Black Mark on UCAS File Before Clearing?

[CowTown]

Someone mentioned to me that DC shouldn’t put courses they are at risk of not getting an offer for. Their reasoning is that if DC is rejected at this stage, they will have a black mark from that particular uni department on their UCAS file, and will have problems getting through clearing there. Their advice is that if DC is under the required grades, they shouldn’t put the course on their application, because if the course goes into clearing with lower grades (which it historically does), they’ll be able to get in through clearing on results day if they don’t have this black mark on their record. That if they were initially rejected, the uni will say no at the clearing stage.

Is there any truth to this?

Happens all the time! I’d guess the majority of (non-Ox, Cam, LSE, Imperial) applicants who miss by one grade would be accepted. Often a two grade miss is also ok….

I’m not just talking about the missed grade, I’m including getting an offer that was above their predicted grade, dropping below that and still getting in.

How on earth are kids supposed to know what to apply for if the entry requirements don’t actually mean anything?

Same applies. Offers will pretty much always be at the website (sticker) level. Once results are known unis know how big their financial shortfall is and usually have no choice but to take those that have accepted even if they’ve missed their offer. Hence why Nottingham accepted BBB for vet med a couple of years ago.

Once an applicant has an offer, predicted grades are meaningless.

How on earth are kids supposed to know what to apply for if the entry requirements don’t actually mean anything?

Nailed it. This is why my DC is 😵‍💫. It feels like a game of what-ifs and second guessing yourself.

Sure but why would a uni who has ABB entry requirements even look at an UCAS applicant who has a prediction of BBB, let alone give them an offer? They literally don’t meet the entry requirements.
My assumption would be that it would be a waste of time, but it seems not.

It really is a game of second guessing. My DD applied to Lancaster last year for a course requiring AAB with predictions of AAB. She got an offer of ABB if she firmed them which she did.

She actually got ACD in her a levels and still got her place, although the A was linked to the subject she wanted to study - not sure if that played a part.

I get the sense that with Lancaster at least if you show commitment (including booking your accommodation in April!) they will be keen to take you assuming your grades aren't all Cs or Ds.

My DC has 3x ABBs on their list—average attainment in 2023-2025 is BBC x2, and BCC. 2026 clearing grades were CCC x2 and CCD.

Noble I think that's why over the years people on here have said that getting good predictions is almost as important as getting good grades.

I sympathise greatly with the puzzlement felt by OP’s DC now being reiterated and confirmed by experienced professionals such as @noblegiraffe and @titchy.

I know a few more universities than those listed do publish realistic offers and largely stick to them, but I also know that the scenario that seemed outlandish to @noblegiraffe is not unusual and is becoming more typical every year.

Why? There is some idea in the air that publishing high standards makes you seem elite, as if anyone vaguely suitable for tertiary education does not have the wits to dig for the discrepancy between published admissions standards and achieved grades of the entering cohort. (Achieved grades are a bit skewed by Widening Participation standards, but this is usually a minor factor and I think it can also be researched.)As an applicant I would count a big disparity as a negative, if anything, but one supposes the marketing folk know what they are doing.

Perhaps MumsNetters, their DC and their pupils who find this frustrating will give some thought to a post qualifications admissions system. It can definitely be done, even in disciplines such as Medicine with regulatory requirements.

Admissions tutors who would bear the brunt of the impact generally see big advantages to the changeover. The problem is that it demands a big initial effort, and some ongoing effort, from all stakeholders: academics, parents, schools and schoolteachers, and examiners. People tend to like the idea until they realise that they themselves would be required to change. But it is really much more fair, and ultimately easier on the applicants.

Edit: of course I meant post qualification application system above

PS Even post qualification offers would be a big step in the right direction. The large majority of the OECD uses this system snd most of the rest use post qualification applications.

Even the USA uses a form of post qualification application in that one is admitted on the basis of the record compiled at the time of application. In theory a poor final year performance is grounds for revoking an offer but this is very rare.

*And there is the SAT university entrance exam—a bit like the 11+ for 16-17 year-olds.

In fairness as someone who is fielding calls on Clearing Day my list of doom is 99% in my head and also on a piece of paper by the side of me. There won’t be many names on it but I will be saying to people at 8am “if these people come through they are not to get a place”. So any checking is instant and not complex. I have people on that list who roll over from one year to another and even now if they were to apply tomorrow I’d recognise the name immediately 😁. My main admin person thankfully has a similar memory for names and flags up previous applicants who have been rejected from previous years.

Drops like that suggest struggles to fill the course so worth applying as may get lower offer. Also shows keen and if you come back through clearing they know you really want it.

There is some idea in the air that publishing high standards makes you seem elite

That's so true. And to an extent it works! Every year (including on this thread), applicants are advised to choose a couple of aspirational options, a couple realistic and one or two safe. To a large extent, candidates do this based on standard offer grades.

A post-results system would be much fairer and more transparent.

