Is it worth switching from independent to state for A level if applying for a highly competitive subject?

[rougheredges]

DS is in yr 10 in an independent school. He’s really happy there- we’re pleased with the academics and he’s got a lovely group of friends. He’s currently predicted grade 8/9 in 9 of his GCSEs (and a 7 in DT which he’s doing because he loves if!) He’s managing this pretty effortlessly.

Currently he’s thinking he’d like to study Economics at one of the tougher universities to get an offer from. He knows he’ll need lots of extra/ super curriculars as well, but his friend’s dad told him today that he might find it harder applying from an independent school. Apparently there’s less wiggle room and the bar is higher.

I’ve looked online and there’s a lot of conflicting information. Most of what’s out there seems to refer to contextual offers which isn’t relevant. I’ve read that it does matter/ it doesn’t matter/ they take where you did GCSEs into account so it’s too late/ they prioritise state schools/ it’s all about grades and PS.

I fear the answer may lie somewhere in the middle of all that but is there anyone who could give more guidance? His current school are keen to keep him (he’s currently an academic scholar with a princely 5% bursary!) so I’m not convinced they’d give unbiased advice.

(Local state school is great. He’d have gone there but it’s C of E and we didn’t qualify being disorganised atheists who figured it out too late. They remove the church attendance requirement at A level.)

Does anyone have any info?

DS about to sit alevels at independent school that he has attended since reception got offers for economics from each of his chosen universities- did not apply to oxbridge as preferred other courses. Issue now is getting the grades necessary!!!

Thanks. I am an immigrant academic, but I knew of the Oxbridge entrance exams of old. I mentioned the reason in a previous post, to which @Jeantheoldbean has yet to respond:

DH was a scholarship boy
at a public school who did not want to stay the extra term to prep for his entrance exam. In consequence his Cambridge offer was truly brutal (previously discussed), later determined to be (at minimum) the most arduous of his year in his subject, at least amongst enrolled students. But he thought that considering his academic advantages the offer was fair. On A levels and S levels, he was competing against candidates from state schools without his advantages.

DH became a Russell Group professor who strongly supports contextual admissions.

I realise that @Jeantheoldbean has been preoccupied by another line of argument but I rather hope she will respond to the case of someone who (addressed her directly and) thought it only fair to be on the wrong side of informal contextual admissions nearly 50 years ago. As mediated by his DW, of course.

what is it you are asking me ?

Seems unlikely when the University of Oxford has been prestigious for about 700 years.

Yes it would take a great deal of effort, but I’m sure they can manage to make it equal

I am 'the poster'. Do not, please, assign to me views I have not expressed, especially with such stridency that you use the word 'definitely'. You're equating societal progress with social engineering. I have spoken of my support for the former, drawing on both the current example of contextual offers and historic examples including female suffrage. I am not sufficiently blockheaded to believe that a perfect world is possible but I am optimistic enough to believe that changes, including universities making contextual offers, can bring about improvements.

I apologise, societal engineering not social engineering.

I had an offer of two EEs from UCL in 1979. My department set a written task in order to decide who to invite for interview, and a written paper on the day of the interview. UCL was by far from alone in giving far more credence to its own assessment methods than it gave to A levels. Oxbridge uses a variety of assessment methods in its admissions process. A levels are referred to as the gold standard but universities would not need to interview if A level results told the whole story.

I got into Oxford in 1996 with a 2 E offer. The year it was done this way. I had to sit 2, 3 hour exams which expanded on the a level syllabus. You then had the interview which was about the subject. You got to spend 2 days in Oxford. You could also choose the interview route, where you still had to get the A grades (no star back then.) There were way less applicants per place back then.
I had flu the week before the exam (doctor diagnosed, this wasn’t a bad cold). He told me to rest for a week. I remember hallucinating about chemical symbols and thinking I had sat my exam.

I was implicitly asking whether you could see
why someone seemingly disadvantaged by
an anti-contextual offer was fine with it, and became an academic who supports contextual offers.

What do you think?

No thoughts on it. To be honest I didn’t really understand your post about what happened.

