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?

There's 30 now ... slightly wider list.

@PresentingPercy

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.

Exactly. I live somewhere where a daily commute to university does NOT open up a wide selection of institutions - especially as for some of these girls being out at night is a significant issue so that has to be factored into the travelling time.

These are girls whose parents have selected a specific - excellent - school within daily travelling distance, so with high expectations for their daughters. However, the same travelling time combined with different hours for university does not open up a wide selection of high quality institutions. If they lived in London, the situation would be entirely different - a selection of world-class opportunities on their doorstep.

We also have to remember that the assumption of 'moving away from home' as young people grow up is not universal. When my children were younger, we lived in a village where my peripatetic childhood and young adulthood - and the spreading of my family around the country - was utterly alien to almost all of the other parents of children the same age. They lived, and had lived their entire lives, within 5-10 miles of their entire extended family.

Several of them, and several of their children, were very able. However the idea of moving hundreds of miles away from home for university was utterly alien to them.

yes, when my father was very ill and had arranged local carers, a team of about 10 (some ex nurses) on part time basis, those lovely local Newcastle people could not understand that our parents wanted us to leave home, go to university, settle where there were jobs, just as my parents did in their day and other ancestors did. It was not morally wrong we did not live 5 minutes away nor on the other side wrong that they thought people should live right by their parents - it was just different.

Also sometimes mkaing that change divides you from a family as happened with some children who got through the 11 plus and were changed into a totally new world, different accent even, interests, hobbies and then leaving home. Almost in a sense like a gulf when you leave a cult or extreme religion and are cast out for leaving it - you become so different in some cases from your family that is that damage? Is it even right to do that to people - to educate them so they want to listen to Bach whilst the family has something else on the radio or whatever or their interests and reading totally differ? What if they "want " to marry at 16 in their ultra religious community, obey their husband and have little education and have ten children?

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

Well, not all of us...

I guess it's not the remit of careers advisers but moving residence is a big step at 17/18.

You are effectively leaving an area where you strong cultural and family lives to potentially start a new life.

I think this is particularly acute in the working class and it's as if you need to really sell university opportunities to overcome these ties.

In Newcastle Northumbria University was very much regarded thr local uni while Newcastle University was the domain of southern visitors.

I think being old it is sometimes difficult for me to think whats it like being 18.

I think having a school peer group that dispersed across the country meant me feel this was just part of life.

If I was only one of a few people going elsewhere I think I would have sensed being an outlier.

Almost in a sense like a gulf when you leave a cult or extreme religion and are cast out for leaving it - you become so different in some cases from your family that is that damage?

Having taught Traveller children for a time, there is very definitely this sense amongst that community - that as they DO live a very separate and segregated life, with very strong community and very strong norms, it can, on occasions, be damaging to the individual or their family or both to focus on moving to a life away from the community. One of the most profoundly psychologically damaged children I have ever taught came from a partnership between a Traveller and a non-Traveller, both ostracised from their communities for their marriage but still living locally.

DD graduated last summer with a 1st in MFL from York . She was also offered a place at St Andrews as well as other non U.K. Unis. Both St Andrews and York wanted AAB. She had three A*’s. She chose York because she liked the city better. St Andrews was last year ranked 2nd for MFL and York 50th. I don’t regard her 1st as any less because it came from York. She was still able to get her dream job with the EU.

@Piggywaspushed huge apologies ! Sorry - not sure why I tagged you.
Been a bit busy today as youngest got back from lambing placement and the smell meant washing needed to be done asap. Not sure I want to know what all the stains are from 🤢.
We will continue to provide aspiration while allowing individual choice. Not everyone wants to go to Uni, regardless of grades. We have one student from last year at Laban doing a foundation dance degree, she got 4 A stars. She wants to dance so we helped her get to auditions.
Better go and mark year 11 papers now. 126 year 13 ones done so far. I hate marking.

I would not discriminate between York and St Andrews. But some posters are cheerleading for former HE colleges and their “straight” degrees as opposed to vocational offerings.

@IrmaFayLear hope you don't mean me 😳. I said in the 1980s I didn't know one was better than the other. Now no student I know is unaware of some kind of ranking system, because they can tell from the grades needed. In a usual year we say out 2 aspirational, 2 safe and one safety net. The safety net is often an ex poly.
But for some course they are predominantly offered at ex polys. Fashion management, midwifery, sports physio (spreading now), product design being a few. All tend to be more vocational which means almost guaranteed a job at the end so quite attractive to some students.

@IrmaFayLear

I would not discriminate between York and St Andrews. But some posters are cheerleading for former HE colleges and their “straight” degrees as opposed to vocational offerings.

I think there are good reasons why very well-qualified applicants may attend local 'lower prestige' institutions (whether their history be ex-teacher training colleges, ex-HE colleges or ex-polys), even if their grades would ensure places elsewhere.

This does not amount to 'cheerleading'. It just recognises that there are reasons other than prestige of the institution that weigh in the balance for some candidates.

That is on top of those students who choose 'lower prestige' institutions for specific 'courses of excellence;' or particular vocational degrees.

