How many 8/9s GCSE for a top Russell Group University or Oxbridge?

[TartanTexan]

Realistically what do you need as a minimum and for Oxbridge?

If taking 9 or 10 GCSEs - all 9s needed? Mainly 9s for say Newcastle or Exeter?

It will surely depend on course & subject but in very general terms. Thanks

[talktoo]

Stop perpetuating the notion that Russel Group means anything. It's a pay-to-join consortium. Not a measure of ranking. There are top Uni's like Bath and St Andrews and Sussex that are not RG and weaker ones like Queens Belfast and queen Mary's that are RG. They are just good at self promotion.

[goodbyestranger]

The figure was 732 Stickerrocks but it was quite niche: 732 students achieved straight grade 9s in 7 or more subjects, regardless of how they might have done in unreformed subjects. Thus a student getting 7 grade 9s and C grades in D&T and Business would be included in that figure but the students (and there were several at our school alone) who got 9 grade 9s and an 8 weren't included. It's not a massively helpful piece of info.

[Pegase]

So much misinformation on this thread. GCSE results are considered as one piece of evidence although clearly straight 9s would be unrealistic.

www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/admission-requirements/uk-qualifications?wssl=1

[ColeHawlins]

Stop perpetuating the notion that Russel Group means anything. It's a pay-to-join consortium. Not a measure of ranking. There are top Uni's like Bath and St Andrews and Sussex that are not RG and weaker ones like Queens Belfast and queen Mary's that are RG. They are just good at self promotion.

This is MN @talktoo , nobody wants to be disabused about the RG

[AllPowerfulLizardPerson]

Trouble is, people know which universities have the higher reputations, and it does map closely to the RG. Yes, there are some anomalies - which you can count on the fingers of one hand, and people know that as well.

Reputation can and does matter. You can think that is right or think it wrong. But it doesn't mean that reputation does not exist.

Various people predicted that the demise of A levels, GCSEs would have gain some importance for over-subscribed courses which can select. That seems to be happening (though as just an early part of the sift).

You'd be (probably) safe for selective courses with A*/9/8 in key subjects relevant to the course. And generally the higher the better, with nothing lower than a B/6 (IME experience, which is limited, but such as it is, it's direct)

[ColeHawlins]

Trouble is, I don't think everyone does know that.

Lots of parents of "first generation students turn up here pronouncing themselves clueless and looking for guidance.

Maybe it's an MN phenomenon just because "RG" is so much quicker to type than "high ranking unis"?

[WhyAmIPayingFees]

I’d advise people to read the link that Pegase loaded. It makes no reference to any thresholds for number of A* and also makes it clear that the EB is not needed and that people should do subjects they will get the most out of. It does make the rather obvious point that kids with a higher proportion of 7-9 are more likely to be successful but that there is a context to everything.

[sollyfromsurrey]

AllPowerfulLizardPerson it's hardly anomalies that can be counted on one hand. St Andrews, Surrey, Loughborough, Lancaster, Bath, East Anglia, Royal Holloway, Reading, Sussex and more are not RG. Indeed 6 of these are in the top 20 and 3 are in the TOP TEN (Complete University Guidewww.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings

Indeed ALL of the ones I mention are ranked above Queen Mary's and Queen's Belfast and all the ones I mention rank higher than many of other RG universities. Many RG unis are excellent. Many NON RG unis are excellent. It is a PAY-TO-JOIN group that has nothing to do with ranking or teaching quality. And many MN posters don't realise this.

[AllPowerfulLizardPerson]

Yes, there are a small number of anomalies.

Yes some courses are particularly prized.

But the point you are missing is that reputation if the institution matters too. That is why people not inue too pay attention to it.. no one is saying RG is perfect measdure of that. But it's a pretty damned good one, and it is important that people who do not know how to navigate the university system have a starting point whehich includes reputation.

We are clearly never going to agree about this. Possibly because you appear to be focussed on the academics (apologies if I've got that wrong, and can I be clear that I think that's a perfectly valid way to loook at itit, even though it is one I do not share). Whereas I am looking at reputation (and some other 'all round' aspects) in addition.

