Post code lottery for University acceptance

Yes Secondary Modern Fleurpepper. They still exist in grammar school areas. My GD1 chose not to do the 11+ and came out of it with her 9 good GCSEs and 3 x A* at A level. She is now at a highly sought after RG university. 😂

Mamie

Yes, there are contextual offers by certain universities based on location and school attended. My GD did her A levels at a secondary modern school a couple of years ago. She had a 3xB contextual offer from a Russell Group university but went to her first choice as she got 3xA*.

Secondary Modern a couple of years ago? Do they still exist?
Or do you mean Comprehensive?

Mamie

As far as I can see Nannarose the contextual criteria are all on the universities' individual websites. The criteria used do vary between universities, but they are clearly described.

Thank you! Next time I'm told that, I may have a look!

I don't believe there is a postcode lottery as such, but more the IMDs that are taken into account.

(Indices of Multiple Deprivation)

Absolutely Doodledog, I agree, but every little bit helps. In Kent (for example), broadly speaking the secondary modern schools have contextual points and the grammar schools don't. That reverses the advantages that parents or grandparents might have bought by paying for years of coaching for the 11+.
I worked in school improvement for years and I absolutely understand and am appalled by the continuing inequalities in the system and in children's lives.
At least the universities are trying to do something.

I know ). As I say, I don't know how to make it fairer, but even if someone scores on all of those criteria, how do you screen for having your own bedroom, or having a grandmother who can help you with the application, or living with an addict, or having been bullied, or any of the unseen and quite specific things that can be a barrier?

The context does go further than a postcode though Doodledog. This is from unifrog.

"Typical criteria for contextual offers
Not all UK universities make contextual offers. For those that do, each one sets its own criteria, but they usually include a few of the following:
You have a disability
If you have a physical or non-physical disability, you may be eligible for a contextual offer.
You’re a young carer
A young carer is anyone who - unpaid for - cares for a friend or family member who cannot cope without support due to illness, disability, a mental health problem, or an addiction.
Your school’s overall academic performance
If, for example, the performance of your school, college or sixth form is lower than the national average, your academic performance so far might be given special consideration.
You’ve been in care
This means you’ve spent time in local authority care. Very often, you’ll need to declare that you’re a care leaver on the UCAS form and have it confirmed by your referee.
You’re a first generation Higher Education attendee
This means that you’re the first in your immediate family to attend university. Your parents therefore, did not attend university.
You have a lower family income, or live in an area with a lower socioeconomic status
You might be entitled to discretionary payments or free school meals at school/college. Schools also assess whether you live in an area with a lower socioeconomic status using the POLAR or ACORN postcode search. POLAR and ACORN are both classification tools which provide data on young people participating in higher education."

Mamie

Surely the need to widen access is the whole point of contextual offers Doodledog?
I have been helping my GD2 through the application process for medicine. It is interesting to see how some universities give much greater weight to contextual factors than others.
(Apart from that you also have to work out the weight given by each university to UCAT score, Situational Judgement score, GCSEs, predicted A level results and personal statement, just to make an application where you might get an interview).

Yes, I'm not arguing against contextual offers. In fact I think the context should go a lot further than looking at postcode - there are huge variations within a postcode.

I's all but impossible to make it fair though. Just as one example, people like your granddaughter have people like you to help them through the application process (and that's not a criticism), but how much harder is it for people with no family background in education to find their way through it?

As far as I can see Nannarose the contextual criteria are all on the universities' individual websites. The criteria used do vary between universities, but they are clearly described.

It's also unclear as to whether the lower offer was about something other than 'postcode'. One of my children was offered a place with 3 'E's, way lower than the norm, because some of his extra-curricular work made them want him.

I don't understand much about how universities operate. But I have had my ear bent on a number of occasions by people who are sure that a member of their family would have been able to do medicine / engineering / whatever if only those pesky disadvantaged youngsters hadn't sneaked the place from under them.

Surely the need to widen access is the whole point of contextual offers Doodledog?
I have been helping my GD2 through the application process for medicine. It is interesting to see how some universities give much greater weight to contextual factors than others.
(Apart from that you also have to work out the weight given by each university to UCAT score, Situational Judgement score, GCSEs, predicted A level results and personal statement, just to make an application where you might get an interview).

As the OP I was reminded when this thread was revived that my friend’s GD got 3A*s so well done to her.
I don’t know what her friend got but they are both at the Uni of their choice together.

No system in the world can make an exam system or even an education system absolutely fair. This is because it has to interact with human beings and all their variability.

When DS was 13 and didn't get a scholarship to his school which was expected his teachers told us money apart not to worry as the higher up the education system he went the better he would do. This was because he decided when he was 4 what he wanted to do as an adult and never deviated from that focus which means he was less intersted in other subjects. We also now know he has dyspraxia and ADD.

His teachers were right. He did OK at O level a bit better at A level and flew once he got to university and is now an academic and a recognised expert in his field.

His school exam results were not an accurate representation of his ability.

