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?

As I have said upthread. Contextual offers often require 2+ contextual indictors. They are not normally given to students attending high achieving state schools with no other significant circumstances. Parents not attending uni can be one indicator. See Leeds example below:
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/access-to-leeds/doc/am-i-eligible

There is no universal policy. Here is Duhram's policy.
https://www.durham.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/how-to-apply/what-happens-to-your-application/contextual-offers/

Different to Leeds, but not simply attendance at a state school. You also need to be eligible for FSM or live in a very deprived area or be care experienced or estranged.

makes sense to me

@Owlbookend - it is not that difficult to qualify. DD has a number of friends who technically qualify but have been to grammar school and have managed to get work experience through connections etc. They are hardly deprived. A lot of kids are in single parent households temporarily when parents split up these days or happen to live in a postcode that qualifies, despite the wider area being fine. It is what it is. I would not allow my own DC to do this, but plenty of people do and you can also see why some would want to qualify for additional maintenance funds (and be encouraged to do so, especially with fathers who do not want to pay up or will only pay up on the side in cash).

Like any system - it isn't perfect. It is simply a mechanism that universities use to recognise that some students are studying in more challenging circumstances than others. Different universities use different criteria - they are the decision makers. It is neither 'easy' or 'hard' to qualify. You either do or you don't. Statistically few grammar school students will qualify for such an offer (because of the negative association between economic disadvantage & grammar school admission), but some will.

Contextual offers help relatively disadvantaged students who have achieved well to access high tariff courses. There will be some false positives. However, most students in the most challenging educational circunstances will be eligible for a contextual offer. I think that is a good thing overall - there is no perfect system.

Gaining a contextual offer by gaming the system tends to backfire.

No matter what, you’re living with either a sense of entitlement or a guilty conscience. Both of those tend to trip up YP in different ways.

Then, if you made your contextual offer but didn’t exceed it (and if you degree programme wasn’t relaxing its standards to the level if the CO) you probably don’t belong, because your achievement wasn’t in the face of adversity. You would probably thrive better in a programme where you were a more typical student. (How much universities adjust Teaching and Learning methods when a substantial portion of students - mostly not on COs - are admitted with low grades seems to vary widely, as do thoughts on the matter.)

I agree with @Araminta1003 ‘s view that there are different kinds of adversity, not all accounted for by the factors that are relevant for contextual offers. However few of these other types magically vanish when university begins: many are ongoing and most leave residues, at minimum, frequently affecting academic performance. These situations can be hugely sympathetic but I don’t see them as any reason to justify gaming the system.

As far as I understand it, the elite private schools are not just supporting bursaries anymore (to their own institutions) but go further and support state schools locally and further afield.
Are the most elite unis doing similar to support regional universities and improve resources there for more local gifted students who perhaps do not feel they want or can go all the way to eg Oxford or Cambridge? Noting that there have been a number of high profile large donations from alumni to Oxbridge in recent years. Is there any appetite to resource share more widely to broaden the quality of tertiary education more widely?

I also think there have been suggestions that eg 15-20 per cent of Oxbridge offers should go by lottery to contextual students who make the grades without the additional burden of going through the usual admissions system? I would be interested to know if this has been developed further. I do understand that the admissions system is there to familiarise prospective students with the institution and meant to act as a two way street, but I do think for a number of students it is off putting.

@poetryandwine - I think in the case of DD’s friends it is more a question of “ambition killed the cat” and anxiety over performance. Most of the kids in question have a fair chance of getting into elite unis based on predictions anyway, they do not need the added advantage of technically qualifying on contextual grounds.
And I think this happens a lot at very elite sixth forms, they sort of egg each other on. Half of DDs year now appears to be aiming for Med/Vet/Dent or Oxbridge etc and hardly anyone is stopping to think whether it is actually right for them personally. They can get carried away with it all.

All of this is interesting. To reply to your points roughly in order:

My impression is that the number of school partnerships is not huge, but that they do work well. A number of private schools are struggling, a further number are greedy. The boundary is blurry.

When you count donations to individual Colleges, Oxford and Cambridge are quite rich with all other HEIs lagging. There is a big gap to Imperial and Edinburgh, then a few more of the ‘upper Russell Group’ which have decent endowments, and that’s about it. But virtually everyone except O, C and I is worried about finances these days - even Edinburgh is in the midst of enacting a permanent 10% budget cut. Most of the worry is sadly correct.

Graduates generally donate to their own institutions, for their own tightly prescribed purposes. Sadly there hasn’t been much interest in the kind of equalising you suggest, AFAIK.

I am not at Oxbridge so I am not sure what I think about your lottery. It comes down to the number of contextual applicants. I agree completely that they are more likely to be intimidated by interview and this needs to be taken into account. OTOH, the tutorial system isn’t for everyone, regardless of ability or background. If you won’t benefit from it, you are better off elsewhere.

If this lottery would gain most very strong contextual applicants admission, I would favour it. Before allocating these places to random contextual applicants from a large number of such, I would prefer that they be interviewed by sympathetic admissions tutors to (attempt to) decide who could best benefit from gaining a place. I would be happy with reserving a certain % of places, however.

- I think in the case of DD’s friends it is more a question of “ambition killed the cat” and anxiety over performance. @Araminta1003

Here are the pros and cons I can think of for sending a truly bright child(just not a heavily tutored fake bright!) to a super selective school.

Pros

1.She'll almost certainly find peers with similar intellect. She won’t feel singled out for being too bright, and being around like-minded kids will encourage her love of learning.

2.Since most pupils are academically able, there will be far less disruption in class, allowing lessons to progress at a quicker pace without getting held up on basic concepts.

3.There'll be a healthy level of competition from the peer group. Even a laid-back bright kid (like my DD) will be pushed to put in more effort and get closer to her true potential.

Cons

4 On the downside, too much competitiveness could easily become a burden and create a lot of pressure, as you mentioned.

5 A selective grammar school can tend to be too rigid compared to a comprehensive school, and selective private schools are very expensive.

So I would assume that for a truly bright kid, the benefits of 1, 2 and 3 combined clearly outweigh the downside of 4. And I’m sure that’s why you’ve preferred sending your DC to a grammar school over a comprehensive one.

However, point 5 is much more specific and depends heavily on the child’s individual personality as well as the family’s financial resources, so it’s much harder to make a general comparison. For example, Demis Hassabis left his grammar school, QE Boys, for a comprehensive as he found it too rigid for his creative mind. That said, had he been able to aafford a top private school like Westminster, things might still have worked out well. Of course, this is a highly atypical example. He is basically a self-taught genius.

Half of DDs year now appears to be aiming for Med/Vet/Dent or Oxbridge etc and hardly anyone is stopping to think whether it is actually right for them personally. @Araminta1003

To be honest, I don’t think most teenagers are able to work out which degree or career will really suit them later on. Very few have that kind of maturity or insight.

Going with a mainstream choice that lots of people pick is usually a safe bet — medicine, for example. So, it is not completely irrational.

But that’s where parents with a long-term view come in. If you can encourage your child to think globally and help them plan their future around their own strengths, interests and personality, that makes a huge difference. Essentially, choosing a university course is just the first step in planning their whole career. The more thought that goes into it, the better for them.

Schools can only do so much, though. They just don’t know your child anywhere near as well as you do. That’s why I’ve wanted to be an actively planning parent ever since my child was born. I truly believe more planning is better than no planning at all, and planning based on my child’s own abilities and personality is definitely better than just following the crowd.

Actually this quotation from @Araminta1003 , in conjunction with some insightful remarks and data on threads concerning the resident doctors’ strikes, may be good reasons for making medicine a PG degree, as it is in the US and Canada.

I agree that few high school pupils can make a good decision about whether a medical career is right for them. If students could move towards medicine incrementally without committing to it, as in America and Canada, I wonder what the medical student cohort would look like?

My fundamental problem with this sort of discussion is a tendency to see the ultimate objective as equality. It needs to be merit.

So a University should select those candidates with the most potential who are most likely to thrive. They will realise (Universities are staffed by intelligent people) that some very able applicants are lost to the system because of lack of educational opportunity before that point. Or perhaps cultural or financial issues. So bend your acceptance and outreach criteria appropriately. And give extra support to contextual applicants when they arrive so they can thrive. Don't lower both acceptance and teaching in order to achieve "equality". You never will.

My view is that education is never wasted. It is the nature of families that some children will have the most important of all advantages. that of a happy family life and a secure upbringing. Schooling obviously differs, but family attitudes towards education also matter. As does a child's own character.

I am sure we all know that child who never enjoyed school but thrived as soon as they were in the work place. Or the child who went onto University because that was the expectation but who would have been better off doing something more vocational.

