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?

That does sound a bit odd!

Do you mean she already has some GCSEs (ones taken in Year 10), but the ones to be awarded this year will be disastrous as the school is still closed?

She should consider applying post A levels @SusannaMorvern

(In fact that might be the only way to apply by the time she's in year 13)

She should consider applying post A levels @SusannaMorvern**

Not sure what you mean, obviously she won't be applying yet, but I thought the thread was about GCSE grades affecting university offers?

@d1z1

She has taken 4, and has 8 still to take, some of those 8 were only started late last year. I was stating the difference between state and private where we live, as our school have given so little help over the pandemic, compared to the local indy.

@d1z1

I think what you say is at the crux of things.

How do we wish to distribute roles in society?

For decades we have had an oxbridge hegemony in a range of elite positions ranging from judiciary to the government. The two universities have traditionally filled the leadership positions in society.

The general perception of Oxbridge is that this is where future leaders in a range of fields are going to emerge from. I can only remember one none oxbridge English PM (John Major) .

I think it's an open question to whether British society is going to be changed.

I agree that Oxbridge grads do end up in fairly standard graduate roles but it is still the fact many rise to the top for various reasons.

I still think that for my specific discipline (physics) oxbridge does produce some exceptional graduates and this shouldn't be dismissed.

Is it that we should retain elite universities
but ensure they dont dominate society elites?

@Piggywaspushed I think we see success v differently. You say RG degrees mean you earn more, which is true. But this does not equal success to me - success means achieving in your chosen field and enjoying what you do. So a student who wants to study a subject only available at say NTU will be encouraged to do so as that's their dream, not to own a Porsche.
I had a student t a few years ago with all A stars at GCSE and A Level who did social work at an ex poly. Loves her job.
That is the success we aspire to for our students, not just law, medicine or banking.

But if they want to do law, medicine or banking then we encourage that too. We explain all the options to students and parents and will offer advice but in the end the decisions are the students. Not everyone wants to run the world, they'd like to design it or just travel round it. I'm most jealous of my ex student working on a ship in the Pacific researching dolphins. Has a level 3 BTEC in animal stuff (done at local college) and picked up the job while travelling. Really wish I was her.

Oh mum that wasn't me! I am not the one who think success = earnings?

For decades we have had an oxbridge hegemony in a range of elite positions ranging from judiciary to the government. The two universities have traditionally filled the leadership positions in society.

And if you dig a little deeper you'll find that a good number of judges were grammar school educated, and came from very modest or refugee backgrounds.

I think Callaghan didn't go to university. But that is going back very far.

I agree that you and I shouldn't get into a discussion about grammars mumsneedwine, I don't see that it would be productive (it might be more productive if you knew a little more about the top super selective grammars but I think for the moment you'd be stuck in the rut of how horrid it is to select able kids aged eleven), so let's agree to disagree as on so much else!

@mumsneedwine

But if they want to do law, medicine or banking then we encourage that too. We explain all the options to students and parents and will offer advice but in the end the decisions are the students. Not everyone wants to run the world, they'd like to design it or just travel round it. I'm most jealous of my ex student working on a ship in the Pacific researching dolphins. Has a level 3 BTEC in animal stuff (done at local college) and picked up the job while travelling. Really wish I was her.

I think we also have to realise that decisions made when initially graduating does not equal career choice for life.

Just thinking within a couple of generations of my own family (all Oxbridge graduates).

Initial destinations: Project manager in high flying IT startup; very well respected manufacturing company gradate scheme (x2); lawyer (x2); teacher (x2); manager in construction company; musician.

Most recent employment (not in same order): music management; teaching / management in education of different types (x5); charity fundraiser; vicar; lawyer.

Yes, one is VERY successful, in a conventional sense. All enjoy what they currently do.

@IrmaFayLear

Very good point. I think it is the claim of equivalence for academic subjects between new universities and oxbridge that has to be questioned.

You say no one with high A level grades would apply to low tariff institutions but I think they do. This is because of lack of awareness of rg unis, wishing to stay local, heavy marketing by local unis, wishing to stay with a peer group and not appear outside.

