“The number of A* grades at A-level had a positive and statistically significant effect in predicting the probability of attaining a first class outcome in some degree subject areas. However, this was only the case when the A* grades were achieved in specific A-level subjects.
In particular, the number of A* grades in STEM subjects was a good predictor of university performance in most degree subject areas, particularly in science-orientated degree subject areas. Similarly, the number of A* grades in humanities subjects increased the probability of attaining good outcomes in biological sciences, social studies, law, linguistics and historical and philosophical studies, while the number of A* grades in expressive subjects had a negative effect on the probability of achieving at least an upper second class outcome in creative arts and design.”
Thanks, interesting data. I’ll have to take a closer look!
Yes, and it makes sense. A-levels are a lot more like finals on narrower topics than like SATs, which are trying to cover 12 years of schooling, and trying to be clever about it. A-levels are also not multiple choice, which is probably even more important.
No education system, including the British primary and secondary education system, is perfectly fair. However, it isn’t any less fair than the American system. Moreover, testing is fairer than the alternatives. Using a sports metaphor similar to yours, athletes from some (often richer) countires in an Olympics are trained with better resources and equipment than athletes from other (often poorer) countries. Are the Olympics fair? Some athletes from poor countries are so talented that they may win their events regardless. The same is true, and IMO even truer, in academics. Many poor students are able to do well on tests, with or without much preparation. The ones who do well without preparation are naturally talented. Test prep isn’t a prerequisite for testing well, which you’ve confirmed by your own and your family’s experiences.
I think you just ruined the Olympics for me.
The Olympics are a pretty good example, in fact. No, the Olympics aren’t fair, and have been for the wealthier nations from the beginning. Only wealthy countries generally have the resources to support hundreds of athletes, own the expensive equipment for sports like rowing or sailing, have the money to send athletes to snowy regions year round for skiing.
The Olympics is a celebration of the differences in average income between wealthy and poor nations.
I mean, if you are comparing college admissions to the Olympics, do you think that wealthy families should celebrate the fact that their kids have the money to attend “elite” universities, and wipe it in the face of poor families by having admissions officers publicly handing out admission letters to their kids while waving the family crest and shouting the family motto?
Oh, when talking about the fairness of the Olympics, we must be sure to mention all of the Eastern bloc athletes who received steroids for decades to boost their performances.
I don’t know how the Cold War struggles in the Olympics would fit into “fairness”, either, or the celebration of nationalism inherent in the Olympics. But I digress.
I agree that the Olympics aren’t perfectly fair. Nothing is. But both the Olympics and testing are fairer than their alternatives. Taking the Olympics analogy a bit further, there’s no Usain Bolt of Jamaica or Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya in sports where performaces are judged more subjectively. Why? The more subjective elements we inject into the process, the less likely some real talent from a humble background will emerge. It’s true in both sports and academics.
I have a feeling that some contributors have little current experience of British state (US=public ) schools.
I have not read any figures which differ from the generally quoted ones of 93% children attending state schools and 7% attending private ones. Most secondary schools encourage their pupils to progress to the most relevant post 16 courses at school or further education college, the latter often vocational or mixed with academic subjects. Providing the level 3 vocational courses are relevant to the uni courses they do not affect the students chances of higher education. Pupils career wishes obviously affect their choices.I have not come across people being placed on an A level track before 16. Regrettably I must disagree with MWolf about this ‘the entire British education system is still set up to track the kids from positions of wealth and privilege to the A-levels, and to help them do better on these tests.’
UK students are very aware of the course requirements at different universities. Few in my experience yearn for Oxbridge, though I know a few who have been there. Indeed, our local school encourages good candidates to apply by taking them on visits and joining them to regional groups for similar youngsters to prepare for Oxbridge admissions procedures. This does not, however give them the ‘overblown self confidence’ gained from certain private schools quoted above. In my DD’s year several youngsters decided after the visit that they would not apply and went to other excellent unis. Despite having a high proportion of economically disadvantaged pupils the local schools still send a handful of students to Oxbridge each year. Most school years a couple of hundred pupils or less in this part of the UK.
In general I think that standardised tests, marked by independent examiners, taken in school where opportunities for cheating are minimal, is a fairer system than one which can place teachers under pressure from over reaching parents.
This is a bit of a “begging the claim” fallacy, because you are comparing an idealized standardized testing system to a problematic grading system.
A standardized test, when the education system is not standardized, is more of a test of the school’s ability to educate than it is of the students themselves. If the education is standardized, then, by definition, even the grading by teachers is standardized.
However, your point of the advantages of independent examiners over teachers who can be pressured is taken.
Back when I was a kid in Israel, we also had similar exams to the A-levels (I think that they still do), but every kid also got a “shield” grade from their teacher. The final grade was usually an average between the two. However, if too many kid in a class had teacher grades that were substantially higher or lower than their matriculation exam grades, the shield grades were invalidated. If the differences were high for an individual student, the case was usually investigated, and the teacher was allowed to make a case as to why their grade was mismatched with the test grade. Thus this “shield” grade helped students who had a bad day on the exam or test anxiety, but did not allow schools to inflate the grades of entire classes.