I think the level of focus on grades can be quite damaging. Testing knowledge acquired is important, but curiosity and a thirst for knowledge are just as crucial. As is an acceptance of strengths and weaknesses, in a way that allows you to work on your weaknesses and build your strengths. .

Deprivation comes in many forms. The kid whose dad who had fallen out with Putin and so had to be accompanied by a bodyguard was rich but not envied by his peers. Or the kids whose parents have unreal expectations and who are under pressure to perform. (So many Renaissance kids in Central London who excelled academically, at sport, at music and so on. Whose self worth was tied to parental approval which in turn was tied to achievement.)

Some kids have a shocking start to life and poverty is often a factor. We do what we can. We support our own kids, and we contribute, whether through community volunteering or supporting schools or Universities, Local Authorities or Governments in supporting others. We level up as much as we can, but we don't level down. We encourage each child to make the most of whatever they have, whether it is brains, physical or sporting ability, level-headedness, ambition, entrepreneurial skills, empathy, reliability. If they have had privilege, it is not something to be embarrassed about, but something to be harnessed to benefit others.

I am not sure you need to.

I met a senior city figure who said they were aware of unemployed young doctors and were actively tapping into this pool for recruitment. They were just as bright as those going through the traditional economics, sometimes engineering, paths, but their training had encouraged a good range of skills: communication, diagnostic, teamwork, the ability to cope in a crisis and, unsaid, the ability to work all night when needed.

The NHS is a poor employer who does not attach much importance to retaining or motivating its staff. Those committed to working in medicine will stay, though perhaps find themselves on the other side of the world. It has always been that some of the best and the brightest have jumped ship when they realised they did not enjoy the actual practice of medicine. (Often well into specialist training.) Given the current oversupply of doctors and the competition for even entry level Trust posts, more are leaving and earlier.

Very well put. I couldn’t agree more.
I just want to add that an elite university education is essentially a luxury good, not a basic necessity. We should strive for equality in essential life needs, but access to such luxury goods should always be allocated on merit.

University admissions are fundamentally no different from corporate hiring. Businesses recruit employees who are productive and a good fit for their culture; all other criteria should be secondary. Otherwise the enterprise will eventually fail.

Of course, we all know universities like Oxbridge have other concerns beyond pure merit. As a national UK brand, they reserve many more places for home students, which is understandable. Other elite universities have far stronger incentives to recruit international students for higher tuition fees.

I think the most accurate answer (but possibly rather unhelpful!) is that IF he can achieve exactly the same results at a state school, and present exactly the same way in interview (very important) his chances are probably slightly higher applying from there.

Yes, independent schools still make up a hefty proportion of successful candidates, but it has got harder for independent candidates compared with before, and the universities genuinely try to make things as level as possible.

So "all things being equal" (which in life they are not) your friend is probably right.

I think OP's DS is aiming for Economics. I have the impression that 'hard' subjects might be less susceptible to contextual offers. At elite unis, Economics usually requires very strong grades in both Maths and Further Maths, along with other solid credentials, so it arguably sits on the 'hard' end of the spectrum?

LSE - contextual offer information.

Eligibility for Contextual offers

Eligible students (Home UK students flagged with a home postcode that is classified as TUNDRA Quintile 1, as care experienced, as eligible for Free School Meals, or a participant in a specified LSE WP programme or a Sutton Trust Pathways programme), may be considered for a contextual offer. The contextual offer will be one grade lower than the standard offer for the programme (with the exception of LLB Laws, BA/BSc Anthropology, BA Geography, BSc Geography with Economics, BSc Environment and Development, BSc Environmental Policy with Economics, and BSc International Social and Public Policy, where the contextual offer will be 2 grades lower than the standard offer). Any mathematics requirement must still be met.
Eligible students who join LSE as undergraduates will become part of LSE Navigate — a supportive network designed to help students make the most of their time at the School. LSE Navigate connects students with the full range of academic, personal, and professional development opportunities available, empowering them to thrive throughout their university journey.

All academic departments are participating in the contextual offer scheme.
The contextual offer grades are listed alongside the standard offer A-level and IB entry requirements on the relevant programme pages.
Contextual information is used as part of the holistic admissions assessment and applicants are assessed alongside all other similar applicants, therefore having a contextual flag does not guarantee that an offer will be made.

