AS-Levels, Education, Examinations and Cambridge Admissions

Sir

We are surprised to read that Cambridge University is advocating a system of education which puts examinations ahead of learning.

Whilst Cambridge University’s desire to have data which informs its admissions decisions is understandable, we believe that the recent intervention from Dr Mike Sewell of the university admissions office, which seeks to influence schools' decision making, is fundamentally not in the educational best interests of our students.

The newly reformed A level system, with its emphasis on terminal exams, provides an excellent opportunity to develop the intellectual maturity, agility and independence of mind which universities have long been asking for. Freeing up Year 12, will allow students to focus on wider and deeper learning, not just exam preparation. It will also give students more teaching and learning time and a much needed and highly desirable exam-free year.

Yours faithfully,

From the following Head Teachers:
Mary Breen - St Mary's Ascot
Jenny Brown - St Albans High school
Matthew Burke – St Martha’s, Herts
Carol Chandler-Thompson - Blackheath High School GDST
Vivienne Durham – Francis Holland School (Regent’s Park)
Lucy Elphinstone – Francis Holland School (Sloane Square)
Heather Hanbury – The Lady Eleanor Holles School
Marion Gibbs, James Allen’s Girls’ School
Rosalynd Kamaryc – Queen’s Gate School
Amanda Leach – More House School
Jane Lunnon – Wimbledon High School GDST
Ruth Mercer – The Godolphin and Latymer School
Jacqualyn Pain – Northwood College for Girls
Sarah Raffray – St Augustine’s Priory
Liz Richardson – Berkhamsted Girls School
Millan Sachania – Streatham & Clapham High School GDST
Mary Short – St Helen’s School, Northwood
 Mark S. Steed -Berkhamsted School

See also

• Cambridge University tells schools: retain AS-level exams Daily Telegraph  04/11/14
• the article by Andrew Halls, Headmaster of Kings College, Wimbledon,  'AS-level plea: Cambridge is in cloud cuckoo land'  Daily Telegraph Saturday 08/11/2014

Independent Schools, Elite Sport and University Entrance

Letter to the Daily Telegraph
Published Saturday 21st June 2014

Sir,
Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, argues that a disproportionate number of independent school pupils represent Britain at elite sport. So what do we do? Do we have quotas of state pupils who represent GB at the Olympics or England at Rugby? No of course we don't. We aspire to bring sport in the maintained sector up to standard of sport in independent schools.
Independent schools also provide a disproportionate number of pupils to Oxford and Cambridge and Russell Group universities, so why is Offa seeking to impose a system of quotas? Why not try to raise academic standards amongst the most able in state schools?
Both TeamGB and UKplc need the best proven talent to compete on a global stage and quotas aren't going to help - a broader talent base will.

Mark S Steed
Principal, Berkhamsted School
Berkhamsted, Herts

Why go to University? MOOCs will change everything. Higher Education beware!

There are many reasons for going to university but, arguably the most important three reasons are:

1. To have a life experience: making the first steps to independence by living away from home, living with like-minded people.
2. To gain an Internationally recognised qualification, which will open doors into the job market.
3. To study - to learn skills and engage with a body of information.

British Universities have had it good for a long time, with successive Governments encouraging ever greater student numbers, but I suspect that the tide is about to turn. The arguments for going to university are not nearly as strong as they were in the past.

Going away to university is a luxury that not everyone can afford

There was a time when going to university was a privilege for a minority that was earned by gaining a good A-level grades and was paid for by the Government, who saw fit to invest in our 'brightest and best'. Those days are gone. Universities are now businesses operating in a competitive market place and they are far from free. According to the National Union of Students the true cost of being a student outside London is £22,189 each academic year (£10,133 for course costs £12,056 for living costs - for the full breakdown of these figures see the NUS website). Today's undergraduates are likely to leave university with £50,000+ debt (BBC Website: 'Average UK student debts 'could hit £53,000' 12/08/2011).

Going away to university to have a life experience increasingly is going to be an luxury that young people cannot afford. Although there is no evidence of this beginning to happen yet, it is likely that we will see more young people living at home, at least for part of their course.

