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?

I suppose in order to spell it out, the school knows each year which disadvantaged pupils are admitted because of the data analysis it does after each admissions round. I possibly made the mistake of assuming that people would know that as a given.

Cross posted cantkeepawayforever but you're correct that the 11+ thing is straying from the thread.

I nevertheless disagree about what HTs should lead on, without wishing to minimise the huge challenges faced by those in certain areas. HT's have a duty to each and every one of their kids.

So...

Do we have a problem in that universties are actively trying to recruit from disadvantaged schools but in some cases it is simply not pragmatic for these to focus on university admission?

What could the solutions be?

Deep contexualisation for the most disadvantaged schools to make entry more realistic?

More foundation years at elite universities?

Concentration on getting pupils at the most poorly performing schools into any type of higher ieducation nstead of further education?

Higher tariffs for selective schools to make room at space limited elite courses for more disadvantaged pupils?

Is there a limit to outreach??

It's not easy and I don't know the right answer and sometimes I feel at odds with myself about advantage/disadvantage.

My overall thoughts are we are effectively dampening down a cohort of kids who have worked really hard in the Indie sector to to tell them their hard work was not good enough (because our education system does not have enough places)... We also on the other side have a lot of bright DC whose potential is untapped because they are not given the opportunity to show their full potential because of their background or the environment they live in.

Surely in a fair equal system all these students should have the same opportunity.

Yes my DH and I have the share your thoughts @Daisysway .

Parenting also has a lot to answer for. Even if people are from an unprivileged background if parents have the same emphasis on education, those kids still have a chance to succeed. I recall reading somewhere that it's parental input that has strongest influence on how well a student does.

However having worked in deprived areas I know some parents even though nice people don't have the same aspirations and the kids don't have the inspiration.

Unless we change society as a whole, inequality won't change.

The Oxbridge programme is a bit of a red herring. Most schools put something in place. What they don't have is on tap expertise, funded support, specialised careers, Oxbridge and UCAS advisers. Often the trumpeted London based state schools are highly selective (this filtering out other issues), highly funded , and receive extra funds from interested organisations and charities. Grammar schools have an able cohort so are more likely to devote time to HE applications and also do this more efficiently because of streamlining of aspirations. From what I read on here, many. private schools have at least one member of staff paid to work with high fliers. Careers advisers in state schools are often shared, and not always very au fait with university stuff.

In any school, SLT set priorities, based often on what the governors ahve agreed and Ofsted set targets. Any member of staff who comes along and says they need time/ funding etc to set up a special bespoke Oxbridge group above and beyond a few meetings that already exist and could they please leave the school site with another member of staff and take some students out would, sadly, be ignored/ told to go away. That said, it does mean those who have got into Oxbridge have truly done well.

I don't know what the answer to your questions are either mid. I do think a goal needs to be access to HE full stop for some young people - and raising the status and profile of every institution so that institution snobbery became less of an issue (instead of suggesting that deprived young people should just jolly well see that going away to uni is a spiffing good idea when they can't afford it). Pipe dream in England perhaps. Any degree increases potential earnings, especially for BAME women. The Sutton Trust , for a range of reasons (some quite political) has got a bit tangled up in elite universities of late and may be missing wider points about participation and, oddly, not focusing on costs of uni much.

I think it will definitely be interesting to see the outcomes of the LMH foundation years at Oxford and the nascent scheme at Cambridge too.

The fact that a bunch of fairly well off, middling ability kids at my schol may not get the world's best advice and may end up at , I don't know, Staffs instead of Swansea is probably a small fry issue. Arguably , even the fact that some might end up at Portsmouth or NTU instead of Liverpool or Kent also really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. It's just quite frustrating when on MN to see how much support and help some independent school students get as a default : I do sometimes wonder what happens to some of them at uni thought when all the helicoptering vanishes.

Parenting does also play a huge part in all of this!

As LBJ once said 'you've got 1 problem; I've got 1001'.

Hull hit the press .....in an article about writing correct English not being necessary.

"The reason is they’re afraid that insisting on students expressing themselves in clear English could be viewed as ‘homogenous North European, white, male, elite’.

Hull University has said it is dropping the requirement for a high level of technical proficiency in written and spoken English in some subjects, in order to ‘challenge the status quo’.

Other universities adopting similar policies include the University of the Arts London, which has issued guidelines telling staff they should ‘actively accept spelling, grammar or other language mistakes that do not significantly impede communication unless the brief states that formally accurate language is a requirement’.

And at Worcester University, academics have been told that if spelling, grammar and punctuation are not ‘central to the assessment criteria’, students should be judged only on their ideas and knowledge of the subject."

The problem is that for some jobs you will damage the client if your English is poor. In one US case a comma in a legal document in the wrong place cost millions of dollars. In some ways the job is all about the language whether you are suing someone, writing a letter of advice or a contract. So we might say at university it is fine if your English is poor. However as soon as they start applying for most jobs where there are lots of applicants per place one of the filters might be typos or poor English mean you are not going to move to the next stage.