But that would be an aspirational application and students are recommended to make one of those. It might be that the uni is impressed with the PS, GCSE grades or some other aspect.

My DD got an offer which IIRC was AAA (book offer) with PGs of A, A/B, A/B. On the offer holder day the uni dept staff told her they thought she was under-predicted (based on what I do not know).

Friend of DS applied to very prestigious uni for their subject with PGs of IIRC A/B, B, C; book offer there was Astar AA so of course they didn't get an offer. They knew that tbf but I think just didn't want to be left thinking "what if". I agree it's very far from an exact science.

FWIW I fully agree that making one or two aspirational applications is, and always has been, a good idea for those who wish to do so.

However the system we are describing, with a big disparity between the so-called standard offer and the achieved grades of the entering cohort, has changed the meaning of the phrase. The reality is that you teach the students you have. If they are on average three grades short of the standard offer, I imagine that you adjust your expectations and therefore your learning outcomes accordingly. This is the only responsible thing to do, IMO. (It can be managed formally so that few outside the discipline can detect it, at least in STEM.)

The experience has become considerably less aspirational than it says on the tin, hasn’t it?

Did DD interview, @clary? In my discipline a good interviewer could suss that a strong interviewee was likely underpredicted (unless they were known to have slow processing speed, an unmitigated reading or writing disability or similar).

Or perhaps the referee explained that there was an underprediction, though I admit I am stumped as to why.

One thing to consider is whether the PG's are realistic or best day grades.

My sons realistic grades were the equivalent of ABB but the school were willing to put AAA. This allowed him to apply to AAA Uni's which were likely to be in clearing based on previous years.

He received his realistic grades but still was accepted at his first choice for this year as the clearing grades were BBB. He even knows someone who got in with one grade below the clearing grades.

The course was only in clearing for 2 hours.

Suspect the problem for Uni's is they know most PG's are unlikely to be achieved so if they make offers to children with lower PG's are they likely to hit the clearing grades.

My son know a couple of children whose PG's were below the offer grades. Where offers were received they were still at the published offer grade.

I would be surprised if any ABB universities are in a position to turn children down who hit the clearing grade as I doubt these courses fill their spaces

@CowTownSo that’s a recipe for 5 rejections isn’t it? Plus clearing isn’t first round. Popular courses don’t go into clearing. Clearing might not guarantee student accommodation. There’s lots of reasons not to compare clearing with first round.

Each uni deals with its own applications. They don’t know where else dc has applied so there’s no black marks. Dc will feel they have made a mistake by putting down 5 courses well above their likely results and get none of them. This wholly depends on quality of uni and course.

The best advice is 2 stretch choices, 2 about right choices, and one lower tariff choice. Then if the stretch choices offer, see what happens on results day. It pays to be a bit savvy with applications and not choose 5 higher than your predictions. There’s risk in that.

In that particular case why wouldn’t they? Kids often pull it out of the bag - you’re a teacher, you know that. A kid of the same ability could well be predicted anything from BBC to AAB, depending on the school. Predictions are basically meaningless other than to broadly indicate to the kid what to apply for - are they Oxbridge at one end of the scale, or likely to scrape a foundation year at the other end.

Former Head of Admissions here… nope doesn’t work like that OP. Only caveat would be if a student were interviewed for a particular course, but not offered a place post-interview, usually they can’t then be re-interviewed in clearing for the same course.

If anything though, many universities look favourably on main cycle applicants in Clearing who were either unsuccessful in the main cycle without interviewing (but outperformed their predicted grades/met the clearing conditions,) or who chose to decline an place that was offered. If there was a previous interest in the university it suggests they would be likely to take up an offer in clearing and stay the course.

Not for the course, as in to get the offer; but on the offer holder day, she had a 1-1 with a staff member (not an interview as such, but I am sure she impressed them with her subject passion). IIRC that was when the “you’re underpredicted” comment was made (but obvs tho I was at the day, I was not in the 1-1 so I don’t know full details). I think they would have taken her with AAB tbh.

In the end it was academic as she missed even her PGs for a raft of reasons. Ended up somewhere great in clearing tho.

FWIW wrt the thread overall, clearing seems to have changed a lot. DD's experience was pre-Covid, and a lot of the clearing offers were madly high IMO (like Eng lit at York - AAA). Then there was Covid and all bets were off, zero clearing for some whole unis; but from 2022 onwards it feels to me as tho unis are putting lower offers in clearing. This is anecdata rather than anything carefully studied by me tho.

The black mark comment the other parent made alleges that if a DC applies to a course, say a degree in basket weaving at the University of Wessex, and is rejected in round 1, when basket weaving at the University of Wessex goes into clearing, the DC will get a rejection because they are black listed from round 1.

It’s not true that popular choices don’t go into clearing though. It certainly used to be, but now we see vet and human med in clearing. And other than Ox, Cam and Imperial all other unis have something in clearing.

Two aspirational, two at and one below is still good advise though, although I’d probably tweak these days to three aspirational.