Another Path - part IV

[321zyx]

Apologies if I've done this wrong! I seemed to have filled up the last thread, hopefully the abbreviated title is ok!

@Chilldonaldchill you are very gracious and best wishes to your DC indeed.

The point I was trying to make is - if a DC was rejected by all the other top Unis except Oxbridge- perhaps in another year they may not have got the Oxbridge offer either?

However it is difficult to generalise like that. Just thought of some top students who didn't get their non Oxbridge top choices either. Feedback was - they were good. But others were better .....

[quote LaLaFlottes]@opoponax that's right about Exeter! A few of DD's friends were very shocked to find they didn't have an interview even with a high UCAT. It certainly did make everyone panic about their choices didn't it! I wonder if the knock on effect will be less applications there for 2022 entry as applicants might be put off.

@Chilldonaldchill that's a good job your DD's friend asked for feedback after her interview. It seems odd they offered her an interview if they thought she hadn't sat the entrance tests? Unless they were to be sat after interview? Thank goodness she asked![/quote]
Yes. I'm assuming it was a mistake on the UCAS form to state that because the uni had obviously interviewed and scored them. I still don't understand how they could have been rejected due to a clerical error - part of me wonders whether they were rejected genuinely but then the UCAS form was inaccurate so gave the offer as recompense. But I don't suppose that can possibly be true as the uni must have recorded a score that can justify the offer (and they're a great candidate who had another offer and an O interview so should have done well). I do find it very scary though!

What all of this really means is that, because few universities actually publish how they choose with any meaningful feedback or statistics, how does anyone know how they really select candidates? Every year there are surprises with Oxbridge but fewer with others. Now it’s a lottery everywhere in the top tier. There’s no transparency as to how others are “better”. Especially in non interviewing subjects: which is nearly all of them apart from Oxbridge. It makes it very difficult to know where to apply in future I think.

That's the thing - I don't think it's a quantifiable thing which makes others "better". How do you decide one personal statement is better than another? Depends on the person reading it, no?

I dont understand your post Percy.

Things have been tougher this year because of a lack of grade differentiation between applicants. However top courses, Oxbridge or not, have always been competitive.

Seven or eight years ago DS was told it was a lottery. He should apply for the top four courses and be happy to get one. He was also told to be prepared for a two year process. He got a place, and three rejections, on first application. One of his classmates got none, but an offer from Cambridge the following year.

That was economics, but medicine and presumably other subjects are similar. Things like drama are even tougher.

Under the Equalities Act 2010 Universities are obliged to treat all applicants equally. They will have criteria. They wont publish the detail as applicants would then try to game these.

I dont really understand your belief that Oxbridge is different. A course that has more qualified applicants than places will be competitive and prone to 'surprises', and it is not that unusual to get an Oxbridge offer and rejections elsewhere.

Chopc, I suspect PSs are scored against specific internal criteria, so that if a University were challenged they could defend their 'equality'.

DS was disappointed a classmate was offered Warwick when DS was rejected. I suspect Warwick gave extra points for languages not least because they have a strong study abroad programm. Ditto DS got LSE. He was a regular attendee at LSE public lectures and they would have had a record. It is quite possible that this gave him a couple of extra points in terms of knowledge and interest in the institution. Who knows. They will all have slightly different approaches and so pick different applicants from what are, inevitably, strong fields.

Oxbridge is clearly different because they interview. I know medicine and a few others interview but most top courses at top universities do not. Therefore Oxbridge has more info and is clearly different on that count alone.

I never knew anyone who applied for the top 4 courses. Mostly people choose a top 2 aspirational, two in the middle and one lesser. Stops being disappointed if all 4 go wrong. But I’m just a mere mortal with ordinary DC.

It’s going to be even more of a lottery in the future then! Is that really ok?

My DS applied for what were the top four destinations for him. Leeds was the outlier but still required same grades as UCL/ LSE to get in

Yes but Leeds is often insurance for top candidates. Was for my DD. They might be flexible! Did he get an offer from them? Most people don’t see Leeds in the same light as the other 2 universities you mention or Oxbridge. I’m assuming top 4 really meant top 4 in the uk. Not a personal top 4 which can be very different!

@PresentingPercy

What all of this really means is that, because few universities actually publish how they choose with any meaningful feedback or statistics, how does anyone know how they really select candidates? Every year there are surprises with Oxbridge but fewer with others. Now it’s a lottery everywhere in the top tier. There’s no transparency as to how others are “better”. Especially in non interviewing subjects: which is nearly all of them apart from Oxbridge. It makes it very difficult to know where to apply in future I think.

This.

Totally agree.

PP he applied for Cambridge, Durham, UCL, LSE and Leeds. Got offers from all except Cambridge. I would say the first four are top universities? He actually didn't have a fifth choice so we suggested Leeds as that was DH alma mater. It is ranked no 11 for History as per the complete university guide.

I just remembered he purposely didn't apply for St Andrews although it was highly ranked for his subject as he said "I won't get in there". His school has a particular poor record at St. Andrews.