& specifically for economics

A level standard offer
AAA with an A in Mathematics
We also consider your AS grades, if available.
See subject combinations regarding Further Mathematics requirements.

A-level contextual offers
AAB with an A in Mathematics
Read our undergraduate admissions information to learn more about LSE’s approach to contextual offers and admissions.

Very high grades are still required, but very slightly lower requirements might be offered for students with indicators of significant economic disadvantage. Not any state school student.
In (the highly unlikely situation) where my DD (from a statistically roughly average comprehensive) received an offer it would be the same as a student from Eton. These contextual offers are aimed at students who are achieving highly in more challenging circumstances. I don't see how such an offer disadvantages students who receive a standard offer, but we all view things differently. Universities have no incentive to admit students who are likely to struggle. They want students to achieve well & not drop out. They will consider the data from previous recruitment cycles when setting entry requirements at an appropriate level.
Suggesting university education is a 'luxury good' is an interesting comparison when you reflect on it.

A star A A
And
A star A B
respectively.

The *s make the formatting go weird.

Perfectly explained @Owlbookend. There are so many misconceptions about how contextual offers work and some think all state pupils get one. When infact very few do. We are a v high FSM school and about 1/3 of our students qualify for contextual everywhere (most have at least 3 flags).

Oxbridge and a couple of the London Unis have fantastic outreach now and invite us to visit them and help our students feel like they can apply. Each state school has a link college and they offer amazing stuff which has meant many more state pupils see it as an option. The more that apply the more get in. Not through pity but because they are as good and as likely to succeed.

Again, the issue is not with Oxford or Cambridge “contextualising”.
When I went to the Oxbridge talk with Admissions tutors from both unis recently, including I believe one of the deputy admissions of the whole of the uni of Oxford, the question was asked whether employers or some employers (inlcluding eg civil service) may be moving to “contextualise” Oxford or Cambridge itself. The way Oxbridge explained it to the grammar cohort is sorry guys we are looking for the top students in your own cohort. So even if you have 2 A stars and an A, that may not be good enough (I am paraphrasing a little for simplicity) - but we want the very top of your cohort (even if you got pretty much all 9s at GCSE/passed on of the most competitive grammar schools in the country at 11).
Now the employers are going sorry Oxbridge graduates you have had a privileged education too and loads of resources, we are now looking at the top of the cohort of your cohort as well.
And that is obviously going to be a concern unless you are in the top 1/3 of the cohort bagging the Firsts. And especially a concern for anyone who may have been contextualised to get in in the first place, because the challenges are not necessarily removed in a long term manner.

@Araminta1003 several of my ex students have come top of the year. Once they get to Uni the playing field is level.

Biggest issue for Oxbridge is blind recruitment.

The way Oxbridge explained it to the grammar cohort is sorry guys we are looking for the top students in your own cohort. So even if you have 2 A stars and an A, that may not be good enough @Araminta1003

That makes no sense. Surely grades are compared across all selective schools. I cannot believe they would set higher requirements just because a student attends a better school. Oxbridge in some courses has its own entrance exams like TMUA and STEP. It is hard to imagine someone scoring in the top tier nationally and being rejected just because their classmate did better. I always assumed contextual offers were meant to help the disadvantaged by increasing their opportunities rather than directly discriminating against students from strong schools. I find it difficult to believe that the brilliant minds at Oxbridge cannot see such a simple point. However, if it is a matter of diversity, such as not wanting to take too many people from a single school, then that might be possible.

Now the employers are going sorry Oxbridge graduates you have had a privileged education too and loads of resources, we are now looking at the top of the cohort of your cohort as well. @Araminta1003

This employer’s reasoning is even more absurd. If contextually comparing against nationally standardised A‑Level results was somewhat understandable, drawing a parallel with Oxbridge’s internal degree exam results is an entirely different matter. Oxbridge sets its own assessments, and the standard is in a league of its own. For instance, the difficulty level of exams in Cambridge’s mathematics programme is clearly far higher than that of a middle‑tier university’s maths course. Even a weaker student at Oxbridge would likely outperform top students at ordinary universities.

So you simply cannot compare exam results across these institutions like that. I really doubt any serious employer would actually make such a comparison.

Biggest issue for Oxbridge is blind recruitment.

@mumsneedwine Sorry, I don’t understand this. Does Oxford do blind recruitment and if so why is it an issue?