That Time Of Year Again

The air is turning colder, the leaves are dropping off the trees and winter woollens are dug out of the wardrobe; these changes can mean only one thing, and it is that it is time to discuss post qualification application to universities again.

In the words of the song, like the changing of the seasons and the tides of the sea it can be guaranteed that this debate, which has been running for at least as long as I have been a teacher and for probably longer, will be resurrected once again. However, this time there genuinely seems to be an appetite for change. For nearly 60 years, the system for undergraduate applications has been pretty consistent. Candidates complete a form detailing both their achieved and pending qualifications to their five chosen universities. Each of these universities may choose to reject the candidate or make them and offer; broadly speaking, these offers will either be unconditional, meaning the candidate is virtually guaranteed a place, or conditional on attaining a certain standard in their (usually) A Level grades. So far, so straightforward. But, a system which was put in place in the 1960s to manage a relatively small number of university applications has been groaning under the weight of the exponential growth of universities over the past twenty or so years. The 1992 revolution which turned polytechnics (which had previously had a separate applications system) into universities together with Tony Blair’s commitment to 50% of eighteen year olds meant that the system was simply no longer fit for purpose. What’s the problem? The fundamental issue revolves around the predicted grades that schools are required to submit as part of the application process. There is no other way of saying it: the accuracy of predicted grades is appalling. In 2019, only 21% of pre-qualification applications achieved their A-Level predictions. The vast majority of the applicants failed to match the grades their teachers predicted. How can the teachers get this so wrong? Well, in some cases I am sure candidates didn’t quite manage to perform to their expectations (every year students have a “bad day” and bomb an exam), and it is well-established that teachers over predict because they generally are nice people who, consciously or unconsciously, over estimate the ability of their students. However, in recent years the reason why many pupils are over predicted is because teachers and schools know that universities, anxious to fill beds in expensive accommodation blocks and reliant on student numbers for funding, will drop their entry requirements on results day and take many youngsters who did not make their offers. In short, a student needs high predicted grades to receive the offer but can get the place with much lower grades. It’s a system that is manifestly unfair. But, it’s not unfair across the board. Research from the Sutton Trust shows that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are much less likely to receive high predicted grades compared to their more affluent counterparts even if they go on to obtain high grades. Furthermore, they are less likely to receive high quality advice from people who know, and to some extent, can play the system. Moving to a system of post-qualification application is not perfect. For many years it was resisted by the universities because they felt it would put too much time pressure on the period between mid-August, when results are released, and late September when most university terms start. Relieving this pressure by moving the start of the yar to January was considered unthinkable. Now, though, there seems to be an appetite on all sides for change. Universities themselves, competing for the best students and looking to cement their international reputations, know that they will only do this if the playing field for all eighteen year olds is fair. A move to PQA is a winner all round – for the universities, for the youngsters and for the country