Uni admissions people: help solve an argument about achieved vs predicted grades

[ClaireBlunderwood]

I know there are various people here who understand admissions from the inside so I was wondering if someone could help a debate I'm having with DD.

She did surprisingly well in her A levels, couldn't have done better, and was always planning on applying with achieved grades. She's also incredibly anxious and pessimistic generally. And she worked really really hard and has had all sorts of issues and illnesses so I'm v proud of her.

She says that admissions teams make no distinction between predicted grades and achieved grades. So someone with 3x A stars predicted is viewed identically to her and someone with, say, predicted 3 A stars and an A is viewed as preferable even though she's got hers in the bag and predictions are notoriously inaccurate.

Her argument is that they have to view predicted and achieved the same in order to preserve the integrity of this slightly mad system.

Is that really true? If she's going for a humanities/social sciences degree are they really not going to treat her grades any more seriously than teacher astrology?

(I know it's not teacher astrology, btw, and teachers work really hard to make predictions as fair and accurate as possible!)

Depends on the Uni, some will be quick to offer a place with grades in hand. Oversubscribed Uni's tend to wait until the deadline regardless. For some Uni's it is not just about their grades either - DD got a place at a high ranking Uni which normally offers at the deadline but she had an offer in October. They commended her on the strength of her personal statement - some read them some don't again all Uni's are different. Problem is nowadays there are many many DC getting top grades and a lot of over subscribed Uni's can afford to be picky.

Haven’t worked in admissions but worked at a uni and supported clearing. If you have your alevels in place, you meet or exceed the requirement, and they have the space, you’re likely to get an offer. You’re a safe number for the programme. Obviously unis make offers over the number than they want to take on because of attrition. But I wouldn’t say she would be viewed as ‘the same’ as someone applying before they receive their alevels. She’s just likely to get offers for everywhere she applies (assuming she meets the min req) and she can take her pick.

Well yes she’s right - an applicant with 3 x Astars will be viewed very very well, as will
an applicant predicted 3 x Astars. Unless the uni asks for 4 ALs (and I think only ICL does which I assume she won’t be applying to), someone predicted 3 A stars and an A will be viewed the same, not better, than her.

In my experience, your DD is incorrect.

When I was an Admissions tutor at a research- led university, we considered grades in hand as rather more valuable than predicted grades in that we could make an unconditional offer on achieved grades. University policy did not permit me to make an unconditional offer on predicted grades (although there were a couple of times I wanted to).

She’s in a strong position with grades in hand for 2026 applications. She may be arguing with you out of nerves and teenage contrariness!

If she is applying to Oxford with those grades, she'd still need to sit the relevant subject entry exam, do well enough on that to be invited to interview - and then succeed at that. But for pretty much everywhere else, depending on the course it is a no-brainer, she'll get several unconditional offers quickly.

PGS of three A stars and an A (or even four A stars) will not possibly trump three A stars anyway – barely any uni actually looks for four A levels. If four are sat, most will offer on three tho some may for some courses specify grades for four (usually if we are talking FM). So no one wil haev or be predicted better grades than her.

With three A stars as grades achieved, massive well done to her btw, she is in a great position and I am sure will secure unconditional (obvs) offers very quickly. If she is applying for hums/soc sci then I imagine she will gain five offers with those grades tbh (unless applying to Oxford or Cambs, and even then she may well get an offer – but it will be interview dependent).

It doesn't really matter, does it, if PGs and her actual grades are treated equally. She's not applying for a super competitive course like med or vet or econ so realistically, being in competition with those candidates (or not) doesn't really matter. It’s not as tho there is one place on the course at that uni and she has to fight to get it.

All the best to her.

I will add, that at the point of making the offer, an unconditional is more valuable to us than a conditional. So in that respect she will become the more valuable applicant.

Thank you so much for your knowledge and kind words. It seems as though officially there is no distinction but in reality, the real thing might squeak various advantages.

