Registered user login:

Campus Radicals

Campus Radicals Homepage

How do you solve a problem like admissions?

  • Posted by Ben Ullmann
  • 14 March 2007

The dilemma of introducing a higher grade at A-level

University admissions will always be a tricky business to manage. Ensuring fairness amongst a large number of stakeholders, all aiming to get the best deal, is no easy feat. The main problem with admissions is that it is predominantly based on A-level results or equivalents which aim to reflect ability but also reflect consequences of fortune and privilege which the applicant cannot control. This is a problem inherent in the current system but the introduction of A* grades at A-level, part of government reforms to 14-19 education, is set to make the situation even worse.

The motivation behind its introduction is an acknowledgment that top Universities are finding it increasingly difficult to differentiate between applicants who all have 3 ‘A’ grades. The A* will enable Universities to identify the best candidates and therefore make it easier for them to make their offers.

However the situation is not that simple and it is important that the access implications of introducing the A* are fully realised. The Aldwych Group in particular, which represents students at the research-intensive Russell Group of Universities, has come out against the introduction of the A* because of its potential adverse affect on widening participation. The argument for our opposition is based on the reasonable assumption that the students who will benefit most from the A* introduction will more likely come from the independent sector and/or privileged backgrounds.

A student from a privileged background at an independent school, who has the advantage of small classroom sizes, the best teachers and private tutoring is already more equipped to achieve the top grades and is even more likely to be in that top percentile who will achieve the prized A*. Contrast that to the student from a local comprehensive who studies hard to achieve an A grade but hasn’t had the advantages just listed and may just miss out on the A*.

The answer to this initial problem is to suggest that the local comprehensive student be given a lower entry requirement than the independent school student. This levels their equality of opportunity and enables them both to attend a University that reflects their potential academic ability. However, that just creates an even bigger problem.

Suppose the independent school student achieves three A* grades and is not offered a University place due to heavy competition, while the local comprehensive student is accepted with three A’s. Is this system any more just? Has the first student again been penalised for factors for which they cannot be held responsible (e.g. their privileged background and financial status of their parents)?

The solutions for admissions to highly competitive institutions aren’t readily available but the introduction of the A* doesn’t seem to be the answer. The universities of the Russell Group will be forced to use it as a way of separating ‘extremely good’ candidates from ‘excellent candidates’ and inevitably it will be students from non-traditional and widening participation backgrounds who will be most disadvantaged. Of course, no single institution will opt out of using it for fear it might suffer in the competitive market of admissions. It is up to us to put pressure on the Russell Group to reject this bit of legislation across the board, for the sake of fairness and diversity.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

1 comment from readers

white_elephant
13 May 2007 at 15:13

The admissions debate Mr Ullmann describes is based on the effectiveness of examinations to identify the best candidates for a course and whether these examinations truly gauge the range of abilities pupils are expected to have acquired through the teaching of the subject. The fact that we are debating whether a new grade for exceptional candidates would better guide admissions tutors in their role is, in some respects, a moot point. It highlights the problems such a solution would generate but fails to address the causes that have lead to the sorry state of affairs, which is a far more pressing issue.

Ultimately, every university applicant must be able to demonstrate the right aptitude and knowledge for the course; the right mixture of skills and understanding for the subject. It is clear that the current admissions system does not allow universities to distinguish between the very good and exceptional candidates in this way without being criticised for either social engineering or elitism. A place at university should be based on merit, but lingering suspicions of individual institutions’ motives and admissions criteria have cast doubt on whether this really is the case. The solution lies both with government and the universities. The government must decide whether or not the present curricula are teaching the right skills and knowledge for preparation for university and the universities themselves have to develop objective admissions procedures.

It is clear that the government is failing in its duty to ensure that schools are teaching the right things. Universities have been complaining for some time that first year students are lacking essential skills such as grammar, essay writing, independent study and basic scientific principles, and that lecturers are having to devote more time to teaching these. Furthermore, there are students who already grasp these skills who have to wait for their peers to catch up.

Once this has been resolved, the right types of assessment are needed to enable the universities to judge what skills and knowledge pupils have acquired. These could take many forms: examinations on unseen texts for English; practical projects in science and technology; extended research projects, perhaps based on two of a pupil’s subjects; examinations posing abstract questions in maths and science; maybe even purely fact-based papers as well to judge knowledge. What is clear is that examinations and assessments must allow the student to demonstrate what they have been taught and allow universities to see a breakdown of these skills.

This could mean that universities, schools and exam boards have to bow to pressure and start the university admissions process after exam results are released. Alternatively, universities could demand specific grades for specific papers in place of, or as well as, an overall offer.

However, these changes will not happen overnight and what is needed is an immediate change in the short-term that the universities are in a far better place to achieve either independently or through collaboration. Indeed, they are already doing this through initiatives such as the LNAT for law applicants and BMAT for biomedical disciplines. Institutions also need to make their application procedures more transparent, possibly providing feedback to candidates who fail to be granted an offer.

There is also the fear that students from wealthier backgrounds would still manipulate the system through private tutors and better educational opportunities. Hopefully, a better examination system would help to redress some of this imbalance by looking more closely at the skills that can be improved by tutoring as opposed to the knowledge that can be attained through general intelligence and a genuine passion for a subject.

Until such time, maybe a bit of social engineering is in order, perhaps not openly lowering offers for disadvantaged pupils, but by guaranteeing such applicants an interview. That said, it is not up to the universities to make up for the failures of the state sector but maybe in the medium term there is scope to provide remedial lessons alongside the tougher university education the more advantaged students expect.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Ben Ullmann is the President of the University of Bristol Students' Union in charge of education and representation. He is also Vice-Chair of the Aldwych Group which represents students from the Russell Group of Universities.

Recent Posts

Arms fair?

  • By Robbie Gillett
  • 13 September 2007

Universities and the arms trade

  • By Tim Street
  • 04 July 2007

Victory in Gower Street

  • By Sara Hall
  • 15 June 2007

Global university without a global conscience

  • By Sara Hall
  • 11 June 2007

Do you really consider yourself human?

  • By Tim Collins
  • 05 June 2007

Stick to what you know best

  • By Ben Ullmann
  • 24 May 2007

Hizb-ut Tahrir

  • By Tim Collins
  • 17 April 2007