@Jeantheoldbean Why would that suggest they should have got in with lower a level grades?
Ok, I'll bite and assume that this is a genuine question. Standard Town University offers students BBB. Inner city comprehensive educated Andrew gets BBB. His school is very average and there has been a shortage of physics teachers meaning that Andrew has often been taught by non specialist or supply in this subject. Andrew's family are insecurely housed meaning that Andrew has moved three times during his A levels. The family have very noisy neighbours and it's frequently hard for Andrew to sleep when there's a party loudly going on until the early hours three or four nights a week the other side of his bedroom wall. He also shares a room with his younger brother and there's no room for a desk so he sits on his bed to work. Andrew is very aware of the money difficulties of his parents who are in minimum wage jobs. Bill attends a good private school with decent teachers, smaller classes and consistent staffing. He finds physics challenging so his parents pay for a weekly tutor to support him.
At Standard Town University Andrew works steadily and gets a first. Bill works steadily and gets a 2:2. If contextual offers had been in place then perhaps Andrew might have been offered a place at Russel Group University and all of the subsequent opportunities this offers.
For a little context my DD attend / attended a very economically mixed comprehensive in an inner city area but with a city wide catchment (faith school). They have been very aware of how fortunate they are to be securely housed in a pleasant suburb and to have parents who are both university educated to post graduate level who have some idea how to support them and to add cultural capital (gallery and museum visits, family dinner sat together at the table 99% of the time with discussion about their day/politics/news etc ). They're aware of their good fortune because they have bright and ambitious friends who are insecurely housed/ using food banks/ very old laptops etc. etc. It's hard not to be angry about inequality when you know some of the teenagers involved.

Okay. I will try again.

DH attended one of those posh schools, on scholarship. (‘Public school’) This was back in the day when pupils at those schools wishing to attend Oxford/Cambridge stayed on at the end of sixth form to prepare for an entrance exam.

DH did not wish to do that. He applied to Cambridge on the basis of his A levels only. Also something called S levels, since discontinued, set by Cambridge in Maths and Physics.

He got a brutal offer, so high that his headmaster wanted to write to Cambridge to protest. But DH was not bothered. His thinking was that the other applicants getting offers based only on A levels and S levels had not had the advantages of his schooling.
He made his offer, and at Cambridge learnt that it was the strictest in his subject that year.

DH was not bothered, as it was his choice to skip the entrance exam. He became a Russell Group professor who strongly believes in contextual applications.

I think he is correct. Worrying that others might catch up to you with a phoney concern about standards sounds weak. It sounds like Donald Trump.

I guess Dd is a good example of someone who maybe should have got contextual offers.

she went to an awful comprehensive school. Teachers walked out of classes in tears and never returned, lots of supply teachers, kids fighting with chairs in the class, school had a security guard who used to take knives off kids. Barely any teaching at times. I think their gcse rate was 32% pass rate. Dd got 6s and a couple of 7s in her GCSEs. I suspect with some teaching and a calmer classroom she’d have got higher.

A levels weren’t much better, nkt helped by the fact she was ill and spent weeks in hospital and months quite poorly. Got CCC in her A levels. Again in different circumstances I think she would have for higher.

She went to a mid league table uni, studying a tough subject and got a 1st. She’s now doing a Masters at an RG university which is ranked 5th best in the world for her subject. She had an interview for Cambridge for her Masters but they turned her down because “she didn’t have enough research experience “. Funny that because studying at a mid league table uni doesn’t really give the opportunity to get involved in research, even the lecturers aren’t undertaking research.

Do I think Cambridge should maybe have taken that into account? I admit I’m biased but I think so. They said she interviewed well, “one of the most fascinating people we’ve spoken to, they loved her portfolio but they couldn’t get past the fact she hadn’t done any research as an undergraduate student…which seemed odd to me but there we are. To me that lack of understanding regarding lack of opportunities comes from a place of privilege

FWIW I think that energy deployed trying to play the system is much better deployed trying to max out university applications criteria. When applying to university (and to jobs), it really is worth spending a lot of time trying to fully understand admissions criteria and the extent to which you fulfill them, and ensuring that you max them out in every way possible. The older I get, the more I think this is really good life training! Expending energy trying to play the system is something for later, when you need to work out how not to get slain for taxation!

