Should the current system of higher education admissions move to a post-qualification model?

Each week, we put your questions to politicians in Cambridgeshire. If you have a question you wish to ask, email us at: scommunities@reachplc.com

Ceri Galloway

Green

Greens prioritise wellbeing and equality. As such, we believe education should lead to employment, stable housing and a satisfying adulthood. We also see the urgent need to refocus employment to meet the critical needs of our time, including implementing the Green New Deal and rebuilding after Covid.

If we are to meet targets to reduce carbon and combat climate change, we will need a practical approach in the areas of engineering, construction and sciences.

I support the proposals in this consultation as far as they go. Decision-making on a known outcome would allow students to start the next stage of their development confident in their direction of study before making applications to a final clearing house. A system that reduces stress for people transitioning to further education is to be welcomed.

However, it is telling that this consultation focuses solely on A levels as an entry to university and further education. This reflects the current system, which ignores those less ‘academic,’ but equally intelligent, who learn by practical application.

The practical education route has been underfunded for 30 years or more, leaving us with a shortage of skilled carpenters, plumbers and engineers. Meanwhile, many people who do have a degree lack practical skills and are unable to find employment reflecting their effort in education.

Focusing solely on the academic career path also disadvantages families where money is tight or where parents don’t have any experience of higher education. We need to increase the emphasis on practical education for 16 to 18-year-olds, allowing them to progress through the system toward advanced apprenticeships. Apprenticeships must offer a living wage.

I believe every child should have the opportunity to develop and flourish in a manner that supports their style of learning. Funding should follow every child and not just the children of the already privileged.

John Hipkin

Independent

Under the current system, sixth formers in England apply to university in January using grades predicted by their teachers, before sitting A levels in late spring and accepting university offers in June.

However, it has been demonstrated that predicted grades are often unreliable.(which tells us something about the perils of replacing GCSE exams with teacher assessments).

Research from the Sutton Trust also shows that disadvantaged students tend to receive lower predicted A-level grades than their better-off counterparts.

Another objection to the present system is that exam results are published in August, meaning those who missed out on their required grades have to scramble to join clearing and find another course.

Under the proposed change, school leavers and other applicants would only proceed with final university applications after their exam results, meaning they would have a clear understanding of the courses for which they qualify.

Finally, under current arrangements the long period between making an application and getting results means that any performance improvement in the interim may be undervalued.

Of the options for reform on offer, my favourite is that exam results will be published in August, as is currently the case, but with university and college terms starting in January, it would allow five months for processing applications.  

Starting university courses in January would also promote fairness and transparency. The long gap following the end of exams would allow universities to run courses to prepare students for higher education, as well as opportunities for applicants to attend open days and consider their options.

In summary, the whole process would be less pressured and fairer.

Cheney Payne

Liberal Democrat

The post-qualification system, where students receive their university offers after obtaining their final grades, aims to help students make informed decisions, reduce disadvantage, and simplify the application system. It is a contrast to our current model, where offers are made based on predicted grades.

There is increasing evidence to support this move. While teachers work hard to predict grades accurately, it is not an exact science. The 2019 end of cycle report from UCAS identified that 18 year olds applying to university in the UK are, on average, predicted a grade 2.35 higher than their actual result.

This leads to disappointment as students must accept their second choice, or wait anxiously for a place through clearing. However, the students most likely to gain higher grades than predicted are high-achieving disadvantaged students, compounding inequality.

Nevertheless, there are concerns within this proposal. We must ensure students still receive support to apply to university once they have gained their results and left school. The process is challenging at the best of times, and more so for students with limited access to technology or support.

Importantly, while the post-qualifications model is a strong first step, it must not be seen as a remedy for the limitations of the exam system. Last summer’s exams debacle reminds us that exams are not the only way to assess.

Classwork, coursework and an ability to think critically are all vital skills which teachers see, develop and nurture daily. In the workplace, these skills are at least as valuable as the ability to perform in exams.

While I welcome the consultation and the move such a change could make towards a more equitable system, we must not let it lull us into a false sense of security that it will fix our broken, over-pressurised exam factory.

Anna Smith

Labour

A lot of students already apply to university after their results, including many who apply in their gap year, and also including the many mature students whose results might have been a while ago.

As a sixth form teacher and tutor, I certainly found that a lot of students preferred to apply post-results. It meant that they weren’t relying on predicted grades for a start. That wasn’t just for those students who felt their predictions were too low. It could also be students who were already predicted high grades, but felt more confident applying with actual results.

Other students preferred to apply in advance, knowing everything was in place before they took their exams or submitted their portfolios.

Back in my day, as an applicant from a family on benefits, studying at a comprehensive, I applied pre-A level, and was so relieved to have taken a university entrance exam, which meant I ended up with an unconditional offer – it made my last six months at school so much less stressful.

However, whichever system the consultation leads to, the inequalities in university admissions won’t be solved with that decision. It seems so much harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into some universities.

That’s not to say that every student should want to go to a traditional university, or to university at all. But the option should be equally available to everyone. And that needs much bigger changes than how people apply or how offers are made.

We need an end to the tuition fees and loans which I feel put so many students off applying, and a return to decent maintenance grants. And we need structural change in society that addresses poverty and inequality, ends child hunger and properly funds support for disadvantaged students through their schooling. Because until we have that, we won’t get true equality of opportunity at higher education.