To think universities should state separate entry criteria for Indies?

[Wacamole]

DD who is on track for 3A*s at A’level, thought she’d give Oxbridge a go after being encouraged by her teachers. All very excited, doing super curriculars etc. Only just been told she doesn’t meet minimum entry criteria that would be expected from an Indy, which is straight 9s. She doesn’t have straight 9s, she has straight 8s (couple of nines), not only that, the course she wanted to apply for at Cambridge doesn’t require Maths at all, but school has advised they won’t even look at her if she doesn’t do Maths AND Further Maths. She is doing neither. Apparently an EPQ is also mandatory even though none of this is mentioned on Cambridge website.

All this second guessing, reading between the lines has been really confusing.
I have no issue with universities asking for higher entry criteria for students from indies for obvious reasons but wish they would be more transparent and state this on their ‘Entry requirements’ same way they state contextual offers?

Agreed it does what it does and beds uni was just used as an off the top head example. I’m really thinking about all the ex polys and wondering what benefit if any, did they got out of the name change?.

Perhaps if they had raised entry standards for their specialist subjects that would have acted as catalyst to signal that these subjects are top notch? Or not, just musing over why they seem to be boxed in by the old unis.

@mids2019 they couldn't increase the size of existing medical schools as there was no more space for placement students. Existing hospitals were at capacity. So putting them in new areas opens up more as teaching hospitals.
I never knew there was a stigma for some of the old polys - Oxford and Middx were always v sought after in 1980s.

@Mrsfrumble I never knew that. Always think of architecture as a v prestigious hard to get onto degree so stupidly assumed it was at those old Unis. I don't deal with the Uni applications for the Artier subjects as you can tell.

@mumneedswine

I don't think there is a stigma as such it just seems we could have a simpler way of arranging academic and non academic subjects.

I think polys and a prestige with the name poly offering a range of vocational courses that could certainly lead into success.

I think it is when we come into more academic subjects then a little more thought needs to be applied. You have set up a very successful support scheme for getting bright students into Oxbridge at your school I believe and I guess the reason partly was that the degree offered there were of the best standard allowing your pupils to reach their potential. A lot of Oxbridge subjects are offered elsewhere but would you suggest to pupils together at lower tariff institutions when they had high grades?

I think it's an option having different university types for academia/vacations but things have changed. Is it necessarily needed for younger universities to compete with older universities over a range of academic subjects?

I happen to think managing a vineyard sounds divine ....... are there degrees for this :)

Historically we have ended up with a bit of an uneven HE map and how we go forward is open to debate.

@mids2019 we encourage students to apply for the course not the Uni (if that makes sense). We only run the Oxbridge thing as it requires more support to get an offer, but if a student wants to go to do Golf Management with 3 A stars we'd support that too. I suppose we just want them to have the option to go anywhere (we got one into Harvard a few years ago - all paid for which amazed me. I made quite good friends with one of the lovely admissions ladies there as has to call her so much as had no clue how to help our student).
I so agree that the system we have here now needs work as there is a level of snobbery. Polys in my day were not seen as inferior but they offered the applied courses with industry and Unis did the pure old fashioned stuff.

@mumsneedwine it’s taught at many of traditional / Russell Group universities too, but from what I can tell, once you’ve qualified, it doesn’t seem to matter so much where you studied.

Polys most certainly were seen as inferior, just as secondary moderns were seen as inferior to grammars. Same difference (academic/ professional versus vocational) and not helpful to anyone. But no point pretending.

Maybe not everyone had the same perception. To me at 18 any higher education was aspirational. Careers advice for us was to go and work in the factory. Thankfully HE was free so we decided to ignore and try anyway. And Polys offered much more hands on courses so they were more attractive to some.
And I hate grammar schools because I hate secondary moderns (never seen a petition to get more of those !). I'm a comp believer as you can probably tell, as I think selecting students at 10/11 is hideous.

But we all have different perceptions based on our experiences.

Someone mentioned Beds - my school friend went there when it was classed as a teacher training poly (I think it was classed as that). She still say that it was the best in the country for training - she became a PE teacher, worked all over the U.K. before moving to Australia. Another school friend went to Oxford Poly - top in the field for IT.

@mumneedswine

We have such a strange mix of secondary education now. There is still a grammar system present in some areas but not in others.

I think removing the grammar system still leaves challenges in that a successful comp needs to cater to wide range of aspiration and ability and I think with homeownership that may be atrained.

My experience with our local comp is that there is a battle for the ethos of the school. Some wish there to be a focus on academic performance and university entrance while others wish a more community based school that reflects the background of the local town.

It is quite strange that our local (above average comp) in the high property price area of town is regarded as Eton by those in deprived council wards. The catchment actually falls.across wealthy and not so wealthy areas and there is actually a reluctance from some from the poorer areas to choose the school as it is viewed a 'bit up itself' and they don't like the academic rigour (e.g. home work setting of the school). The school at times has been noted to not supporting non academic children enough.

The wealthier area of town has many who have made decent careers out of plumbing, construction, small engineering companies etc i.e. non graduate roles who again do not see the need for a university driven school as they did not need uni themselves.

Good leadership not homeownership

There are some excellent courses at ex-polys and former HE places. Golf management etc are absolutely fine; the problem I have is when they offer straight academic courses, eg History/English with incredibly low tariffs - and then posters on here are making out that graduates of these places should be viewed as on a par with oxbridge etc graduates.

One of the reasons my dc “aimed high” was so they could be amongst like-minded academic students. In spite of people trumpeting, “Oh, the course at Newshire University is excellent “ no one with high grades would go there as a first choice. Maybe some mature students, but certainly no young people. The dc’s friends of ethnic background would definitely give them a mighty swerve, no matter what people here state. Anyone for whatever reason might choose the nearest Russell group” university, but no way would someone pick the HE place if they could go somewhere better for their chosen subject^ . Note again - we can disregard vocational specialist courses.

Beds was never a poly as it goes parker but yes was really well regarded for PE teacher training. Ironically since becoming a uni and focusing more on PGCEs its teacher training is really not very good. Still produces good PE teachers though.

See, another thing Scotland never had : secondary moderns!

and then posters on here are making out that graduates of these places should be viewed as on a par with oxbridge etc graduates.

I don't think anyone has actually said that Irma. I just took issue with your speech marks!

That said, I bet there are some really crap Oxbridge graduates can name a few in government

The actual published tarrifs aren't that low (unless we are going to get into that only on MN debate about B being a low A Level grade). Chichester for English is BBB - BBC. I appreciate students may get in with less but that is also true of lots of high calibre universities.

It is not true that no one with high grades would apply : I gave an example of my colleague who has a Beds degree with ABB at A level and the lad I taught who is now at 'Chi'. I work with another woman who went into HE later in life (oppressive marriage stuff) and therefore went local . Has AAB at A level and a first class degree and Phd.

I don't think your comment on 'ethnic minority students' is backed up by research actually. Statistically, those from disadvantaged ethnic minority backgrounds are the most likely to choose a local university. This was recently cited in a stud by Cambridge when they introduced their new foundation type degrees.

My son's friend (from my sons' minority white London fee paying school) move to the UK from India with his parents so he could go to that school. The family then moved to his university (I think it was Birmingham) for his degree. That is family dedication for you! ( although I am not sure I would have liked my family moving with me to university).

In a sense the issue of the peer group is the same with secondary or even primary schools. You might or might not want your children with other children who do very well in exams. I sit on the fence to an extent on this - I went to a private but very bad academically school, had the best A levels in the school, then top of year at university and thought I might be the bee's knees. One of my siblings and indeed my older children were at schools where everyone was extremely bright and if you were middle of the class you might not think you were so good or up to Oxbridge because you were middle of the best rather than best of a pretty non academic bunch. Where children and teenagers thrive is never very clear. However I do think as an individual parent if you can pick a school where most teenagers go to very good universities (if you want that for your child) the chances are higher that the teenagers will do that as most teenagers follow the herd and their friends are a bigger influence on them than parents).

At university also it can be very nice if everyone knows the same material, is very good at it and there is that cut and thrust of ideas and discussion in groups you get when most people are at the same level. That is one reason why having some universities where you only get in if you are fairly bright is a good idea. In the sixth form my essays were read out to the class sometimes as an example to others - that is quite flattering but it does mean you have no one to whom to compare yourself.

My twins just have another year of post grad study so are more into the phase of considering future jobs etc rather than university so I expect I will be away from university threads in a year or so but similar issues arise with some types of work - what helps you get jobs ? I have never known the answer having had 139 applications and 25 interviews before getting my first and ultimately having to set up on my own in due course.

Disadvantaged, maybe, but that applies to any disadvantaged student. Also London is a bit of a special case. Many “advantaged” students choose to stay there too. And there were girls in ds’s Cambridge college who hot-footed it back to London all the time - in fact were almost based in London - because that was where their (fancy) social life was. Actually same for dn at Royal Holloway. She was very disappointed that her flatmates scurried home to London every Friday and left her on her own so she ended up doing the same.

Not read all the comments. But depressed by some of them.
DD wants to study history at Cambridge, she goes to a poor state comprehensive. She's currently in yr11 taking her GCSEs and was predicted 12 top grades. But her school have dealt with the pandemic appallingly, very little online teaching, no support and because of the way their school sets out their GCSEs, she didn't start the course for some of them until late last year. There have been so many issues and their school is currently not open (we are not in England). She is unlikely to make anywhere near her predicted grades. In contrast the nearby private school has had the full range of Zoom lessons, all their work is already organised and assessed.
She is devastated, as she feels she will have little chance now, regardless of her A levels.

