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?

@mids2019 there is no funding. We either do it in our time or it wouldn't happen. Pretty much like every extra curricular club that happens 🤷‍♀️

Think there may be people on here who have never worked in a school and have no clue about how one is run.
I'll continue to frolic in my own time 😊

I do know that cantkeepawayforever. I was simply using L5 as a shorthand for the usual minimum standard. I assumed you would/ could have got that. There is no point there to be made - slightly wearying that I should have to say that.

Our school for years and years and years - as the only selective in a 50 mile radius - has taken all FSM DC who attained L5 in the area, and applied. I can't really understand why your local selective is different.

L4 was the expected standard

No selective state school has ever used SATs for selection - they all use the 11+. Unless this school is breaking the admissions code ? Because SATS results are not out until June and offer day is March 1st. So they'd have to offer before SATS are even sat 😳

No mumsneedwine, it most certainly wasn't, not for selective applications.

Yes dear. You know best. As always.

Also, no way is a teacher, even a sixth form tutor, at liberty to go off on frolics of their own without the sanction of the HT. It's just a load of rubbish, really it is.

Also, on a professional note, should you really be giving all these personal accounts of your students?

You have yet to explain how SATs are used to select before they've been sat.
I like a good frolic, especially with the head. In our slow minibus that can't time travel.

Yes I absolutely do know exactly what I'm talking about. Our school looked for applications from those achieving good L5s. You say that you teach is a secondary comp in a non grammar school area so I wouldn't think you need to be over familiar with that sort of detail.

😂😂😂 oh dear. You have definitely never worked in a school. Cover requests don't go near the head, just SLT link.
And I have not given any details about a student that are not in the public domain.

How ???? State school admissions are 1st March and SATs are not risen until May. Is this more magic time travel going on ?

Oh goodness it's tiresome. SATs were never used to select. But when parents wanted to know a guideline for whether an application was worthwhile, the a good L5 was the benchmark. It's really not hard to understand.

But they won't have a L5 until June after admissions are done.

You said the selective school took all FSM on L5 ?? You said they didn't take 11+'?
All v weird.

I would say that you were actually a bit free with your student anecdotes mumsneedwine. But let's do the agree to disagree thing which we do all the time.

And - sorry, but I have to say you're appearing to be far dimmer than I'm sure you are in rl - it was always the case that if a DC was heading for the good L5 sort of level, in Y5, then maybe they were of selective ability. It had sod all to do with anything post results.

Bingo ! For those of you who are playing the personal insults have started. Always goes the same way, disagree and you will find you are a useless person who can't do their job.
Must be hard knowing being perfect. 😂

"Our school for years and years and years - as the only selective in a 50 mile radius - has taken all FSM DC who attained L5 in the area, and applied. I can't really understand why your local selective is different".

I'll leave this here.

? They have a high priority for pupil premium. That’s how all fsm who qualify are admitted.

But, as I know nothing, as posted as few pages ago, I’m sure I must be wrong. I do find it extraordinary that when you dare to suggest something looks wrong regarding an anecdote, there is vitriol unleashed. It’s utterly stupid when the basic issue was poor advice regarding university and possibly course.

Oh my goodness again, I can only assume that you're deliberately feigning to not understand.

I certainly did not say that any DC was admitted to the school without taking and passing the 11+. That would be illegal.

Our school with it's huge travel area has for years and years taken all socially disadvantaged DC who were of L5 standard as judged by their primary schools and who also applied to our school.

I'm not sure how much more elementary I need to be.

Well actually no Percy, although you're right about the new policy. This has been the case with our school for years even before FSM were leapfrogged to the top of the list.

mumsneedwine there's no game, don't be so childish.

I am sorry, I think we should leave this here as this is not of relevance to the thread.

I continue to contend that, while in a perfect world every school would have an excellent programme of Oxbridge preparation, there are schools where not having one is less excusable (good comprehensives in leafy catchments) and those where it is more excusable.

If a list were to be made of the tasks / services that ideally every head should be able to deliver (from daily provision of food and clean clothes in the holidays to extension in all areas), all heads would prioritise based on the needs of their cohort and the limits of their budget. To not tick every item is not failure, in the same way as the Chancellor prioritising where Government spending will go is not failure, but essential management.

It is like requiring a sign language interpreter to be continuously on the staff of every school, because some schools will sometimes have a profoundly deaf child. It is not reasonable to say that every head is failing because they do not have an interpreter on the staff, when they have no profoundly deaf pupils and 10001 other claims on their budget.