Graduate Employment patterns are changing: almost half of recent graduates are working in non-graduate jobs:

According to the Office of for National Statistics, Graduates now comprise 38% of the adult population (up from 17% in 1992). The positive news is that graduates are more likely to be employed and less likely to be searching for work:

However this ignores a key factor that 47% of recent graduates are in employment, but in non-graduate roles:

The graduate employment market is increasingly competitive, with job prospects broadly being determined by the following three factors:

Whilst there remain significant rewards for those with First Class Honours (and even Upper Seconds) from top institutions, the reality is that a 2:2 in a Humanity from a middle ranking university will mean that your employment prospects are very limited. All of this begs the question if there will be any 'graduate premium' for a significant proportion of our university leavers, let alone whether or not it will be of a significant level to justify the investment of taking on the inevitable debt that will be incurred.

MOOCs will change everything

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are set to transform Higher Education. Imagine have Open University courses available free taught by the world's experts. The leading Universities around the world are making their courses (not just lectures!) available in online versions.  EdX brings some of the best courses from Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, McGill et al (full list of institutions here); Coursera a similarly distinguished body (full list of institutions here).  The following YouTube video gives a basic introduction to EdX:

At present the range of courses is limited, but it is only a matter of time before complete undergraduate programmes are available online.

MOOCs: Accreditation will be the battle ground of the next few years.

The only problem with MOOCs at the moment is that, although you can get a 'statement of accomplishment' for reaching the standard in each unit, the courses themselves are not accredited and don't count towards degrees. MOOCs are in effect the wedge that will separate a university's role as a provider of education and their function as a degree awarding institution. Hitherto these functions have been related - the university taught the course to its students, it examined them and it awarded them a degree. MOOCs change everything. MOOCs mean that an online student can do a course, learn the skills, assimilate the information and even be assessed. It rather begs the question why they can't be accredited for the work that they have done. 

FAQ from the Coursera course 'An Introduction to Financial Accounting'

We might even envisage a situation where a MOOC student has completed the first two years of a degree course online and then applies to transfer as a resident student into the third year of the undergraduate programme.  How will that university react?  How can it argue that the student hasn't reached the requisite standard? 

MOOC courses, Employers and Professional Bodies

A further complication is that employers or even Professional Bodies might accept MOOC courses, even though they are not accredited by Universities. Take, for example, the Coursera course 'An Introduction to Financial Accounting' taught by the University of Pennsylvania. Employers and the Institute of Chartered Accountants are likely to be more concerned that an applicant has mastered the principles of financial accounting than they have a shiny degree certificate. Indeed it is easy to see that they may be more impressed with the self-starter from a humble background who has shown the motivation to complete an online course over and above the resident undergraduate.

Conclusion The laws of supply and demand will hold sway and is that we are likely to see the top universities continuing to get stronger and the lesser universities falling by the wayside. I predict that

• there will be a flight to quality. Degrees from the top universities will always have a currency in the job market and there will always be sufficient numbers who will be willing to pay for that experience, education and qualification. Increasingly savvy students are likely to consider that it just isn't worth the debt studying esoteric courses or studying at lesser universities.
• increasing numbers of students will study living at home, perhaps going away to university for a year to have the experience
• an increasing minority will head to the big name universities in Europe which have lower entrance requirements (EE at A-level), lower fees (Universities are free in Germany) and which are increasingly offering courses delivered in English (in order to attract the Far East market). This is certainly the best option for the CCC candidate where the British alternatives are overpriced for the end value of the degree that they have to offer.

Accreditation of MOOC courses is going to be the real battle ground of the next couple of years and it is set to split Higher Education:  MOOCs pose no threat to universities who are in the top 50 in the world rankings. There will always be demand for these institutions' courses. Indeed these universities will drive the expansion of MOOCs to enhance their reputations worldwide. However MOOCs will pose a real threat not only to the Open University (why pay if you can study online from HarvardX for free?), but also to lesser British universities, who are likely to guard their degree-awarding powers jealously lest their residential numbers plummet.Ultimately this is out of their control. The top 50 universities will do what they will do - it is a competitive marketplace after all.  There is little doubt that MOOCs will be a significant catalyst for change in the whole structure of Higher Education around the world.

Universities - time to be leaner and fitter?

The news that University applications fall 9% after tuition fee hike (Daily Telegraph 24/10/11) should neither surprise or concern us.

With tuition fees increasing from just under £3,000 p.a. to an average of £8,678 p.a. (Guardian 18/04/11), one would expect to see the reduction in applications. Furthermore, this is unlikely to be a temporary blip: there is little doubt that we are going to see a reduction in the number of young people who are willing to put themselves into significant debt in order to have a university education.