@Hectorito do so many kids nowadays get all A stars? 9% of all grades are A stars so it must be way less than that who get all A stars? I don't know the percentage and obviously it's lower now outside TAGs.

She is going to take a punt at Cambridge and there are no additional exams to be taken for her course. I think she'll get unconditional offers from everywhere else so the best thing is to get properly excited about one of those options - she can do this with more confidence than a year 13 applicant. And if she does get a Cambridge offer at least she won't have that awful prospect of getting an offer and then the risk of not getting the grades.

Ha @ParmaVioletTea she is indeed a nervous teenage contrarian! It also aggrieves her (over)keen sense of justice - it feels unfair to her that others with high predicted grades got Oxford offers and then 'only' had to get three As while as a post qualification applicant she'd be v unlikely to get an offer with AAA. She had an awful year 12, hated her new school, nobody knew her and she felt underestimated due to being quiet, kind of gave up on everything. It's a great turnaround and she needs to give up this beef about the unfairness of 'competing' against those with predicted grades.

But she will be applying with grades in hand. So she’ll be made an offer unconditionally. She won’t be “competing” against those with predictions. If she has what a department requires (and at Cambridge that will include an interview) then she’ll be at an advantage with achieved grades.

It feels unfair to her that others with high predicted grades got Oxford offers and then 'only' had to get three As while as a post qualification applicant she'd be v unlikely to get an offer with AAA. ...She needs to give up this beef about the unfairness of 'competing' against those with predicted grades.

I definitely agree with your last sentence here. In reality she is competing mainly against those with three A stars in hand applying for the same course at the same uni. In other words barely anyone. Any uni will be delighted to have a candidate with these grades achieved.

The first comment tho – I mean that makes no sense and she is smart so she must know that. It’s irrelevant whether she would get an offer with AAA – as she has three Astars! That’s like Lizzie Bennet saying “woe is me, if I were Charlotte Lucas, Mr Darcy would not make me an offer.” but she isn't and he did. Wahey!

She has got a nice task ahead of her – sifting through unis to see which ones she would like to choose – as, since this is not econ or med, that is pretty much the position she is in.

As PP have said, depends on the uni. I work at a RG although not a super competitive one, and we would definitely give her an offer for that kind of course at that profile.

Universities cannot consider a fourth A level an advantage as a significant proportion of schools do not allow pupils to take more than three A levels.

Another former admissions tutor in a high tariff school here, and I agree with the other academics. With three achieved A stars DD is in a very strong position indeed. We all prefer an applicant whose Firm decision means they can be added to our count immediately.

DD should be aware of the possibility of a university entrance exam, though outside of Oxbridge I think that is low in her fields of interest. And a few select universities put great weight on the interview, if one gets that far.

With approximately 80% of predicted grades inaccurate and most of these too high, I am not even sure what DD means about the integrity of the system. I agree, OP, that some teachers do their best to be accurately optimistic as guidance specifies. It is clear that others stretch credulity just to get their pupils offers.

My impression is actually that most who are admitted to Oxford have considerably stronger results than AAA; furthermore in most subjects all of them have succeeded at a more challenging entrance exam.

Eg Keble College publish a document showing that post interview, the weighting of factors going into a History offer is
GCSE .3, HAT .3, Interview .3 , Written work .1. Before interview the GCSE and HAT mark are the key factors. There is no mention of PGs anywhere.

The document says that GCSE results are contextualised - interpreted with respect to your school’s results.

If DD would like to try for Oxbridge, is anything stopping her?

Very best wishes to her

Oops. I am writing under an alias for some reason and now I am stuck with it for this thread. I am @poetryandwine.

It feels unfair to her that others with high predicted grades got Oxford offers and then 'only' had to get three As while as a post qualification applicant she'd be v unlikely to get an offer with AAA.

This doesn't really make sense as a grudge. Oxford has made the decision that for Humanities courses 3 As (whether predicted or achieved) are sufficient, because they have so much extra data (admissions tests, written work, interviews). So people who got Oxford offers did not get them because of having perfect predicted grades, they got them because they performed well across the admissions process. As a post qualification applicant, she would also need to perform well across the admissions process, the only difference would be that she would get an unconditional offer.