So, @Jeantheoldbean , I realised that I did no conclude with a question last night, which you had implicitly requested:

Can you understand how your stance may be perceived as coming from a position of weakness, rather than strength?

On MN there are literally hundreds of threads about getting your child into private, grammar or very high attaining comprehensive schools. Parents get very upset when they do not get a preferred option. I think it is disingenious to suggest that at least part of the parents' motivations is to secure a school that will best support their child in getting high grades. Yes other factors will feature in their decision making process, but an environment that they believe supports high attainment is a factor.
And yet when contextual offers are discussed, for some posters, all this seems to be forgotten. Raw exam results are suddenly seen as a pure measure of academic potential. The school you attend now appears not to matter
It is also worth noting that:
*Attending any state school is not used as a reason for a contextual offer alone. Most universities require more than one contextual indicator. Even at Bristol it is not any state school, but those on a specific list.
*Contextual offers at high tariff institutions remain challenging targets and are normally just a couple of grades below e.g. ABB vs AAA. There is no evidence that students admitted with these offers struggle to access the course. Standard grades are often set higher than the minimum standard required to access the course because HE is a market. When applications are high offers are high, when applications fall they are lower. See for example MFL, the course is not less demanding than other more popular humanties/social science subjects. However, grade offers are lower (even at generally high tariff unis) because the application pool is smaller.
*Universities aren't excluding private school students (or those from other high attaining schools). It is just that students from these schools might have to achieve slightly higher entrance requirements than students who face a more challenging educational landscape.

My DD attends a very average comprehensive. She will likely get standard offers if she applies to uni (unless she applies to Bristol). I do not begrudge other young people in more challenging circumstances getting a contextual offer.

Returning to the OPs point. Without other indicators, the chance of getting contextual offers is low even if your child moves to a low attaining state sixth form. You might get one from Bristol. I really don't think it is a factor that should influence your decision.

I haven't read the full thread and maybe someone else has mentioned this, but do check that your DS will get to do his choice of A Levels at state school. Some state 6th forms give priority to their state feeder schools and private school transfer students just get leftover spaces on courses. Eg my friend's DS in Cambridge can't do Further Maths A Level as the course is full, despite being predicted all 9's at GCSE and wanting to study economics at uni.

Amazingly you seem to be missing the big question, what school does your son want to do his A Levels at?

We are just coming to the end of two years at sixth form college after independent school.

Pros:

A broader friendship group - but 2 years isn’t long to settle into this.

The UCAS support has been good

There have been good extra curricular opportunities

The lack of fees

Four great offers from unis

Cons:
Quite a culture shock - teachers less involved/concerned for her future .Other students less motivated - maybe a good thing they are not winding each other up to extreme stress levels.

She does miss her old friends and all the good things that go on in independent school sixth form.

The Oxbridge interview did not materialise. I think this was due to the GCSE grades in context of her previous school. She has friends still at her old school and at her college with Oxbridge offers. (But not many, it is such a competitive process!)

I am concerned that she may not get as high grades as she would have at the independent school. It remains to be seen and she is self motivated and works hard but I think if she had stayed where she was she would have the same offers and more support to achieve them.

At my older independent DC’s school the number of Oxbridge offers did seem to be dropping but I think the contextual way they look at all applicants seems fair and they are looking for people at the top of their cohorts.

