Pursue talent not targets
by Matt Grist
A lot has been written about Professor Les Ebdon’s appointment to OFFA (the Office for Fair Access), and a lot of it has been about the threat the use of contextual data supposedly poses to academic excellence. Taking context into account when selecting applicants apparently inexorably leads to social engineering through positive discrimination and quotas. What rubbish.
I am worried about Ebdon’s appointment not because he is a fan of contextual data, but because of the atmosphere, as it were, he wants to create around its use. In short, he sees it as a tool for ‘equalisation’ and social justice – for crowbarring elite universities into mirroring the socio-economic mix of England as a whole. He is also unapologetically aggressive about slapping (potentially bankrupting) fines on institutions that don’t meet the targets OFFA cajoles them into agreeing.
It doesn’t have to be this way – contextual data can serve the ends of social justice whilst also boosting academic excellence. But if this winning combination is to obtain, the data must be employed for the sake of uncovering talent, not meeting equality targets in an atmosphere of aggressive policing. Social justice is best served by the bright-but-under-prepared working-class student having their talent nurtured. It is not served at all by target chasing and quotas, which often become ends-in-themselves once embedded in institutional cultures.
What’s more, before haranguing Russell Group universities, Ebdon should consider OFFA’s own criteria for what activities count towards widening access. The most important criterion seems to be spending on bursaries and fee-waivers, things demonstrated to have little effect on getting disadvantaged students into top universities. The danger lurking here is that in a punitive atmosphere of targets and quotas, we get a lot of money spent to no effect, and then quotas applied crudely in order to make up for the resulting failure.
What needs to happen is for spending to be directed to what really makes a difference and for expectations to be realistic. Then we might chip away at the horrendously skewed social make-up of elite universities’ intake.
If Ebdon wants to make a lasting contribution to social mobility in England he should drop the rhetoric of fines and targets. The latter perpetuate the myth created by Lord Browne, that simply spending money will magically get disadvantaged kids into top universities. Ebdon should instead work with academics (on the whole a left-wing bunch who would dearly love to widen access, as long as academic standards are preserved), encouraging them to spend money on the right things. The priority for any university should be a first-class admissions process; one that takes context into account in a nuanced and case-by-case way, rather than a tick box manner. At the moment, Ebdon is in danger of forcing universities to cut back on spending on admissions, for the sake of spending on bursaries and fee-waivers.
Not only does this inflate fees, it means the use of contextual data will often work against academic excellence, not for it. Top-notch admissions processes are expensive. It is cheaper to save money and just look at predicted A level results. But that approach favours the more affluent and better prepared (but not necessarily more talented) applicant. So although Professor Ebdon may not reduce the use of contextual data, he may force its use towards the crude metrics that give it a bad name.
Jenny Shaw
Great post and I agree with much of what you say, in fact I blogged something similar earlier today: http://bit.ly/zTLBac based on the work I recently did on behalf of Supporting Professionalism in Admission (SPA). Certainly the point about the desire of most academics to widen participation is largely borne out in this study and others I have been involved in, as well as past experience as a WP practitioner.
However I can't help feeling that Prof Ebdon knows all this and has a more nuanced and balanced view of things than has been reported. At least I hope that someone who has been around in the sector for over 40 years would know a thing or two more than the politicians and journalists that would like to tell him his job.
Matt Grist
Hi Alex,
OFFA's own study showed bursaries don't affect choices of poorer students:
Corver M (2010), ‘Have bursaries influenced choices between universities?’, OFFA Report 2010/6. www.offa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Have-bursaries-influenced-choices-between- universities-.pdf
It's not that OFFA stipulate bursary spending, just that they allow an awful lot of unis to satisfy around 70-80% of Access Agreements through bursary/fee-waiver spending.
Also, this research from States shows that merit-based scholarships become captured by middle classes:
Merit Aid and College Access, Donald E. Heller, Center for the Study of Higher Education The Pennsylvania State University, Symposium on the Consequences of Merit-Based Student Aid, Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education University of Wisconsin, Madison, March, 2006 www.personal.psu.edu/deh29/papers/WISCAPE_2006_paper.pdf
As for admissions processes being a good idea to invest in - that is just based on the fact that leaders in this field (e.g. Uni Manchester) spend their money this way. Also I infer from the fact that relying solely on A level grades favours more affluent students, that to counter this fact investment in admissions processes would be a good thing.
Hope that helps.
Alex Stevens
Thanks, Matt. That´s making me reconsider some proposals I´m making. The only glimmer of hope for bursary advocates would seem to be that some Sutton Trust research has suggested that, in the period covered by the OFFA research, potential students were very poorly informed about bursaries and that the majority of them said they would be influenced by a bursary of two grand, with disadvantaged students being the most likely to be influenced. http://www.suttontrust.com/research/knowing-where-to-study/
Matt Grist
Bursaries could be a useful tool I agree - but no evidence whatsoever that fee-waivers make any difference at all. Also, bursaries will do nothing if you don't have an admissions process that will pick out poorer students with potential in the first place!
Also, current system means students funding other students slightly worse off than them through a bursary (since bursaries add to fees) - not very progressive, since not linked to income (whereas grants funded through general taxation are).
James Cameron
Despite the myths and misunderstandings surrounding the process -- largely perpetuated by the media's love of the occasional eccentric question -- the dreaded Oxbridge interview provides a decent model for how admissions processes can be improved. Each student is treated as an individual, context can be taken into account and admissions tutors actually get to meet them face to face before making a decision. A candidate with a string of A*s at A-level may not stand up to scrutiny in an hour-long meeting, but somebody with lower grades may well do.
However, it's expensive and labour-intensive. Nor do Ebdon's comments regarding Oxbridge give one confidence that he will take a balanced view of its admissions procedures.
Matt Grist
I agree James - apart from the University of Manchester, Oxbridge are leaders in using contextual data, and despite what some commentators might lead you to believe, are cheerleaders for the cause.
Ultimately, as you say, it's about talking to someone for long enough, and combining that with some stats about his or her school in order to make a rounded, case-by-case judgement.
David Vinter
Could it not just be that a family without previous university experience has an inbuilt [ if incorrect] suspicion of what 'Oxbridge'
requires in the future, probably reinforced by films designed to entrtain rather than inform?
I have no axe to grind, I went to Nottingham as a mature student, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Alex Stevens
Interesting post. Please could you give the references to the research that shows that fee waivers and bursaries don´t encourage able working class students to apply, but better admissions processes do?