Oxbridge Aspirants: Sep 2021

[funkysatsuma]

Not sure if it's too early to start this thread in Nov 2019 :)

DS would like Cambridge Economics as the first choice. Would like to know where can we get some help to prepare for the ECAA test - appreciate any pointers/links. Thanks in advance

The unknown is how much contextualisation changes things. I dont know what the very small negative number in the average contextualised HAT/ GCSE box means. It might be a tiddly adjustment, it might be massive. I think what Hugo is saying, not unreasonably, is that it would be good to know. Goodbye, your point about GCSE being contextualised for years and DC still have to do them so what’s the issue; its a universal test they all have to do so the approach wouldnt be any different ( or shouldnt be). Not the same for pre admission tests which are only being considered by a small cohort, who might well decide, stuff it , that bar is too high.

Well hobbema I guess what I meant was how would the approach to the aptitude test differ on the part of the applicant or school. And my guess would be that it would be exactly the same, in spite of it being a test for a tiny fraction of the Y13/14 population. For those who think that the small adjustment made to their test score so much more than negates their significant educational advantage as to constitute a marked disadvantage, then I would think they need to think a little more deeply about the wider situation before embracing that prejudice to the extent of not even slapping down Oxford as one choice out of five. I mean, that's quite an ott reaction to contextualisation.

Not a clue about the actual numbers but DS4 was able to run his GCSE tally through an official calculator and found that 12A translated to 10+A as contextualised and his school was at the very top end for contextualisation. So extrapolating from that, it seems to me that it's maybe a bit too gentle (although that was a few years ago now so perhaps the numbers have changed).

If I may add my tuppence ha'penny worth.

I think Oxford were totally out of order to move the goalposts this year on its history applicants. I think my DS may not have wasted so much emotional capital and time on applying if he'd known the odds were going to be so stacked against him.

That said, at least he now knows he's got more aptitude for history than the average Oxford offer holder. The University were kind enough to confirm that to him after wasting his time for 3 days!

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain in simple terms how contextualising works?

MidLifeCrisis if you're saying that his contextualised score on the aptitude test was higher than the average offer holder then his scores on the other elements of Oxford's assessment of aptitude will have been that much lower.

The Emmanuel open day yesterday was informative, especially the session run by the senior admissions tutors for arts/sciences. The NatSci entrance test is being revamped this year (to a as yet unagreed format which could be all multiple choice?) for 2021 entry. Studying medicine (my DC current choice) at Cambridge involves no patient contact for the first three years - the tutor was refreshingly honest about this and said they aim to build the scientist first, then the doctor later and Cambridge was prob not a good fit for anyone who wanted to be hands on straight away. They were really upfront about a few things such as need for strong grounding in maths for science admissions, the effect of sitting the IB on science applications etc.

All very useful stuff - DC thought both medicine and NatSci sounded great, but a bit on the fence about the college (e.g needing permission to leave for a night, washing, cooking and cleaning done for you , living in for 3 years etc- sounds great to me😀 but he'd possibly like more independence)

Milly fairly sophisticated data is used to adjust scores according to school. From what I know of GCSE contextualising this doesn't compensate anything like fully for the educational disadvantage some applicants have but any adjustment, however slight, or inadequate, can cause extreme ire in parents whose DC have attended excellent schools.
Ironically it's perceived to be 'unfair'!

Please could someone explain why it was bad form for Oxford to contextualise without notifying all top schools and their parent bodies? It sounds as though those parents feel they could have done something differently, to regain their ever so slightly reduced advantage - which of course would defeat Oxford's purpose.

(I don't really buy the wasted time line. I mean, just how much time is invested? ).

One example of contextualisation in practice is comparing GCSE results in the context of the average GCSE results at the school where they were taken.

E.g. if Joe's average GCSE grade was 8 and the average GCSE grade at his school was 8, then his GCSE score would be multiplied by 1, and remain the same.
If Bob's average GCSE grade was 8 and the average GCSE score at his school was 5, then this would be taken into account and his GCSE score would be multiplied by X (usually 1 point something) and would be higher than Joe's.

Do they want the best applicants or don't they?!

Why not contextualise GCSEs or A Levels at point of marking? Dock off grades if you are deemed to be "privileged".

Surely Oxbridge tutors should be able to read a HAT/ELAT test and tell whether it's a raw uncoached BUT GOOD piece, rather than swing a blunt axe at everyone and mark down a brilliant answer but one which comes from someone "privileged".

Ironically I saw some grumbling about some universities now having more privately-educated students than they used to. Duh! Where are they supposed to go now that Oxbridge is telling them to sling their hook?

An Oxford History tutor way back in 2009 told me that they read the HAT 'in context'. So I don't think this is very different, merely formalised.

Apologies for multiple posting. Phone was glitching.

It's a bit depressing.

Like Usain Bolt turning up at the Olympics when he has aptitude, years of training and drive and passion, only to find he has to start a mile back from everyone else with a couple of pounds of lead tied to his trainers. And meanwhile I sprint home - me, who was picked last for every team (actually, not even picked, just trailed after the team which had the least players...).

Do we suspect that the most "massaging" of entrants is taking place in "massageable" subjects? MFL, Maths... well, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. In History and English not so much.

There are applicants whose feedback shows they have outperformed the average offer holder score for each element scored this year who do not hold offers

I hadn't spotted that you'd written that earlier Hugo. If it's correct that a higher then average score was awarded for each component part, then surely that applicant will have gone back to ask why they don't hold an offer? I would never ask for proof (!) but it sounds unlikely in the extreme. Perhaps it was above average in every element other than the interview? I know very well how things get distorted in the telling within schools, and something sounds wrong somewhere with that one!

Irma I think the effect of contextualisation is being massively over inflated here. Probably more like Usain has to start 10 metres back with 100g added to each of his shoes. I'm not convinced that only duds (from comps) got offers this year, or that those from top schools are much better in terms of quality/ potential than they were last year, or the year before. The picture at our school looks pretty much the same as ever.

I suppose an explanation for no place will be similar to the furore at Harvard where American Asian applicants who would otherwise have taken almost 100% of the spaces were being under-represented on aptitude ; the explanation given was "personality" or other subjective reasons. As in the case of Laura Spence, no one knows whether a full-house 9s and high-scoring HAT applicant is being heinously wronged, or whether they were a dead loss in the interviews. It's in the university's gift. But there will come a point where full transparency is demanded if more and more great applicants are rejected.

Irma I guess if the only negative issue with an applicant is that he or she is an arrogant little shit (for example), then Oxford can't put a number on that. Given the tutorial system, arrogant little shittiness (for example) as a personality trait is arguably a valid reason for saying thanks but no thanks.

Arrogant little shits span the educational and social divide in my experience.