But of course, people don't have to see things the way I do, but it is why Mnetters continue to post about university reputation and the RG as the far and away best proxy when looking in the round

[pointythings]

DD1 got 3 x 8, 6 As and 1 B and got offers from both the RG unis she applied to. Turned them down in favour of the uni that offered the course most closely matching her career plans though, not RG but very well regarded for that particular subject.

DD2 is currently looking at 2 8/9, 3 or 4 7 (two of which could plausibly end up an 8) and the rest 6 (2 of which might well be 7). She'll definitely be applying to a couple of RG unis when the time comes.

[WombatChocolate]

At the end of the day, academic record will be looked at. It includes GCSEs and people with better GCSEs will get more offers to the competitive courses. It's hardly rocket science. There might not be an exact no. Of 8s or 9s that will be required, but 7-9 or A*_A is the measure of higher academic performance. So, if someone is looking for the very competitive courses at the top Unis, lots of those grades will be needed.

Not surprisingly, those with lots of too GCSEs also tend to have the high A Level predictions too.

So someone with mostly C/B at GCSE isn't likely to have the academic profile nor have the A Levelnoredictions for the most competitive courses at the top places. There will be lots of courses available though.

[jeanne16]

The problem is that many schools tell students that it doesn’t matter what uni they attend as ‘a degree is a degree’. This is clearly misinformation as the uni reputation does matter when it comes to applying for many jobs.

[BubblesBuddy]

There is research into which universities overall achieve better financial reward for their students after 5 years. I believe it was the Institute of Fiscal Studies and I think the report was last year. Overall students from RG universities earn more. It doesn’t really matter if they are a grouping that promote themselves. Other universities group themselves too! For some courses lower end RG isn’t better than upper end post 62 or ex poly university but generally they are better so represent better value for money. This is exactly why the Auger report has been commissioned. Course taken makes a huge difference too, of course. So medicine and economics sway the figures somewhat as these are the higher earners from the best universities.

Employers don’t look solely at course details. There is far more to recruitment than that but the best qualified students often do end up at the best universities in greater numbers. Employers know that. However that doesn’t mean others are discounted but course will matter.

[Bimkom]

I think in terms of oxford, it is worth drilling down by subject, not just the admissions page.

For example - this is the discussion about medicine page at oxford
www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/study/medicine/pre-clinical/statistics

What is noteworthy is they give a table about GCSEs (of course, this is based on candidates who did the old GCSEs, so no 9s). But tehy say here:

" The mean number of A* at GCSE for all applicants was 8.1; this rose to 10.3 for those shortlisted and 10.4 for applicants receiving offers.

The mean proportion of A* at GCSE was 0.76; this rose to 0.94 for those shortlisted and 0.95 for applicants receiving offers.

The mean number of total GCSE qualifications offered (not including short courses or other GCSE-equivalent qualifications) was 10.5. "

There are some nice graphs to make the position clearer - but basically, on the 2018 data, nobody was offered a place at Oxford medicine with less than 8 A stars, the "typical" offeree had either 10 or 11 A stars and the vast majority of those who got a place had all A stars.
There is no question that the number of A stars at GCSE were used to sift the oxford medicine candidates.
Now, how that will play to the 8/9 grades is anybody's guess. There will not be enough of straight 9 grades (given that not everybody who gets straight 9 grades is going to want to do medicine, and even if they want to do medicine, not all of them are going to want to go to Oxford). Whether, for example, a 9 grade will "cancel out" a 7 grade, compared with a straight 8 grade holder, will need to be seen. But the page I referenced makes it explicit that Oxford medicine, at least, is using GCSE and top grades a a filter. I believe so does Edinburgh medicine.

[Twerking9til5]

“There is no question that the number of A stars at GCSE were used to sift the oxford medicine candidates.”

Or... it seems wholly likely and predictable that those who come successfully to the top of the Oxford medicine process (double whammy if selective competition) will be those who have been consistently bright, conscientious and hard working enough to do the revision and calm enough under pressure to put it into action in exams.

From GCSE to the Oxford selection process and A levels.

