[Closed] How rubbish do you need to be not to be accepted by a University?

Not all universities are equal. Back in the day the bad ones were called colleges or polys

I needed 2 As and 2 Bs to get into my Uni, and I was one of the thickest folks there.

I got one E (Art) and an O level grade at A level (maths).
I went to Oxford Ploy and did a HND.

It really didn't matter that much in the end..

Back in the day the bad ones were called colleges or polys

err not really..

Alex - Member

I still believe we're creating (at least) a 2 tier system. I appreciate this kind of existed anyway - even outside of Russell Group, etc. And I wonder if you did an analysis across all your entry profiles, you'd see the same grade inflation. Maybe if you're in the top tier you would

Aye, we definitely have at least 3 distinct tiers but possibly more. But thing is, once you've got a load of tiers, as long as you've got no yawning gaps that's just good coverage. In Scotland I'd say we're developing gaps more or less because our midrange has raised its game, I don't know the RUK marketplace the same way. But then we've also done a lot to improve college as an option (and to improve college-uni articulation) which lifts that up. Not perfect for sure.

Alex - Member

I'm not sure it's virtuous and I'm not sure the 'decisions' being made by 18 year olds are as informed as they should be.

The reason I say virtuous is that it's a little feedback loop, good performing universities have less room to slip up now than they once did so there's a constant reinforcement of good performance. And midrange unis have more capacity to perform better and push us.

Absolutely agree with the choice making, especially in clearing. IMO it's enormously better than it was when I was choosing, just because of the access to information but it's still so troublesome. And not just how kids choose, but how they rule themselves out. Maths is the worst for this imo, kids lose interest at an early age, basically as soon as it gets past everyday applicable maths... And then there's a big gap before the value of maths to engineering, sciences etc becomes obvious, where they lose the motivation to learn. I chose subjects at standard grade because of the teachers I liked and what my mates were doing and those decisions rule you out of choices too!

Trouble is I don't think anyone has any idea how to fix this- it can be improved and we do so all the time but the entire process is basically imperfect. The growth of gap years and deferred entry is great though imo, I'd like deferred entry be the norm with a working gap year or two. But that still doesn't resolve the school choices problem. Kids make choices at such an early age that are hard to overcome later.

I think a move away from the assumption "You go to school, then you go to uni" is overdue, we have so many other ways and there shouldn't be any stigma to it, when college entry tends to make such a good student... But mostly we just talk about gap yahs, and not about all the other ways to do it.

I'm probably biased but I like the Scottish 4-year degree, it gives us a lot more margin for course changes. We can do fairly straightforward swaps between aligned subjects but it's also easier to do wholesale changes of direction. Obviously it has downsides too!

Alex - Member

One thing I would take issue with is EVERY uni I've dealt with says they turn people away in clearing. But that's a decision based entirely on the financial risk of those students dropping out early and leaving a hole i y2/y3 finances.

MMM, OK, there's a lot in this comment and some I'm just going to totally disagree with. For one thing there's a bunch of reasons to want to avoid students dropping out and finance is only one, progression rates are a metric in most of the league tables frinstance, and it's disruptive for teaching to have underperforming students. But the entire situation's less simple. (we'll often fill dropped-out places with 2nd or 3rd year entry students or transfers anyway)

In our case, we're not just turning away clearing applicants- that's just part of the game really, I doubt any uni accepts every one. We're going to have unfilled places full stop. That's not because of finance- we lose out for that. It's because we're not lowering standards. And we'll not be alone in that.

Not all are equal - which makes a mockery of them charging the same price etc.

Tom, why should someone else determine which uni I can/should go to. It's my education not their's

There has to be a major, major shake up soon - more two year courses, an end to the pretence that there is a semblance of equality, more innovative structure, more on-line courses. Academics need to embrace the cold winds of change and resources d quickly before their jobs disappear completely, many are good at lecturing not these topics, at least the business departments are - now is the time to actually do something.

Loads of close misses among friends and some remarkable saves including Oxford being generous to one candidate who missed his grades. NW are you being as generous as Edin Uni, they have accepted several near misses yesterday

Ah should have realised you were talking about a Scottish institution. Completely agree education is better integrated than England (and to an extent Wales and NI as well). I prefer the Scottish system which is far less prescriptive and allows students to follow a thread rather than being regimented into a set of modules without that granularity of choice.