My apologies for the lack of commas in the above but for some reason when I press the 'comma' key I am getting a letter 'e' instead. I hope it makes sense without commas.

I agree on all counts, Hetty. It’s not fair to penalise advantaged students either, as their privilege is not their fault, so how do we find a way to select the brightest students? Is that what we want anyway? There is a lot more to success in education than that - attitude, perseverance and intellectual curiosity are every bit as important as the ability to pass A levels, which don’t really measure those qualities.

Your comment about the assumed fairness of education is spot on. The system pretends to be meritocratic but it really isn’t. How can it be, when the whole point of it is to produce an elite? Even when people from non- traditional backgrounds succeed there are those who want to disparage their courses or the institutions they attended. This ignores the fact that going to a school that offers a range of A levels and having enough money to study away from home is not a universal experience, and that the atmosphere of university can be intimidating for some. I agree that for someone whose background hasn’t prepared them for university getting through the process at all can be far more of an achievement than getting high grades in a ‘top’ university is for a student who started with the cultural capital and confidence that a privileged background confers.

I don’t know the answer, but I think that some way of widening access is necessary - education is one of the few ways to enable social mobility, but the selection process really does work against that. A large part of the reason for the existence of private schools is to give pupils advantage in the application process, which doesn’t help to ensure that the ’best’ applicants get the places.

Applying directly to the university (rather than through UCAS) and having a successful interview, sometimes along with some basic tests, can make a real difference in A level entry requirements. It's good that postcodes and schools can be taken into account, as well.

There's nothing fair or consistent in the application process anyway - or education in general - never has been. We just like to assume that there is. How could it ever be made fair?

A levels aren't really a good preparation for a degree course. Results are more like a filter, denying access to many at one stage, yet of little importance later, when a mature student applies.

Doodledog, it's upsetting to see some youngsters struggling and/or dropping out, when they've had every advantage through their school years, perhaps been spoon fed - then need to settle into independent research, in-depth reading and turning out a decent essay on time. Some are totally out of their depth.

By contrast, those who've already struggled at school may have acquired (along the way) better study habits, far more determination and a realistic, mature attitude that's a great advantage. I really admire them.

One of my neighbour’s children wants to read music at uni but isn’t doing music A level because the state school he attends hasn’t got a music teacher. I would think that’s a pretty big disadvantage ( his gran pays for private music lessons and he has grade 8 piano so they are hoping that counts). Universities should definitely take the context into account.

Someone with high grades at A level who has been at a school with small classes, motivated classmates and a conducive learning environment, or who has had private tuition is almost certain to do better than someone from a school with poor results, large classes and discipline problems, and if they have money for books and IT and a quiet place to study the playing field is even less equal. It doesn’t make them more able, just more fortunate - I would have thought that was obvious.

If students with higher A level grades are not more able why do we use A level grades for university entry? If 8ts the case that there is no correlation between A level grades and final degree results why bother?

I know things may have changed, but offers made may also be based on how the university assess the candidate, by what they have written on their form, what exams they may already have passed.

DS was invited up to the university of his choice and had a long and exhaustive interview, and he was then told to just meet the neessary basic entry requirements. He had obviously proved himself so suitable for the course in the interview, they wanted him, no matter what. He is now a senior academic. He got good A levels, but not outstanding.

It is like selecting which job applicants to interview. Qulifications come into it but all kinds of other factors as well, including school reccommendation, students personal statement and so on.

Why would more able students lose out; they can still get their A*s? Why would pupils from particular backgrounds, schools, postcodes etc perform less well when they get to university?
If someone is a young carer might it just be that they have had less time to spend on school work?
We already have studies showing that state school students outperform those from independent school at university. I don't doubt that students who are disadvantaged and have to struggle harder to get there are likely to be pretty well motivated.
The real problem is the cost of university these days. I don't know if others have grandchildren at university, but I am utterly appalled by the cost of accommodation.

fancythat

As far as I know, universities incresingly like to tkae overseas students. As they can charge more for the same course to an overseas student.

Whether that is part of levelling up or down, or nothing to do with it at all, I have no idea.

I don't think it has anything to do with levelling up. It's to do with universities wanting to increase their income.

Grantanow

I see the reasoning behind contextual offers as being supportive to individual applicants who suffer a perceived disadvantage (like going to a school that systematically underperforms at A level) but I worry that more able students lose out. It's a form of positive discrimination that may undermine the overall quality of university graduate output.

No, it doesn't undermine the quality. Students with higher A level grades aren't necessarily more able.

I see the reasoning behind contextual offers as being supportive to individual applicants who suffer a perceived disadvantage (like going to a school that systematically underperforms at A level) but I worry that more able students lose out. It's a form of positive discrimination that may undermine the overall quality of university graduate output.

As far as I know, universities incresingly like to tkae overseas students. As they can charge more for the same course to an overseas student.

Whether that is part of levelling up or down, or nothing to do with it at all, I have no idea.

You can use POLAR or ACORN to find out if a postcode will assist a student get a lower offer. tbh I don't have a problem with it, if it widens access to disadvantaged groups then it's a good thing.