I think the culture of traditional university entrance is more imbued in the private sector where there may be this aspiration from day one.

You say no one with high A level grades would apply to low tariff institutions but I think they do. This is because of lack of awareness of rg unis, wishing to stay local, heavy marketing by local unis, wishing to stay with a peer group and not appear outside.

Also.. wishing to stay with family, medical and mental health reasons, and financial considerations which to some people are huge factors.

Staying at home is not regarded as a big deal in Scotland, for example.

[quote mids2019]@IrmaFayLear

Very good point. I think it is the claim of equivalence for academic subjects between new universities and oxbridge that has to be questioned.

You say no one with high A level grades would apply to low tariff institutions but I think they do. This is because of lack of awareness of rg unis, wishing to stay local, heavy marketing by local unis, wishing to stay with a peer group and not appear outside.

I think the culture of traditional university entrance is more imbued in the private sector where there may be this aspiration from day one.[/quote]
I think the economic impact of 'staying local' should also not be under-estimated - in families uncomfortable with debt or worried about the cost of supporting a student living away from home, going to a local institution and living at home is an attractive proposition.

The same effect, for different reasons, is seen in some ethnic / religious groups, particularly for girls - a number of DD's contemporaries, very bright girls from strict Muslim families, are going to go to local universities because they can live at home and thus more easily maintain the customs and restrictions of their family. one of two had a slightly larger 'menu' of institutions to choose from because they could live with extended family in other places.

I mean literally where I live Cambridge is a local uni! It is amazing how many more we have sent to Cambridge than Oxford simply because of the local 'pull'!

cant said what I was trying to say a bit more clearly!

I don't think the peer group is actually a very big consideration, although boyfriends and girlfriends can be.

As I said, the dcs have a lot of “ethnic” friends, and although some may choose nearer rather than further away, no one has chosen one that is below their capabilities. So the nearest RG - certainly not the nearest institution. They’re not daft, fgs! To repeat myself boringly, the situation is different in London.

I think peer group is very important. Would you choose an interesting-sounding course at the nearest place, and then be content that the students were not your intellectual equal? It’s all very well to dismiss that as snobby, but it would be back to the old non-setting argument at schools. My dcs were thrilled to leave mixed ability behind. The only thing they wanted set was PE, which for some reason remains the one subject where it is considered ok to snort at those of no ability !

What does "ethnic" mean??

I was responding to the person who said kids stayed local because of peer group, which I don't think they do.

With the greatest of respect irma it doesn't sound like your DD's schol is very typical. I can't work out if you are in London or not . Data show that working class DCs, especially those from EM backgrounds tend to choose more local universities. This is especially obvious in Luton, parts of the NW, Derby, Leicester and London.

In Scotland, a student who was urban and didn't stay local almost certainly went to a private school or , conversely, lived in Edinburgh or Glasgow and had missed grades for their law or medical degree.

Social mobility is great in theory. Long way to go in practice. And for many, a degree opens way more doors than no degree at all.

But then, I am big fan of mixed ability, so...

Bath and Loughborough aren't Russell Group : are we really so narrow that we still can't look beyond this group?

The ethnicity matters. My DDs have friends where they were going to be going to university in London - and that was that. They could maintain their cultural roots if they stayed within travel distance. Plenty of evidence of that at Unis like Bradford, Leicester and Beds that very much reflect their local population.

Plenty of cultural groups make their DDs (Especially) commute to university. It doesn’t open up a wide choice. These students do what they are allowed to do even if they could do better. Are they happy? Who knows. Plenty would not admit to that. The unis would be seen as good enough by their parents.

It’s too easy to say girls can easily shake off their cultural expectations. They often don’t.

We all know Bath and Loughborough are not RG! They are elite in other ways. Just not RG.

Yes, I know that but people keep writing RG!

The most interesting list is the Sutton Trust 13.

As for Law and judges. Cream rises. It’s simply the best who get these senior positions. Oxbridge has traditionally educated the best. It’s that simple. Now, there may well be broadening out but the Sutton Trust 13 will be the new Oxbridge. It won’t be students from the university of nowhere. I can almost guarantee that!