A new report from admissions experts suggests almost two-thirds of universities will include information surrounding students’ social class, parental education or school performance in selection criteria next year, to ensure the most disadvantaged candidates have a better chance of getting on to degree courses.
The figures follow a warning from the Government’s Office for Fair Access (OFFA) that universities must be more “ambitious” in their efforts to “broaden their entrant pool” if they are to charge higher fees. Whilst it has previously been sufficient for institutions to generate more applications from disadvantaged students, for the first time next year they will be forced to set targets for the number of underprivileged undergraduates being admitted.
A sharp rise on the number of universities currently employing “contextual” information during admissions, increasing institutions are planning to make lower-grade offers to those from poor-performing comprehensives or fast-track deprived candidates into interviews.
The latest study, from the organisation Supporting Professionalism in Admissions, found that just over 40% of universities and colleges used contextual data to admit students last year, but noted that following the rise in tuition fees almost 63% “plan to use it in the future” to ensure poorer applicants are not deterred.
The survey suggested that Russell Group universities, including Oxford, were “more likely to be using contextual data” than other institutions. Earlier this year, it was discovered that only one-in-seven Oxford students are eligible for a full state grant.
However Oxford has denied that there will be any significant alterations to their admissions procedure. A spokesperson for the university’s admissions and education policy stated, “Oxford has in fact already been using a contextual data flagging system for the past three years, and will not be expanding or increasing its use of contextual data beyond the system already in place’
“While the flagging system has changed slightly this year, the changes only amount to a slight shift in the number of flagging mechanisms. Oxford will continue to use a contextual flagging system to identify additional candidates to be invited for interview only. This information plays no part in deciding which candidates get an offer, or what that offer is, and there are no plans to change or extend the contextual data flagging system to encompass the offer-making process.’
Timothy Hands, Master of Oxford’s Magdalen College School, supported the university’s decision, noting that the existing admission process “is wonderful”. He told Cherwell, “Anyone in an independent school is fully in favour of making decisions on potential not just on prior attainment. The care given to admissions by Oxford and Cambridge is absolutely excellent, and it results in a holistic assessment of the individual.”
Hannah Cusworth, Access and Academic Affairs Officer for OUSU, also praised the existing system, as “Oxford doesn’t just base its selection criteria on prior academic performance, many admission’s tutors focus much more on the academic potential of students they interview.”
First-year Leanora Volpe too emphasised the importance of interviewing disadvantaged students, commenting “That’s what the interview is there for – to give an applicant a chance to show their potential and interest separate from their academic performance.”
Clare Joyce, a University undergraduate, called the interview “the cornerstone of Oxford admissions”, but elaborated that “there is still more work to be done.” She felt that the university should also be “encouraging tutors when deliberating between candidates after the interview to consider educational and socioeconomic background.”
The Oxford University Conservative Association, supported Oxford’s decision as “admission should remain on merit”. Miles Coates, President of the society, told Cherwell: “A system that discriminated against candidates on the basis of their school would be unfair.”
However, Thomas Adams, co-chair elect of the Oxford University Labour Club, had more concerns. While he acknowledged the Government’s move to encourage more consideration of contextual date as “a step in the right direction”, he protested: “This entire situation is not helped by the ridiculous trebling of tuition fees which only puts off people from disadvantaged background from applying to university.”
Nathan Akehurst, a first-year at Lincoln College, too suggested that the targets are “too little and too late”, commenting “We exist in a climate of course cuts, diminishing participation, job losses, and increasing marketisation of our educational institutions, and this is the real issue that needs addressing.”