I am not really sure about this whole cohort thing and context. DD joined a Sixth Form in London where most of them have at least 7 x 9 at GCSEs plus at least 3 x8. Plenty have 9 x9 and an 8, or even 10 or 11x9. Some from other grammars, some from private schools, some from comprehensives. The top achievers are then getting 4 A stars plus an EPQ. The ones getting ABB are literally some of those who got in at 11 plus and have not done much work since - they are clever as the 11 plus is hard, but mostly lacking in work ethic. So it is quite difficult to comprehend against that backdrop that there are ABB candidates out there who will be able at uni to compete with those with all 9s and 4 A stars. They would be entering at a lower point especially for some subjects. So if the unis are doing enough to catch them up and plug the gaps so they have the same chance as getting a First or at least a 2:1, then I see how it might work. But if the unis are not actually throwing lots of additional help at these students entering with lower attainment relative to most of their cohort, how exactly does it all pan out? Because the kids entering with lower GCSE grades in some subjects also do not all suddenly produce an A star at A level either and they have 2 years to catch up.

I understand it was completely different in the past where the state school curriculum was not as rigorous and those getting As in state schools were often better than those in public schools who had been well taught and more rigorously. I think many state schools are completely different now and there are also loads of online resources. It would be helpful to see some new research. Plenty of the most selective London state schools get loads of candidates into Oxbridge or Imperial etc and all with top grades, which makes sense, because most of them entered with top GCSE results too.

This is a fair question.

Firstly, we do offer extra academic support. It is open to anyone, but targeted to those on contextual offers.

Secondly, we find that neither retention nor useful working knowledge of A level material is anything like what one would hope, considering that our standard offer is higher than AAA and it has been a long time since we have been in recruiting mode for Home students. Much A level knowledge is rather shallowly and narrowly held. First year subjects must bring all students up to speed anyway.

I am in STEM in the tier just below the COWI institutions but I know from colleagues that this problem is fairly universal. The most selective schools tend to provide the best tuition. Obviously that’s a good thing, but the flip side is that candidates from weaker schools may have forced to become independent learners - students - whilst still in school. This is the difficult thing for many who have been advantaged.

Those who have already shown themselves capable of intellectual growth under adverse circumstances may be behind in some ways, but they are ahead in others. Internal research in my School shows that degree attainments are comparable.

“Those who have already shown themselves capable of intellectual growth under adverse circumstances may be behind in some ways, but they are ahead in others.”

Thanks @poetryandwine - that makes sense.
I can only comment on the grammar schools my DC went to under the current national curriculum. Years 7, 8 and 9 were as broad as the schools could be with a real emphasis on independent learning, but from Year 10/11 it was all GCSE cram mode (inevitable, given the current GCSEs). Year 12 was again emphasis on big academic growth initially (and “unlearn” first) and independence until the summer term, when mocks kicked in. A lot of the academic stifling comes from the national curriculum and emphasis on results. I think the EPQ is one aspect where prospective students can explore independently and in a self reflective manner, somewhat at least.
I am going to assume that the top independent schools with a selective cohort and vast resources also do a bit of both, aka focus on independent learning as well as good preparation for exams. Whether the exam prep/focus is all the pupils remember or not, is another matter.

Thank you, @Araminta1003

I am with you on the EPQ: I think it is great training for university, of a different nature to exams, and can help to encourage independent thought. I wish it was used more widely, and weighted more heavily. But I suppose that the present moment, when pupils (and students) clearly do not have a good grasp of the permissible and impermissible uses of AI, is not the time to pursue this.

I also imagine good schools use both approaches. How much what types of material sink in is anyone’s guess. The fact that occasionally something random does make a deep impression is one of the joys of teaching.

The majority of entering students at present require quite a lot of very explicit guidance, detailed knowledge of how their assessments will be marked, etc, suggesting that they arrive at university with a task-orientated approach to learning. (I mean in comparison with, say, students of 10-15 years ago). It doesn’t look like much fun. But then they are preparing for a rather grim world.

I actually see it from the opposite perspective. The inherent strength of private education is arguably most visible at A-level. With smaller class sizes, highly personalised support, and a laser focus on university destinations, you are essentially paying for a premium uni-pipeline service.
While places like Oxbridge might try to offset this with a slight advantage for state school applicants, in my view, that small adjustment is far from cancelling out the massive head start a private education provides.
This is exactly why the OP’s motivation to move to a state school feels so counter-intuitive to me. By sacrificing that high-level support just to chase a potential contextual offer, you are throwing away a very tangible advantage for the sake of a very uncertain one.