Unconditional offers

[GnomeDePlume]

Is the expansion of unconditional offers distorting not just entry to higher education but also A level results themselves?

Fully admit this thought is totally based on a limited amount of anecdata.

In DD2's year 13 large numbers of students have been offered and accepted unconditional offers on a range of uni courses. As a result according to DD2 these students all 'took the foot off the gas' in terms of studies and then revision/preparation for exams. Less attentiveness to studies, less commitment to revision, willingness to go to parties in the run up to exams.

These are students DD2 has known all through school so has a good understanding of their attitudes to learning before the uni application process started.

As a result of the reduced intensity of study, these students are likely to perform less well at A level than they would have otherwise done.

If this picture were repeated across the country will this potentially impact on grade boundaries?

While this may be good for individual students is it bad for education as a whole?

Just musing on a Sunday morning but would be interested if other people had a view.

Russell Group

Also sometimes they accept the slightly lower tier universities, which skews our destinations data.

I'm sorry, but 'I mustn't make University X my firm choice, because the school will be embarrassed to have to list it on their Leavers' Destinations page' is just about the last thing I would expect a child of mine to take into consideration at any point in the process.

Do you make any kind of allowance for, say, a particular course being highly regarded in the associated industry, or are certain universities just an unqualified no-no? Why don't you just tell your students that they will only get a reference written for them if they agree not to apply to certain universities? That way, there's no risk of them deciding to accept an offer from the offending institution.

The problem is that very many courses at very many universities don’t have much standing with employers. Yes, a few do, but this phenomena is hugely overstated and rarely applies to courses like History, English, Geography, Politics, Sociology and most other arts subjects. There are certainly courses that have good employer links but you can never, ever, assume that every grad will get employment with them. The only grads that are guaranteed work are teachers, social workers, nurses and doctors and anyone else going into work where there are acute shortages. Arts graduates are fighting for any grad job going.

If, for example, if you can do Economics at LSE, why would you go to Wolverhampton where earnings prospects are the lowest of any Economics courses? Unless of course you didn’t want to leave home and make much use of your degree and never pay off much of the loan. Those with knowledge and ambition would never do this.

I don’t think schools care that much about destinations. That’s why many commentators do not believe all the best students aim high enough and few from the North apply to Oxbridge due to the “not for the likes of us” attitude and the belief that the local ex poly is just as good because they’ve wooed you with glitzy taster lessons and gold standard (aka: hold your hand) teaching.

"I don’t think schools care that much about destinations"

DD's school does, very much (IMO too much).

Liverpool University's statement about unconditional offers here

Interestingly, Lancaster is not a Russell Group University, yet it is in the top 10 in all the league tables I have looked at, and rates more highly than many RG universities.

many commentators do not believe all the best students aim high enough and few from the North apply to Oxbridge due to the “not for the likes of us” attitude and the belief that the local ex poly is just as good because they’ve wooed you with glitzy taster lessons and gold standard (aka: hold your hand) teaching.

I couldn’t find a train station called The North so instead picked a few cities (Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Durham). Journey time to Oxford was typically 4 hours plus with many journeys being over 5 hours with multiple changes. Ticket prices with the notable exception of Liverpool were £75+ for a single.

The picture for getting to Cambridge is similar with even higher ticket prices.

So transport links from The North will have a part to play in choice of uni just as they do from anywhere. It’s a good thing they have access to more choice than just ex-Polys!

Lancaster is not in a general sense regarded as that good.

There is a erasonable list here of where fairly high paid trainee lawyers went to which is not too bad to use as it would also apply to many other general graduate jobs for the higher paid.

In a sense if parents decide London Met etc is fine then that means less competition for those of us in the know but I don't think that's very helpful an attitude. I would rather all parents knew. of course if you will only get CCC then it's all pretty academic and you go wherever anyone will take you

www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities

I'm not convinced that comparing universities using law as a subject is that helpful.

