Fair Admission to Universities in England: Improving Policy and Practice: Interview Data, 2017-2018

19 interviews conducted in 2017/18 with Heads of Admission and 51 interviews with admissions selectors at 17 universities located across England offering undergraduate degree programmes with high academic entry requirements and a high demand for places. The interviews explored with Heads of Admission the philosophical underpinnings and overarching goals of universities’ undergraduate admissions policies, and explored with admissions selectors how institutional policies were enacted in practice with a particular focus on the ways in which selectors sought to differentiate between strong, weak and borderline applicants. Complete University Guide 2018 data on the average UCAS points of entrants was used to select a sample of English HEIs with comparatively high academic entry requirements, encompassing mainly Old (pre-1992) but also New (post-1992) universities, and aiming for representation of HEIs from every English region, and an oversampling of those in London and the South East given the preponderance of HEIs in these areas. Of the HEIs originally sampled, four declined to participate in the study, resulting in an achieved sample of 17 HEIs. Eleven of the participating HEIs were Old HEIs at which the average home student entered with 487 UCAS points, compared to 413 for Old HEIs in England generally. The other six participating HEIs were New HEIs at which the average home entrant came in with 340 UCAS points, compared to 306 for New HEIs in England generally. At each participating HEI an initial scoping interview was carried out, usually with the Head of Admissions (N=19). Further interviews were then carried out with Admissions Selectors for science (N=18) and arts/humanities/social science (N=33) programmes identified in the scoping interviews as having high academic entry requirements and a high demand for places. The Admissions Selectors in the sample were selecting for the following Science programmes: Maths x 1, Physics x 1, Chemistry x 2, Computer Science x 2, Engineering x 2, Medicine x 3, Health Sciences x 1, Midwifery x 3, Nursing x 1, Occupational Therapy x 1, and Physiotherapy x 1; and for the following arts/humanities/social science programmes: Law x 7, Economics x 6, Politics/PPE x 4, Sociology x 1, History x 1, English x 1, Languages x 1, Education x 2, Accountancy x 1, Business x 1, Architecture x 4, Film/TV/Journalism x 3, and Art x 1. Almost all of the interviews took place during the 2017/18 academic year and almost all were carried out by the same interviewer, Dr Mandy Powell. The interviews were intended to be dialogic in nature, with the interviewer seeking to engage university admissions personnel in reflective and constructively critical discussions about what constitutes fairness in the abstract, how conceptualisations of fairness are put into practice at their institution, and what positive and/or negative impacts admissions policies and practices may have on the social representativeness of the institution’s student body. There was no formal interview guide. The initial scoping interviews with Heads of Admission (HoAs) set out to explore what higher-order principles informed institutional admissions policies; what criteria and processes were used to select prospective undergraduates; and how the admissions policies and practices discussed related to and impacted on widening participation at the institution. These first interviews also enabled us to gather information about whether admissions was all or mostly centralised or all or mostly devolved to academics within departments in each institution; and to identify selectors for highly academically selective, high demand programmes at the HEI for subsequent in-depth interview. Subsequent interviews with admissions selectors centred on discussions of how ‘strong’, ‘weak’ and ‘borderline’ applicants were conceptualised in theory and identified in practice; and on how admissions policies and practices intersected with the university’s widening participation strategy and impacted positively and/or negatively on the admissions chances of non-traditional students. Further details of the project, including links to published papers, can be found here: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/fair-admission-to-universities-in-england-improving-policy-practiceThis project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation (EDU/45842), set out to explore how universities in England offering courses with high academic entry requirements and a high demand for places conceptualised fair admissions in policy terms and operationalised fair admissions in practice. The project involved in-depth interviews with 19 university Heads of Admission at 17 HEIs, both Old (pre-1992) and New (post-1992), located throughout England; and with 51 admissions selectors at the same 17 HEIs, responsible for the day to day work of selecting applicants for a range of Science programmes and Arts programmes encompassing the Humanities, Social Sciences and Creative Arts. The interviews, conducted during the 2017/18 academic year, explored with Heads of Admission the philosophical underpinnings and overarching goals of universities’ undergraduate admissions policies, and explored with admissions selectors how institutional policies were enacted in practice with a particular focus on the ways in which selectors sought to differentiate between strong, weak and borderline applicants. Using Complete University Guide 2018 data on the average UCAS points of entrants we selected a sample of English HEIs with comparatively high academic entry requirements, encompassing mainly Old (pre-1992) but also New (post-1992) universities, and aiming for representation of HEIs from every English region, and an oversampling of those in London and the South East given the preponderance of HEIs in these areas. Of the HEIs originally sampled, four declined to participate in the study, resulting in an achieved sample of 17 HEIs. Eleven of the participating HEIs were Old HEIs at which the average home student entered with 487 UCAS points, compared to 413 for Old HEIs in England generally. The other six participating HEIs were New HEIs at which the average home entrant came in with 340 UCAS points, compared to 306 for New HEIs in England generally. At each participating HEI an initial scoping interview was carried out, usually with the Head of Admissions (N=19). Further interviews were then carried out with Admissions Selectors for science (N=18) and arts/humanities/social science (N=33) programmes identified in the scoping interviews as having high academic entry requirements and a high demand for places. The Admissions Selectors in the sample were selecting for the following Science programmes: Maths x 1, Physics x 1, Chemistry x 2, Computer Science x 2, Engineering x 2, Medicine x 3, Health Sciences x 1, Midwifery x 3, Nursing x 1, Occupational Therapy x 1, and Physiotherapy x 1; and for the following arts/humanities/social science programmes: Law x 7, Economics x 6, Politics/PPE x 4, Sociology x 1, History x 1, English x 1, Languages x 1, Education x 2, Accountancy x 1, Business x 1, Architecture x 4, Film/TV/Journalism x 3, and Art x 1. Almost all of the interviews took place during the 2017/18 academic year and almost all were carried out by the same interviewer, Dr Mandy Powell. The interviews were intended to be dialogic in nature, with the interviewer seeking to engage university admissions personnel in reflective and constructively critical discussions about what constitutes fairness in the abstract, how conceptualisations of fairness are put into practice at their institution, and what positive and/or negative impacts admissions policies and practices may have on the social representativeness of the institution’s student body. There was no formal interview guide. The initial scoping interviews with Heads of Admission (HoAs) set out to explore what higher-order principles informed institutional admissions policies; what criteria and processes were used to select prospective undergraduates; and how the admissions policies and practices discussed related to and impacted on widening participation at the institution. These first interviews also enabled us to gather information about whether admissions was all or mostly centralised or all or mostly devolved to academics within departments in each institution; and to identify selectors for highly academically selective, high demand programmes at the HEI for subsequent in-depth interview. Subsequent interviews with admissions selectors centred on discussions of how ‘strong’, ‘weak’ and ‘borderline’ applicants were conceptualised in theory and identified in practice; and on how admissions policies and practices intersected with the university’s widening participation strategy and impacted positively and/or negatively on the admissions chances of non-traditional students. Further details of the project, including links to published papers, can be found here: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/fair-admission-to-universities-in-england-improving-policy-practice