I have believed for a long time that too many young people are going to university. It has taken the recession, graduate unemployment, student debt and now increased tuition fees to focus minds, but the early indications are that we are about to see an important shift in how we view Higher Education. HE is going to contract and, in many cases, it will be driven by the customers, the students, rather than by the suppliers, the universities. Most importantly, young people now are being forced to see university as a time when they are making an investment in themselves. 

  

The Value of a Degree

The value of a degree can be determined by the following three factors:

1. The quality and reputation of the Institution
2. The quality and reputation of the Subject
3. The class of a degree

I welcome the news that University applicants facing tuition fee hike avoid softer subjects (Daily Telegraph 24/10/11). For too long too many young people have not done the research into what advantage their degree will give them. "Softer university subjects such as communication studies and creative arts have seen a drop in applications of up to 40 per cent." - Hurray!  Why should tax-payers subsidise these sort of courses? It is no surprise that we are seeing a shift to the more academic courses at the better institutions. 

Universities are going to have to raise their game too. If students are paying £9k p.a., then they are going to expect to be getting something for their money - cancelled lectures and large tutorial groups, poor lecturer feedback become all the more unacceptable when you are paying personally for it. Students will vote with their feet - well taught courses leading to good jobs will be popular, poorly taught courses with poor employment prospects will not be viable.

Higher Education will consolidate around quality and value.

One of the consequences of the reduction in numbers is that students will gravitate towards quality and value. The top universities will continue to expand, to grow and thrive.  Universities at the lower end of the food chain are going to find it increasingly difficult to fill their places. (This is a phenomenon that we have experienced in the Independent Schools sector during the past twenty years as fees and costs have risen and customers have become better informed.) 
In the long term less successful universities are going to be faced with increased specialism based around niche courses, departments closing, universities merging with other institutions and, in some cases, closure. But before that happens, as with all markets where there is over-supply we are going to see the price fall. This will happen in two ways. First, some institutions will compete on the price of their fees - i.e. by lowering their tuition fee; and secondly, others will reduce their entrance tariff - lowering the entrance requirements for certain courses.

So what does this mean for those young people who will be applying in the next few years? 
Getting a place at a top university is going to be as competitive as ever. Applications to Oxbridge are up this year, and we can anticipate that this will be the case with all of the top 20 universities.

However for weaker pupils who are willing to invest in themselves, it is probably good news. At present it is really difficult to get onto any sort of meaningful degree course with grades less than CCC (= 240 points).  This will change - an A-level candidate with CDD will be able to get onto a significantly better course from Sept 2012, than has been the case during the past couple of years.

How do high achieving "Super People" stand out from the crowd?

Travelling back from a day in London, I enjoyed reading an interesting feature article in yesterday's Evening Standard on "Super People".

Super People "have got qualifications coming out of their ears, speak lots of languages and have been 'prepped' for success by the experts, and are set on landing the very top jobs."

The article explores what it takes for the very best to be literally "outstanding". With competition fiercer than ever for places at top universities and for jobs in top firms, how does one "stand out" from the crowd in a world where so many people get top grades? The simple answer is that they have to shine elsewhere, be that in the skills that they have [languages etc] or in what other things that they have achieved.  The article outlines how coaches can 'prep' Supers so that they can build a CV that will enable them to get the top university place/ job.

However, there is a sting in the tail here - the danger is that such an approach is artificial, not grounded and even counter-productive. As one executive coach candidly admitted,

"the biggest problem with Supers is that they only care about one person - the hospital that they helped build in Africa actually to build their own résumé. The charity work is for them, not for the people they claim they are serving."

A level pupils warned not to rely on resits

Sunday Telegraph Sunday 14th August 2011

'Pupils who do not get the A level grades they need to get onto their chosen university course this week have been warned that they may not be able to make up for it by resitting their exams.

'A growing number of universities now refuse to accept the results of resits or give them less weight than those of candidates who take all their exams at once.'

Full Article

Cambridge University: A-level scores are the best indicator of future degree success

Cambridge University has defended robustly its right to admit students on the basis of merit, without regard to social or educational background. Thus far it has resisted all pressure from Government to alter its admissions procedures to be a vehicle of social mobility. [See 'University is not for promoting social justice, says Cambridge vice-chancellor' Daily Telegraph 10/09/2008] The findings of a recent study conducted by the University Admissions Research Working Party gives support to this approach and to the policy of using AS-level UMS scores as the best predictor of future degree success.

Richard Partington, the report's author commented,

"A Levels - as measured by unit scores or UMS - were overwhelmingly the best indicator available of likely future degree performance. The one exception is for entry in Mathematics, where Cambridge Assessment's STEP exam gave the best indicator of potential."

