Has the time come for a new admissions system?

Following the Labour party’s pledge to overhaul the university admissions system, James Turner, CEO of the Sutton Trust, takes a closer look at Post Qualification Applications (PQA) and what they would mean for students.

For two decades the Sutton Trust has been advocating the introduction of Post Qualifications Applications. In those twenty years, there have been various false starts and the idea has come and gone.  Today’s announcement that the introduction of PQA would be Labour party policy follows hot on the heels of two related reviews from Universities UK and the government’s own Office for Students  which will also look at the issue.  So has PQA’s time come at last?

The basic appeal of the reform is clear: students making life-defining university decisions on actual grades, rather than predictions, is intuitively better.  It is also pretty much what every other higher education system across the world does.

Under our current system here in the UK, the majority of predicted grades are wrong – either higher or lower than the grades actually achieved come August, neither of which helps good decision-making.  And there is an important social mobility dimension too – low income students’ predicted grades are more likely to be wrong, and high-achieving disadvantaged students are more likely to have their grades under-predicted, which means they may not then make the university choices suited to their talents and aspirations.  Research we commissioned in 2017 showed that this affects up to 1,000 such students every year.  And all this is against a backdrop – despite huge efforts by universities and schools – of poorer students being six times less likely to end up at a leading university than their more advantaged peers.

Bringing in PQA would also help curb the rise in unconditional and ‘conditional unconditional’ offers, where students are admitted to universities regardless of the grades they achieve.   Many schools we talk to are concerned that this has a negative impact on students’ motivation in their final A level year.  It may also mean that poorer students – already less confident in making applications, especially to prestigious institutions – are more likely to settle for the security of a confirmed place on a less-competitive course, rather than stretching themselves to a more selective course which is a better match to their abilities.

Of course, the changes proposed are not straightforward and are likely to require big upheaval in school and university timetables.  Careful thought will need to be given to implementation so that the benefits are realised and that a new system is not shoe-horned into the existing timetables, resulting in less support for those who need it most.  So alongside these changes it will be imperative that students receive up-to-date, independent and timely advice to help them navigate the various choices open to them.  Even under PQA, much of the groundwork can still be done before A level results day – but it is crucial that it is also available in the period afterwards when those final applications are made.  And, regardless of PQA, we should continue to encourage universities to make better use of contextual information on students’ backgrounds when making admissions decisions, recognising that the playing field pre-18 is far from level.

PQA is not a silver bullet: but its introduction is a chance to look afresh at the admissions process as a whole, to ensure it is fit for purpose and serves students well, particularly those from the poorest homes.