Advertisement

Post-results university admissions would be a step backwards | Letters

Students graduating from the LSE
Students graduating from the LSE. ‘We lack robust data on the finances of students since 2012, when £9,000 tuition fees came in,’ writes Nick Hillman. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

Anyone who has been through the long summer of waiting for their or their children’s A-level results will have some sympathy with the idea that it would be far better if the business of university admissions was dealt with after you knew your results (Historians will laugh at us when they look back at the university application system, 19 September).

However, I honestly believe this would do more harm than good. Moving to a post-results application system with the academic year starting in January would place young people from the most socially excluded backgrounds at a further disadvantage, denying them the support of teachers during the school year and leaving them to navigate the applications process alone in households where often there may be no adult who has previously been to university or college.

Teachers and those working to widen participation also fear potential students would be unable to support themselves financially during the six-month gap, choosing employment instead. Ucas has looked at this issue on several occasions and found the negative consequences for those who most need support to access higher education, as well as the cost and disruption to students, teachers, schools, colleges and universities, simply do not justify an attempt to fix a system which is not broken.

Despite worries about predicted grades this year, 80% of students were placed at their first-choice of course and university, and record numbers of 18-years-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds were placed. And clearing itself provides an opportunity for those who want to apply after they have their results, or who are unplaced, to access an increasingly wide range of choices. Last year, 65,000 entered university this way.

Change might make the wait for results a little less anxious but there is simply no need for the sector-wide upheaval which a change in application timings would require. I’m all for change but it needs to benefit those the sector looks to support, namely students from a diverse range of backgrounds and varying levels of support.
Clare Marchant
Chief executive, Ucas

• Ever since the general election, there has been a lively debate over university funding. Yet it is taking place in the dark. We lack robust data on the finances of students since 2012, when £9,000 tuition fees came in. To its credit, the Cameron government commissioned a new student income and expenditure survey three years ago. This was due to be published 18 months ago, but Whitehall is still sitting on the results. It would be a dereliction of duty for the government to respond to the current concerns on student finance without putting this report in the public domain, as it would be impossible for the public to respond in an evidence-based way.

There are separate discussions going on over how good university research is in the UK relative to other countries – and how good or bad it will be after Brexit. But, again, Whitehall has been sitting on the crucial evidence for months. This is hampering the quality of public debate. The last official report on the UK’s relative performance in research appeared in 2013 and, because of the inherent timelags involved, the data covered research undertaken in the period before austerity really kicked in. Have we been maintaining our past position or falling behind relative to other countries as many people fear? Whitehall knows but won’t tell us despite being pressed repeatedly to do so.

As a result of this lack of transparency, it will be difficult to assess the policies expected to be announced at the forthcoming Conservative party conference. So, on these two important issues, the time has come to lift the bonnet and show us what is hiding underneath.
Nick Hillman
Director, Higher Education Policy Institute

• It is heartening to learn of the marvellous exploits of Maria and Moreno (College cleaners have taught us how to beat outsourcing, 12 September) but instructive also of how easily this comes to pass. Universities adopt corporate practices. Their procurement departments are tasked in sourcing the most value-for-money (aka cheap) support services and their vice-chancellors measure their remuneration against those running the multinational outsourcing conglomerates. Whether procurement officer or vice-chancellor, they are, on the whole I’m sure, decent people. Yet by accepting and thereby perpetuating the system in which they operate, they dehumanise the cleaners, themselves and their institutions.

This is why vice-chancellors don’t deserve their mega salaries: through that lack of leadership. And it is why corporate culture also needs to change, through the adoption of practices which explicitly value all stakeholders and don’t merely bow to the gods of the bottom line. There are many signs that this change is under way (the mission-led business review commissioned by the government last year being but one), but how refreshing it would be to find our universities leading by example, not reinforcing the sense this is an appropriate way to operate.
Dave Hunter
Bristol

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters