Will new GCSE's bring a halt to Social Mobility?

[BlueBelle123]

This is something that I have been pondering - if the new grade 9 becomes the entry requirement for the top universities and competitive courses and if the vast majority are awarded to private school pupils then pupils at the local comp. are going to find it almost impossible to access these places. A lot of Ifs I know but it does make you think - or am I talking complete rubbish, love to hear what you think?

Some if my colleagues feel there may certainly be an impact on widening access in some areas.

Whilst STEM and maths in general will probably find a way through all this (many exceptional students prove themselves in both sectors plus pre tests) English, MFL, humanities are going to be faced with ever starker contrasts between state and independent applicants both in terms of numbers and grades. Yet they are going to still be expected to endlessly improve widening participation.

Grade 9 will equate to roughly the top 3% of all candidates.

^this, and everything Ricardian said.

My son is in y10 at a grammar school (top 10 state schools in the country, that sort of level), and we had a GCSE talk the other day, which included the new 1to9 maths and English exams. The HT said that they get 80+ % getting A and A* for English and 90+ for maths, and they will expect the same amount to be getting 7s and 8s, with a few of their mathematicians getting 9s.

No, I don't think your scenario is going to happen.

I teach in a fully comprehensive school with a broad social mix. I expect many of my bright and wonderful Y10 pupils to get a grade 9 in their exam next year. They are focused and working hard and I have every faith in their ability to do it.

The 9 will only be awarded to the top 3% in the country. Even if your Y10s are bright and hardworking, how can you say that they are among the top 3% bright and hardworking Y10s in the country? We have no idea where the grade boundary will be.

6% of kids got an A in maths GCSE last year. To get an A in Edexcel you needed 78%. Where, in the remaining 22% do you think the top 3% fell? I'm guessing a bell curve, but I don't know how sharp the drop-off is.

To be more specific Noble, the new grade 9 will be awarded to the top 20% of those gaining grade 7 or above. In my top set, all targeted at 7 or above, I would, therefore, be expecting at least six to achieve a 9.

English, MFL, humanities are going to be faced with ever starker contrasts between state and independent applicants both in terms of numbers and grades.

Hah. Hah. Hah. Been in a university "how are the UCAS numbers looking so far this round?" meeting lately?

There's a 20% drop in the number of 18 year olds per year over the next ten years. The rise in numbers thereafter (ie, the delta between the births in 2005 versus the trend of what 2005's births would have been without the high levels of primary immigration over the late 1990s) is largely the children of first generation immigrations who are far more likely to study vocational subjects than humanities. We are already seeing a marked shift in university applications from humanities to STEM and numbers of strong applicants, even in top universities, are falling (it's a myth that people are firmly bound one way or the other; a large portion of Oxbridge humanities students would have been perfectly capable of getting into RG STEM courses, and vice versa).

The idea that there is going to be pressure on places for English, MFL (MFL!) and the humanities more widely over the coming years is preposterous. The real issue is going to be how many English, MFL and humanities departments are going to close for lack of applicants.

You might expect that, but is it a reasonable expectation? Is the distribution of grades at the top end in a comp the same as in a selective or private school?

This blog, Why do schools with the most able intakes make the most progress? is an interesting read.

www.educationdatalab.org.uk/Blog/May-2015/Why-do-pupils-at-schools-with-the-most-able-intake.aspx#.VjYDq8SQGrW

If you extend that to raw scores, then we would expect selective schools to be over-represented at the top of the raw scores, hence the 9 grade as well.

That is v. interesting, Ricardian; I didn't realise that at all. Though surely there will always be pressure on Oxbridge/Russell group places. The departments that suffer will be mostly in the newer universities, presumably?

Though surely there will always be pressure on Oxbridge/Russell group places.

For many courses there is already not really pressure on RG places: if you are predicted around the right grades you get an offer. Provided you don't miss the offer by more than a grade or so you get the place. A lot of highly respected courses at top ten or twenty universities take a few extra students in clearing or adjustment to meet their student number targets.

Universities income is strongly dependent on student numbers and just to break even most universities (including RG ones) need to increase their student numbers year on year as fees have been fixed for several years now, while costs have increased substantially. As posted above there are very large concerns about the shrinking pool of UK applicants over the next few years (across almost all subjects, including STEM).

