News Alert!

Scroll to see replies

Quote: "A handbook to admissions tutors in all Cambridge colleges advises that seven A-grade GCSE passes by a pupil from a poorly performing school should be treated as equal to eight A* passes from a "highly selective school".

This is Ridiculous...

Reply 2

Immortal Wombat

That is silly, but I honestly don't think that GCSEs have that much of an impact on who is accepted. If you're getting seven As or A*s, then whatever school you went to, it's going to count as "Good Enough GCSEs" and then they'll look at your A-levels and interview.

Reply 3

fishpaste

I think that's a perfectly reasonable comparison. We're talking about schools which don't even teach the higher syllabuses compared to schools where the bright are encouraged to GCSEs several years earlier. There's a much more obvious, drastic effect on GCSEs of bad schooling than there is than alevels.

Reply 4

bOdOING2

fishpaste

If Cam used to discriminate against state school pupils, u cant walk from 1 extreme to another and start disciminating public/good state school pupils.
I think ppl should be admitted based on MERIT, unless there is excruciating circumstances (e.g. family problems etc)

If Cam starts making concessions in favor of stateschool pupils, then y not take into account also: family income, education background of parents, access to learning materials (computers, books etc) at home, as they can all affect one's exam performance...
But if u take all these into sccount, would the admissions system be workable??

Reply 5

fishpaste

bOdOING2

It's not discriminating against public schoolers, it's trying to determine what an equal performance is regardless of background.

With regard to your second paragraph, if there were some problem with one of those things, e.g. parents had no education whatsoever and so can't even speak english, then this would be mentioned in the reference. Just because you can't make the system perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't try to analyse and make adjustments which will make it fairer.

Reply 6

Alaric

fishpaste

It's not discriminating against public schoolers, it's trying to determine what an equal performance is regardless of background.

I concur.

They're only guidelines and are to do with GCSE results where the article carps on about Laura Spence (again) which was all about A-levels and if I remember correctly she wasn't predicted what she actually got so the whole argument was pointless. I think it's a rubbish article, I'd exect better from the inde.

A.

Reply 7

fishpaste

Alaric

I thought exactly the same, it's nothing to do with Laura Spence, it's not even the same university! It just seems to be some thing amongst journalists. "Hmmm some move by oxford or cambridge to consider school background, let's double the length of the article with a reminder of the Laura Spence controversey!"

Reply 8

spin

I think this attempt at evening things out comes too late in the education process. If you only have 7 GCSEs at grade A then it will mean that you are only grade A in 7 subjects, whether or not you have the -potential- of being a Cambridge student. Surely students have to be admitted based on the combination of their ability to learn and their intelligence (which, yup, can be measured by their grades in the context of their situation) AND by what they already know... which can only practically be shown by grades..

Also to be considered.. I read a few years back that people who perform well at a lot of subjects at GCSE level are on average a lot better at degree level in their chosen subject.. Something to do with having a brain used to working at things from lots of different angles..

Overall, I'd just like to see the general standard go up... rather than making what I see as "last minute" fixes.

Reply 9

fishpaste

Mib

Fishpaste and Alaric, explain this to me:

How can an independently schooled pupil perform any better than getting straight A*s at GCSE?

If you take 8 As at a state school to be equivalent to 8A*s at a private school, then by definition the state school pupil has greater flexibility to do better [by getting, say, just one A*], whereas the private school pupil cannot get better results! And given that they are only counting the eight best results, it's not as if private school pupils can make up for it by taking 12 or 13 GCSEs.

It seems, in short, unfair.

Edit: If this policy is enacted, wouldn't all the independent school candidates just apply to Oxford instead?

the people from top schools could do more GCSEs or some AS modules, as they often do.

It seems unfair that the private schooler is limited in what he can do to 'prove' himself. But he's not entirely limited. At the same time, you must acknowledge it's very unfair to expect A*s from pupils who have only been taught the intermediate paper material, or who are not entered for GCSEs but certificates of achivements (OCR)?

Reply 10

Mop

Mib

If admissions were done entirely on a system of points, you'd have a point (excuse the poor phraseology :p:

). But they're not: this new system is merely a way of trying to obtain some idea of the equivalence of different applicants' qualifications. Your hypothetical 8A* private school student would be able to prove they were more worthy of the place than the 7A state student at interview, but this system should go some way to prevent applicants with poorer GCSEs due to a poor school from being rejected because of this.

