Rethinking university access

Lee Elliot Major on a graph that questions our assumptions on measuring academic potential

Every now and then you see a graph that makes you sit up and think again. I came across one such graph this week. And it prompted me to think the unthinkable! It questions our assumptions over how we assess young people’s academic potential. It challenges the way we currently select students for university. It also suggests that radical reforms are needed if we are to significantly boost the proportion of disadvantaged students at our most prestigious universities.

The graph, found at the link below, produced by Mark Corver, Director of Analysis and Research at UCAS, groups pupils together not just by where they live or their income background, but also by their gender and ethnicity. Many studies have detailed stark gaps in university participation rates for different types of pupils. But these have been two-dimensional, comparing one factor (income background for example) with another (chances of going to university).

What’s different about this graph is that it’s multi-dimensional. Each bar corresponds to a group of students defined by their sex, ethnicity and wealth. White males from the poorest bottom fifth of areas for example are represented on the far left of the graph, while Chinese males from the richest fifth of areas are represented on the far right. In between are black, Asian and ‘other’ males and females from different areas.

The height of the bars meanwhile highlights how well pupils in each group have performed in their A-levels. The higher the bars, the more impressive their academic results.

Now if you agree that academic potential exists in all types of pupils irrespective of their sex, ethnicity or wealth, then in an ideal universe we would see roughly 10% of pupils from each of the groups entering the country’s most prestigious universities. This would include everyone above the dark horizontal line on the graph.

The reality of course is very different. For some groups like white poor males, no-one at all is achieving the A grades at A-level currently needed to gain entry into the elite universities. Indeed this analysis suggests that you would need to drop academic offers by three A-level grades to attract any of the top 10% of white poor males on academic ability. In fact these multidimensional groupings reveal much starker gaps between the higher education haves and have-nots than estimated before.

The graph raises a huge dilemma for those hoping for a step change in our efforts to improve social mobility by widening intakes into the country’s academic elite institutions. If we continue to measure academic potential across all groupings (signaled by A-level grades) then there is likely to be little change – over and above the impact made by the Sutton Trust and others ensuring that those students with the A-levels grades maximize their prospects of getting into the most prestigious universities.

However, there is another faster route to improving diversity – indeed not dis-similar to that adopted by South Africa during the early post-apartheid days. This would be to gauge academic potential within the different groups, selecting the top ten per cent for universities irrespective of how their A-level grades compare with those for students in other groups.

Challenging the ‘gold standard’ of A-levels would obviously be fraught with controversy – amid growing concerns about university drop-out rates and the intensifying competition for degree places each year. But launching his incredibly ambitious targets to double the proportion of disadvantaged students in higher education, the Prime Minister urged universities to think outside the box. This graph indicates that perhaps the time has come to think again.