Offer higher that published grades

[Pinhoe]

Hi My DS has received an offer for stem subject from Edinburgh of Astar AA. For this subject AAA is standard offer. They are a strong candidate (all 9s/Astar predictions). Does this mean university is not sure about them or that the course is more in demand? It’s good news that they have offered early but I wonder why they make offers above their stated standard level? Anyone else finding this?

Universities do sometimes do this (and we know someone else who had this from Edinburgh), usually to strong candidates, though there are different theories as to why! There was a thread recently on this issue - might be of interest?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/higher_education/5193984-warwick-offers-question

Thanks - some interesting theories on the other thread. Maybe it is to avoid being an insurance choice, that could be a possibility.

The offer will reflect demand and the distribution predicted grades of applicants. There is information here:
www.ed.ac.uk/studying/undergraduate/entry-requirements/our-requirements

Edinburgh STEM has developed a reputation for this in recent years, OP. I agree with @Chemenger . I don’t think there is anything personal in it. I suspect most of the noncontextual offers this School are making now will be at the same level

Same thing happened to my DD a couple of years ago. Edinburgh, STEM subject and also a high achiever.

Agree with @Chemenger it matches what is in their detailed written admission policy. If predicted 3×Astars then AstarAA should be easily achievable. If he was just applying to Edi as an acceptable AAA insurance then maybe think again.

I do think there should be different wording though. Standard offer tends to mean (to many applicants) everyone who is not contextual. This does not appear to be what standard really means and applicants don’t all understand this. So maybe adding that the offer is variable based on assessment of applicants would help where applicable?

They cannot know what the December or January applicants might have in terms of predictions so upping grades required to above “standard” in November is quite harsh. Have these applicants had equal consideration with others applying later with A star AA predictions? Or even AAA who are entitled to apply thinking they meet requirements? Just doesn’t feel transparent.

From their website "... conditional offer requirements may sometimes be higher than the upper grade level for a degree. For example, where the upper grade level is AAA, but all applicants selected to receive an offer for that degree have achieved, or are predicted to achieve, at least AstarAA then conditional offers for that degree will require AstarAA."

That implies that for your DS's course they have a lot of highly qualified candidates and only applicants with predicted or achieved grades of AstarAA or higher are getting offers. If they are turning down all applicants who have already achieved AAA grades then it makes sense to give AstarAA as a conditional offer.

They will start with the number of offers they want to make, which will be determined from the number of places available and their experience of conversion rates in the past. So they might know that in the past 20 out of 100 offers will eventually join the course and that they have 100 places available, in which case they can make 500 offers. Then they will look at the predicted grades for all the current applicants and the expected pattern of when applications arrive. So, for example they might usually have half their applications in by a particular date. In which case at that point they will want to give out 250 offers, keeping the other 250 for the applicants still to come. If 250 of the current group of applicants has a prediction of AstarAA then that’s where they draw the line. Those at or above that prediction get an offer, those below don’t. Once that decision is made it’s applied across the rest of the applications as they arrive no matter whether that means too many or too few offers are made.

This is very much a simplified explanation ignores the fact that for Scottish applicants most offers will be unconditional, contextual offers need to be considered and lots of other factors. It ignores also any additional selection processes like interviews or portfolios. It’s a gamble for the university, which often goes awry with too many or too few students on a course.

It could also waste a place on the UCAS application for lots of students who believe they meet the criteria. If 5/5 unis they choose do this, it’s a gamble for the students too.

It’s also one they might not know about.

This happened to my 2 sons last year, they expected the advertised AstarAA but we're offered 2xAstars plus an A. It was for direct entry and they were predicted 4x Astars which they achieved so it wasn't an issue really but was puzzling. One firmed it and the other had it as an insurance but got his first choice. Good luck to your son!

Thanks all - it makes sense, and hopefully won’t be an issue in my DS case. However I think it could lead to some students choosing a course based on stated standard offer which they would not have chosen if they had know grades required are higher than their predicted grades.