Reply 11

MadNatSci

As long as they're treated as guidelines and not rigid rules - which I expect they will be - then fine. It shouldn't make too much difference as they're supposed to take your school into account anyway.

Reply 12

Mib

fishpaste

the people from top schools could do more GCSEs or some AS modules, as they often do.

I thought they were just going to take the top 8 results...in which case doing any more than that wouldn't count, surely?

Maybe they need a test like the SAT or something...

Reply 13

MadNatSci

fishpaste

the people from top schools could do more GCSEs or some AS modules, as they often do.

That depends entirely on what the school will let you get away with. Some independent schools won't even let you take more than 3 A levels. So that IS a bit unfair.

At the end of the day these exam results can't ever be taken on their own, because it will never be fair, which is why the admissions process at Cambridge is so broad in terms of what they look at. But I wish people would stop bringing up blooming Laura Spence. She says herself she buggered up the interview, and she was probably weak in other areas as well.

Reply 14

Mib

MadNatSci

At the end of the day these exam results can't ever be taken on their own, because it will never be fair, which is why the admissions process at Cambridge is so broad in terms of what they look at. But I wish people would stop bringing up blooming Laura Spence. She says herself she buggered up the interview, and she was probably weak in other areas as well.

I know, I feel sorry for the people who actually got offers ahead of her. The media coverage severely belittled them.

Reply 15

fishpaste

yup, agree, gcse results not to be compared blindly. it's just the 7As = 8A*s thing I think is a reasonable comparison between the worst and the best. just as a guide for tutors to know what degree of impact schooling background can have.

Reply 16

CamSPSer

at the end of the day how many times are cambridge admissions tutors going to say well they are exactly equal but has this candidate from an elite public school has 7A*s but this state school person has 1A* and 6As we'll take the latter. i think it misses the problem that should be tackled in that state school people tend (important word there i dont want to get but in this case its a generalisation yes) to be less prepared for the interview than someone from a top public school with a tradition of sending people to oxbridge who will often have recent oxbridge graduates at school to have mock interviews with, a system set up for people such as themselves at school. IMHO if anything needs correcting it is the obvious differentials in interview
Reading the evening standard lite this evening reinforced this view with a number of schools getting around half their applicants in such as st pauls, kings college and st pauls girls

Reply 17

Ticki

notyourpunk

IMHO if anything needs correcting it is the obvious differentials in interview.

Absolutely. Colchester (a grammar) preps their candidates to a ridiculous extent, for example. File upon file of interview feedback from every applicant from the last 10 years, including lists of questions asked. Even if it doesn't help their actual performance, they must feel much more confident a) at interview and b) when applying in the first place.

Reply 18

Alexander

notyourpunk

Reading the evening standard lite this evening reinforced this view with a number of schools getting around half their applicants in such as st pauls, kings college and st pauls girls

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/15987181?source=Evening%20Standard

I think much of it's down to public schools advising their pupils better -- I've known a few no-hopers from state schools who were allowed apply, who would have been strongly advised not to bother if they were at an independent school (or any school with much experience of what Oxbridge requires).

Reply 19

platinumki

As a Scot, I have followed a diffferent exam system, so this isn't entirely relevant, but my experince has taught me that people get what they deserve really. Ultimately, Oxbridge candidates are meant to be the elite so if you can't cope with a bit of poor teaching, you may not be up to it. My school is ranked 369/415 out of Scottish schools and our pass rate is lower than average but I have never thought "oooo, that person is brilliant, they should have done better than that." Some people do better than they deserve but I have never thought that someone who did poorly should have done extremely well. Three out of two hundred achieved straight 1s (the highest award) - this seems about right. Better teaching could have got some of my friends one or two grades moved up but going from 7As to 8A* seems like a huge jump. I read somewhere that it is reckonned that independant education adds on average one grade to A-level results is someone who would have got AAB in state school would in fact get AAA.

I can't help but think that the really brilliant people generally do well no matter what (obviously one or two grades lower) and only more average people are improved by the standard of eduction. (I am taught chemistry 3 out of 5 periods, physics by a non-English speaker - finally after three months without a teacher, biology by a wonderful teacher and English... probably the worst of all --- but I would not want an easy offer, that's a bit insulting)