This year's university places for dc at private school - what's the reality been?

[Thedogisdrivingmemad]

I'm reading and hearing lots of anecdotal information suggesting it's got much tougher for private school pupils to get top university offers. Things like "hardly anyone at dd's [private] school got an offer for Durham this year".
If you have dc at private school who've just left year 13, how has it been for your dc and their friends?

Private school on a financial scholarship - DS got 4As (and was predicted 4 As). The school is very high achieving which is why we managed to get him in there but it is very very far from the likes of Eton/Westminster etc. No help for Oxbridge applications and none of this sit as many mocks as you like. Anyway, DS was rejected by Oxford even though I could hear his interview through the wall and it was excellent they graded it just one point too low for him to be accepted. They were also really mean, nothing like their videos. It was obvious from the get go that they were going to reject him and it broke my heart to be honest because he had worked so hard and was trying so hard to show them his subject skills and interest but they kept trying to trip him up on really obscure areas of the subject (didn't succeed as it's his passion).

So no surprise when the rejection came but DS was really disappointed as he thought he'd done well (he had). But....on the plus side he got 4 other offers from top flight unis including Durham and St Andrews. Around 20 of his very smart friends were rejected from Oxbridge - but most now going to Durham, LSE or American Unis. So in our our experience it is only Oxbridge that is obsessed with social engineering and the rest of the unis were quite fair. But one friend did get rejected from LSE despite being predicted 4 A*s because he got two 8s in the GCSE exams he never sat.

Bloody hell - that sounds really tough. Does make you wonder what the likes of Oxbridge/LSE are actually looking for. It just sounds as though there’s no room for any slip-ups.

It is very tough on our young people.

The thing is with Cambridge, they have something like 24,000 applicants for about 3,500 offers. Oxford is very similar. The vast majority will have at least 2 or 3 A grades predicted or achieved, so that, in itself, is no guarantee of anything (unless they are applying from a very underperforming school). From the ones they have to reject, they know thousands will go on to achieve all A grades and do very well indeed at other unis. I think I saw in the Cambridge stats that about 70% of their intake achieve at least 3 A; nearly all the rest get two A. Also as well as the three thousand or so they accept, at least number again (of the ones they have to reject) get at least two A*. It's in the Cambridge Admissions stats if anyone is interested. I'm sure Oxford have similar data published.

don't know thy some bird went bold? It's meant to say A star in those parts.

I agree and I have observed that kids in selective schools (whether private or grammars type) are more likely to have more aspirational choices, than on average the kids in non-selective schools will have (who would have more safe bet choices).
Also those same "aspirational" kids are more likely to see taking a gap year and reapply with grades in hand as a positive opportunity positive to develop oneself (travel, have some work experience, maturing etc)

our 2 local state sixth forms give a chance to the pupils to have their UCAS predicted grades revised upward.
To be considered they have to study over the summer and submit extra work when the year 13 starts again.
there is a clear request from the various boards to collect evidence as a back up for the predicted grades.
some schools collect the evidence in the form of sitting an extra exam and others ask for piece of writing/essay/research etc
but it is definitely not just the private schools who give that second chance.

no test

I’ve reported that @TizerorFizz . Whilst I don’t disagree with your point, indeed having a parent present rather than looking independent could reflect badly on the student, the personal attack is uncalled for.

The thing is with Cambridge, they have something like 24,000 applicants for about 3,500 offers. Oxford is very similar.

LSE 26000 for 1700 places, according to its website, I think? Also, from hanging out on LSE threads on TSR in recent years out pf idle curiosity (as an alumna from the 1980s who enjoyed my time there, sadly I wasn't at all unhappy when DD decided not to apply), it is obvious that one's PS has to be tailored very specifically to the course as offered at LSE. Presumably everywhere else offering the same subjects just gets used to applicants expressing a slightly 'off' take on their interests. People rejected out of hand by LSE do get interviews and even offers from O and C, so it doesn't necessarily put them off?

