Contextualisation - are we missing a trick?

[devilsadvocate77]

I do believe it is a good thing to have a system which allows students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a chance to gain a foothold on the educational ladder.

However, I was quite surprised to find out that some unis have a list where virtually all state schools (non-grammar) are included for contextualisation. Many of these schools I know for a fact are in leafy suburbs where the top sets are frequently kids who could have gone to grammar, super selective or private schools (wealthy parents).

Some of these schools, admittedly, have a wide range of abilities in their student pool. But to use the measure of how you compare with the rest of your school year cohort seems odd.

So if you are at a super selective grammar (or selective indie) and 'only' achieve 8/9s - as opposed to all 9s - you are downgraded as you have performed lower than your year/school cohort. But it seems unfair as these kids are all able and virtue of them having been selected on ability in the first place!! Why should the grammar lot not be considered for contextualisation?

You could argue that the top set in a leafy area comp will get more attention and good teaching than those in grammar who are expected to 'get on with it' to an extent.

Should add that some of these comps are very happy to provide very high UCAS predictions (not based on current level of working) as opposed to many grammar and high achieving independent schools who seek to provide very accurate predictions.

Would also be interested to know what contextualisation looks like in other countries when it comes to applying to uni?

Well, they're the same teachers who've been teaching the kids who go to the more desirable 6th form college after getting better GCSEs than the rest of their cohort.

This is very specific to the dynamic in this particular area. I doubt it's anything Bristol knows anything about, but 6th forms A,B,C and D have the same socio-economic intake, C & D get better results, while A & B get contextual offers. Don't know if that's replicated elsewhere on the Bristol list.

Last time I looked at Bristol's list, it did even had grammars on it, one of which I was familiar with and the majority of pupils were not 'contextual offer' type pupils. Made me suspicious that to some extent they wanted those pupils even if they achieved less than other pupils at the local comp.

But we should be questioning anecdote here when the OP is so dogmatic about her own 'facts'.

Presumably, that’s why children at schools A& B get contextual offers @devilsadvocate77 as they are statistically less likely to get higher grades due to the typical grade performance at the sixth form they are attending. Perhaps need to grow some more trees to achieve the magical ‘leafy’ affect?

Look at the methodology - that's one factor of the list : progression on to HE . So that explains entirely why two schools are on the list as they have lower progression rates. I actually live in a relatively affluent area but with low rates of progression to HE. I remain a bit baffled as to why my (looks quite 'leafy', isn't) local comprehensive got excised form the list.

But - again- this is ONE university.

Was this intended for @Rhinoc ?

It was in response to @Rhinoc I tagged you in error @devilsadvocate77 apologies

Interesting also when they say that the data bears out the use of contextualisation as the kids go on to do as well as those from 'more affluent' households who are not receiving contextualised offers.

But, to be fair, most of the kids in top sets in comps, e.g., would likely be able to have applied to 11+/grammar (in fact all of the ones in top top sets at local comp here were accepted to both grammars and super selectives) so they were ALREADY able. Presumably they would do well regardless, so of course they would do well at uni?

I may well be missing a point here but what I'm saying is NOT that I want to do away with contextualisation as I'm supportive and it clearly plays a part when it comes to kids on free school meals, in deprived households etc but there seems to be so many instances when it's such a rough tool where it's benefitting perhaps not those most in need of it?

I'm not the OP?

Also not the only one to express surprise at Bristols contextual list. I know someone who's son went to Bristol with 3 x Bs but failed his first year.

You're a bit obsessed with setting! I teach a mixed ability subject. There is a huge amount of very conflicting theory on this but being in a 'top set' in a comprehensive school, leafy or otherwise, does not confer any of the added advantages of funding, class sizes, specialised careers advisers etc that private school parents know they are paying for,

Are there not sets in grammars and private schools?

It's a blunt tool, but it's better than nothing.

That’s where I am with this I think.

An interesting thread - thanks OP

I know you aren't the OP but 'my aunt's cousin's sister's nephew' is not really helpful . Bristol is a huge uni.

As we are all (except the OP) saying, Bristol is an outlier and, yes, their list is a bit notorious. But they seem to have the particular aim of reducing their private school intake.

The OP herself has yet to acknowledge that we really are talking about the methodology of one university here- in fact, she asked for other countries' approaches, as if Bristol is representative of the whole of England/ the UK.

ps I know someone who went to Durham with 3 A stars and failed their first year...

I know you aren't the OP but 'my aunt's cousin's sister's nephew' is not really helpful

But ok when you do it?

@devilsadvocate77 it’s not contextual offers you have got a bee in your bonnet about it’s Bristol’s particular scheme. As you said your DC don’t want to go there I don’t know why it’s irked you so much? The proportion of privately educated people applying and attending there had become too high and they needed to rebalance to attract more state school students. You said yourself state school pupils may have experienced more disruption to their education due to the pandemic and limitations in provision during that time - but you begrudge them their places.

Can I offer an anecdote: one of DC's friends has just started at Bristol. Doing an ice-breaker exercise with their seminar group, they each had to offer a 'fun fact' about themselves. A fellow student suggested to DC's friend, 'Your fun fact could be that you went to a state school'. (Apparently completely guileless, just something that made this person different from the majority of students they'd met so far.) Bristol has an (anecdotal?) reputation as being full of private school kids; their very comprehensive state school list is an imperfect way of attempting to change that.

Contextualised offers/WP schemes etc are undoubtedly imperfect, but broadly a good thing in my view.

Well, I suppose that's the question, Is Bristol the outlier here? (Seems it is)

I suppose the follow-up, Bristol-specific question would be whether Bristol uses contextual offers to those it would offer places to anyway, but at a lower grade to encourage take-up, particularly as an insurance choice against Oxbridge/Imperial type universities (eg does it give a A*AA candidate from a contextual school an AAB offer, but not give any offer at all to an AAB candidate from the same school?)

I did it on purpose!

Bristol gives contextual offers to students from schools that gets A level results in the bottom 40%. They don't give contextual offers to all state non grammars. That's not true.
I've seen people claim on mumsnet that Warwick give contextual offers to all state non grammars. Again not true.

It's also worth remembering, for anyone who believes that their kids at grammar/independent schools are being disadvantaged by the system - you can always transfer them to the local comprehensive if you think this will improve their chances.

And it seems to have improved since that 2016 article.

Stats for private school %age 2023:

12.University of Bristol – 24.6 per cent
11.London School of Economics – 26 per cent
10.University of Cambridge – 28.2 per cent
9.University of Bath – 28.2 per cent
8.University College London – 29.5 per cent
7.University of Exeter – 30.3 per cent
6.University of Oxford – 31.4 per cent
5.University of Edinburgh – 31.8 per cent
4.Imperial College London – 33 per cent
3.University of St Andrews – 36 per cent
2.Durham University – 39.1 per cent
1.Royal Agricultural University – 39.5 per cent

it reads like a list of MN approved universities (TM)!

@CabbagesAndCeilingWax I know six families who have done exactly that for sixth form this year. Moved from DD’s independent to the local comp solely because they think they are actively disadvantaging their children for uni offers keeping them in private. They’re delighted to save the fees but they could have managed them even with VAT.

They’ve done it solely because of the perception of disadvantage (based on their experiences seeing the contextual offers received by neighbours’ children living in the same multimillion pound row of houses but attending the comp).

I’m in two minds. Yes I think I am disadvantaging my dd keeping her at private vis a vis uni offers, but she doesn’t want to move. So she would be massively disadvantaged being forced to change schools and that would negate any perceived upside!

But... but... the unis can see where they did their GCSEs!