This is completely different to insisting that a good red brick Uni will scrutinise your GCSE drama results if you have good Maths and STEM GCSEs and predicted A*AA in maths :/ science A levels for application to do Chemistry or Engineering.

[havingtochangeusernameagain]

In the days before A*s I got 4 As, 4 Bs and 1 C in my GCSEs. I was offered an Oxbridge place (but ended up failing one of the entrance exams so ended up at a RG uni instead).

I think what matters is did you get an 8 or a 9 in the subject you want to do at uni (or a subject allied to it). I would also suggest that it depends what you are applying to do eg medicine will be far more competitive than MFL.

MN is very keen on saying you have lost out on life if you get less than stellar GCSEs but A levels are more important because you should then be doing your best subjects and have got rid of compulsory subjects that you perform less well in.

And 10 GCSEs is not expected as standard. I only did 8 at a state grammar school. My son is "only" doing 8 at a high performing state comprehensive although he could do 9 if he were doing triple science. 8 GCSEs is definitely enough.

[havingtochangeusernameagain]

Oh and DH got into Oxford with 3 As at O level (out of 9) and ABB at A level (the A being in the subject he wanted to study). We've moved away from the 14 GCSEs all at grade A* scenario and are back to situation where grades are likely to be lower and people are doing fewer subjects so the comparison I think is valid.

[Seeline]

THe way our school phrased it was that in their experience, students with less than 6/7 As at GCSE were unlikely to be successful in applying to Oxbridge.
They didn't say that a certain number were required or anything like that. I took it to mean that unless students were capable of high numbers of As/8/9s, they were unlikely to meet the higher grades at A level required by Oxbridge.

[goodbyestranger]

Even at the height of 'grade inflation' in the past decade only the top 2% in the country got 10 A let alone 14 A, so that's a bit of a myth too you're peddling there havingtochangeusernameagain. GCSEs are of enormous importance, more so now that ASs have gone as an admissions tool.

At Oxford - and this was true even in the recent 'inflation' years - an interviewee had a following wind with a full hand of A* and one with a relatively small hand had to fight against that prevailing wind. In recent years GCSEs have been an important currency at Oxford and predicted A levels far less so.

[goodbyestranger]

There is no question that the number of A stars at GCSE were used to sift the Oxford medicine candidates.

Yes, the BMAT results plus the percentage of A at GCSE (percentage of each applicant, as contextualised) are fed into a computer and the top I forget many applicants (three times the number of places available?) are interviewed. There's room for some individual consideration for those falling a tiny bit short of the magic number but on the whole that's it - so GCSE A are an essential component in deciding who to interview for Oxford Medicine.

[BubblesBuddy]

As Oxbridge has only GCSEs as concrete exam performance, and every candidate is predicted the required A levels, it would be madness not to take GCSEs into account. What lower ranking RG universities want for theur nin competitive isn’t relevant. There is also less competition for science subjects at some universities. There are simply not enough highly qualified DC, in terms of GCSEs, to go round for science courses so they cannot be choosy. MFL likewise.

My DH would love to see more grad engineers who can write good English though! The idea that a few narrow STEM subjects matter above all else is flawed in the workplace. A well rounded and educated young person is still needed!

[WombatChocolate]

For top courses, it may well be that fairly oblique messages are sent out about needing to have a good academic record. These messages won't usually identify specific numbers of GCSEs at specific grades, because they wish to maintain some flexibility, which is right.

However, to suggest all candidates have an equal chance of an offer or meeting their offer is just daft. It can clearly be seen for the most competitive courses that those who receive offers are those with the higher GCSEs. They have high percentages of A and almost or all A/A. This will be across whatever number of subjects they took - and it won't really matter if that was 8 or 13. It is better to have fewer with top grades than loads with a bigger spread of grades. So what about this scrutinising of a lower GCSE in Drama for example? Well, if there's a B in drama amongst a set of grades which is otherwise A/A it isn't likely to make a difference unles said dramanis the course applied for. But to suggest that for a competitive course like medicine or economics, at a highly selective uni like Oxbridge or Durham, the candidate with 6Bs and 2As at GCSE is as likely to get an offer as someone who had 7A and 1A is just daft. They might both be predicted the same A Level grades - that happens! But Unis don't just look atbtheboredicitions, because clearly the GCSEs give annindicationnof how likely the student is to achieve those predictions.