LSE is a tricky one and the process is much more opaque as they don't interview and just rely on the PS (which au think is crazy as so many have "help" with the PS). They are also a much smaller uni than Oxford or Cambridge. However, unlike Oxbridge, they do have to 'over offer' by a lot for many courses - in some courses three or four times the amount of places they are looking to fill. This is because they have a much higher proportion of international applicants who will also be applying to similar institutions in the US or China etc. LSE offers some specific finance-related or accountancy degrees not available at at Oxbridge and these will be appealing to many who are very focused in getting into this type if career. More 'traditional' courses like history or geography tend to be quite small departments and, for they type of course, many will also be receiving offers from places like St A or Durham or Oxbridge and may well prefer that type of setting and being in a larger department for their subject. But for economics, competition will be as fierce as Oxbridge. It can also seem very harsh because all they can do is send the PS in and hope for the best and there are no interviews for them to get a sense of their chances or where they are in the process. It unfortunately happens quite often that they hold onto applications until May and then just reject people with one line in an email. They are notorious for being one of the slowest unis to make decisions.

I don't think there has been a dramatic change this year though over the past couple of decades there has been a direction of travel with entry to top UK Universities becoming steadily more difficult perhaps reflecting both access initiatives and increasing demand from strong overseas students. Equally private schools will have seen some of their strongest students look elsewhere for tertiary education. London especially is so international that many parents will look at global opportunities.

Eight years ago when DS was applying for economics he was told to apply for the top four mathematical courses and be happy to get one, with the fall back of a gap year and reapplication. He was a strong applicant (5 A levels with four predicted at A*, and the equivalent of an AS in a MFL), but so were a lot of others. You needed to apply to all four as all are competitive and it is not possible to predict which one might take you.

In the event he was rejected by Warwick, UCL and Cambridge but got an LSE offer. A class mate got Cambridge not LSE. I don't really understand the earlier poster who says that her DS was not expected to get Cambridge but was disappointed not to get LSE. They have the same applicants and are both very oversubscribed, but select in different ways. Cambridge interview, LSE relies on grades and PS and like strong mathematicians.

DD then applied for medicine with 5 A levels and marginally better predictions and it was equally tough. She was apparently the first for a decade to get a Bristol offer from a school that sent 20-30 to study medicine each year.

I think what may have happened is that trends that very selective academic schools (state or private) have been aware of for a while have become more obvious. Strong students who might previously been predicted an Oxbridge place have been looking at Durham, LSE, Imperial, Warwick etc, and discovered that these are not easy either.

Does it matter? Not a huge amount, I don't think. From observation the more confident students fared better with Oxbridge selection process/interviews. . Very few of DS' friendship group got places, but as clever, intellectually curious, students with good study skills, have done exceptionally well elsewhere, with several now taking PhDs. (Oddly many they knew who went to Oxbridge seem to have headed for the city - perhaps that's where confidence gets you.)

If a University will get a student to where they want to get to, that is enough. Very few employers now demand "Oxbridge". Strong students will often take a Masters and if they do well on their UG course will have the opportunity to switch to Oxbridge at that point. Eventual success will probably rely as much on study skills, willingness to engage, time management, ability to work with others, initiative and ability to self-start, etc. All things DC picked up at school, and which meant that they were ready for University when they finally got there.

Also, I think another issue with LSE is that they advertise quite a lot if courses at AAA or even AAB (ABB?) which obviously encourages a lot more people to apply then if they advertised with slightly higher minimum grade requirements. But I wonder how many, in reality, of those applying with AAA or AAB are actually made offers? Is applying with AAB essentially a wasted space on the UCAS form (unless highly contextualised circumstances)? If LSE are finding they have too many applicants to process every year - to the extent it can take them 8 months to process applications - you might think they would raise their grade boundaries as some other unis have? It would surely make admissions lives easier and students would not be put through months of stress for nothing. I've seen this with DD's friends and it seems unnecessary.

LSE economics is 4107 applicants for 204 places. Some subjects will be less competitive, but others, perhaps IR, will be even more.

aashna1, at the risk of diverting the thread, the LSE application deadline is January whereas the Oxbridge one is October. A lot, especially international applicants, will not apply until shortly before the deadline. Equal opportunities legislations requires them to consider all home applicants equally. Throw in the unpredictability of grades/applications in the past couple of years with both Covid and Brexit and you have a mess. Bigger Universities can often take more onto a course. This is a lot more difficult where lecture space and accommodation are limited. Lets hope, for everyone's sake that the next few years are more straightforward.

I don't really understand the earlier poster who says that her DS was not expected to get Cambridge but was disappointed not to get LSE. They have the same applicants and are both very oversubscribed, but select in different ways. Cambridge interview, LSE relies on grades and PS and like strong mathematicians.

