Making the grade

9 September 2005

One of the most puzzling things I have ever considered is how our university admissions system works – or rather doesn’t work. Both students and institutions have to engage in a system of (educated) guesswork, anticipating the applicant’s A-level grades and planning accordingly, which becomes a matter of teacher’s own prejudices and judgement, rather than the grades themselves. Of course, often it doesn’t, and the poor student is subject to the hurried and nightmarish process of clearing – having to decide in a matter of days the path they will be taking for the next three or four years of their life. From my own experience, trying to prove yourself to universities when you’re unsure of your own grade yourself is a nightmare, and I don’t for one second regret dropping out of the process and reapplying in my gap year, after I got my results and could be a whole lot more confident.

This barmy system has been in place for years, which is why proposals to reform it are welcome – especially given that applicants whose grades are overestimated are more likely to come from privileged socioeconomic groups. The best option would be to have all applications done after one’s grades are known (and if this means making A-level time earlier, or freshers week later, then so be it), although in that great British way, a compromise has emerged, namely that some applicants will be allowed in on predicted grades, with a reserve of places at all institutions mandated for post-qualifying applicants. Unfortunately, this could well lead to a “land grab” by those students who get correctly-predicted grades, while those with less clairvoyant teachers and who outdo (or underdo) expectations are left to scrabble for the few remaining places – the same old nightmare of clearing looms its ugly head.

Ideally they should stick to a pure post-qualification system. Have exams earlier (given that A-levels are becoming more and more modular, this is less of a problem than it used to be), devote as much of summer as possible to the application process so that there’s no mad scramble. Even if we have a hybrid system, the above should still apply, along with a generous (or, if anything, over-generous) proportion of places reserved for post-qualification applicants. But no doubt there’ll be some bitching and whining (no doubt mostly from Oxbridge, who would hate to cram all that interviewing into the summer), so this ideal method will probably remain just that, an ideal…


2 Responses

Nursing, teaching and medicine at least all require interviews, so it’s not just Oxbridge who might be unhappy at having less time to sort out admissions. In theory, at least they might expect less of a workload than currently. They will only be interviewing people who have got the required grades for a start. It’s a bit odd that in the current system, students have to decide on their degree before they pick the subjects for the second year of sixth form.

The new(ish) A-level system requires less marking to be done in the final year, so presumably it would be possible to shorten the time between the exams and results day too.

L.

All this speculation is based on the assumption that people doing admissions to Universities actually pay any attention to student’s A-level predictions. I can assure you as someone who does admissions that that is not what any sensible admissions tutor looks at. A student’s GCSE results (which we have) is a far better indicator of their abilities than their A-level predictions (and indeed results). The post-result system will (I think) actually make it worse for students from disadvantaged backgrounds because the best universities will tend simply to skim off the best ones by default without thinking about potential which at least now you do have to think about. Clearing barely exists now anyway : it used to last two weeks, now you are lucky if it lasts two hours.