Again wandering of the point completely and I've no idea if it's practical really, but I do like the idea of Post Qualification selection. It'd be a bunfight with 400,000+ students every year but I wonder if it'd be simpler/cleaner/fairer(?) in the long term. The whole application system is based on the digitisation of a part system - would we really start again from there?

I take the point re: turning people away in that I used the word 'entirely'. Certainly the metrics measuring 'quality' within institutions are of course tied to their initial intake regardless, ironically, of how good the teaching is when they get there.

There is so much that is 'right' about UK HE (in all its forms) but also so much inertia to fixing what is wrong. With the continuing commercialisation, it's hard to see how we're going to get 160+ institutions to agree on anything as it'll put some at a commercial disadvantage and I certainly could see a few failing or having to merge.

Oh a mate of mines lad had done very well with his A levels and is going to his first choice Uni. After a gap year that is 6 months in NZ, 3 months in Canada. Different world!

Tom, why should someone else determine which uni I can/should go to. It's my education not their's

For the same reason most people just go to their local 6th form. Cost.

There has to be a major, major shake up soon - more two year courses, an end to the pretence that there is a semblance of equality,

If we regulated more degrees, then there would be more certainty in regards to the quality of a degree. But we have a market driven attitude in the UK that won't allow that to happen.

The system is run on silly, somewhat outdated notions of how and when people become successful. Many people still think that academic success is something entirely inborn - something that is part of your character that follows you for the rest of your life. In reality people are molded by their situation and circumstances - whilst IQ is not very malleable, self-discipline is and it is highly dependent on circumstance. It is something a lot of people (men especially) only learn later on in life - and it has been shown time and time again that self-discipline is much more important in attaining good grades than a high IQ.

So why do we have a system that judges people from the age of 18, why do I have a friend who went to an ex-poly and then Kings College London - where he gained a distinction at masters level - who still gets turned down for graduate positions because his UCAS points weren't high enough?

The whole system is bollocks and I find the types who usually defend it are the ex-public schoolboys who are served well by the system.

Well either:

1. within two generations we have suddenly all become much more intelligent or,
2. standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

Nah, it's just far more competitive nowadays, kids are expected to work much harder during school and much harder at home too - my 9 year old does more homework than I did at a-level, he's also talking private tuition because he's only 6 months ahead of the curve (Wife's idea).

It doesn't help that his school sits in the catchment for 2 comps, one is very good, one is 'okay' the very good one claims a very complex and fair criteria for entry, but behind closed doors they try to take the best and the brightest to ensure the best results, which keeps them as the 'very good' school - the system is terrible really, but sometimes you just have to play the game.

As for the OP's question, there's a young lad who works with us part-time, he wanted a Computer Science Course, they provisionally accepted him based on his expected AAB results, helped by the fact he's been working here for 12 months doing frontline IT support - he didn't do as well as expected and got ACD - they rejected him instantly, so did his second choice, only leaving him with a place at the local 'former Poly' and they want him to do a foundation course for a year, he might as well do re-sits.

Not all are equal - which makes a mockery of them charging the same price etc.

I don't agree. When i went to uni they all cost the same: therefore i chose the course which suited my requirements. no other differentiation

Now there is the issue of value: Course A: 9k, first choice all being equal, but course B: not as good but only 6k/ year.

not really a problem for the richest students, but it will be a thought process for poorer students, reducing the equality in education.

Back in the 80s Sheffield University Material Science department had a policy of taking 2 people with bad grades a year. They selected based on potential and made it very clear to those that they took that they had to work hard or leave. In the year I'm thinking of, one of the guys got a 2.1 and another a first.

Some people screw up there A levels. It shouldn't screw up their life.

but behind closed doors they try to take the best and the brightest to ensure the best results, which keeps them as the 'very good' school - the system is terrible really, but sometimes you just have to play the game.

That's not how the game is played these days - it's all about the value added. What you want to cherry pick are the bright underachievers. Those that are already achieving well are a nightmare - the only way is down. Not good for your VA stats, which of course is the only thing that matters 😉

Back in the 80s Sheffield University Material Science department had a policy of taking 2 people with bad grades a year. They selected based on potential and made it very clear to those that they took that they had to work hard or leave. In the year I'm thinking of, one of the guys got a 2.1 and another a first.

Some people screw up there A levels. It shouldn't screw up their life.