AAA seems low for a popular subject at a good uni - ie somewhere you’d expect a Russell Group type offer

This is why it’s good for applicants to assume that the “ standard offer “ is an indication of the minimum they might need and not the maximum ( unless they are eligible for a contextual offer of course ). Especially for a popular course at a highly ranked university. It’s not “ their offer “ until they’ve received it.

You see it all the time here on MN. Parents say in November “ Oh my child wants to do this course at X uni , but they only need AAA for that and my child is predicted A star AA so I think they should apply somewhere better”.

Or even worse “ this proves that my child is so much smarter than all the other students who will be on that course at X uni so I think they should apply somewhere better “.

🤦🏼‍♀️

@Printedword Oxford is AAA for lots of courses. RG unis have lots of courses offering below AAA. The ones they struggle to recruit onto. Eg Physics at QMUL is ABB. Chemistry at Liverpool is also ABB. Newcastle mech eng is ABB. Not all stem subjects are popular.

That’s why the school will encourage them to apply to a range of courses - maybe one or two that are aspirational, a couple that are realistic and perhaps one that’s very achievable.

And that’s also why schools try to be realistic with their predicted grades , it doesn’t help the applicant if they are wildly optimistic ( as some parents want ), as they might end up missing all their offers.

My DD’s BF had the same experience at Edinburgh though for MFL standard offer AAA, actual offer Astar AA.
My DD had same at Newcastle- standard offer ABB - offer was AAB, also MFL

Quite surprised at the increased grades for MFL. There are fewer taking these A levels every year.

@CALLI0PE I take the point on not having all 5 at the same tariff but even if an A becomes an A star when you don’t expect it, certainly it can make choosing more complex.

I see from the other thread linked here that other posters have suggested contacting admissions to check if the offer is correct. Is that something you’re going to do?

Great explanations and advice from @CALLI0PE and @Chemenger

I agree with @TizerorFizz that more transparency is needed. The terms Entry Requirement and Admissions Requirement are not helpful; Standard Offer is an improvement but I think giving a range of offers to include the true top end is better.

Even when there is a standard offer, as at Oxford, it may only be made to applicants with predictions that well exceed it, so @CALLI0PE ’s advice is especially important.

Upon reflection I don’t see anything wrong with the Edinburgh approach as they explain it, especially when it results in quick offers, except that it needs more transparency and I think the top end of predictable offers should be shown. Edinburgh have been making a habit of this so they should adjust their range of entry requirements and its wording. If it helps to rein in PGs - because over 3/4 are wrong and aside from schools in deprived areas, which underestimate, most overestimate - I am all for it.

Really interesting link but I agree that it should be clearer on the actual subject pages as E’s terminology differs from the standard interpretation. Also, I am also curious, given January equal consideration, that they are already so sure in November that they are going to only offer to candidates who are predicted/hold AstarAA (non WP) as that is the only basis on which the tariff would be AstarAA - on their method if they offer to a single candidate at with AAA, everyone should be asked for AAA, as I read it.

You can view Edinburgh’s offers to rUK and ROI students for the 2022 and 2023 application cycles to get an idea of how competitive the course is.

For instance, physics, maths, comp sci and mech eng are a lot more competitive than earth sci, civils and geophysics.

student-recruitment.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-07/Rest%20of%20UK%20and%20Republic%20of%20Ireland%20admission%20statistics.pdf

Maybe they need to state offers are likely to be between AAA and higher grades? It’s quite hard for students and lots of parents to do all this digging and most expect the entry requirements to be accurate and not have to read between lines or have detailed explanations. Just state a range and state the minimum required.

DD went to an open day for her course at Edinburgh where they made it clear that the "standard" offer of AAB was a minimum and that based on recent experience applicants were unlikely to receive offers unless their predicted grades were higher than the minimum. She did eventually receive an AAB offer, and was pleasantly surprised as after the open day talk she expected it would be at least AAA.