The university application season has just drawn to a close. I’ve met thousands of potential students at university open days, as they arrive bright-eyed at the prospect of their new lives on campus. It’s always an exciting, hopeful period. But once it’s over, I’m left wondering whether I should tell them about what really happens behind the scenes after A-level results are announced.
I work at a leading university. Like many others, we pay close attention to university league tables. Although these tables are designed to help students choose what university is best for them, in reality some of them restrict student choice and hold back widening participation. The problem lies in the metrics, notably entry tariff scores, which reflect more than students’ A-level results. This score is the decisive factor in who gets in and who gets turned down.
While A-level results make a considerable contribution to tariff scores, so do all sorts of other things. Does the applicant have a good qualification in dance or a grade six in music? 12 points. Another qualification in speech and drama? A further 12 points. An A for an extended project? 24 points. Level 3 certificate in British sign language? 16 points.
To provide some context, a B at A-level is worth 40 points. Last year, as we looked closely at students who had not quite made the grades – BBB instead of ABB, for instance, or BBC instead of BBB – those with extras such as ballet and piano qualifications were offered places. Other applicants with the same A-level results who did not achieve an acceptable tariff score were denied a place. Speaking to colleagues from other departments revealed that this happened across the university.
This sort of league table game-playing by the university administration has an obvious impact on widening participation in universities. Students whose parents or guardians are unable to pay for piano or dance lessons, or whose schools do not offer extended projects, for example, ultimately lose out.
Last year, my department closely re-examined the applications of every student who had just missed their A-level grades. Their personal statements revealed that many had done remarkably well given their circumstances, and we felt they had great potential and would flourish at university.
But the university administration, fearing for the university’s position in the league tables, denied them admission. Once the widening participation quota – this year defined by those receiving free school meals – was full, equally deserving students missed out.
I know that some league tables try to mitigate against this. The Guardian University Guide’s value-added score is designed to counteract lower tariff scores by giving universities points when students from under-represented groups do well. This is helpful, but since it focuses on student outcomes, there’s a two- to three-year time lag between admitting a student from an under-represented group and gaining points for them. In the short-term view of the administration, this is unacceptable.
Until tariff scores are removed from the league tables this practice will continue. It’s ironic that the data designed to help students make decisions ultimately limits their options. If we’re serious as a society about allowing anyone to access university education, then the league tables need to be rethought. As educators, we want to teach these students. In the meantime, the best admissions advice I can give those students and parents visiting on open day is to keep at those piano and ballet lessons – if you can afford them.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at highereducationnetwork@theguardian.com
Looking for a higher education job? Or perhaps you need to recruit university staff? Take a look at Guardian Jobs, the higher education specialist