Surely it would be more useful to compare more popular, less competitive subjects such as history and geography to evaluate universities.

Why is Lancaster so highly rated then?

Some of these will be people who did degrees in other subjects followed by GDL. Law is one of those areas where larger firms in particular place a lot of importance on university prestige.

I think Nottingham isn't generally regarded as good these days for some subjects as it was 20 years ago (whereas Durham, for instance, wasn't as big a deal as it is now) but for law it must still be good.

.whereas Durham, for instance, wasn't as big a deal as it is now)

Oh fiddle, skittish phone screen!
whereas Durham, for instance, wasn't as big a deal as it is now

Prior to 2012, perhaps - whether or not the standard of facing there has actually changed at all?

Teaching!!!!

Going back a bit, but I'm sure Oxford used to make EEE offers — their rational was that through their own selection process you'd proved you were good enough.

I wonder how many of the people with that type of offer still got AAA, or whether they did slip grades?

*rationale

Making sense of the move to unconditionals educationally has been covered very well by user2222018. We cannot expect all candidates to be equally mature 'buyers', however by and large people do try to choose the best available in their circumstances. Students know unis game the league tables, and it takes little effort to uncover track records and relevant initiatives. TSR is good place to gauge the level of buyer intelligence, and generally it is not lower than MN, possibly because the choice matters more to the student.

Then there is question post course. It has been a lean time for most recent graduates. Here there is potentially even more desperation; for example LBS now charge over £80k for their MBA which seems a tad much for those seeking some direction to reposition into commerce, rather than self-learning. It's arguable whether an MBA, PhD trumps other ways of changing a person's awareness. The array of interviews and assessments to spot a good lawyer or investment manager or teacher or vet etc, isn't to do with their brilliant schools/universities or grades, although there will be thresholds. Now more than ever, it matters much less what you look like or where you came from, and may that continue. Paradoxically, or perhaps not, the more versed in grabbing and competing that graduates are, and some have been practising since pre 11+, the less suitable they may be in the most competitive places. They may not have the deep-seated awareness needed for working with others under real pressure and no hiding places. So when you're taking up to one graduate into a 10 hour day and six-figure start, it's down to whether the 6-10 non-HR people who are choosing can see the person doing the job well. Nobody will care if you had an unconditional entry 2.1 from Birmingham if you're more aware and fundamentally suitable than the 2,000 first classes + PhDs from Oxford or Cambridge.

The only highly rated university is the one that does (almost) exactly what you want and will take you. If you don't quite know (enough of) what you want, then why buy? What even does right/wrong mean if you can't tell what you want?

Have heard of some who did, but among students who are at the top of their year group, trying to get the best A-levels in the year, maintaining their record, or bettering their marks in mocks could also be motivating when holding a lower than tariff offer. That's where the low offers can work well by removing the pressure and stress of absolutely having to get the top marks and letting student enjoy the work and compete with themselves.

But among students who never really saw themselves competing in that way, and who don't have the same level of intrinsic enthusiasm for their subjects, I can see how unconditionals decrease motivation - people could stop caring about the difference between a B and a C.

I tend to agree with Maryso.

Bubbles, if I remember correctly, you are a lawyer not an economist. I can quite accept that law is different and there choice of universities matters. (Though know a very sucessful barrister who studied an equivalent of London Met. )

The main reason you might go to Wolverhampton, or perhaps Bath, rather than LSE or Cambridge for economics is that the degrees offered by the latter are to a large extent maths degrees. Not everyones bag, but with starting salaries that reflect the technical skills acquired.

Bath in contrast will give you a years placement plus lots of scope for more vocational courses in accountance and finance. Oxford expect you to study politics and philosophy. Pick a place close to banking back-room operations, Southampton Solent, Bournemouth or somewhere in Yorkshire and you have a good chamce of getting that important first job. What you do after that first job is up to you.

