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?

In fact it's heartbreaking knowing that young people take law degrees at really not great quality providers having worked incredibly hard, hoping for a sunlit future, only to find the doors are shut once they complete their degree. It would be a kind idea to radically limit the number of places on law courses, given that there are relatively few training contracts and pupillages later on. It's seriously unfair on these poor ill advised youngsters.

This is true goodbye although it does also throw up some interesting other things! Like, for example, how low the much lauded Edinburgh is for English, or how high some of these ex polys are in some subjects! Plymouth doing pretty well and keeping good company in the engineering table. (I don't know but I am guessing maybe they do some kind of naval engineering?)

I think so too Irma. It's not fair on all those university teams who regularly lose.

Obviously Law as an academic degree is a fabulous degree in terms of content but these young people at the poor quality institutions are probably even more likely to be hoping to go into the profession. Far too many are given terrible advice by their schools who haven't got a clue.

• even more likely than those at for example Oxford and Cambridge

Given that the theoretical content at the higher ranked unis is greater (obviously higher ranked doesn't mean better in any way shape or form - goodness no).

Not everyone wants a training contract or pupillage at the end of their Law degree though. Law is a good degree for a number of careers.

Possibly Piggy. Plymouth is incredibly popular with students at our school wanting to study Marine Biology - it seems to do a great job with that degree too.

I think schools do have a clue actually goodbye but it is not easy to change a young person's mind and it is a sensitive and difficult conversation. Also, your average state school doesn't really have time, resources etc for that level of bespoke careers and uni advice.

The fault lies with the glamour and kudos attached to law. Perhaps lawyers ought to make more of an effort to persuade young people there are no opportunities and it's really dull... half joking.

Anecdotally, applications to study law do seem to be tailing off. Economics, politics, IR on the rise.

Yes absolutely Wacamole which is why I qualified what I said. But the sad irony is that the poorer the institution, the more likely that the students are hoping for exactly that - a training contract or pupillage.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-34384668

I don’t anything about law recruitment but in the accountancy world firms are trying to address any unconscious bias. I don’t work for any of the firms mentioned in this article but a similar firm and we use blind approach for interviewing.

Obviously schools have clues about masses of things but they seem to be incredibly bad at advice re. law.

Piggy I'm sure some area of law are dull but most are extremely interesting and rewarding to work in. Law is about people just as much as Medicine is. There's always a person of people at the end of every case. It's supremely undull.

*areas

For example the conveyancing of modern houses wouldn't do much for me if I did it day in day out.

Old houses with masses of rights and obligations and neighbour disputes, marginally better.

I agree it is a rarefied feild.

The only two example I know of is the boy I taught who did law at Oxford, hated it and now possibly plans to be a history teacher and a girl who went to Lincoln (I think) to do Law but was clear she did not want to be a barrister. She had actually done through research.

Yeas and years ago, a lad went to Trinity College and did Law. Got the top student award , went into Human Rights law, lasted about a year before it all became too horrific and now teaches Spanish.

*a person or people (trying to cook - me, now, not the person or people)

I was joking about it being dull! Just thought it might put young people off who have a very Netflix view of the law. It was Ally McBeal and Rumpole in my day!

Yes one of my DD's does Human Rights law, it's very harrowing stuff. But incredibly important.

I was very surprised when I was handed an offer letter for Law at the college back then. I was newly arrived in the country after yrs abroad and had no idea about the structures of the various institutions and what they offered. My qualifications were very mediocre so was very surprised when I walked in into the college and walked out the same afternoon with an offer letter to study Law. Thankfully, I was savvy enough to realise something was very off and chose to study something else more in line with their specialty.

My point is the ex polys had started to lose their way long before they changed to 'universities' by offering academic degrees (no matter how few!) and setting themselves up in competition against the traditional universities for those subjects.

I thin k e are getting back to why independent schools have such an advantage (mentioned in the Sutton Trust report). The bespoke careers advice available to students at even quite ordinary private schools is beyond what any state school I know of could imagine. And this is particularly marked for medicine and law.

Supremely undue to some but dull to others though Goodbye. I've worked alongside two Oxford Law graduates, one who qualified as a barrister and one who specialised in IP. Both hated the careers they thought they would love, flipped it on to do top MBAs to broaden out and went on to do extremely well as CEOs in Corporates.

*undull

Piggy our school is good, courtesy of an incredibly dedicated Ho6 who has been in post for some while and is utterly determined to do his best for all the students. But I despair at the advice given by the three local comps, whose students mix with my own DC and their friends.

And yet those comps are at least as well funded as our own school, so it's not to do with funding or resources, purely lethargy on the part of the comps (that is not a slur on all comps - clearly mumsneedwine's comp is on it; it's just a scandal that others aren't).

I think a super selective grammar Ho6 may well be able to narrow their specialised advice more though : they aren't dealing with the whole range. But it still comes down to budget and the availability and quality of careers advisers.