The study, The Predictive Effectiveness of Metrics in Admission to Cambridge University, analysed the those students who sat Cambridge Tripos examinations in the period 2006-2009. It also found that Cambridge students from state and independent schools are equally likely to enjoy degree success:

"School background and gender did not make a significant difference. Given the same UMS performance at admission, students from different schools and colleges were equally likely to perform well in Cambridge exams in the period 2006-2009."

The study also found that GCSE grades, the preferred measure used by Oxford University, have largely been a less effective predictor than AS UMS. Interestingly, looking to the future, the Working Group are going to analyse the effectiveness of the A* at A-level as a predictor of future Tripos success.

Long may our top universities resist all external pressures to lower their admission standards to meet a social agenda; and long may they continue to admit students on the basis of merit as demonstrated in nationally recognised examinations.

Links:
School background is not a factor in Cambridge degree success Cambridge University News Website 05/04/2011

Teaching our young people that discrimination is OK.

This week, David Willetts, the Universities' Minister, argued that it would be right for Universities to discriminate against pupils with better A-level grades from Independent schools [See "David Willetts: state school students with good A-levels should get preferential treatment" Daily Telegraph 03/04/2011].

I, more than most, have good reason to believe that education is the right vehicle for social mobility; however, I do believe that it needs to be done on the basis of merit. I do not think that the top universities should be forced into lowering their exacting standards to comply with a social engineering agenda of the Government - regardless of its colour.

According to David Willetts:

“If you get an A and two Bs at a school where the average A level grades are a C and 2 Ds, then I think that shows you're achieving something exceptional. Someone who is getting perhaps even better grades, but at a school where everyone gets good grades may not have achieved something so exceptional."

What David Willetts fails to see is that this is not a debate about contextual success, it is about excellence. The ABB pupil may be doing comparatively well in a school where CDD is the norm, but he is not doing anything exceptional by national standards.

Let me move this debate away from the shades of grey comparing ABB pupils in maintained sector schools with AAB candidates in Independent Schools, to the clear territory of discrimination that apparently exists against truly outstanding Independent School pupils.

Take for example the case of one Berkhamsted pupil last year. She had a perfect academic record: 10 A*s at GCSE and was predicted A*A*A* at A-level. She was rejected by four out of five of the universities to whom she applied for English. Now I can understand how someone with such an academic record could fail to gain a place at Oxford, for the Oxbridge Colleges still believe in additional testing and interviews; however I am at a loss as to how she could fail to gain an offer from the University of Leeds on the basis of her UCAS form alone. How many A*A*A* applicants does the English Faculty at Leeds get each year? What can justify their standard offer of AAB, if they can reject A*A*A* candidates without an interview?

A-levels [or the other equivalent school leaving qualifications, such as the IB] are the recognised national measure of the preparedness of a given pupil for university. An A-level candidate who has a AAB is clearly not as well prepared for university as a candidate who has achieved A*A*A*, regardless of social background and previous educational opportunities. If Universities are to apply other criteria to their admissions process, they need to be transparent about the criteria which they use. But sadly, they are not being so.

Let us be clear where this will lead. If institutionalised discrimination against Independent School candidates becomes the Government-sanctioned norm, there will be legal challenges by individual pupils against this policy. The basis of the challenge is likely to be along the following lines:

It is parents who choose to send their children to Independent Schools. It is not the applicant's fault that he or she had a socially advantageous background or went to an Independent School. It is wholly discriminatory for a University to discriminate against a given applicant on the basis of the socio-economic background of their parents or because of a decision about schooling their parents made a number of years earlier. So long as the university admissions criteria remain based on the candidate's academic record, the applicant who has the better grades should have the right to that place on merit, regardless of their social or educational background.

There are Human Rights issues here and I suspect that it won't be long before the Courts will be asked to rule on this one.

If Universities take up David Willetts' exhortation then we are simply teaching our young people that discrimination is acceptable in this country.

A* at A-level: Time for "fair" access?

It was always going to happen. I couldn't believe that the last Government, with its overt social-engineering agenda, introduced it. On the eve of its first award, its likely impact is beginning to dawn. The introduction of the A* at A-level was always going to be divisive. After all, to allow top sixth formers to demonstrate that they are better than most of the 25% of their peers who get A grades, is fundamentally divisive.