It is important to recognise that many employers, especially smaller ones, are not fixated on RG but are instead hiring wider skill sets, often including modern skills like digital marketing or specialist engineering. They will often know their local universities well via placements and consultancies and often be prepared to consider their graduates.

So choose your University/course well. But dont be blinded by the RG marketing. I am not convinced that, say, a sociology graduate from Bristol will find job hunting easier than, say a finance grad from Southampton Solent. Especially if the latter has had the opportunity of a year in industry.

Law, from the many accounts here, seems different. But even so I have seen examples of local firms hiring local grads, despite the local University not having a stellar ranking.

One hopes just bragging, or being just plain wrong, but a while back on TSR, someone quite happily confirmed that their law firm would certainly fail to include anywhere in their person spec the very short list of universities, the graduates of which would be the only applicants they would consider. No doubt, being a gee-whizz law firm, their HR department will always be able to come up with some other 'reason' why the Lancaster / UEA graduate fails to make the grade

Also over on TSR, you can find a graph, posted, I think, by a member by the usernamae of Doonesbury, showing the 'meanwhile, out in the real world' attributes that a rather more varied selection of employers actually deem important. 'Name' of university attended not exactly being at the top of the list...

I specifically mentioned Wolverhampton because it has come bottom of the league table for grad salaries for economics. If a very bright student chooses to be there, they may be fine, but they are less likely to get the better grad jobs. If their starting salary is £19,000 average it tells you these economics grads are probably staying local, in the main but this is key information for prospective under grads.

Yes, students might choose Wolves due to lower maths requirement (not sure about this) but my point was that if you are a top performing young person and had top grades, including the necessary maths, why would you sell yourself cheap? Many do though for the reasons I have outlined.

Gnome: The North and The Midlands are regions used by Ofsted. It’s common parlance to use regions when looking at educational outcomes. People do have cars in the North, I believe, and Oxford or Cambridge are not 4 hours from everywhere above Nottinghamshire! No student should be put off a stellar university due to rail journeys. There are clearly not the equivalent of Oxbridge in the North but Durham is, and always has been, a first class alternative. It was ultra desirable many years ago when I was at school. It is very much seen as a desirable university by us southerners. Even those way south of London on the coast travel to Durham so it’s bizarre that anyone from Lancashire cannot make it to Oxford and so rejects that opportunity. I don’t actually think it’s journey time. It’s more about staying in your comfort zone with your tribe.

I totally agree smaller employers care less about university and definitely take certain business or niche degree holders over Sociology grads. That’s been the case for a long long time. However English, History, Philosophy, Politics, Sociology, Anthropology, Law and other arts grads are all competing for their first job. There is no reason to think that a Sociology Grad from a very low ranked university would get the job over a Bristol Sociology grad (or vice Versa) but the recruitment process should sort out the best person for the job and it’s not always about the degree if it has no direct relevance to the job otherwise no arts grad would get anything! Low ranked management degrees do not necessarily trump someone with a good English degree from Durham. Neither are there many barristers who get pupillage direct from university or the GDL educated at anywhere other than RG. Career changers are different.

I am not a lawyer and I didn’t originally mention law because that’s a world of its own. However over 50 universities offer law and many law grads never come close to getting a training contract or pupillage. However some law grads never really wanted this and are happier in the business environment and law schools with business placements can really help with this aim.

Getting a job is never just down to degree. It’s the whole package and some employers really would query why someone went to the university of Blog when their A Levels suggest they could have gone somewhere much better. It says something about the student - they didn’t believe in themselves or bother to aim high.

I agree with BB re. Durham. It used to be a pecking order of Oxbridge and then third was always Durham, for year and years. It was where you went if you just couldn't quite make it into Oxbridge.