Hi just coming on to say that I don’t think people should complain that employers are now less likely to give preference to a candidate simply because they went to Oxbridge. I think it’s a good thing surely, that candidates are assessed ‘blindly.’

If the likes of Eton can no longer afford you a leg-up in getting into Oxbridge (quite rightly) and those students grades are contextualised as having been achieved in a privileged environment, then I’m afraid exactly the same must apply to Oxbridge students when up against applicants from other unis applying for the same jobs.

As to the argument, “what’s the point of striving to get into Oxbridge if it later works against you?” .. well, the same could be said of top schools. What’s the point of striving and competing to get into eg. Westminster or whatever super-duper grammar if it means your grades will be assessed more harshly than those achieved at a “lesser” school? It’s the same principle. Now that widening participation applies at 11+, 16+ and at uni entry level, it should equally apply at graduate level. You can’t pick and choose to suit yourself.

Also, although there will be some exceptional candidates from Oxbridge who will go into do all sorts of amazing things, the vast majority will be pretty much “meh” and indistinguishable from any other graduate. The fact is, most will do fairly ordinary jobs. The teachers at my DC school who were Oxbridge-educated are no different to any other teachers (in fact some are a bit iffy if the truth be known) and the same can be said for Oxbridge graduates in any organisation and profession.

The “outliers” in science, politics, business and any other area will achieve great things from many other unis apart from Oxbridge. The days of Oxbridge privilege are vanishing, as are the days of public-school privilege.

It is not sensible advice to say to well qualified DC to look at the course and worry about the university second. It’s very obvious that some lower tariff academic courses will be appealing. Newer subject content, newer subjects even, but they are not the same as the higher tariff courses if they are at former colleges of HE or teacher training. So I think students should not be advised to consider the course above other considerations.

In this day and age it is completely obvious, and elm researched, that for academic courses, RG carries a premium in earnings and top RG even more. Students might well like the idea of x lecturer and their research into x literature but in the world of employment, as opposed to lecturing, it had little value. To help social mobility, students need to be advised of where offers greater chance of this. They might not want that, of course, but at least the advice should be given and it should be accurate so choices are spelled out.

Former polys could be accessed with 2 A levels years ago. They pioneered vocational degrees with a year in industry. They still have great degrees, especially in areas such as technology and engineering. They are not back numbers for grads or Employers in many subject areas.

The bigger issue is the colleges of HE and where they sit in awarding degrees. Do we really need them? Bedfordshire is a good example and Bucks (or whatever it’s called now). We also know 35% of grads are not in grad level jobs. Where have these grads got their degrees and in what subjects? Could we look at reverting to non grad HE for more students with less cost?

We have 18000 law grads every year. 450 barristers and around 6000 solicitor training places. These are open to non law grads. So why have 18000 law grads? It makes little sense. Some will of course use their degrees in business and elsewhere but hopes are falsely raised and it’s often in poorer areas where there is false hope.

We need to be honest with young people and have broader opportunities for grads who are not at ex polys.

Morvern - don’t worry about any of that as it will all be contextualised. DC frequently get into Cambridge with 6s and 7s from underperforming schools. They look at the average grade achieved in a given school, so if it’s a 4, she will be viewed as an outlier. Don’t worry and there are various schemes to help and advise as well.

@SusannaMorvern

Not read all the comments. But depressed by some of them. DD wants to study history at Cambridge, she goes to a poor state comprehensive. She's currently in yr11 taking her GCSEs and was predicted 12 top grades. But her school have dealt with the pandemic appallingly, very little online teaching, no support and because of the way their school sets out their GCSEs, she didn't start the course for some of them until late last year. There have been so many issues and their school is currently not open (we are not in England). She is unlikely to make anywhere near her predicted grades. In contrast the nearby private school has had the full range of Zoom lessons, all their work is already organised and assessed. She is devastated, as she feels she will have little chance now, regardless of her A levels.

She may well get some consideration over her GCSEs but she will still have to perform at or above the offer grades at A level. No contextualisation there. My DS was in this position at a similarly urgh school. He was lucky - no pandemic - so got all A*s at GCSE. But the feeling locally is that said school did a crap job during the lock downs.

When yous ay 'late last year' do you mean late year 10 for starting GCSEs??

When yous ay 'late last year' do you mean late year 10 for starting GCSEs?

No, I mean late last year as in yr11. DD's school does some GCSEs in a year and sits others early (also after a year). I don't want to go into details, because I don't want to out our location. They just about get away with this strategy normally, but this year it has been disastrous.