Thinking back I don't recall many on this thread who have not chosen mostly highly ranked universities for their top four choices. I think we (DH/DS and I) had the wrong attitude though. Our thoughts were if you cannot get into one of the top universities for the subject you love and are the best at, perhaps we ought to rethink.

Thing is so many careers require a degree for the sake of having a degree as opposed to needing it to do the job. I remember around 20 years ago there were so many bankers who had left school at 16 and worked their way up. Don't think you will get into a bank in the first place now without a degree.

Mostly people choose a top 2 aspirational, two in the middle and one lesser.

This is standard MN advice, repeated year after year, often by the same posters. But that does not make it correct.

DC who are predicted more or less straight A*s, and whose school believes are capable of thriving on a top course, should aim for one. As discussed above, it can be a lottery. So:

1. Apply to the top 4
2. Treat it as a two year process.

Obviously allow more width for your second application, but if you are applying with A*s in hand rather than predicted your chances will be slightly better anyway.

Given what I read on MN I think one reason why some schools have much better acceptance rates for top courses, is because they give better advice. You normally get one chance to go to University. You might as well aim for one that will be a strong fit.

Back to the percentage example I gave earlier. When DS was applying there was one place for every 11 qualified applicant at LSE, and similarly high numbers elsewhere. A good applicant might have a 25% chance of getting a place at a specific institution. So some end up with 4 offers, some none. That's the lottery bit. And this year it might be down to 20%.

And why is it important to aim for a top course. I would say maths. DS' fifth choice expanded their department and were taking applicants with a B in Maths. Graduates on technical courses will be hired partly on the technical skills acquired and salary levels will be bases partly on the rarity of those skills. It is pretty obviously that a course where most applicants have an A* in FM will be able to go faster and cover more ground.

Getting on a top course is a bit of a lottery. Why not do everything you can to maximise your chances.

(I would put a firm bet on the fact that your DDs school has changed their approach for gifted mathematicians in the decade of so since your DDs left, simply because the competition has increased so much.)

And yes Oxbridge interview. Each top course has a slightly different recruitment approach. It depends on the applicant which approach they are more likely to do better in. As a broad generalisation and based simply on the London applicants we knew, Cambridge economics likes confidence. The type who walks into an interview room and is there with a ready and interesting opinion. Without exception the people we knew who went there had parents who were (very) senior bankers. LSE in contrast seemed to like quieter mathematicians, who perhaps shine better on paper. Warwick liked linguists. A small, possibly inaccurate, sample but observation nonetheless.

DD was predicted all A*’s and got them. Of her five Uni choices, two were in the U.K. and the other three in Europe. She got offers from them all but turned down the perceived better Uni - St Andrews and went to York as she liked the place better.

Parker, that is not uncommon. It depends on the applicants perception, and on more than the academics. StA is quite a specific University.

We know a bright mathematician who had the sense to realise Cambridge was not for her. Yes she found maths easy, but was not ready for the intensity of the Cambridge course,. Ditto a boy who took his five A*s to a University that is sometimes sneered at here. (A poster called BubblesBuddy used to have a real downer on it.) His decision, was taken after proper consideration. He thrived there, including scholarship, and has done well since. He did not get Cambridge, nor probably wanted it, did not fancy London and so chose the City he wanted to be in and which allowed him to continue his extra curricular interests.

In contrast DS was very focussed on his subject. He knew what he wanted to study since about the age of 12. He wanted to be somewhere where his peers were similarly absorbed.

This is standard MN advice, repeated year after year, often by the same posters. But that does not make it correct.

Completely agree with Needmoresleep. Students with a set of top grades should have no need for any insurance uni. My advice has always been to put down five top names and ignore the safe advice. Far too many dull schools and dull teachers hand out this rubbish advice to top students without discriminating between them and less able students, not only because they're dull and unaspirational themselves but because they don't want to be shouted at by parents.

It now seems a minority these top young people can end up with no offers though. That’s the gamble at the moment. I hadn’t thought about schools being dull. It’s a while since dc were there! I also think the dc on this thread are ultra bright and not standard bright dc. However I don’t know a single very bright child who didn’t put down somewhere like Leeds as well as the top 3 in the subject. I guess you are very lucky if dc really don’t need a university outside the top 10, but some do. At the moment, lack of clarity around decisions, might make Leeds and the like a vital inclusion for slightly more ordinary mortals who are not sure they will nail one of the top 4 choices.

I think it changed a bit when universitise were allowed to make more offers for those with AAB or higher (which is when the course my daughter did at Bristol doubled its numbers - when my son took it there were double the number of students on it and I am sure it was easier therefore to get in even allowing for the fact there may be more applicants now- daughter and son were 13 years apart). 13 years ago it was more like when I applied and lots of people did put some definitely not as good places down. My back up was Leicester and my daughter's Royal Holloway; whereas more recently one of my sons was so sure of getting his grades (and in my view there has been grade inflation both since 1979 when I did mine and around 2002 when my daughter did and 2017 when my twins did - not that it is helpful to teenagers to tell them that as they can only deal with the year they are in - the past is another country). Anyway so sure he was of getting his grades he had Edinburgh with the same grade offer as his top choice Bristol (he rejected Durham for Bristol). He got his grades. He took a risk, in my view. His twin's back up for Bristol was Nottingham which IS slightly easier.

