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?