MN often gives a very distorted picture, as there are lots of posts about highly selective courses (Oxbridge, medicine etc) which represent a very small minority of even "top universities" courses.

Though surely there will always be pressure on Oxbridge/Russell group places.

As disquis says, there isn't now. Offers are made to everyone who has roughly the right predicted grades, and if you get those grades or something close you get in. Almost everywhere is in adjustment, and most courses are in clearing as well. Think about it: with five slots on the UCAS form, any subject with less than five applicants per place is in trouble.

MN often gives a very distorted picture, as there are lots of posts about highly selective courses (Oxbridge, medicine etc) which represent a very small minority of even "top universities" courses.

This. Every word. The debates on MN about what you have to do to get an offer are just a joke: there are plenty of Oxbridge courses which get fewer than three applicants per place, interview 90% of them, offer AAA to everyone sensible and admit at AAB. Part of the trick that private schools manage to drive up their rate of Oxbridge admission is steering candidates towards those courses; part of the problem for non-traditional applicants is that they only apply to the most competitive courses.

Medicine distorts the whole debate. Most people don't do medicine. Getting into university is, if you have reasonable A Levels, a matter of choosing where to go and filling in the form.

For many courses there is already not really pressure on RG places:

But is that only because pressure on places is eased by upping entrance requirements? DS1 is now in the 3rd year at uni.When he was applying most RG unis asked for AAA for his course, now many are asking for A*AA

When he was applying most RG unis asked for AAA for his course, now many are asking for A*AA

Asking? Or getting?

I can think of an RG STEM course which was asking A*AA but went into clearing this year.

Unsurprisingly, there are very few people in clearing who have A*AA, or anything remotely like it.

Back in the 1970s, it was possible to get into a highly selective university with C and B grades. Bristol (then extremely selective) wanted 3 x B; York was about the same; Leeds and (I can't remember) were happy with 3 x C, and Cardiff offered me a place with 2 x E grades. Then, grades were normed so only x% of students regardless of % marks at A level would get awarded an A grade, Oxbridge set their own admission papers generally taken after A levels, and there were S papers for which schools only entered their top few students.

ricardian I teach at Oxbridge in a fairly popular non stem subject.

We already find it tough to meet our widening participation target ( unofficial though that target is) because the state sector is unable to produce suitable candidates in numbers.

Colleagues are concerned by how far they will be expected to take contextualisation.

This is usually a lesser concern for STEM as enough good state candidates do well at GCSE/AS.

With the new GCSE gradings and no AS grades for some candidates, it will be tricky when compared to applicants with IGCSE plus AS.

We will end up needing more and more pre tests which as we know discourages participation.

Tis a problem we shouldn't just laugh at.

Back in the 1970s, it was possible to get into a highly selective university with C and B grades.

Early and mid 1980s, too. BBC would get you into pretty well any university if you weren't fussy about subject or pretty well any subject if you weren't fussy about institution (and I think that includes medicine, although I might be wrong).

But as you say, A Levels then were norm- rather than criteria-referenced and Oxbridge did their own admissions. S Papers were something of an historical anomaly dating back to the 1950s and early 1960s when local authorities could pick and choose who to fund (the "S" was held to stand for "Special" by the 1980s, but in fact still stood for "Scholarship").

There were also a hell of a lot fewer people applying; 1964 is the peak year for births so 1982/3 should have been peak for applications, but take up was 12%.

I was offered BBC or BCC by five universities all of which are now Russell Group (then a mix of redbricks and plate glass), on courses which are now all AAA+. I was offered EE by courses which are now 280 UCAS points.

We already find it tough to meet our widening participation target ( unofficial though that target is) because the state sector is unable to produce suitable candidates in numbers.

My suspicion is that state candidates are under more pressure to apply for "vocational" degrees, which even if not to their ideal taste are perfectly achievable for bright kids, and therefore and therefore end up doing something STEM-y at the lower end of the RG rather than English at Oxford. My child's doing the non-STEMiest of non-STEM subjects at Oxbridge, but wouldn't have had much trouble getting onto a STEM degree in the RG had I been a parent applying that pressure; a lot of parents are applying that pressure.