I am not sure why I am still interested in this thread as I have no child applying this year but I am wishing everyone luck on it and it really does all come out in the wash later and is not as important in a few years if you aren't in exactly the university you had wanted. My children did not try for Oxbridge and did not think they would get in (I didn't go there nor try, although both my siblings went).

Anyway this year and last were not normal years due to covid so it is even more complicated now. Hopefully those applying next year might find at least we are back to normal in person exams.

Percy, but why. It makes no sense.

Applicants we know with top grades, and who don't get one of their preferred Universities, will normally reapply rather than go somewhere they don't really want to go. So no point in applying, especially first time around.

And the approach has existed for a while, going back at least to when your DDs were applying.

University is a lot of money. The opportunities offered by top courses, especially in more technical subjects are greater. And for many bright DC, challenging courses are more fun.

In competitive situations you need a fall back, but the fallback does not need to be accepting something "lesser". DD was in a prep so only applied to secondary schools she wanted to go to, on the basis that if she were not accepted anywhere she would stay where she was and apply again at 13. DS applied tor a small number of PhD programmes whilst taking his Masters. Again he did not bother applying to a fallback. His fallback was reapplying the following year.

Yes you need a fallback, but the fallback can be taking a gap year.

MN regularly has poor advice. This trope about two aspirational, two middle and one lesser is one of the most pervasive.

There is a bizarre exemption for medical and drama schools where it is accepted that a reapplication may be necessary. But somehow the same is not seen as necessary for other, equally competitive, courses.

Not everyone can afford a gap year. Especially if no jobs around. Bit of a luxury of the middle class. Parents lose all benefits once a student leaves school and needs them to work or get funding.
If your children went to Westminster or the like this is probably not an issue though.

Totally agree that for most courses, straight-9-at-GCSE students should be pitching themselves at only the top unis.

BUT I think it IS sensible to adopt a more strategic approach when applying for a course like Medicine. Brilliant students can be tripped up at interview and the ranking of applicants is quite subjective. And of course, it doesn't matter so much for job prospects in medicine where you studied....

I am still aggrieved that the schools who cheated the system last year by issuing inflated CAGS haven't been named and shamed - as it is those schools that have indirectly created this annus horribilis for uni applicants. The exam boards had 2-3 months of sitting on the CAGs when they should have got back to all those schools who reported rampant grade inflation and told them to rein in their grades (In the end, the algorithm wrongly took a sledge hammer to all schools' grades, rather than those that deserved it). The same deviant schools will cheat the system again this year. It's got to the point that CAGS/TAGS say more about the school that issued them than the student who earned them!

It is quite unusual that DC cannot pay their way through a gap year. DD priorities working abroad, so did not take particularly well paid jobs but still has savings left from that year. Others she knew stacked shelves in supermarkets or worked as HCAs. Some managed to get jobs which helped their degrees. Library assistant with a travelling library was one example. A* types often have no problems getting on on tutoring jobs or working for Kumon centres.

As well as schools not encouraging their very brightest students to aim high, I find it depressing when people suggest that DC have neither the means, nor gumption to pay their way at 18. These are high performing, hard working DC. If they can't find employment, how can their peers with much lower school attainment.

University is essentially an investment decision. The skill set gained from having taken a very challenging course is probably worth that gap year. Plus a DC will gain skills during that gap year.

Getting a full time job at 18 that pays enough to fully fund yourself is hard. Especially now.
Travelling abroad costs money and is a middle class aspiration. Lots of my students don't own a passport, have no contacts abroad to help them find jobs, and lots of the ski season places only seem to want nice middle class white kids. So they take places at Uni, even if it is their insurance at what some deem a 'lesser' one. They go, work hard and get fantastic jobs in fields they want. Which are not always the ones that MN deems the best. But are the ones that give them satisfaction (we produce a lot of social workers and clinical psychologists).

@MidLifeCrisis007 agree with every word. It is so frustrating to see some schools, lots of a particular type, boasting of their amazingly inflated grades last year. When most tried their best to be fair and honest. This year will worse I think.

Dc on a gap year can also claim benefits themselves ( universal credit) whilst job seeking and thus contribute to household ( if parents have lost benefits)

However, despite the Oxbridge ones, we have 27 going to Durham and a similar number to Edinburgh and St Andrews. So our crap advice must work for some.
Have another one who wants to go to Harvard next year. Hoping the success of getting the last applicant in a few years ago will help us. Ours students are poor so they end up with a totally free education there. They even pay for the flights home.

@Longtimenewsee no they can't. No benefits until 21 if living at home.