If UK universities were serious about increasing the proportion of state school students at university, they would address the admissions system which is heavily biased in favour of those from fee paying schools. Efforts to increase the proportion of state school students at UK universities continue to fail. In fact, the proportion of state school students at universities is declining. Even the short-lived idea of quotas had no effect. At last, Secretary of State for Education Gavin Williamson MP, has outlined proposals to reform the university admissions system and has established a consultation on a post-qualification university admission system.
As a former associate dean for admissions at a major UK university, I well understand how biased the pre-qualification admission system operated through UCAS is against state school students. The current system operates by places being offered to applicants based on their predicted final examination grades by schools. Offers are made on the condition that the applicant achieves the predicted grades and such provisional offers used to be the norm. Currently, to fill places since the cap on admissions was lifted by the UK government, universities are increasingly making unconditional offers which do not depend on the applicant achieving the predicted grades. Whatever kind of offer is made, both systems are biased against state school students.
It is well known among university admissions staff that fee paying schools regularly exaggerate the grades their final year students are going to achieve. State schools give more realistic predictions, and fewer offers are made to their students. When applicants from fee paying schools fail to achieve their predicted grades, even with conditional offers, they are still advantaged. They have an offer in hand, and if a university has not filled its places then they will be in pole position to be offered a place, sometimes regardless of achievement. Once places are filled, those with lower predictions are refused a place and are left to navigate the clearing system. This includes many state school students.
The unfairness of the pre-qualification admission system has been obvious for decades yet change is resisted and this ranges from ‘but this is how we’ve always done it’ to predictions of chaos. Resistance is strongest in universities. Being unable or unwilling to contemplate change is obstinacy and there is no reason why chaos should ensue. Admittedly, with final year exam results being released mid-August and some universities starting in mid-September presents a tight schedule. But there is no reason why universities should start in September or October, they could start later. Why not start the academic year in January and align it with the calendar year? Any change would disrupt the system only for the first year. Thereafter it would become normal. Applicants would have to wait longer to gain admission. For some, this would merely lead to an extended gap year, and for others it would be an opportunity to accumulate more money or participate in voluntary work.
It is conceivable, under a post-qualification system of admission that UCAS is no longer needed and prospective students could apply directly to universities, a system that seems to function perfectly in most countries across the world, and currently operates under clearance. This would reduce the waste of ‘insurance choices’ whereby students apply to a range of universities, some of which they have no intention of attending but which must still devote resources to considering their application.
By whatever means the transition to a post-qualification system is managed, and whatever it means to students, one thing is certain. It will be fairer to state school students who will be judged and admitted to university based on genuine achievement that is weighed fairly against students from fee-paying schools. The advantage to universities and to the country is that universities will be attended only by the best students from both aspects of the educational system.
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