So a hybrid system of sorts, with checks and balances. Of course, in Israel of those years, potential income was only weakly correlated to the matriculation results, and most of the people with the highest incomes who were educated in Israel were not university graduates. So the stakes were pretty low.
However, once again, when the quality of education varies so much, and is determined primarily by family wealth, no grading system can be fair. Grading of a student’s work over the years can give a better indication of their skills at academics, because that will often emerge even if the available resources limit what is actually taught in the class.
As to whether standardized testing is even testing the skills and talents that are most relevant to real life - that’s a different discussion altogether.
Sorry to be ignorant but what is a “UCAS Group B subject.” I did try to search for an answer without any luck. Thanks:)
The point about income-distribution for Harvard applicants and also those admitted is a good one that I was hoping someone would make.
It’s obsolete now. Until a few years ago UCAS divided APs into Group A or B, based on how rigorous and/or aligned with UK A levels they were. You can pretty much guess how they were divided- Calc BC was Group A / Human Geo was Group B.
But the real point is that for people aiming for the top unis, Oxbridge / LSE / Imperial) really aren’t impressed by more breadth- they are looking for depth in your field; and the other unis will generally be happy for you to meet their conditions & pay their fees, so there is no point.
FWIW, my daughter found the application process at Oxford clear, straightforward and to require no additional preparation or activity. She read books that interested her in high school. She enjoyed following current affairs. She thought deeply about intellectual subjects. That was sufficient.
Obsolete now. But before, AP exams were split into Group A and Group B. Group A subjects were Calc, Bio, Chem, Physics, English, US/Euro/World History, and Foreign Languages. Group B was everything else.
This is so important for developing young minds. I feel that most US students don’t have the time between AP overload and extracurricular overload to read. When I suggest to high schoolers, or even college students good books related to their interests (or should I say majors because the two are not always the same) they look at me as if I’m crazy. You can’t fit good books on a college app or resume.
IMO this is one of the important differentiators for Oxbridge-type students: they really do love their subject enough that they find ways to spend time with it- at the expense of the things that are so emphasized in US college admissions if necessary! And it shows in the admissions tests / PS / interview.
Exactly. The lack of clarity in US elite college admissions leads to many students spending insane amounts of time on activities that aren’t important to them. Not necessarily successfully, either.
Only those whose entire high school is about “being accepted to A Good College”. Kids who aren’t obsessed with “I MUST attend a T-20”, or have parents who aren’t obsessed with “my kid MUST attend an Elite College” tend to focus on spending a lot of time on things which are important to them.
In any case, the Oxbridge way would not work in the USA for the most popular colleges.
There are 50,000 applicants for 2,000 for the Harvard incoming class. That is as many applications as both Oxford and Cambridge get together for 7,000 acceptances.
If the equivalent of Oxbridge’s A* A* A was required, there would be over 100,000 applicants for those 7,000 and they would apply to all 5 colleges, because the are all private, and there is no legal way to limit the number of “elite” colleges to which a student can apply.
So exactly how will the AO’s decide which students to accept? Based on grades and rigor? All will have 4.0 in the most rigorous course set. The equivalent of the A-level? All have A* A* A* in the right classes for their chosen majors.
So what, “feelings”? Based on what? It will, once again, boil down to extracurriculars.
Of course, basing admissions on standardized tests, but still having the huge income-based disparities in education in the USA, and once again, low income kids will be cut out. It would actually be worse. There is a HUGE disparity in the AP classes that are offered to students in low versus high income schools. There is no reason to believe that this will be any different when talking about the equivalent of A-levels.
That’s without mentioning the fact that kids from low income families have less time to spend on preparing for the exams (because they have to work, or take care of family members), don’t have nice little quiet study spaces for themselves, money for tutors, etc.
Bottom line, the UK system would not work here because there will always be way too many applicants who qualify academically, and therefore non-academic metrics would be required. Since these differ qualitatively, the requirements for these would never be “clear”.
The UK system placed on an education system which has the income-based disparities that the US one has would result in a highly discriminatory admissions system. I mean, it would be great for upper income families, since the bottom 60% would not even be able to apply, much less be accepted, and the benefits of the top 1% would be even larger than they are these days.
PS. the most popular colleges are all private, and there is no legal way to limit the number of private colleges to which a student wants to apply. SO no “Oxford OR Cambridge” type limitations here. Moreover, the Federal Government cannot make that ruling anyway, and state have their own agendas.
I would also guess that Oxbridge’s admissions will change, because the numbers of students with A* A* A are climbing, and there is pressure to increase the number of low income kids in these universities.
Err, that’s what already happens with ED and REA without any legislation to enforce it. It may not be practical or likely, but Harvard, Stanford, etc could simply say “you can only apply REA” if they really wanted to do so.
Good point. I wasn’t entirely clear. I seemed to have not added that, even if enough parents wanted to move to a score-based system, that there was no way for this to work without limiting the number of “top” colleges to which a student can apply. That was the background to “there is no way to force colleges to do this”.