It was either HEPI or the Sutton trust whose most recent research said that the single most important factor in university application was parental involvement. Not necessarily helicoptering, or financing but the idea that schools and HE institutions ought to make sure parents are involved and informed at every step. the idea that parents ought to just ignore their nearly (but definitely not!) adult DCs and let them get on doesn't produce best outcomes (by which I don't mean they should interfere!). And some schools definitely perpetuate this.

There is always a fear of additional workload in teaching. Unless you work in a school that appear a whine rather than a real problem - I can report it is indeed crucifying at times. The schools that can and do fund non teaching staff to oversee programmes are at an advantage. Increasingly this is being done across MATs and LAs and by charities such as Villiers Park, but again targeting certain schools. Standalone academies remain an issue.

When I brought up increasing parental involvement in an interview recently the immediate response was 'where is the time coming from'? I think lots of schools think that if they focus on data, they raise performance and thus automatically solve problems of progression and aspiration.

On another note, some universities are definitely far better at communicating and outreach (to all students) than others.

Parents are THE most important factor is getting to University and also to getting good academic grades. Having somewhere to study, being fed, listened to and loved matter more than any amount of money. It's why I'm so so proud of those students who succeed without it. Or without parents at all. When people talk about getting a 6 as some kind of failure it makes me so mad as that student may have managed to do that in a 2 bedroom house with 6 siblings and one parent at work all the time. They may be a young carer or have parents who don't think education is worth anything.
Schools can only do so much - and they need funding to do this. I couldn't (wouldn't) do the extra hours if I had my own children at home.

To what extent is that a state school thing.

Our local primary used to put middle class kids (mainly white British or Nigerian) on the top table. They were middle class so were bound to be clever.

In contrast some of the very brightest at DCs prep school had arty parents (either successful or on bursary) but in terms of eventual destinations DC have tended to mirror what their family did. So children of professionals have headed to University, whereas others, even though they were top of top set have skipped University altogether.

I should add that those whose parents ran successful small businesses have also tended to follow parental footsteps.

Though there have been some impressive University destinations the correlation has been the skills that parents attach to higher education.

I am sure the same applies to children of retailers and tradesmen. It is probably not a reflection on the school, but the fact that these roles are valued by parents. For example a friend of DDs from her ski season will go on to run the fitness studio her mother owns, whilst a friend of mine used to be a successful mobile make up artist and beautician for TV newsreaders and celebrities attending red carpet events, following on from her mother who owned a beauty parlour in a market town. Her kids are academic but so far none have gone to University one choosing instead to do a degree apprenticeship whilst the other is a professional sportsperson.

Yes following parents is very common. In my family down the mines for at least 150 years plus for example or lawyers _ grandfather's brother, me, 4 of my children) or medicine - father, uncle, brother etc I suppose it's not that children are boring but just that they know what they know so the baker's son not surprisingly is often a baker. There is not necessarily anything wrong with that of course.

Depends on what skills are needed for the business. My DDs are not engineers and never wanted to be. There is plenty of evidence that med schools have plenty of doctors children and vets have DC who become vets. Both have distinct advantages in the selection process.

I actually think it does matter whether a student goes to Staffs and not Swansea. This epitomises the whole problem. I totally accept some DC simply won’t look elsewhere but I really don’t know why schools cannot look to mentors to advise. Yes, I know it takes setting up, but it’s important. Schools can be very poor at tapping into advice that would be freely available. Independent schools are often much better. Alumni come back in and inspirational speakers are found. Parents expect more - certainly of the boys. Not always seen that with girls.

UAL is primarily an arts and design university. It’s very different to Hull. It’s not offering politics and history degrees! I do believe a high enough standard of English is ok for UAL but for Hull, it’s a marketing position that seems unnecessary. It might also stop their grads getting jobs. UAL grads would get jobs based on other abilities and learning.

Yes, I can imagine applying to study Medicine is an intimidating prospect with no point of reference other than as a patient. My dad was a doctor, so despite attending a pretty mediocre comprehensive my siblings and I didn’t feel it was unattainable (and my brother did go on to do medicine). DS is determined to be an civil engineer, who might sound particularly focussed and practical for a 10 yo, but with an architect father he’s had plenty of encouragement (and bridges and dams happen to be DS’s areas of special Aspie interest, which helps).

How do we better “demystify” careers, so that teenagers have a better idea of what they can attain?

DH 100% put DT’s off becoming a doctor. Luckily he was successful and neither had any interest in medicine.

One of mine is training to be a doctor and one a vet. Nothing even remotely close to either of those careers in the family. But think that might be partly because we'd never have believed we could - working class as they come, and when I was 18 it would never have occurred to me that I could do medicine. My husband's parents left school at 14 (secondary modern - you were chucked out), both worked hard and became comfortable and own a house in S W London that is now worth a fortune 😂.
Think my kids have always been told they could do whatever they wanted so have followed their dreams. Money never came into it - never had much so you don't maybe aspire to it as much ?

Yes but you are a teacher. Children of Professionals tend to value higher education and become professionals themselves.

