Warwick research shows disadvantaged students are less likely to reach uni

Research by Warwick academics has concluded that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to get a place at university.

The team, made up of Warwick researchers Wiji Arulampalam, Robin Naylor and Jeremy
Smith, branded the current university applications system “unfair and inefficient” in an
interview with the _Guardian._

The study, which only covered universities with medical schools, including Warwick, showed that pupils who did less well at GSCE and so had lower predicted grades were less likely to be offered a place at a university, despite many achieving the same marks in the final exams. This is due to the fact that the current application system is based on academic reference letters, the students’ own personal statements, their results at GCSE and their predicted A-Level results.

Where students made their university application after the deadline for those to Oxford
and Cambridge, the bias is said to have increased, as on courses such as Medicine at top universities where the competition is tougher. By the time these students made their applications, many of the places on their course had already been filled. Students who are
applying to Oxford or Cambridge will not only have applied earlier but also will have often
been predicted better grades than those who apply later in the system. The research also
claimed that standard offers are raised for students who apply to university at the end of the
application period, in December and January, stating that whilst 30 per cent of applications
are made in these months, only 21 per cent of these applications actually receive one or more
offers to study.

Sean Ruston, Education Officer at Warwick Students’ Union, said that it was now a “commonly known fact” that students from state schools are disadvantaged as opposed to those from the private sector as it is “clear” that state schools generally under predict grades for their students. There are other factors at play, according to Ruston, such as poor guidance in terms of careers advice and which subjects to choose.

The government has plans to cut support systems such as the Connexions service and Aim Higher, both of which were aimed at low income students. Ruston said that often schools will push “soft subjects” so that their students can get the grades they need to push the school up the league table, which are usually subjects that are frowned upon by top universities. He added that “vocational subjects are being pushed [in order to] end unemployment” and far fewer state schools than private sector schools teach subjects such as further maths, which automatically puts those students at a disadvantage in applying for maths based courses.

Often it is a case that private schools will over predict the grades for their students, said Ruston, as opposed to the state schools purposely under predicting. He explained this as
due to the fact that private schools “compete to get [their students] into Oxbridge and other
Russell group universities,” whereas state schools rely on their results and league tables.

Students who come from a disadvantaged background, such as those that are from an ethnic
minority, in a lower social class or those who attend a non-fee paying school, are more likely
to develop their intelligence later in life and therefore have a lower probability of being
awarded a place, according to the research. If this slower development has a long term impact on their education, it could be a reason why these students do not gain places. Whilst social
exclusion to university places is generally accepted as being morally objectionable, exclusion
on the grounds of intellect is desirable. If the problem is that the disadvantaged have a lower
standard of education rather than being less intelligent, it is argued that the focus should be on fixing the system instead.

Post-Qualification Applications (PQA), a system in which students apply to university only
after having received their A-Level grades, has been suggested by not only this panel of
academics but also the 2004 Schwartz Report. They argue that PQA, which is already used in many countries, would be fairer, the current system being largely based on speculated
predicted grades that the students often exceed. For PQA to work, term dates for both
schools and universities would have to be overhauled by weeks, which “neither feels able to
do […] as they believe it would impact on the standard of teaching” said University Press
Officer, Peter Dunn.

“PQA is the perfect solution,” said Education Officer Sean Ruston, although “schools are generally resistant [as it is a] sacrifice worth making” despite “logistical difficulties.” He added that the government had in the past hinted that PQA was a possibility, and though “tough to implement” it offers the only long term solution.

The Office for Fair Access (OFFA) has another recommended solution. They would have universities that are looking to charge fees of £6000 or more from 2012 encourage applicants
from minority groups, likely through extra subsidised places not dissimilar to David Willets’s
recent proposals.

The main focus for restructuring is the idea that the universities application process needs
to change in order to compensate for the poor education of these socioeconomically
disadvantaged pupils, though some might question whether or not it would be more beneficial to instead standardise the level of education for students, regardless of their social background.

One student, who did not wish to be named, said that in his experience this was “just an
excuse for people who don’t get in [to their first choice].” Most students to whom the _Boar_
spoke agreed that students from disadvantaged schools should not get “special treatment”
and that it would be “inconvenient” if the academic year were changed in order to change the
applications system.