They are under no obligation to do that quickly, and are much busier dealing with clearing.

Of course you aren't forced to accept a poor insurance. But your opportunities to get a place you do want are sharply constrained by it.

I agree with PPs that she should put in a spread of applications, including one or two aspirational.

Yenefit is right. If you want to get a place on a competitive course, and expect to get the right grades, it is better to take the two year approach. You really dont know who will offer so you apply to them all. DS wanted to study economics and applied to Cambridge, UCL, LSE, and Warwick. He was only offered LSE. One of his classmates got none, but Cambridge, not LSE, on reapplication. Similar to medicine. Every year strong applicants won't get an offer. But it is a lot easier when you are applying with grades and with an extra year maturity and experience.

You might include a fifth, insurance, choice, but otherwise there is always clearing.

The danger for OPs son is that some of the fall-back choices may offer tempting unconditional offers, which in turn reduce Y13 motivation. Universities cost the same. If you are good enough for a top course it makes sense to aim high, at least first time round. The difference in prospects between good A level grades and a 2.1 at a top University and weaker A levels and a first at a second tier University could be significant.

My theory is that one reason private schools are over represented at top Universities is that they enourage pupils to aim high, and provide a second year of UCAS after-sales service.

My theory is that one reason private schools are over represented at top Universities is that they enourage pupils to aim high, and provide a second year of UCAS after-sales service.

This is absolutely true. I have spoken to strong students from private schools with high aspirations (both the school and the student). The strategies are utterly unlike those advised by state schools and on threads like this.

They apply to Oxbridge plus one of Durham, St Andrews, Bristol, etc. They get an interview at the former (strong candidates) and an offer from the second. They then either firm Oxbridge and insure the other, or they firm the other if Oxbridge rejected them at interview. If it goes wrong they walk away and apply the following September with their A Levels in their hand. They have the option of clearing, but they don't take it: applying with AAB in September is better than clearing with AAB: aside from anything else, accommodation.

Some just wait until they have their A Levels anyway.

Fun fact: St Andrews and Durham don't discriminate between firm and insurance for accommodation (the mechanisms are different, the outcome is the same). It's left as an exercise to the reader to deduce why: hint, why do they want to be particularly attractive as an insurance?

Some just wait until they have their A Levels anyway

Or the would-be politicians simply apply to Oxford PPE first time round knowing they will get the grades but competition is fierce and awful lot depends on what happens on interview day. If they don't get a place they will be reapplying so there is no point adding the likes of Durham, St Andrews, Bristol, etc to the initial application and then rejecting them.

Similarly competition for Cambridge NatSci is ferocious so you apply but if you then don't get a place and don't fancy Imperial/UCL you reapply, but to Oxford.

Then subjects like economics or medicine where a raft of A* predictions wont guarantee you a place on competitive non-Oxbridge courses, you apply for the places you want and are ready to try again. You only put down a fifth bio-med course or a lower ranked economics course as insurance in case you miss your grades, and even then you would consider a review/reapplication.

Humanities will be slightly different again. For example keeping up a language will open doors to, say, History and German courses which can be less competitive to straight History, and potentially more interesting.

For example keeping up a language will open doors to, say, History and German courses which can be less competitive to straight History, and potentially more interesting.

Oh yes. Oh yes.

Another thing private school have is knowledge of the courses adjacent to the popular ones which are easier to get onto, and how to access them.

Yes to languages. It really helps. State schools are doing fewer and fewer languages. The doors stay open for those who do them. 33% chance of an Oxford place. It’s a lot less competitive than many courses.

Dd was predicted AAA. Due to a family bereavement in the middle of her exams she got BBB. She got in to her first choice. I would aim high, but have a lower insurance choice. Good luck.

I would apply to a range, with AAA at the top end, and a majority of AAB seeing as some courses will adapt the offer for equivalent grades (eg I got A*AB and therefore got onto an AAA course as it was deemed equivalent)

Finnto
I'll give you an example: Student A and Student B both apply for medicine.
Student A, generous teacher, predicted all A's, gets a couple of offers for med school.
Student B, conservative teacher, predicted, ABB. Gets zero offers as those without AAA get sifted out at first round. At results time, both students get ABB. Student A waltzes into medicine in spite of dropped grades as med school has made lots of offers as does not want to be seen as dept that goes into clearing. So, the coveted places are awarded to the existing offer holders, and Student B, despite having achieved the same grades in the final exams is locked out of the system as all the discounting will have gone to offer holders.
Only one in six predicted grades is accurate, according to UCAS' own retrospective data. So why is this injustice being allowed to continue?

It’s nice to come across someone else who sees the current system as unfair. I’ve posted similar examples before on MN about how ridiculous it is to base an admissions system on predicted grades when predicted grades have been shown to be so inaccurate. It’s a little out of date but this UCAS report - Factors associated with predicted and achieved A level attainment August 2016 makes for interested reading.

I don’t think the idea that university places should be awarded on actual merit rather than a ‘predicted’ grade that is most likely wrong is that radical an idea.

BTW in the example given above the situation would be even more unfair if ‘Student B’ ended up with AAA grades at A level.

BTW. If you enter adjustment you are often (but not always) better placed for accommodation than students who are in clearing providig you find a course quickly. This is because you can get your place updated as unconditional on UCAS almost immediately. This usually means you can apply for accommodation straightaway. Clearing students have to wait until the end of the day or later for UCAS to update.

The two processes are different.