On a very micro level, I hold a degree and PhD from Oxbridge. My PGCE is from a local ex teacher training college, now university, because a) it was local and b) it offered a part time course. Is it the most prestigious institution offering the PGCE course? No, of course not. Was it a practical means to an end? Yes. Was the teaching of my PGCE course notably 'lesser' - less expert, less thorough, less informed, less based on up to date research in the subject, less personal - than my Oxbridge degree? Not noticeably.

cantkeep - similarly DS did his Engineering degree at Warwick and currently doing his Masters there. I don’t think Warwick ranks anywhere near the top for Engineering but he still needed three A’s to get on the course. He chose Warwick over others because there were particular aspects of the course he wanted.

IrmaFayLear I hope it's not me you are referring to? I did mention a College of Higher education i.e Luton in reference to the fact they became universities but even before that, they were offering not just vocational courses but very academic ones like LLB Law and this might have compounded why their degrees are regarded as lesser. Infact I haven't seen anyone 'cheerleading' in this aspect.

Warwick is gold standard for engineering with many employers! It’s outstanding. That’s why he needed AAA. There are few better universities for engineering.

Years ago colleges of HE virtually never offered degrees. They had a few niche ones but rarely law. I worked for a LA when we had control of FE and HE. I know the courses were largely not degree courses.

Vocational courses like PGCEs don’t vary much in quality. Your cannot compare it to first degree. They all provide an employable qualification and employers rarely care where your PGCE is from. They do care about first degrees - but not universally of course.

Warwick ranks 15th for Engineering

Top universities in the UK for engineering degrees 2021
UK Engineering Rank 2021 WUR Engineering Rank 2021 University City
1 2 University of Oxford Oxford
2 6 University of Cambridge Cambridge
3 14 Imperial College London London
4 =42 UCL London
5 =46 University of Manchester Manchester
6 86 University of Edinburgh Edinburgh
7 98 University of Sheffield Sheffield
=8 101–125 University of Birmingham Birmingham
=8 101–125 University of Bristol Bristol
=8 101–125 University of Leeds Leeds
=8 101–125 University of Nottingham Nottingham
=8 101–125 Queen Mary University of London London
=8 101–125 Queen’s University Belfast Belfast
=8 101–125 University of Southampton Southampton
=15 126–150 University of Surrey Guildford
=15 126–150 University of Warwick Warwick
=17 151–175 Cardiff University Cardiff
=17 151–175 Lancaster University Lancaster
=17 151–175 University of Liverpool Liverpool
=17 151–175 University of Sussex Brighton
=21 176–200 University of Bath Bath
=21 176–200 Brunel University London London
=21 176–200 Newcastle University Newcastle
=24 201–250 Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh
=24 201–250 University of Plymouth Plymouth
=26 251–300 De Montfort University Leicester
=26 251–300 University of Exeter Exeter
=26 251–300 University of Glasgow Glasgow
=26 251–300 Loughborough University Loughborough
=26 251–300 Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester
=26 251–300 Northumbria University Northumbria
=32 301–400 University of Brighton Brighton
=32 301–400 University of Hull Hull
=32 301–400 University of Leicester Leicester
=32 301–400 Liverpool John Moores University Liverpool
=32 301–400 University of Strathclyde Strathclyde
=32 301–400 Swansea University Swansea
=32 301–400 University of the West of England Bristol
=39 401–500 University of Aberdeen

No, for the umpteenth time I don’t mean postgraduate add ons or vocational degrees are lesser in any way.

@IrmaFayLear

No, for the umpteenth time I don’t mean postgraduate add ons or vocational degrees are lesser in any way.

Then I will repeat what I said: "I think there are good reasons why very well-qualified applicants may attend local 'lower prestige' institutions (whether their history be ex-teacher training colleges, ex-HE colleges or ex-polys), even if their grades would ensure places elsewhere.

This does not amount to 'cheerleading'. It just recognises that there are reasons other than prestige of the institution that weigh in the balance for some candidates."

My point was not about postgraduate or vocational degrees. It said that there are good reasons why someone might choose to do a course that is offered at 'prestige' universities, and for which they have the grades, at a less-prestigious institution. That is not 'cheerleading' for such courses, simply saying that needing to commute daily, not wishing to become estranged from one's own community, or simply being very worried about debt, amongst other reasons, may outweigh prestige in some students' eyes.

@PresentingPercy

Years ago colleges of HE virtually never offered degrees. They had a few niche ones but rarely law. I worked for a LA when we had control of FE and HE. I know the courses were largely not degree courses.

But 'largely' doesn't mean they didn't offer them at all. The example I gave was from my own personal experience of what Luton College offered in 1989 so not making it up. I actually turned down the offer in favour of a BTEC at the time. I also know someone who went to South Bank Polytechnic around the same time and also studied Law. The students on these types of courses were delighted when they got university status because for a long time their Law degrees had seemed lesser. Obviously yrs on with the name change, it still is.

Warwick ranks 15th for Engineering

Parker231 major MN booboo you've just committed there. Using uni rankings is a cardinal sin, apparently. Largely because Oxford and Cambridge tend to do pretty well generally and so the league tables fail to shore up the idea that all unis and all degrees are utterly equal and in particular Oxford and Cambridge are definitely not in any way more rigorous or better respected by employers than any other degree anywhere in the UK.

Wacamole as far as law degrees go (and here I can probably claim a little knowledge first hand) there's a definite hierarchy in the eyes of the most prestigious employers (apologies if this raises hackles but it happens to be true).

Goodbyestranger Of course they do! I haven't said otherwise.

Also, rather interestingly, the same few universities tend to do rather well on university challenge... Very odd indeed... something must be done!