Shoot me, but I am not sure that students are brighter or better taught now than then. Then only the top 5 - 8% applied for university; the rest moved ahead by proving themselves via work or study.

Then only the top 5 - 8% applied for university

Behave. Go and look at the gender split of university admission in the 1970s: you pull the takeup up hugely just by admitting the missing women. I know that it suits the purposes of myth to pretend that universities in the 1970s were filled with people whose parents raced pigeons, but it's just not true: the selective universities were massively male and middle-class.

It wasn't the "top" x%, it was the x% with the social and cultural capital to apply.

My suspicion is that state candidates are under more pressure to apply for "vocational" degrees
Generalisation
Much

I can think of an RG STEM course which was asking AAA but went into clearing this year. Unsurprisingly, there are very few people in clearing who have AAA, or anything remotely like it.

Quite a few maths/physics/engineering candidates in clearing have AAA equivalent but were rejected by their top choices because of (a) getting AAB or AAB instead of AAA and (b) not getting the required STEP grades (maths). They are a small percentage of the overall candidates in clearing, but not very few. (I think this is rather different than non STEM where AAA and AAB candidates would be much less likely to be in clearing.)

BTW quite a few RG STEM courses take the majority of their students with the required grades (or grade equivalent) but are then forced by university management into clearing to take a few extra students.

I would agree though that many RG STEM courses increased their prospectus grades just at the time that the number of As awarded was reduced and number caps were removed, so the increase in grade requirements is rather fictional: in practice only the top half dozen AAA+ courses can afford to reject somebody with A*AA equivalent or AAA.

SheGotAllDaMoves - I teach at Oxbridge in a fairly popular non stem subject...because the state sector is unable to produce suitable candidates in numbers.

Is it true that sutable candidates don't exist in the state sector or is it that many of those who do exist in the state sector are not applying to Oxbridge?

The top exam grade is as likely to reflect well prepared exam technique and carefully taught syllabus as A* do now. It is unlikely just to be a measure of aptitude and student effort in the subject. IMO it is naive to suppose that certain private schools with experienced staff who have more time for each pupil will not to be able to continue to deliver a relative advantage for those factors compared to the state sector even if the intelligence of the pupils is similar.

I would be surprised if the top grade in humanities is not going to be based on very prescriptive criteria and therefore not necessarily rewarding flair. Differentiating a 9 from an 8 is otherwise going to be hard in the context variable quality of marking.
I suppose what I am saying is that universities may not simply be able to assume that best students are those with the 9s even if they are in a position to be that selective.

I suppose what I am saying is that universities may not simply be able to assume that best students are those with the 9s even if they are in a position to be that selective.

Are there humanities course where GCSE grades (in detail, as opposed to "having some at reasonable grades") are a significant part of the admission criteria? Oxford currently look at GCSE grades, but only as part of an overall assessment and they certainly don't require all A*. Does anyone else even look?

"I would be surprised if the top grade in humanities is not going to be based on very prescriptive criteria and therefore not necessarily rewarding flair"

Mass examinations like GCSE cannot be designed to reward "flair" or creativity and still be fair. You have to forget about flair and base assessment on other (perfectly valid) criteria for low-level mass examinations.

Ricardian a competitive university English course for example may decide to set the offer bar at grade 8/9 English GCSE for candidates (without the luxury of aptitude tests or information from AS results)

Mass examinations like GCSE cannot be designed to reward "flair" or creativity and still be fair. You have to forget about flair and base assessment on other (perfectly valid) criteria for low-level mass examinations.
Off topic but actually mass examinations can be designed to reward flair and creativity as well as discriminate fairly by harder questions. The problem is that of suitably qualified and trained markers with sufficient time. I do wonder why the boards don't just distribute the harder questions (grade A* or 8/9 questions) to more expert examiners instead of having one marker marking all the questions of a candidate's paper.

a competitive university English course for example may decide to set the offer bar at grade 8/9 English GCSE for candidates (without the luxury of aptitude tests or information from AS results)

They could. But grade 8 is equivalent to current A*; how many applicants for competitive English courses (ie, likely to get an A at A2) don't have that?

3% of the cohort get A*, but given GCSE English (including Foundation Tier) is taken by the vast majority of the cohort, is asking for applicants to a selective English degree to be in the top 3% overly onerous?