Admissions

Introduction
Admissions criteria and methods of selection and assessment for entry are the responsibility of each higher education institution. However, there is a clear requirement for students and for the public to have broad confidence in the system as a whole. Over the last few years the issue of higher education admissions has been subjected to increasing public scrutiny. It was in this context that Professor Steven Schwartz was asked by the secretary of state for education and skills to lead an independent review of the options that English higher education institutions should consider when assessing the merit of applicants for their courses, and to report on the high-level principles underlying these options.

Admissions issues
As the higher education sector expands – both in terms of student numbers and choice of course and institution – it is essential that students have confidence in the fairness of admissions procedures. The Schwartz Review identified the following issues that need to be addressed.

• There are differing interpretations of merit and fairness
• It can be difficult for applicants to know how they will be assessed
• The information used in assessing applicants may not be equally reliable and consistent
• Some courses have high drop-out rates. These may be related to admissions processes
• For courses that are over-subscribed, it can be difficult for admissions staff to select from a growing pool of highly-qualified applicants
• Some applicants face a burden of additional assessment
• There is uneven awareness of and response to the increasing diversity of applicants, qualifications and pathways into higher education
• Most offers depend on predicted grades, not confirmed examination results
• The legislation applicable to admissions is complex and there is uneven understanding of what it means for admissions policies and processes.

The group also set a definition for a fair admissions system as “a fair admissions system is one that provides equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of background, to gain admission to a course suited to their ability and aspirations.”

Principles recommended by Schwartz Group

• A fair admissions system should be transparent.
• A fair admissions system should strive to use assessment methods that are reliable and valid.
• A fair admissions system should enable institutions to select students who are able to complete the course as judged by their achievements and their potential.
• A fair admissions system should seek to minimise barriers for applicants.
• A fair admissions system should be professional in every respect and underpinned by appropriate institutional structures and processes.

Following the Schwartz report, Sir Alan Wilson, the Director-General for Higher Education at the DfES, conducted a report on the implementation of a post-qualification applications system. This is a system based on actual rather than predicted grades. The ‘delivery partnership’ of education stakeholders from Schools and further and higher education establishments was established to implement Wilson’s report and NUS is an active member of the Steering Group and its sub-groups.

QAA general principles of admissions
You can read the full explanation of these principles online.

General principles

1. Institutions have policies and procedures for the recruitment and admission of students to higher education that are fair, clear and explicit and are implemented consistently.
2. Institutions' decisions regarding admissions to higher education are made by those equipped to make the required judgements and competent to undertake their roles and responsibilities.
3. Institutions' promotional materials and activities are accurate, relevant, current, accessible and provide information that will enable applicants to make informed decisions about their options.
4. Institutions' selection policies and procedures are clear and are followed fairly, courteously, consistently and expeditiously. Transparent entry requirements, both academic and non-academic, are used to underpin judgements made during the selection process for entry.
5. Institutions conduct their admissions processes efficiently, effectively and courteously according to fully documented operational procedures that are readily accessible to all those involved in the admissions process, both within and without the institution, applicants and their advisers.
6. Institutions inform applicants of the obligations placed on prospective students at the time the offer of a place is made.
7. Institutions inform prospective students, at the earliest opportunity, of any significant changes to a programme made between the time the offer of a place is made and registration is completed, and that they are advised of the options available in the circumstances.
8. Institutions explain to applicants who have accepted a place arrangement for the enrolment, registration, induction and orientation of new students and ensure that these arrangements promote efficient and effective integration of entrants fully as students.
9. Institutions consider the most effective and efficient arrangements for providing feedback to applicants who have not been offered a place.
10. Institutions have policies and procedures in place for responding to applicants' complaints about the operation of their admissions process and ensure that all staff involved with admissions are familiar with the policies and procedures.
11. Institutions have policies in place for responding to applicants' appeals against the outcome of a selection decision that make clear to all staff and applicants whether, and if so, on what grounds, any such appeals may be considered.
12. Institutions regularly review their policies and procedures related to student admissions to higher education to ensure that they continue to support the mission and strategic objectives of the institution, and that they remain current and valid in the light of changing circumstances.

Reform of Admissions
The Delivery Partnership (DP) is a UK-wide, higher education sector-led, partnership of different education stakeholders, including NUS and schools/colleges. The DP was established in autumn 2006 to implement reforms to the higher education applications process following the government's response to the DfES-led consultation on improving the higher education applications process in May 2006 (the ‘Wilson Review’).

These reforms are aimed at improving the HE applications system by enhancing the provision of information for both applicants and universities in the interests of increasing transparency, efficiency and effectiveness.

This will be achieved via a two-stage process of reform.

• Changes to the current HE applications process by 2008-09
• A review in 2010/11 with a view to considering further the implementation of a post qualification application (PQA) system from 2012.

Further Information

NUS Education Information Reforming HE Admissions

UCAS

UKPASS

Delivery Partnership

QAA Code of practice 10: Admissions to higher education

The Wilson Review (DfES review following Schwartz)

The Schwartz Review (the independent review conducted by the then VC from Brunel University, Steven Schwartz)

Return to top of page

Return to this campaign's homepage or view all articles in this campaign.