Always have a think about careers and then work backwards from there and look at where new joiners for your particularly profession went to which is sometimes available. I work with a lot of economists who advise in competition law cases.
I just had a look at oxera for example and tried to find most junior people and saw

MSc Economics, Birkbeck College, University of London

BA (Hons) Economics, University of Reading

and
BSc (Hons) Economics, University of Warwick

and

DPhil Economics, University of Oxford

MPhil Economics, University of Oxford

BA (Hons) Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Oxford

and
BA (Hons), Economics and Management, University of Oxford

Xenia you may be right. DS opted to tske his Masters at LSE rather than Oxford, in large part because there was more maths and less writing - indeed he managed to choose options with no writing. But I would expect lawyers to prefer their econonists literate.

I think Durham is still up there but for many quantitative subjects you might place Imperial/LSE/UCL above Oxford. They are the normal fallbacks for the bright scientists/economists we knew who did not get Cambridge. And indeed a preferred option for a significant minority.

May I continue to rail against an apparent MN assumption that most people want top degrees to get top jobs in city law firms. (A simplification, I know). We now know several humanities and other Oxford grads who are struggling to find work. Perhaps that degree in digital marketing from Bournemouth or that degree in finance from Southampton Solent would have been more useful in getting that important first job. And why not stay local. Especially if housing costs are cheaper and schools better. If you end up working for a national firm and are doing well a transfer to London is usually possible/encouraged.

As I said above, some law grads don’t want training contracts. They might want in house positions or many alternative careers. Friend’s DD with a marketing degree from Bournemouth gave up trying to find a marketing role with career prospects. She’s now retaining as a teacher. Some specialist degrees are not worth much either! Mainly because there are so many of them, they don’t require very high A levels and these grads are two a penny. There’s no pecking order and employers still might train someone up who has a degree in Geogrslhy from Manchester. Specialist degrees do not guarantee anything.

Interesting Xenia that 4/7 are Oxford. That’s about the way it goes. Birkbeck is part time so suits people who are already working. Warwick is also top notch. So essentially 5/7 are top drawer. A younger cohort might be skewed even more.

I do agree that other universities are also world class for quantitative subjects but again the job you actually want might dictate where you go and thought should be given to it.

"May I continue to rail against an apparent MN assumption that most people want top degrees to get top jobs in city law firms"

Well said Needmoresleep
DD wants to work in healthcare of some sort. She isn't entirely sure exactly what, but is considering orthoptics, diagnostic radiography and other degrees that require biology and chemistry. She did apply for medicine and was unsuccessful, and has come to the realisation that it probably isn't for her (I agree with that).

She isn't Oxbridge material, and wouldn't be able to cope with the pressure and the short intense terms. She looked at Warwick and didn't like it, and Durham doesn't have any courses she is interested in.

Universities like Nottingham, York, Liverpool and Newcastle do have the courses she wants, but I get the impression from some of the dismissive comments earlier that these universities aren't good enough

I also get the impression that parents of students who aren't Oxbridge/Durham/Warwick/Imperial/LSE/UCL material don't post on mumsnet because the majority of parents who do post in the higher education topic have very clever children who are applying to these universities.

As someone who grew up in a different country, I've always found it a little strange that so many UK students move far away for uni. In many countries it is normal to go to your local university, especially at undergraduate level. I don't think teens are always ready to venture forth alone at 18, and it concerns me when those with ment heard al health issues do so.

Most people would not have heard of the Uni dh & I went to, however it has never fazed employers.

York and Newcastle in particular are known for being excellent in various fields and seem to have become even more respected in the last 20-odd years. Newcastle didn't so much used to be one of the stereotyped just-missed-Oxbridge destinations (alongside Bristol, St Andrews etc) but it certainly seems to be now. Liverpool seems to have been on the slide though. Its tariff offers in a few subjects are lower than other RG unis. These things go round: some rise a bit, some fall a bit.

She isn't Oxbridge material, and wouldn't be able to cope with the pressure and the short intense terms. She looked at Warwick and didn't like it, and Durham doesn't have any courses she is interested in.

Well, that's her life blighted for ever, isn't it?

Sorry - I absolutely do not mean that seriously, although sadly it would seem that some might...