To achieve an A* at A-level the candidate has to score over 90% on the A2 [Upper Sixth - Y13] component of the course - almost universally recognised to be the more demanding part of A-level. Thus, the introduction of the A* should make a positive contribution to identifying our Nation's academic elite and thus provide a mechanism by which our most prestigious universities can award places on the basis of merit.

To date, universities have been very cautious about using the A* as part of their offers. This is understandable given that many admissions tutors are primarily concerned with filling their quotas and thus are nervous about the impact of any change to the A-level system lest it flood them with successful candidates, or scare good applicants away. For the 2010 entry only Cambridge, Bristol, Imperial and UCL of the Russell Group universities gave offers that included the A*. The standard offer at Cambridge was A*AA, with the occasional maverick Cambridge admission tutor asking for A*A*A of borderline candidates.

However, going forward, one would expect universities to embrace the A* as a differentiating qualification for their most prestigious, oversubscribed courses. Imperial are reported to be intending to make some A*A*A offers next year, but wider picture is that many top universities are that many are reluctant to use the A*.

Sir Martin Harris, director of the government's Office for Fair Access, said the new grade could strengthen private schools' hold on elite universities.

"Grade inflation in university entry requirements and the fact that A-level A* grades are disproportionately achieved in the independent and selective schools does increase the risk that the brightest disadvantaged young people may be squeezed out of the applicant pool for the most selective universities. Universities need to be aware of this when considering fair access."
[Quoted in Fears for state pupils as top universities insist on A* at A-level Guardian 02/08/2010]

This begs the whole question as to what is, and what is not, "fair access" to university. Whilst it might be "fair" to favour a university applicant from a Maintained sector school over an equally qualified one from an Independent School, I am not sure that it will ever be "fair" to take a less qualified one. At some point we have to recognise that the best are the best regardless of the sector in which they were educated.

If universities are going to persist in social engineering, they need to be open about so doing and their criteria for discriminating between candidates from different educational backgrounds need to be transparent and published. In time, there should be a degree of suspicion over any university that rejects the use of the A* as a discriminator between candidates.

Given that most institutions do not interview candidates and most say that they pay little regard to either the personal statement or the reference, then predicted or actual grades are the most important, if not sole, criterion for selection or rejection. If universities reject good candidates from Independent schools in favour of weaker candidates from the Maintained sector, I can foresee the situation where unsuccessful applicants with top A-level grades make legal challenges against those institutions which reject them. Indeed, I am not sure that we will ever get "fair access" to university until we have "blind" UCAS applications where the educational and social background of the applicant are not known to the institution considering the form.

The introduction of the A* at A-level is an opportunity to move towards an admission system that is based on merit - let us hope that the universities embrace it fully.

What is University for? Part Two: A view from the past

In my previous blogpost, I opened up the debate about whether University is about receiving an education to a degree level, or an opportunity to have a life experience of moving away from home to living and studying with other young people.

In his Idea of a University, John Henry Newman argues that the very experience of living in a community of scholars is its the greatest educator, regardless of the curriculum or examination structure:

I protest to you, Gentlemen, that if I had to choose between a so-called University, which dispensed with residence and tutorial superintendence, and gave its degrees to any person who passed an examination in a wide range of subjects; and a University which had no professors or examinations at all, but merely brought a number of young men together for three or four years and then sent them away; if I were asked which of these two methods was the better discipline of the intellect … [and] if I must determine which of the two courses was the more successful in training, moulding, enlarging the mind, which sent out men the more fitted for their secular duties, which produced better public men, men of the world, men whose names would descend to posterity, I have no hesitation in giving the preference to that University which did nothing, over that which exacted of its members an acquaintance with every science under the sun.

Idea of a University, 1852 Discourse VII; pp 232-3

What is University for? Part One: Time to rethink?

Twenty five years ago University was for an elite which only about 7% of the experienced; now it is much more accessible with between 20% and 30% "participating in Higher Education" depending on how you define the term.

The decade 1999 to 2009 saw a 44% rise in the number of applicants to UK Universities that were accepted onto a course [Source: UCAS statistics: 1999 - 334,594; 2009 - 481,854]. This expansion of Higher Education has led to a number of changes in the student demographic: 11% of University applicants accepted onto undergraduate courses are now over the age of 25. More students are living at home. Course are modular, flexible and transportable: with students studying for part of their course in one institution and then moving to another to complete their course.

I know of one young graduate of ICT Networks and Web Design who did the first two years of his degree at evening classes at the local FE college before going away to the University of the West of England to do his final year. This trend of mix'n'match degrees is set to expand as young people weigh up the costs of going away to university.