That was me!:) We are internationals and not very familiar with the UK system; DS first in family to go to a UK university. I was a little disappointed because DS is a very strong mathematician and was predicted A stars in Maths and Further Maths ( which he achieved). Also all 9s at IGCSE. His grades were good.

However, I think his PS may have been a little lacking ( he wrote it himself) and not tailored to the LSE. I read it and found it a little dull myself, but did not interfere.

I agree that LSE is a target for international students because of name recognition. And after reading the other posts, I do realise how oversubscribed LSE is, so all's well that ends well anyway!

My advice for future applicants reading this thread would be to look closely at University websites. If a course is oversubscribed and they don't use aptitude tests, assume that the initial filter will be based on the PS, and that to do this they will be scoring it.

So look at what the University says are the course requirements and look closely at the course and ensure you have addressed and evidenced each requirement and that you have given clear reasons why a particular course is for you.

When DS got his place it was interesting. Lots of congratulations for international parents. English parents had less to say as if getting a place anywhere other than Oxbridge was some sort of failure. Attitudes have changed, even on this board, and people are starting to realise that the UK have a number of very good Universities and that our DC are very lucky to have a choice.

Obviously too, if the cohort going to Durham, London and other top Universities are stronger, the Universities will be stronger.

"LSE economics is 4107 applicants for 204 places."

I have to say I was a bit alarmed to read this as I have a DC likely to apply!

I just had a look at one of the FOI requests for LSE Economics (L100) on WhatDoTheyKnow -

2019 - 1496 applicants 268 offers
2020 - 1613 applicants 269 offers

So roughly 6 applicants per place for Economics? This is not as high as I would have expected. I think at Cambridge it's more like 12 applicants per place for Economics?

This was what was on the LSE website

Applications/offers/intake 2021 4,107/335/204

www.lse.ac.uk/study-at-lse/Undergraduate/degree-programmes-2023/BSc-Economics

It was about 11 to 1 when DS got his place, and since then international demand seems to have risen (blame Trump and a switch to applying to the UK rather than the US, though countered by a drop in EU applications) as has the department's world ranking. (I am not sure which ranking system DS was looking at.) LSE have a later application deadline so are likely to have higher application numbers.

I think it is back to the advice DS received from his school. Apply to all four of the more mathematical courses: Cambridge, UCL, Warwick and UCL and be happy to get one. With the numbers involved it is hard to know which one. A strong applicant should then be fairly certain of getting their fifth choice or, results in hand, should reapply. All are good and are well regarded by other academic institutions and by financial sector employers.

Cambridge, UCL, Warwick and LSE

This is part of the reply from LSE to the FOI request though. It goes in to give the requisite info about A-level grades of applicants etc.

No idea why they give such vastly different applicant to offer numbers on FOI and the website? Unless the figures on FOI only refer to the places / offers available for U.K. applicants - so the ratio is 1 in 6 for U.K. applicants , but much more competitive for internationals (and different quotas / fees for both groups)?

To some extent it does not matter. Even back then when I went to the Warwick open day with DS they said they had about 2,500 qualified applicants for around 500 places which meant they were rejecting some very strong applicants offering far more than the published grade requirements. There is an assumption that just because Warwick, UCL and LSE are not Cambridge, they are easier to get into. They are not, they are very competitive and good grades, preparation and an element of luck are required.

A big thing is made of medicine where every year some very strong applicants will end up without offers. Economics at top universities is just as tough, except the fall back includes accepting an offer for a slightly less competitive course as well as taking a gap year and reapplying.

Also, I think another issue with LSE is that they advertise quite a lot if courses at AAA or even AAB (ABB?) which obviously encourages a lot more people to apply then if they advertised with slightly higher minimum grade requirements. But I wonder how many, in reality, of those applying with AAA or AAB are actually made offers? Is applying with AAB essentially a wasted space on the UCAS form (unless highly contextualised circumstances)?

@aashna1 DD is a current student at the LSE. She applied with her grades in hand during a gap year. She applied for a course advertised requiring AAA with AAA grades achieved (2019) and was offered a place; so definitely not a wasted space. She did have a strong PS and school reference (selective state school, no contextual circumstances).

With the LSE there is very little wriggle-room on results day. A friend with an AAA offer for History got A* (History), A,B and was rejected on results day.

Is that good to hear though if the school is very selective? So the pupil intake is pretty bright in the first place. So doesn't seem very fair to me unless I've missed something?