I've done Oxford admissions many times - we obviously care that candidates are predicted to meet the offer conditions but we don't choose one person over another simply because student A is predicted 3 A stars and student B only 3 As; if student A got an offer and student B didn't, it would be because of something else to do with their applications.

Apologies, OP - earlier I missed that DD is planning to apply to Cambridge and that there are no entrance exams for her subject.

Best wishes to her,
p&w

Thanks again for all these thoughts - oh god @clary I couldn't agree with you more about how her thinking is really illogical. She has a real tendency to give over to regrets and if onlys and what ifs. Instead of just being pleased with her achievements and being excited for the future. Sigh. Can only hope she's more Lizzie B than Charlotte L...

Oxbridge seems to be moving away from tests. For example, re the Keble history stats above, I think HAT is no longer taken. Nor the geography one etc. I really don't know how they make decisions with all these qualified applicants. But really useful thoughts, thanks @easilyintimidated (not your usual name but quite apt given DD's personality).

It probably depends on the university and the course. I look at applications and decide who to make offers to. I have never been given any guidance or advice on whether to treat grades in hand more favourably and i don’t. Treat them all the same. Ultimately we make more offers than places, some people will make their grades and some people won’t and on an individual basis I don’t really care. 🤷‍♀️. I just need to make sure I have the right number of people starting on the course at the start of the year. But we can fiddle that on results day if necessary.

The fact that Oxford is doing away with so many admissions tests is interesting, OP. Thanks very much. One presumes PGs are then a factor but the majority of academics here think grades in hand are worth a bit more in that case.

Perhaps a piece of spontaneous work on the day - something that cannot be predicted and tutored for - is a better idea than an admissions test. I don’t know. But I think something to put all applicants on an equal footing is good.

I suspect admissions tests favour private/selective schools with the wherewithal to provide extra support for them - discriminating against candidates from deprived schools or those without previous experience of students applying to Oxbridge. I also note that Scottish students (who are very under-represented) report the tests more closely follow A level curriculums and cover areas not touched in Highers/Advanced Highers.

I think re Oxford, if you have achieved grades of all A star, you will get to interview, certainly in a course without entrance tests.

It is often advised to those who applied to Oxbridge pre-exams and got rejected post/interview, that it’s prob only worth re-applying with perfect A Levels. At that point, an applicant is a strong applicant in the sense their grades are achieved….but whether they will have the other stuff Oxbridge are looking for will only show at interview. So lots will still miss out. Those who applied pre-exams will know the interview score they achieved and entrance tests too if applicable. This can tell someone wishing to have another go if it’s worth it….having all A stars at A level prob won’t be enough if the interview scores were low first time round. But someone who did well on entrance tests and interview and got rejected, might be encouraged to have another go if their A levels are top notch.

For any other grades than all A star, often a candidate with achieved grades is in a worse position than a candidate with predicted grades - if the predicted grades are all A stars. This is because the possibility of all A star remains for them, even though many will actually fall short. The uni in that sense does have to take predicted and achieved grades as equal…because they cannot know who will achieve their predicted grades. They make quantities of offers knowing some will fall short and what the usual ratios are.

Most candidates have better predicted grades than what they go onto achieve. For them, they are strongest when applying pre-exams. Those high predicted grades will secure offers…and even if they miss their grades they may well get accepted into the course and Clearing places may not be available to those with the standard offer - as unis value bums in seats highly, and a firmed near miss is is more certain turn-up than a hypothetical student with higher grades.

And yes, a firm student with achieved grades is very valuable …as they can’t bomb out and miss their offer, plus hopefully they are genuinely committed to coming. But, when kids with grades achieved apply, unis cannot tell if they will firm them or not. Oxbridge might be pretty certain they will firm and turn up. Any other uni cannot be sure they don’t prefer somewhere else.