25% of Oxford places to go to poor students - who loses out?

[IrmaFayLear]

From the BBC website:

If 25% of places are to be targeted at applicants from poorer areas - and in recent years, about 40% of places have gone to pupils from private schools - then that leaves 35% for everyone else.

Even the BBC muses that the losers will be ordinary pupils from ordinary backgrounds - not rich enough for private school but living in nice enough areas.

Of course merit should not be overlooked in favour of gloss when admitting students, but I think this is increasingly less the case anyway. But admitting a large specific quota of students to one of the top universities in the world strikes me as nonsensical and unfair.

The whole point of a universal examination is that it removes the school as a factor

You don't seriously believe that Why are people forking out hundreds of thousands of £ for private schools then if school is not a factor then?

The reduction of offer grades could lead to stigmatization of applicants if made known. You also risk having candidates unable to cope with the course as they have achieved poorer than expected grades for the course with the hope that the untapped unquantifiable potential that led to the low offer will surmount this.

Except that doesn't happen. Contextual offers are not new. They've been around for donkeys years. Bristol's results haven't dropped as a result. They've gone up like everyone else's

I would question whether the DfE would micromanage aspects of policy.

You can question it all you like but it doesn't alter the fact that yes that's precisely what the DfE does. What else do you think it does? It's the entire purpose of the DfE to monitor policy, macro and micro.

None of this is new. As titchy said universities don't do these things on a whim. They're based on evidence and research.

mids2019 is being shouted down here, but they do have a point. Giving a relative value to A Level (or GCSE) by institution is flying in the face of the value of the exam.

Looking holistically at an entire application and taking account of an applicant's schooling is one thing, but blanket declaring that B from one place is equivalent to an A* at another is ludicrous.

Contextual offers vary between institutions and often taken into account a range of factors... postcode, polar data, being in care etc. One factor considered could that if the school you attended achieves results that are lower than the national average. This can result in a lower offer being made.

It's not simply a case of 'your B being worth an A'

OK.....so could we extend the concept of contextualization to sectors such as private employers (they I do not believe compensate for poor A level performance based on personal circumstances)?

I still feel that in the case of competitive courses e.g. Oxbridge contextualization is compensating for disadvantage rather than celebrating achievement and could lead to bitterness by some and a question mark about the integrity of process.

This is all about perspective....one mans assistance of a disadvantaged pupil through looking at the context of their grade achievement may mean the omission of a more privileged applicant even if absolute grades are similar....again is this fair? (Especially with oversubscribed courses)

Are extenuating circumstances of 'advantaged' pupils taken into account by the way e.g. divorce, bereavement, disability especially those life circumstances which are independent of wealth?

Not much to add to the thread, but I would like to say this - Mids, I absolutely adore this construction:

"isn't it not entirely unproblematic"?

Wonderful! (not being sarcastic, I genuinely love it and would use it in real life except that now it might out me!)

Slinking off to talk about tv and the like now.

Lots of big organisations do use name and institution blind application processes. But the idea is that going to an elite university should level the playing field so that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds can access elite professions.

Schools, colleges and universities have policies in place to deal with extenuating circumstances such as bereavement....this applies to all students.

If you don't agree the contextualised offers or with the policies in place to support widening access to HE how should we address the issue??

I don't think divorce is a thing (far too prevalent) but all disabilities are taken into account on the UCAS form and if there's been a bereavement of a very close family member (ie parent or sibling as opposed to eighty year old granny) then the school can put that in a reference, provided it hasn't already been 'accounted for' by means of special consideration by the exam boards. All those things are treated absolutely equally across candidates.

Are extenuating circumstances of 'advantaged' pupils taken into account by the way e.g. divorce, bereavement, disability especially those life circumstances which are independent of wealth?

Yes - if your child is affected by any of the above during their exams the exam board can and will make allowances.

What on Earth is wrong with the principle of trying to level the fucking playing field.

If you don't agree the contextualised offers or with the policies in place to support widening access to HE how should we address the issue??

I suspect mids and OP don't want to address the issue at all. They want to keep the status quo and make sure that Oxbridge, the Bar etc remain the preserve of the elite.

I suspect you're right titchy

Makes me quite angry.

Yes mids2019 posts certainly smack of a big old vested interest, presumably in the shape of DC at independent schools, aiming for Oxbridge but on shaky ground.

Obviously I could be wrong. But that's the most obvious explanation.

There was a very small article in The Times yesterday which basically stated that attending an independent school did not have any advantage on exam grades given that "on the whole" children who attend the independent schools are selected anyhow and would have performed better than the average child who attends a comp anyhow (e.g. there is probably one grade difference but there would have been this grade difference had they both attended the same school).

The issue isn't always with attainment. Aspiration is a huge factor in explaining why certain groups are underrepresented at elite universities.

itchy...level the f**king playing field indeed....a quote from Lenin perhaps?

As many will testify the playing field of life isn't that level....

I guess the main point from the OP post is that there are a number of parents who live in reasonably affluent areas who may have pupils in quite standard (though not failing) schools that are concerned that their children's oxbridge applications are dealt with fairly

A lot of effort is made by pupils applying so is it only fair that they can be assured that the process is level .

Just to put fuel on the fire.....

My DS has an offer for this autumn at a very traditional Oxford College, previously known to favour applicants from a very well known public school . There are six places on his course; the offer holders are one international, four grammar school pupils and one comp (him). The tide may well be turning......

mid they should be assured that the process is fair.

Law isn't the most popular choice at that college for the Etonians though Aurea, so the premise may be false.

We all know life isn't a level playing field but lots of people feel this needs to be addressed.

I can see that's not your opinion though mid

But I agree that things look dodgy for borderline independent applicants.

As many will testify the playing field of life isn't that level....

And? Shall we not bother educating the working classes beyond the age of 11 then? Just because life isn't fair across all arenas doesn't mean we shouldn't address those arenas we can influence for the better.

Well, if we carried on with the same elitist system that favours the privileged that go to Oxbridge. We will still have the same somewhat blinkered people who run the country who have not got a clue about the working class problems, schools, jobs, NHS etc. Making important policies and decision making that dont work carrying on wasting tax payers money. How many prime ministers have we actually had that came from a working class family. I suspect not many. I have so much to rant about how un level the playing field is. I