an article by Vikki Boliver (Durham University, UK) published in Sociology Volume 50 Number 2 (April 2016)
Abstract
This article analyses national university applications and admissions data to explore why ethnic minority applicants to Russell Group universities are less likely to receive offers of admission than comparably qualified white applicants.
Contrary to received opinion, the greater tendency of ethnic minorities to choose highly numerically competitive degree subjects only partially accounts for their lower offer rates from Russell Group universities relative to white applicants with the same grades and ‘facilitating subjects’ at A-level.
Moreover, ethnic inequalities in the chances of receiving an admissions offer from a Russell Group university are found to be greater in relation to courses where ethnic minorities make up a larger percentage of applicants. This latter finding raises the possibility that some admissions selectors at some Russell Group universities may be unfairly rejecting a proportion of their ethnic minority applicants in an attempt to achieve a more ethnically representative student body.
Showing posts with label fair_access. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fair_access. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 September 2016
Thursday, 13 June 2013
How fair is access to more prestigious UK universities?
an article by Vikki Boliver (School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University, UK) published in The British Journal of Sociology Volume 64 Issue 2 (June 2013)
Abstract
Now that most UK universities have increased their tuition fees to £9,000 a year and are implementing new Access Agreements as required by the Office for Fair Access, it has never been more important to examine the extent of fair access to UK higher education and to more prestigious UK universities in particular.
This paper uses Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) data for the period 1996 to 2006 to explore the extent of fair access to prestigious Russell Group universities, where ‘fair’ is taken to mean equal rates of making applications to and receiving offers of admission from these universities on the part of those who are equally qualified to enter them.
The empirical findings show that access to Russell Group universities is far from fair in this sense and that little changed following the introduction of tuition fees in 1998 and their initial increase to £3,000 a year in 2006. Throughout this period, UCAS applicants from lower class backgrounds and from state schools remained much less likely to apply to Russell Group universities than their comparably qualified counterparts from higher class backgrounds and private schools, while Russell Group applicants from state schools and from Black and Asian ethnic backgrounds remained much less likely to receive offers of admission from Russell Group universities in comparison with their equivalently qualified peers from private schools and the White ethnic group.
Abstract
Now that most UK universities have increased their tuition fees to £9,000 a year and are implementing new Access Agreements as required by the Office for Fair Access, it has never been more important to examine the extent of fair access to UK higher education and to more prestigious UK universities in particular.
This paper uses Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) data for the period 1996 to 2006 to explore the extent of fair access to prestigious Russell Group universities, where ‘fair’ is taken to mean equal rates of making applications to and receiving offers of admission from these universities on the part of those who are equally qualified to enter them.
The empirical findings show that access to Russell Group universities is far from fair in this sense and that little changed following the introduction of tuition fees in 1998 and their initial increase to £3,000 a year in 2006. Throughout this period, UCAS applicants from lower class backgrounds and from state schools remained much less likely to apply to Russell Group universities than their comparably qualified counterparts from higher class backgrounds and private schools, while Russell Group applicants from state schools and from Black and Asian ethnic backgrounds remained much less likely to receive offers of admission from Russell Group universities in comparison with their equivalently qualified peers from private schools and the White ethnic group.
Friday, 17 May 2013
The official discourse of fair access to higher education
an article by Darryll Bravenboer (Middlesex University, UK) published in Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning Volume 14 Number 3 (Winter 2012-13)
Abstract
Despite significant public investment in the sector, selective universities in the UK have made little if any progress in widening participation over the last ten years. There are also increasing incentives for universities to become more selective in the context of government-driven higher education market competition.
At the same time, while some universities may view the pursuit of academic excellence as incompatible with widening participation, key policy documents have consistently included descriptions of a variety of strategies designed to promote wider and fairer access. This paper is concerned with how the idea of fair access has been constructed within official higher education discourse.
A method of ‘constructive description’ is employed to analyse the discursive strategies at play within selected governmental texts. The analysis indicates that the primacy of institutional autonomy in the official discourse of fair access operates to exclude descriptions of a ‘common currency’ of merit and potential, which may leave potentially unfair admissions practices unchallenged. The paper proposes a change in ‘mind set’ from universities operating as exclusive ‘gate keepers’ admitting students, to that of the inclusive recognition of applicants’ merit and potential.
This may have significant implications for admissions policy, particularly in the light of the shift away from traditional models of funding towards empowering individual or employer ‘buyers’ in the higher education market.
Abstract
Despite significant public investment in the sector, selective universities in the UK have made little if any progress in widening participation over the last ten years. There are also increasing incentives for universities to become more selective in the context of government-driven higher education market competition.
At the same time, while some universities may view the pursuit of academic excellence as incompatible with widening participation, key policy documents have consistently included descriptions of a variety of strategies designed to promote wider and fairer access. This paper is concerned with how the idea of fair access has been constructed within official higher education discourse.
A method of ‘constructive description’ is employed to analyse the discursive strategies at play within selected governmental texts. The analysis indicates that the primacy of institutional autonomy in the official discourse of fair access operates to exclude descriptions of a ‘common currency’ of merit and potential, which may leave potentially unfair admissions practices unchallenged. The paper proposes a change in ‘mind set’ from universities operating as exclusive ‘gate keepers’ admitting students, to that of the inclusive recognition of applicants’ merit and potential.
This may have significant implications for admissions policy, particularly in the light of the shift away from traditional models of funding towards empowering individual or employer ‘buyers’ in the higher education market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