What has surprised me is even at academic private schools, how many bright DC of successful entrepreneurial or entertainment industry parents have chosen not to go to University. Or if they do, who have opted from art or drama courses.

I assume the same pattern is seen in state schools. Not a good or bad thing, and not the "fault" of the school. Parents give greater emphasis to interpersonal and creative skills and perhaps are less worried about grades and Oxbridge. Their children are just as likely to be "successful". The real problems presumably occur where families lack aspiration. One teacher at our local 93% FSM school told me that the hardest pupils to teach were those who came from families with three generational unemployment. Whereas another Council I worked for had a school that targeted both pupils and their families for literacy help. Children tried if they saw their parents also made an effort. (It was also done by community with some communities seen as needing particular support. At the time Romanians, or at least the Romanians newly settled in the borough, were one. )

True, both of us are graduates. We only got to go to Uni because it was free and we got full grants. So we have given our kids a better chance because we got a chance. It's this step that can be the hardest - going to Uni when no one else has. Aiming for the professions when no one else has. I went straight into banking after Uni, recruited via milk round (& made stupid money - 1980s pre Big Bang). Hated it, and fell into teaching later in life via.
No easy solutions to any of this but I do talk to the students about my background, and used to get my dear old dad in to tell them about his childhood. He wanted to be an architect but was forced to leave school at 15 and go to work.

The idea of parents passing down businesses and encouraging them to do the same professions is pretty integral to a lot of society (especially historically). You hear of medical families, legal families even Oxbridge families. I think the uncertainty of having your children having the opportunity to pursue similar careers to yourself is an angst that is possibly a bit more prevalent today. (Though obviously to some this is nepotism).

Parents being a major factor in their children's academic performance is true but is this an advantage that needs compensating for and is that in itself fair?

Are ideas like contextualisation in danger of being perceived as compensation for other societal failings e.g. lack of parental involvement of poor education environment? I disagree personally with this but could it be an accusation levelled in the future if there is continued pressure for unis to diversify intake?

Could even a decision by a parent to move houses to be in catchment area of good school be perceived as a parental influence?

I don't understand reducing careers advice. Surely careers should be introduced at least as a concept early in education (with honest impartial advice).

My daughter wants to become an actress and I am unsure whether this is going girl's pipe dream or whether it is serious ambition. If it serious then this is yet another career that is competitive in the extreme and without parental connections or at least support seems an unattainable goal.

Depends on how you judge success. One of my friends has good A levels. She didn’t want to go to Uni but got a job with her local council. She has worked a mixture of part and full time whilst she had her children. Her DH also works for the same council. She would count herself as successful at work as she has a job with good maternity provisions, generous holidays and flexible work times which means she and DH have both managed to work and spend plenty of time with their children without needing childcare which they can’t afford

Being an actress is very much something acting families can assume their DC will do successfully. Of all the "acting" friends DDs have had (and it is well over 10) only one has carved a career, despite them attending some highly ranked acting establishments for training. The one with well known parents in that field has worked. It is somewhat about product placement!

Even the local performing arts school near us does not have an amazing list of alumni. It is very very hard to get on the first rung of the ladder. I would try and steer towards it being a hobby. It is soul destroying never to get through any auditions. Then you have to find something else to do - when the penny eventually drops.

I am not sure contextualised offers will matter in the wider world of university attendance. Depends if you think these students will displace Oxbridge as being the go-to universities for the law, civil service etc. They may have a wider intake in the future, but who will rise to the top? Possibly the state educated Oxbridge students but not so much from elsewhere would be my guess. However the Sutton Trust shows the grammars losing their foothold but, around me, they have very few PP children in them. Of the ones they do have, how many of these go to Oxbridge is another matter entirely. Therefore it reamains to be seen how well they do at the top of the professions they choose.

The trouble is that "success" judged by working for the local council and having plenty of time available is fine for them but that is not the judgement made by any organisation such as the Sutton Trust, IFS or similar. Why bother to even suggest attending an elite university (as the Sutton Trust constantly champions) if you can stay at home and get everything you want woithout the effort? In some areas of the country, lower earnings would not involve buying a house for a family but you might have the time to look after them. Councils often offer very flexible work. Their higher paid work is usually very full on and goes to grads, but not Oxbridge ones if the Sutton Trust is to be believed! So do the contextualised grads head in this direction?

Success means very different things to different people. It's very individual. That's why having choices is so important. If someone chooses to do as their parents have done, that's fine as long as it wasn't falling into it due to a lack of other options. Sadly, I think that often happens.

There can be pressures across the spectrum though. I have a friend whose parents (both) and all her siblings are doctors. She was academically capable of becoming a doctor but just didn't want to be a doctor. She said it took a lot of resolve to forge a different path. She is very fulfilled in her career but says even at forty something she feels like she somehow let her family down.

Actually the stats show that state educated (and especially BME graduates) don't particularly proper in pay terms despite their Oxbridge/ elite degree. this is that next thorn that will be considered in need of grasping. Was in the Racial Disparities Report.