Take a look at the WHICH UNIVERSITY advice pages. They point out how GCSES usually correlate to A Level grades. I have also seen information which discusses predicted grades and the liklihood o meeting them or missing them - 2/3 of students were 2 grades short of their AAB predictions - for those with an average GCSE profile of A/B this figures was far higher than for those with an average profile of A*/A - hardly surprising is it!

Often the biggest hurdle these days is to get the offer. When results day comes, loads miss their offered grades, but with 1, sometimes 2 and even 3 or 4 grades difference across the offer, theyvarevstill accepted into the course. Unis want to fill up and Clearing is an uncertain place for them, so they'd often rather accept slightly lower grades,min owing the candidate wants to come to them and they can fill a place. So getting the offer comes down to having a good set of GCSEs and doing well enough in the L6th to get the predictions. Of course, for Oxbrdige, the internal exams they set are also vital in differentiating candidates. And students then need to not bomb out in the A Levels themselves, but for a good number of RG Unis, actually if they get a grade or 2 less, they will still be in. I have known this in popular course like medicine too. But in the example of medicine used upthread, without the required GCSEs used in the sift, there will be no offer at all.

It depends which uni and which course you are talking about, there will be lots of good Unis with slightly less competitive courses who will give offers to those with less fantastic GCSEs. They know that those students probably won't hit their ABB or whatever it is offer, but they expect to take them anyway. It's knowing where will be more rigorous and expect more to give an offer and for which courses. Schools which tell students 'any degree is as good as a degree from anywhere' or 'Unis don't look at GCSES only A Level predictions' or 'go on, have a go with those 8Cs if you really want to do medicine' or 'don't apply for Oxbridge because you won't take in/people from our schools never oo' don't do their students many favours really.
Students do need to be told what is realistic with their academic profile and encouraged to aim high within what is realistic.

If in doubt, email admissions tutors. Ask very precise questions about the GCSE profile of students they have made offers to in the last few years. This can be more revealing than what is shown in the prospectus. Some prospectus' say a minimum requirement and actually offers are made to candidates with those minimum requirements, but for others due to the no of applications, only those who far exceed that requirement actually get offers.

[Bimkom]

The bit I don't fully understand is the reference to contextual GCSEs and cohorts.
Or rather, I do understand the rationale - in that, if somebody is at a really sink school, and they manage to get good grades, but maybe not quite as good as they might have done at a fancy academic school, it makes sense to take that into account, and one way of doing it is to look at the rest of the year, and compare how badly they have done.
But - lets say a particular DC is at a good comprehensive. A comprehensive is just that, it takes everybody, and that means that, no matter how good the comprehensive is, only a few might be expected to get A stars or 8/9s. So any reasonably bright DC will almost certainly end up near the top of their cohort.
Compare that to an identically bright DC that got into one of these highly selective 11+ schools. Sure the 11+ will not necessarily always be a good predictor, but it ought to be a reasonable one. So one would have expected the cohort of this second DC to all do very well, even if the teaching was only reasonable. if the teaching was better than reasonable, one would then see astonishing results. But that particular DC might well have average or below average results for their cohort.
That would seem to suggest that a DC at a good comprehensive would have a huge advantage over the DC at a highly selective school, simply because the cohort of the first is more stupid.
Am I missing something about the maths here?

[titchy]

Binkom it will depend on how 'good' is measured. Progress 8 takes into account the expected grades of the intake - a grammar with lots of kids getting 7s, 8s and 9s can have a lower progress 8 score than a comprehensive with an average grade of 5 becuase the grammar intake will all have been expected to gain at least a 7, and the odd 6 will have pulled it down.
Whereas the comp could be taken all its kids expected to gain 5s and pulling them up to 6.

[titchy]

Bristol uses contextual A Level results in a similar way - schools in the the lowest two quintiles for expected results given the intake will have a lower offer because they aren't enabling kids to reach their A Level potential given their GCSE grades.