This model throws an interesting light on the question What is University for?

On the one hand, University is about receiving an education to a degree level. As such it has been the entrance qualifications to the professions. On the other, it is an opportunity to have a life experience of moving away from home to live in a community with other young people. It is a formative experience - a "life-building" experience.

The young ICT graduate took a pragmatic and more affordable step of distilling these two aspects. It may be that, in the present economic climate, the time has come to consider the three-year life-experience away from home a luxury for which students should be expected to pay. Here is a model that will enable a greater participation in Higher Education without the Government and students alike running up ever more debt.

The decline of the Degree as an academic qualification?

The news that more than half the applicants accepted onto places at British universities do not have A-levels [Sunday Times 11/04/2010] is yet another symptom of a most worrying trend in British education - the erosion of academic excellence. There was a time, not so long ago, when a degree meant something - it marked out a certain level of academic achievement, but no more.

Whilst the headline figure is rather more sensational than the underlying statistics allow - few would question the academic rigour of Scottish Highers and the International Baccalaureate - the blurring of the vocational and academic divide is unwelcome. Don't get me wrong, I support fully that there is a vocational structure of BTEC and National Diploma that runs in parallel to the academic structure of A-levels, IB, Pre-U et al. What I what is a transparent qualification system and not one where vocational courses in "universities" are given the cloak of academic respectability by being awarded the status of a degree.

The nature of vocational qualifications at KS5 is that they do not provide the academic foundation to progress onto academic degrees, and thus it is unsurprising that the vast majority of students accepted onto courses at top universities, such as the Russell Group, are still doing A-level [IB is still accounts for a very small proportion of applicants]. It is thus a travesty that many Maintained sector schools are abandoning academic qualifications at KS5 in order to improve their league table positions. However what is clear is that it falls to Independent Schools and the top universities to be the guardians of the Nation's academic standards.

One unintended consequence of this Government's higher education policy increasing the number of those participating in Higher Education has been to make where one is educated more important than ever before.

Time for a more rigorous University admissions process? - Letter to the Daily Telegraph

Unpublished letter to the Daily Telegraph

Sir,
“The Government is committed to ensuring that entry to university is determined by aptitude, potential and merit, not where a student was educated” ["University bias hits private straight-A students" Daily Telegraph 13/02/10].

If we are going to lay a greater emphasis on "aptitude or potential" over and above "merit", then there needs to be a more rigorous university entrance system with transparent, objective criteria on which to base their decisions. Without a system, such as that practised by Oxford and Cambridge colleges, where all serious applicants are interviewed and most are tested further as part of the application process, it is difficult to understand how an A-level student with straight-A* predictions at A-level can be rejected. How can a university evaluate a candidate's aptitude or potential solely on the basis of what is written on a UCAS form?

Mark S Steed
Principal, Berkhamsted School
Berkhamsted, Herts

University bias - Time for a more rigorous University admissions process?

"University bias hits private straight-A students" proclaims the Daily Telegraph headline.

The present situation was summed up last week by a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who said,

"Although admissions are rightly a matter for individual institutions, the Government is committed to ensuring that entry to university is determined by aptitude, potential and merit, not where a student was educated.”

Sadly, this has Lord Mandleson's fingerprints all over it, and I think that we all know where he stands on this one.

If we are going to lay a greater emphasis on "aptitude or potential" over and above "merit", then there need to be transparent, objective criteria so to do. Professor Steve Smith, the Vice Chancellor of Exeter University and the President of Universities UK, talks of a "duty" on admissions tutors to identify good students with poorer grades. May I suggest that, if this is going to be the direction that it forced on them by the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills, then universities go to greater trouble than they are at present doing? Perhaps they should take a leaf out of the Oxford and Cambridge admissions book:

Not every top student can be awarded a place at Oxford and Cambridge. These ancient institutions have a long history of sifting through applications from the nation's top students. Their procedures are far more rigorous than nearly all other universities in that they still interview all the candidates who have a realistic chance of gaining a place. What is more, in many subjects they still give tests at interview, and they run an efficient "pool" system to ensure that a top candidate is not overlooked just because he or she has applied to a College where there is a particularly strong field. I am happy to trust their system - my experience is they usually get it right.

We need a transparent and more rigorous admissions process if our universities are going to evaluate aptitude, potential and merit properly. How can a university evaluate a candidate's aptitude or potential solely on the basis of what is written on a UCAS form? It is impossible to understand how an A-level student with predictions of A*A*A* at A-level can be rejected outright by a university without being interviewed or undergoing some other written test, yet nearly every Independent School can give you at least one example. The only explanation seems to be that these universities either are not interested in excellence, or that they are fundamentally prejudiced against candidates from Independent Schools.

