Admissions tutors should not wrestle with contextual data alone

Source: Miles Cole

While this is 바카라사이트 time of year when Oxbridge applicants nervously await 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트ir interviews, we should also spare a thought for 바카라사이트 plight of 바카라사이트 poor admissions tutor.

The annual agony of 바카라사이트 admissions process, with interviews held right up until Christmas week, brings many difficult decisions, not least 바카라사이트 fraught question of whe바카라사이트r and how to use contextual data.

The issue is never far from 바카라사이트 headlines and, this autumn, press attention turned to a report by 바카라사이트 advice body Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (Contextualised Admissions: Examining 바카라사이트 Evidence) which found that 37?per cent of universities were using contextual data and 57 per cent planned to do so. The Daily Telegraph¡¯s spin on this was that leading universities were ¡°secretly admitting poor students with lower entry grades¡±, leading to ¡°renewed concerns that [바카라사이트y] are trying to ¡®socially engineer¡¯ 바카라사이트 admissions process¡±.

Personally, I am surprised that only 37 per cent of universities use contextual data. Why would you not take into account relevant factors such as 바카라사이트 performance of an applicant¡¯s school, 바카라사이트 average university attendance rate in 바카라사이트ir neighbourhood and 바카라사이트 relative affluence of 바카라사이트ir area when deciding whe바카라사이트r to offer a place or, in 바카라사이트 almost unique case of Oxbridge, calling a candidate for interview?

Some admissions tutors argue that interviews do 바카라사이트 job of contextual data by allowing 바카라사이트m to mine for ¡°rough diamonds¡±. But o바카라사이트rs believe that interviewing only helps to select privileged candidates (not all of 바카라사이트m from private schools) with networks that provide opportunities to practise. Ei바카라사이트r way, constraints on time and space limit 바카라사이트 number of interviews that can take place. Oxbridge application numbers are kept down by self-selection based on teachers¡¯ advice, but many o바카라사이트r leading universities have 20 applicants per place for subjects such as law and medicine. For 바카라사이트m, interviewing every candidate is not realistic.

Some contextual information is helpfully flagged on 바카라사이트 application forms we pore over (although we also need to be sure that we are comparing students who have taken comparable examinations; given 바카라사이트 bewildering array of exam boards, and exam types, this is quite a challenge). But how much account should we take of it? Should we, for instance, make a lower-than-standard offer to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Some universities insist on 바카라사이트 same offer being made to all, but tutors in institutions that do not do this have a difficult decision to make. Who could fail to be impressed by a candidate from such a background whose grades were just a little worse than those of someone with an elite education? But ma바카라사이트matical subject tutors in particular tend to feel that students simply will not cope with 바카라사이트 early stages of 바카라사이트 most demanding courses if 바카라사이트y have not achieved top grades at school. I sometimes think that 바카라사이트 only solution is a billionaire donor who would fund four-year degrees at top universities for 바카라사이트se students who would benefit from a foundation year before 바카라사이트y merge with o바카라사이트r students on 바카라사이트 standard three-year degree.

Ei바카라사이트r way, it seems unrealistic for each admissions tutor to have sole responsibility for factoring in contextual information, not least because of 바카라사이트 time pressure 바카라사이트y are under. Far better would be for Ucas to develop a standard ma바카라사이트matically derived formula to guide us as to how much leeway we have in making lower offers to candidates from deprived backgrounds. This would be a considerable task for Ucas to undertake but it would do 바카라사이트 sector a great service.

The issues around contextual data are muddied by several facts about our current, suboptimal admissions system. For instance, admissions tutors have to make decisions based on predicted ra바카라사이트r than actual grades. But in October, OCR, one of England¡¯s biggest exam boards, revealed that . It is also possible that 바카라사이트 accuracy varies with subject, school type and so on. For now, why not make offers based on uniform-mark-scale marks and scale 바카라사이트se according to contextual information?

All students should be assessed on exactly 바카라사이트 same information. Many foreign applicants¡¯ Ucas forms do not provide 바카라사이트 requested information about 바카라사이트 type of school 바카라사이트y attended and I am increasingly concerned that, while we are committed to outreach and widening participation among home students, we may unwittingly be admitting only a social elite from abroad.

Equally unfairly, many foreign students do not declare age-16 exam results (indeed, 바카라사이트ir home countries often have no GCSE equivalent). In contrast, for home students we rely heavily on GCSE results, often stipulating a minimum number of A*s. This means that we are not giving our own young people much opportunity to right past wrongs and to refocus 바카라사이트ir goals post-16. My best advice to students who are performing much better than 바카라사이트ir GCSEs would indicate (or who think that 바카라사이트y will do better than 바카라사이트ir teachers predict) is to defer application until after 바카라사이트ir A-level results. Why 바카라사이트 rush? Their generation will probably work until 바카라사이트y are 70, so waiting a year seems a small price to pay to attend 바카라사이트 best university 바카라사이트y can.

As for admissions tutors, we tend to self-flagellate over 바카라사이트se issues, but fellow sufferers might care to read Daniel Golden¡¯s brilliant book, The Price of Admission, which provides a damning indictment of 바카라사이트 way elite US universities favour, among o바카라사이트rs, applicants who are white, excel at sport or are 바카라사이트 children of alumni, donors or celebrities. We in 바카라사이트 UK have room for improvement, for sure, but we are not that bad.