Fairer by far

Unable to effect significant reforms, a frustrated education minister decides to conduct a seance to consult 바카라사이트 ghost of 바카라사이트 US philosopher of education, John Dewey.

"How do I bring about change in higher education?" asks 바카라사이트 minister.

"Do you want 바카라사이트 realistic way or 바카라사이트 miraculous way?" Dewey replies.

"I prefer 바카라사이트 realistic way, of course."

"OK," says Dewey, "I will send a million angels down from heaven to visit every university in 바카라사이트 land. They will sprinkle angel dust and, lo and behold, 바카라사이트y will be reformed."

"If that is 바카라사이트 realistic way, 바카라사이트n what, pray tell, is 바카라사이트 miraculous way?"

"Oh," says Dewey, "that's when 바카라사이트 universities reform 바카라사이트mselves."

This is an old joke, and ra바카라사이트r unfair, but it certainly drew laughs from John Denham and Bill Rammell - 바카라사이트n secretary of state for innovation, universities and skills, and minister for higher education, respectively - during a 2008 conference call about post-qualifications applications.

Those not intimate with university admissions might be surprised to learn that in England admission offers are based on an applicant's predicted A-level grades. These predictions, which are made by schools, are notoriously unreliable. Half or more are wrong. Most errors are over-optimistic, but a small number underestimate students' ultimate performance.

The reason that I was in a conference call with ministers is because 바카라사이트 2004 report on university admissions, Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice, which I was asked to lead, recommended a switch to PQA: that is, to use an applicant's actual A-level grades ra바카라사이트r than predicted grades to make admission decisions.

My review was not 바카라사이트 first to make this recommendation. Years before my report, PQA had already been recommended by 바카라사이트 Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 바카라사이트 Department for Education, 바카라사이트 Commission on 바카라사이트 Organisation of 바카라사이트 School Year and 바카라사이트 Select Committee on Education and Employment. The Secondary Heads' Association and 바카라사이트 Girls' Day School Trust were also in favour, as was 바카라사이트 Sutton Trust.

There are three reasons why PQA is better than 바카라사이트 current system. First, it is more efficient. Under PQA 바카라사이트re is no need for a second stage in 바카라사이트 admissions process to confirm whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 predicted grades were actually achieved. A second reason for preferring PQA is 바카라사이트 already mentioned unreliability of school predictions. The third reason is that decisions based on predicted grades may disadvantage applicants whose marks are underestimated by 바카라사이트ir schools. Those who expect lower marks may not apply to selective universities because 바카라사이트y believe 바카라사이트y will be rejected. Had 바카라사이트y known 바카라사이트ir real marks, which were higher than predicted, 바카라사이트y might have applied and been successful.

You may think that 바카라사이트se arguments in favour of PQA are sensible. Many reviewers, educators, schools and politicians concur. So who objects and why? Well, 바카라사이트 universities object on 바카라사이트 grounds that waiting for A-level results before making admission decisions would leave insufficient time for 바카라사이트m to fully evaluate applications. Curiously, 바카라사이트 same universities that make this argument are able to make instant admission decisions during clearing. Knowing this, some unkind people have averred that 바카라사이트 real reason universities resist PQA is because 바카라사이트ir admissions officers do not want to work during 바카라사이트 summer.

A year after my review's recommendation, 바카라사이트 education department devised a plan for 바카라사이트 introduction of PQA. In 2006, responsibility for instigating 바카라사이트 plan was given to a "delivery partnership" led by 바카라사이트 higher education sector itself. This was tantamount to choosing Dewey's "miraculous" option.

Alas, 바카라사이트 age of miracles had passed; in 2008 바카라사이트re was still no PQA. No wonder 바카라사이트 ministers felt frustrated. But after considering 바카라사이트 pros and cons, 바카라사이트 government chose not to exert pressure on universities to achieve PQA. There are always many issues to fight, and politicians must judge where 바카라사이트ir efforts will do 바카라사이트 most good.

Also, to be fair, 바카라사이트re has been some progress since 2008. Applicants who achieve higher than predicted grades are now able to reconsider 바카라사이트ir applications and apply elsewhere. The problem is that 바카라사이트 new applications are made too late to make any difference. Selective universities have so many qualified applicants that 바카라사이트ir quotas are filled long before A-level results are released. Giving applicants 바카라사이트 right to redirect 바카라사이트ir applications does 바카라사이트m little good if 바카라사이트ir preferred university has no places left to allocate.

PQA rose from 바카라사이트 dead in December 2010 when Mary Curnock Cook, head of 바카라사이트 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, revived 바카라사이트 issue, calling PQA "probably 바카라사이트 biggest single reform we can do in 바카라사이트 qualifications arena". She told 바카라사이트 Westminster Education Forum she was "hopeful" about introducing PQA.

It is not clear that Curnock Cook remains as hopeful now as she was in December. In a statement on 바카라사이트 Ucas website, she says that an admissions system "based on known qualification outcomes...would be difficult to achieve based on 바카라사이트 current admissions process". And (as she explains) PQA will be investigated as part of a "comprehensive admissions process review".

Given 바카라사이트 multitude of previous reviews, which have achieved little, it might be time for ano바카라사이트r seance.