Yes
It is not very often that the Tory-led coalition can been seen as acting in the interest of students; however, the government’s appointment of Professor Les Ebdon as the new Head of the Office for Fair Access should be praised.
Ebdon is a controversial figure to say the least. The Daily Mail will have you believe his chief aim is to introduce a greater number of “Mickey Mouse degrees” and defend what they perceive as “dumbing down” in Higher Education. Even Tory Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is said to have privately condemned Ebdon’s appointment as “disastrous”.
Professor Ebdon has rightly pledged to crack down on institutions that consistently fail to admit students from disadvantaged backgrounds. He has threatened to trigger what he describes as the “nuclear” option, by forbidding universities who fail to meet certain quotas from charging the maximum £9,000 in tuition fees. Critics sneer at these proposals, describing them as “social engineering”, but in reality, such measures are long overdue.
In recent years there have been huge improvements in the education system brought about by heavy investment in state schools from the last government. Despite this, only one per cent of pupils who are entitled to free school meals will receive a place to study at a top 20 university. Just 45 of the 81,000 pupils on free school meals received places to study at Oxford or Cambridge last year, in comparison with an average of 82 each year from Westminster, the exclusive private school where Nick Clegg was educated.
We must accept that for university education to no longer be the preserve of an elite minority of middle class kids, positive discrimination in the admissions system is absolutely necessary.
Professor Ebdon is right to demand that our top institutions be “more flexible” in offering places to those from poorer backgrounds, even if their qualifications are of a lower standard. In the words of NUS President, Liam Burns, “mere lip service from universities about fair access is no longer enough”.
There is a great deal of scaremongering that forcing the UK’s elite institutions to adopt positive discrimination in their admissions systems will damage their reputations internationally. But those who argue that these progressive measures will lead to lower standards in our universities are simply wrong. The evidence base clearly shows that pupils who achieve lower grades under difficult circumstances are likely to perform just as well in terms of eventual degree classification as those with higher grades from more privileged backgrounds.
It is undeniable that a pupil from a disadvantaged background who achieves straight As at A Level in the face of adversity has achieved more than a pupil from a school where such results are considered the norm, so why should this not be reflected in the admissions system? Ebdon’s favoured approach is about social mobility not social engineering.
It is about levelling the playing field, not skewing it.
No
The government has claimed that economic background should be taken into account, and that we should take affirmative action when assessing university applicants. Yet, in a number of ways, the government has made a very poor decision.
I will be the first to say that grades are not alone always the best representative of a persons true academic ability; I myself gained ABC for my A levels. The reason I managed to get my place to read History must either be because they hit the wrong button on UCAS or because the admissions tutor decided after reading my personal statement that I had what it takes to get in. While my difficulties that resulted in those grades were not economic, I think a parallel can be drawn. In cases where economic difficulty has caused lower grades, surely we can put trust in the admissions tutor to be able to see from a personal statement that the person’s grades are not always illustrative of candidate ability.
To ensure that candidates are judged accurately, we should instead promote a better system where the government provides funding to universities for interviews while at the same time universities remove all minimum requirements (apart from enough of an understanding English to be able to partake in the course). These measures will surely make it easier to work out if a person’s exam results are not indicative of their ability and allow those intelligent candidates from poorer backgrounds to be found naturally.
If we start skewing the system to make economic background more important than grades, we run into a number of problems. The meritocratic system which bases everyone on ability alone falls apart completely. Someone who, on genuine academic and intellectual merit, was the stronger candidate may miss out on a particular place. The candidate who gets in over their intellectual superior may find it hard to keep up with the pace of the course. Usually this will mean leaving university with a lower class of degree than they may have received if they had gone to a university that was better suited to their capabilities. In the long run they’ll find it harder to get a job. Having spoken to friends who work in human resources and recruiting, it seems the classification of degree has a huge psychological impact on how people are chosen for a job. It is better for a candidate to get a high second class degree from Royal Holloway in employment terms rather than a third from York.
If we use an arbitrary rule that those from a worse economic background should automatically be allowed access to university with lower grades, we find ourselves in a situation that is not advantageous to anyone. We should hope universities want to be the best institution possible. This is not only done through continual development and good lecturers, but also by giving them the best students possible to teach. Economic background is an issue that can affect grades, but focussing on it is simply hurts universities’ reputations and the prospects for the best students.
I would suggest that college tutor references might be helpful alongside statements and interviews; they would know their pupils better than most, and be able to judge them accurately based on personality and academic merit.
Since saying that interviews are vital, I have realised that someone’s interviewing technique should also not be the main reason for their acceptance – there are those with bad social skills who will still have the necessary academic ability to get into the University. I say this from the experience of a friend of mine who had an interview for Oxford; she had the grades, but she simply didn’t have a good interview, citing nerves that were shown up in the face of five fairly difficult interviewers.
It is a great leap of faith to expect admissions tutors to carefully read every one if the infinite personal statements – I would submit the point that students writing these are trying to write what they think the Universities want to hear (personal experience once more). It is a greater leap of faith still to expect the Government to provide funding to Universities after drastically reducing their budgets recently. If the Government gave the Universities more money, then I don’t think that setting up interviews would be their number one priority.
I agree that schools need more money desperately. Ultimately it comes down to the private vs state schooling systems, and the problems that have always been there manifesting themselves in the latter stages of a person’s educational career.
You must accept that a rough background can influence someone’s grades, even if it doesn’t necessarily define them. What difference would a BBBC result of A-Levels make from a BBBB set? The personality of the individual is what matters when it comes down to it, not a few letters. You have three/four years to make up for that difference and people need to be given that chance.