Ultimately this debate begs the question as to how far we take this argument for special pleading - we don't expect those responsible for the Government's civil service entry to lower their graduate recruitment criteria, so why should we expect our universities to do so?

More
Eton boys have less potential than talented comprehensive pupils Sunday Telegraph 14/02/2010

Getting into university just got harder - but is that really a bad thing?

Today's publication of the application statistics by UCAS, the UK university admissions service, will not make pleasant reading for this year's school leavers.

Applications have increased by 106,389, up some 22.9% on 2009 figures. This means that almost half a million UK-based and over 70,000 overseas applicants have applied for university places this year. This increase in applications combined with with the inevitable forthcoming cuts in higher education funding mean that universities are going to be much more selective.

On one level, this is arguably a very good thing. Sadly, the Government's noble aspiration to widen university participation has led to a dilution in standards in teaching at university and of graduate quality. With a university population at over two million and growing, we have too many people in Higher Education. The result is that a degree is no longer a mark of being an educated person or a ticket to a job, let alone entry to the professions. Too many people have been sold a hollow dream of a "graduate premium", many of them dropping out before the end of the course, leaving, not with a degree, only with a debt. The ambition that 50% of young people would "participate in Higher Education" was a flawed concept from the start. The new found selectivity marks the end of the indiscriminate increase in university numbers. Sadly, it has taken the economic downturn to bring the Government to its senses.

It is no surprise that these data also indicate that getting into a top university just got harder. Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of 20 leading universities, said competition for places would be tougher than ever.

"Most Russell Group institutions have the same number of places available as last year and are making the same number of offers but applications have risen in most cases, by between 3% and 18%."

This is further bad news for this year's A-level candidates. In this context of mass university participation, the worth of a degree is matrix of three key factors, namely, where you go, what you study and how well you do.

Understandably places at Russell Group universities are highly sought after. It is thus all the more important that they give offers on the basis of merit, regardless of social or educational background. If the offers that are coming back here at Berkhamsted are anything to go by, it is encouraging that a number of these institutions are beginning to embrace the new A* at A-level as a key differentiator between top applicants - long may this continue.

University applications up 23% BBC Website 08/02/2010
University admissions: students being 'abandoned' Daily Telegraph 08/02/2010
University admissions commentary: places must rise to boost the 'fragile' economy Daily Telegraph 08/02/2010

So what is so wrong with an elite?

Letter to the Daily Telegraph

Sir,
In nearly every area of life an elite based on quality is taken for granted, even encouraged. The millions who follow Premiership football each week have no problem with "elitism" - it is a given. So why has elitism has become a dirty word when it comes to education [Universities to shun new 'elitist' A* grades - Daily Telegraph 20/12/09]? Surely our top universities should need no encouragement to accept the best students, regardless of their social or educational background. All that the introduction of the A* at A-level is going to achieve is to highlight the injustice of Government intervention in the university entrance system.

Mark S Steed
Principal, Berkhamsted School
Berkhamsted, Herts

See also
Universities dismiss new top A-level as unfair to state pupils Times 20/12/09

Oxbridge - universities for the best or open to all?

A report entitled Oxford and Cambridge - how different are they? by The Higher Education Policy Institute has reopened the debate about whether our top universities should admit students on academic merit or whether they should become vehicles for social engineering. The HEPI conclude that Oxford and Cambridge explicitly should aim to achieve the “best social and ethnic mix” to ensure their student populations are more balance.

Commenting on the report’s findings, Bahram Bekhradnia, HEPI’s Director, said:

“In terms of the nature of their student bodies, our study reveals, as is well-known, that these are notably skewed in favour of independently educated and better off students, but the report’s findings confirm that this is because of academic, not social, selection and is the result of the unequal outcomes of this country's school system.

“Nevertheless, there is some evidence to suggest that Oxford and Cambridge admit more independent school pupils than is warranted and that their insistence that they will not engage in social engineering but will make decisions about admissions on purely academic grounds leaves them vulnerable to the charge of social elitism. There seems no reason why Oxford and Cambridge should not take a leaf out of the book of some of the great American universities which are explicit that they aim to achieve the best social and ethnic mix they can while always insisting on the highest academic standards."

