By John Kemp, Interim Chief Executive, Scottish Funding Council
IMAGINE a race where some participants were running uphill, some downhill and some on the flat. Even if every participant got the same time we would all agree the ones running uphill might have a bit more talent for running.
That is the simple version of what is usually labelled “contextualised admissions”. Pupils who get university entry grades from some backgrounds have run up far steeper hills than others. If we ignore that fact we are wasting talent and being unfair to some young people who deserve to be at university.
Last week the social mobility think-tank, the Sutton Trust, published a report looking at university admissions amongst the UK’s most selective universities. Today, the Scottish Funding Council has published a report from the University of Durham’s highly respected School of Applied Social Sciences. We asked the report’s authors to look at how Scotland could ensure that university admissions systems do not perpetuate the disadvantages learners have faced earlier in life.
Our study shows that universities recognise that high-achieving pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds perform exceptionally well against the odds. However, it also argues that they could be much bolder in their approach to admitting disadvantaged applicants to their courses. One of the most interesting findings is that Scotland’s most highly selective universities could set their entry requirements for disadvantaged applicants much lower and still retain a high probability of those students successfully completing their course. This begs two other questions, of course, but the report looks at them as well.
The first question is how you identify disadvantage. Here it recommends a set of characteristics that include spending time in care, being a long-term carer, receiving free school meals, receiving an Education Maintenance Allowance or being a refugee or asylum seeker.
The second question is how universities support students from disadvantaged backgrounds to help make sure they reach their full potential. The term “widening access”, which is often how we talk about fair opportunities in education, only goes halfway. At the Scottish Funding Council we talk about access and retention to remind ourselves that the work isn’t done once the figures show more disadvantaged applicants are starting courses. This doesn’t mean special treatment, it means that they get support according to their needs, which should be a given for all students.
Nicola Sturgeon could not have been any clearer in 2014 when she said that a child born in one of Scotland’s most deprived communities should have the same chance of going to university as one born into one of Scotland’s least deprived communities. It’s an ambition steeped in fairness and equality, and schools, colleges and universities are working with agencies like us to ensure that happens.
I believe that recognising that a disadvantaged young person who performs well at school despite, for example, lack of a suitable space to work, a lack of books, the absence of a role model and often much more deserves the chance of a university education as much as the highly performing pupil with none of those disadvantages. In a nutshell, I believe that equal exam results do not always represent equal potential. Accepting the status quo – which the Scottish Funding Council has no intention of doing – is to risk losing the talents and skills of young people who have a great deal to contribute to Scotland’s future. No one wants to do that.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here