This. +1

teamhurtmore - Member

NW are you being as generous as Edin Uni, they have accepted several near misses yesterday

We're not generous but remember 1st year entry to a Scottish uni isn't directly comparable to an English one, so a grade that comes up short for one can still be a credable grade for another. (a lot of A-level students would usually be candidates for 2nd year entry) Also in the case of a really near miss we can look at the wider picture, grades aren't everything.

I missed this one earlier

footflaps - Member

Well either:

1. within two generations we have suddenly all become much more intelligent or,
2. standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

Or 3, there were a huge number of kids who could have attained a degree but never got the chance. Only 5% could gain that degree but that wasn't an academic restriction, it was scarcity and lack of opportunity.

Cheers NW, this was two English students who just missed graded (one a B instead of an A and the other an M1 pre U instead of A - bloody pre Us!!!!) not a Scottish student.

Grades aren't everything - try telling Exeter when you are one mark off!!! 😉

Now there is the issue of value: Course A: 9k, first choice all being equal, but course B: not as good but only 6k/ year.

Great, people have a choice, My niece recently chose a two year degree. Cheaper, more relevant to what she wanted to do. Better choice etc...

In the past value was hidden away. Now it's more transparent.

I prefer the Scottish system which is far less prescriptive and allows students to follow a thread rather than being regimented into a set of modules without that granularity of choice.

Even my masters, which you;d normally expect to be quite specialised was quite modular, and the degree title conferred depended on which combinations of modules you selected. You just needed to choose the right number with the possibility to exchange big project for on the job project if you did day release, or exchange half the modules for research work instead.

Think all the Polys used to work n that basis, even to the extent that you could move from Poly to Poly and take module credits with you.

Anyone who thinks any education establishment isn't money orientated is frankly deluded.

From primary schools with no budget unless they have classes of 35 to further/ higher education places thinking there are a buusiness.

teamhurtmore - Member

Cheers NW, this was two English students who just missed graded (one a B instead of an A and the other an M1 pre U instead of A - bloody pre Us!!!!) not a Scottish student.

Pre U can **** off tbh 😆 I can't comment on its fitness as an education but afaic CIE see their role in the world as being to irritate university admissions teams.

Dont - it was a sore point (stil is) with son #1 and the very inflexible aforementioned University. Plus son #2 has several friends also with one dreaded M1 - WTF is it, A or B???? Sorry, you are not in even though you may have some D2s too.

Nightmare

Environmental Science.

You do realize that an Environmental Science course, whilst not what I studied, includes a tonne of chemistry yes? Plus some statistics, geology etc etc etc thrown in - they tend to be very interdisciplinary courses that cover aspects of a lot of the hard sciences. And that environmental science graduates are in pretty high demand because of the regulation involved in industry etc.

It's hardly comparable to media studies. In fact I'd go as far as saying that fellow Biologists tend to be softer in the head than environmental science grads.

I got 2 highers both C, now got a PhD. also just because you got good grades at school doesn't mean you'll do well at university. Its a totally different environment. If you were to see how thick some medical students can be, you'd never see a doctor.

bigdean - Member

Anyone who thinks any education establishment isn't money orientated is frankly deluded.

From primary schools with no budget unless they have classes of 35 to further/ higher education places thinking there are a buusiness.

They're all money-minded, as you say they have to be to survive so a bit silly to criticise that. But that doesn't mean they're available to be bought and sold.

Simple example; we want to recruit more RUK and International students, and among the reasons for that are financial reasons. But that doesn't mean we'll accept an unfit student just because we make money off them. We're just very keen to make money from good students 😉 So to increase numbers, we keep standards the same but we work harder to attract more students to apply.

Sad to put it in such terms, but, so it is. There's many nonfinancial reasons too of course, university strategy is based on many considerations.

. If you were to see how thick some medical students can be, you'd never see a doctor.

My old GP diagnosed my father's heart attack as indigestion so I visit with eyes wide open. He's OK now having had a stent fitted but no thanks to the GP, that was sorted after he went into arrest in a hospital a few days later. Dead by some measures.

Thanks ! Must update my CV - you have a low threshold for an A in this country I just got a lot smarter on paper.

Yet still too stupid to work out it would depend on how hard the questions are.

but behind closed doors they try to take the best and the brightest to ensure the best results, which keeps them as the 'very good' school - the system is terrible really, but sometimes you just have to play the game.
That's not how the game is played these days - it's all about the value added. What you want to cherry pick are the bright underachievers. Those that are already achieving well are a nightmare - the only way is down. Not good for your VA stats, which of course is the only thing that matters

I was under the impresion most just wanted as many pupils as possible