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?

Universities are wise to this.

It’s zero sum though, someone gets a grade lowered entry because of some identity politic issue de jour means someone else doesn’t get in who met the original grade criteria. Standards slip, everyone loses

University places aren't quite fixed in that way though, are they? They are actually quite variable based on the "market" so to speak. They are in competition with each other for the best students, and need to fill their courses, and gain an economy of scale on the cheap to run ones, so that they can continue to offer the more expensive to run ones. And the whole thing is subsidised by international students (of variable quality and English skills) and price capped for the students that pay fees, which isn't even all of the UK ones given education being a devolved matter.

The contextual stuff is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.

A Level grades are not synonymous with intelligence or the ability to complete a university course.

A point not covered on this thread (I don't think) is that part of the issue with getting a place on a competitive university course is predicted grades. Some students may be rejected because their predicted grades are not high enough, despite going on to achieve the required grades. Yes, they can reapply with grades in hand, but not everyone wants to do that and it may not be desirable to take a year out of study.

Based on a sample size of 2 schools, I have noted anecdotally that the private school overpredicted (basically stretched to give students PGs that matched their aspirational university choices) whereas the state school underpredicted (student actually achieved above predicted grades, despite this being fairly unusual nationally).

So getting into competitive courses may depend on how much your school is prepared to make aspirational predictions. And would be something that it might be interesting to find out.

Please explain why you think standards will slip?

Wasn’t your example for a very popular and selective course? It’s zero sum. You are taking away one candidates opportunity who met the original criteria in favour of someone who doesn’t based on criteria other than demonstrable academic ability. I know isn’t it nice to give people a leg up blah blah, but there are two sides to each time this happens and ultimately the success of the institution itself is dictated by the quality of entrants. People justify this to themselves by othering those who have lost out as somehow less deserving.

Given that undergraduate recruitment isn’t capped, no it isn’t zero sum.

Do let Oxford and Cambridge know their standards have slipped though - I’m sure they’ll be surprised to hear that.

Undergraduate recruitment isn’t capped? I’m not sure what you mean by that, but obviously course places are capped.

‘Let Oxford and Cambridge know their standards have slipped’

They are aware.
www.varsity.co.uk/news/30266

I am not coming at this from a theoretical viewpoint but from teaching A-level. I see that my students have very different life circumstances.

This very slightly levels a notoriously uneven playing field. It may encourage candidates to apply who wouldn't have otherwise.

If Leeds wanted more places on that course, no doubt they could create them.

If the predicted grades weren't such an important part of the current system (and as pp have said, predicted grades aren't a level playing field either) it would be more straightforward.

Some courses in Oxford accept students with AAA - they might do an online test, then interview(s), then get the offer, then get the grades. The departments will take the best candidates they can, and it is based on more than just grades as there are many more AAA students than spaces on the course.

No standards slipping, just maybe a wider variety of really bright people on the courses.

You got no 100% guarantee either way. But clearly your ds will do well wherever he ends up at uni.

There are not that many students out there capable of getting both an A star in Maths and A star in Further Maths as well as an A star in History or Economics. Those are the candidates who deserve the places, regardless of what type of school they attend. If you do Econ at Cambridge without Further Maths it is not going to be fun. Standards are slipping, hence why other unis who end up taking the straight A star students instead are doing better and now the employers are clocking it too. Personally, I think it is better that there are more elite unis now to choose from, increases the competition between them which is better for students aka the consumers of higher education.

No, they don’t lower the offer. If they’re presented with two students with the same predicted grades competing for one place they take into account barriers to learning when making the offer.

It really isn’t hard to understand!

It’s extraordinary how some people can have something explained to them patiently lots of time but still fail to grasp it. It’s almost as if they’re doing it on purpose.

A more interesting question might be why economics courses are still overwhelmingly male (more so than they were when I was at university in the 90s, and counter to the trend of more young women than men going to university).

That part works in the OP's son's favour, anyway.

Why would you take your child from a school and friends he’s happy with to a new environment at such an important time. Get some perspective.

Why is it obvious course places are capped? HE has expanded massively over recent years. Even highly selective institutions and highly selective courses can find themselves in clearing these days. That suggests the opposite of courses being capped.

But if you can’t see that making an AAB offer to the kid from the sink school, with a single parent working two jobs meaning he’s looking after younger siblings every evening, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do to level the field, while the private school kid in his small classes with wealthy parents who can afford a tutor gets the AAA offer, then I’m afraid there is no hope for you.

The point is, that there is someone who loses out. They are losing out, even though they demonstrated higher academic ability through their grades (in your example) because of things like post code they live in or number of children on free school dinners when they sat their GCSEs. Outside of the realm of left wing identity politics, this makes absolutely no sense.

As others have said, what matters most is demonstrating aptitude, attainment and enthusiasm for your chosen subject. Each applicant's personal circumstances are different. My DD moved to an independent school for A level, from a high-achieving comprehensive, and got a place at Oxbridge. She studied a modern foreign language (one of the least highly subscribed subjects for Oxbridge entry) and had large gaps in her knowledge at the beginning of year 12. She was in a class of two, and worked really hard to catch up. So the independent school helped her in ways the comprehensive probably couldn't have.

Why are places capped? I really don’t understand what you are saying? Of course they’re capped

I can’t see that that’s reasonable thing to do at all, why should someone who did get AAA miss out? The reasonable thing is to set measurable demonstrable academic criteria for entrance not hypothetical sad back stories. I believe there is no hope for people who believe they’re entitled to an easy ride and free things because everything is so unfair. People need to grow up a bit and start being accountable.

No-one's demonstrated anything through their grades at the point these offers are made though. Not their A-levels, anyway.

Maybe there's research on contextual offer versus non contextual regarding actual outcome and performance against predicted. If there is, Sutton Trust will probably have it. I think some work was done after the CAG and TAG debacle of 2020-1.

I'm not looking as I should go and plan a few lessons.

It's been fun though.

My DD is in a class of two in year 13 for a language too in a state grammar because nobody else wants to study languages at A level, but unlike a private school they are going to get fewer lessons per fortnight.
Econ is Maths heavy in most elite unis, that is why there are fewer girls. So the question is still why are there fewer girls doing further maths than boys. A lot of the girls at the top level are doing Law and Medicine, the boys Econ and Compsci and Engineering.

Getting higher grades does not always demonstrate higher academic ability. Universities see this, even if you do not.

And in many examples already given to you, universities are choosing between students with the same grades and using "context" as a tie breaker rather than dropping their offer by a grade.

Unfortunately, I don't think "Universities do a little bit to counter persistent educational and social inequality in ways that are to their benefit anyway academically speaking" is a headline that's going to sell any papers?!

Ok, but a postcode or number of kids of free school meals when you sat your GCSEs does?