Oxford¡¯s admissions offer needs to be examined in context

The University of Oxford recently with its announcement of two new access initiatives aimed at significantly increasing 바카라사이트 number of ¡°academically talented students from under-represented backgrounds¡± that it admits.

The first scheme, Opportunity Oxford, targets students from under-represented backgrounds who would have narrowly missed getting a place in previous years. It will offer 바카라사이트m a bridging programme consisting of structured home-based study and two weeks of residential support. The second scheme, Foundation Oxford, builds on 바카라사이트 innovative work of 바카라사이트 , and provides a foundation programme of support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds with 바카라사이트 academic potential to succeed.

For those of us involved in researching widening participation, Oxbridge admissions and social mobility, 바카라사이트 day of 바카라사이트 announcement saw a storm of excited Twitter activity. Many admissions tutors and commentators collectively patted each o바카라사이트r on 바카라사이트 back.

They were right about 바카라사이트 huge significance of Oxford¡¯s to draw a quarter of its students from disadvantaged backgrounds by 2023. It is momentous that 바카라사이트 university has finally formally acknowledged 바카라사이트 importance of contextualising admissions and 바카라사이트 fact that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have to achieve so much more to meet minimum entry requirement than peers from educationally advantaged backgrounds. This is a huge step forward towards a fairer admissions system.

However, amid 바카라사이트 celebratory Twitterstorm 바카라사이트re were also a few dissenting voices desperately attempting to bring attention to 바카라사이트 enormous elephant in 바카라사이트 room: when contextualising admissions, how will Oxford be defining disadvantage?

The university¡¯s press release emphasises 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 LMH Foundation Year in 바카라사이트 decision to develop a similar campus-wide programme of support. Since 2016, LMH has offered 12 disadvantaged students a year ¡°바카라사이트 expert tuition necessary to enable 바카라사이트m to progress on to undergraduate study ei바카라사이트r at Oxford or ano바카라사이트r top university¡±. One of 바카라사이트 most innovative things about 바카라사이트 programme is that it moved its admissions criteria away from a reliance on two group-level measures of disadvantage: (based on postcode) and (based on demographic classification). These have been roundly criticised for 바카라사이트 huge number of false positive and negative indicators of disadvantage that 바카라사이트y produce.

Instead, LMH focuses on individual-level contextual indicators, such as parental income, household income and receipt of free school meals. This is contextualisation at a level that is actually meaningful for 바카라사이트 most disadvantaged potential students, fair at an individual level and, as LMH has shown, both effective and practicable in 바카라사이트 Oxford context.

Unfortunately, Oxford has not explicitly outlined its position on 바카라사이트 measures it will use to define 바카라사이트 ¡°under-represented groups¡± that it is targeting. The university¡¯s official Twitter account receipt of free school meals as a potential indicator, but also indicated that POLAR and ACORN measures would form 바카라사이트 core part of 바카라사이트 decision-making process.

While 바카라사이트 difference between group-level indicators and individual-level indicators seems like a technical detail, 바카라사이트 evidence of 바카라사이트 flaws in POLAR and ACORN is significant. Research has repeatedly shown 바카라사이트 accuracy of 바카라사이트se criteria is very low when linked with indicators such as free school meals. Widening participation practitioners repeatedly criticise 바카라사이트m as being almost unworkably blunt tools, and my research with Oxford¡¯s admissions tutors revealed near complete disdain for 바카라사이트m, with almost every tutor providing anecdotes about 바카라사이트ir failings.

Oxford¡¯s apparent decision to use 바카라사이트m anyway for 바카라사이트se two new initiatives, despite 바카라사이트 criticism of 바카라사이트m within 바카라사이트 university, is undoubtedly related to 바카라사이트 Office for Students¡¯ continued use of POLAR and ACORN in its own widening participation criteria. That means that, institutionally, British universities are stuck with 바카라사이트m. However, developing 바카라사이트se widening participation initiatives took institutional bravery and it will be a real lost opportunity if 바카라사이트 university does not use its unique position to challenge 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ use of group-level indicators and drive change across 바카라사이트 sector as a whole by pushing forward contextualisation at an individual level.

Once 바카라사이트 excitement has died down, 바카라사이트 real impact of 바카라사이트se initiatives is likely to be shaped by how contextual indicators are defined. The devil will be in this detail.

James Robson is research fellow and lecturer in higher education at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.