If there is to be wider social participation and access to Oxbridge then the obvious way to achieve this is to encourage schools in the Maintained sector to raise their game for their most able pupils. Ed Balls needs to replace the present system of judging the success of a school that is based on the lowest common denominator with a more sophisticated metric. A system of League tables and performance criteria which focuses on ensuring that each pupil achieves 5 passes A*-C at GCSE [including passes in Maths and English] only encourages schools to devote their resources to the C/D boundary. We cannot expect the maintained sector to achieve excellence where this is the case. Instead there needs to be a greater recognition of those schools who do stretch their top end to achieve high levels of A and A* pupils.

But Schools being encouraged to stretch the brightest pupils is not sufficient, for the GCSE examination system itself no longer provides the academic rigour required to stimulate young minds. Ed Balls' refusal to allow the Maintained sector to pursue the iGCSE route mitigates against academic excellence.

What I find staggering about the DCFS' approach is that there is an unwillingness to learn from the many examples of best practice that are sitting under its very nose. Sadly the Government seems to want to dumb down the education system and to undermine the success of Independent Schools, which are universally acknowledged as the best schools in the world [Pisa Survey].

Why are we so afraid of academic elites in this country? and why should we be surprised that British independent schools should send a high proportion of pupils to our top two universities?

Oxford and Cambridge - how different are they? Executive Summary HEPI 19/11/2009
Oxbridge 'still dominated by social elite' Daily Telegraph 19/11/2009
Simon Heffer's column: "Oxbridge is clearly guilty of pursuing excellence" 20/11/2009

Independent School pupils still dominate places at top universities

Despite accusations that the Government is putting increased pressure on universities to widen access, Independent School pupils are still winning places at top universities.

Independent school pupils are still dominating entrance to Russell Group Universities. Among the top ten universities only Oxford, University College London and Exeter have decreased their proportion of independent school pupils since 2003; the rest have all experienced increases of between 0.3 and 6.6 per cent.

Daily Telegraph article: Private Schools increase grip on top universities
Daily Telegraph article: Oxford 'should resist social engineering'

Is going to University worth it?

When five percent of the population went to university, being a graduate meant something. Today, the value of a degree is measured by the combination of the three factors: the quality of the course, the status of the institution and the class of the degree. Of these, you need at least two out of three to make it.

Sadly, too many young people are being wooed to read meaningless courses at institutions that are more concerned with funding than teaching. They are being sold a dream of a graduate premium that simply will not be there for them.

One of the positive aspects of student loans for university tuition fees is that it forces young people to invest in themselves by making a financial commitment to their studies. A prudent sixth former should research the employment rates for their chosen course weigh those up against the living and tuition costs that they are going to incur. Furthermore I expect students to demand better value for money from their universities in terms of the teaching and learning that they have to offer.

Elitism is not a dirty word in Education

Interesting Editorial in the Daily Telegraph on education

"... the problem lies not in the universities, but in the state-school system. Because of the failure of the "bog-standard comprehensives", to use a phrase coined by Alastair Campbell, the percentage of state-school students at Cambridge is lower than in 1980. Within the high-flying Russell Group of universities, the intake from independent schools is hugely disproportionate and, among state-school students, England's 164 surviving grammar schools are similarly over-represented.

What, then, to do? Yes, we could pack the universities with poorly performing students in the name of "fairness". Yet Britain's leading universities have evolved over centuries to world-class standards. To vandalise that national asset would be a mortal blow, leaving us hopelessly uncompetitive. Elitism is not a dirty word: it is the precondition for meritocracy. Lord Mandelson knows that; but he is playing pre-election politics.

The Government's overriding concern should not be those few institutions that are succeeding, but the many that are not. Instead, we have an education policy predicated upon the same prejudices as the Hunting Act. A future Tory government must not be inhibited by self-consciousness about its leaders' Bullingdon background. It must implement reforms that rebuild the ladder of opportunity for gifted students from poor backgrounds, and so secure Britain's place in a globalised, highly skilled and meritocratic world."

I believe that, despite the end of the Assisted Places Scheme, that independent schools will continue to have an important part to play in 'rebuilding the ladder of opportunity for gifted pupils from poor backgrounds'. The Independent Schools Council would do the sector a great service if it were to research the number of pupils from poor backgrounds at Oxford and Cambridge - and the Russell Group universities - who have been educated in independent Schools. I would not be surprised if the independent sector has given more young people from humble backgrounds the opportunity to go on to top universities than the whole of the comprehensive school system.

Click here to read the DT editorial in full