Unconscious Bias Report

2016

1

Executivesummary

AsProfessorStevenSchwartzstatedinhislandmarkreport‘FairAdmissionstoHigherEducation’(2004)‘afairadmissionssystemisonethatprovidesequalopportunityforallindividuals,regardlessofbackground,togainadmissiontoacoursesuitedtotheirabilityandaspirations.’

Ashighereducationproviders(HEPs)areresponsiblefortheirownadmissionspoliciesandprocesses,thechallengeistoensurethatadmissionsare,andareseentobe,fairforallstudents.

Inresponsetoconcernsaboutpersistentobserveddifferencesintheheadlineofferratestodifferentethnicgroups,theGovernmentaskedUCAStoconsultwiththeHEsectoraboutthefeasibilityofintroducingname-blindapplications,recognisingthatthisapproachhasbeenusedsuccessfullytoaddresstherisksofbiasingraduaterecruitment.

Inapproachingthistask,wehavelookedatthechangingnatureoftheundergraduateadmissionsmarketandtheevidenceofbiasinadmissionstoHE,examinedhowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbias–incomparisonwithothercountriesandgraduaterecruiters–andhavesoughtfeedbackfromHEPsaboutdifferentmodelsforintroducingname-blindapplications.

Inplacingthisworkintocontextit’srelevanttohighlightthecomplexityoftheadmissionslandscape.HEPs’decision-makingprocessesarecloselycoupledwithinstitutionalmissions,andassuchpoliciesandpracticesvarybetweenproviders.Forexample,applicationprocessingandadmissionsdecision-makingisundertakencentrallyatsomeproviders,andinadistributedwaybyacademicsinschools,departmentsorfacultiesatothers.MixedmodelsoperateinmanyHEPstoaccommodatethedifferentadmissionsrequirementsofcertainsubjects,andadmissionsfordomesticandinternationalstudentsareoftenhandledseparately.

WhenUCASprovidesdataandinformationfromstudents’applicationstoHEPs,thedataandinformationfromapplicationforms,referencesandcontextualdataistypicallytransferredintouniversities’admissionsorstudentrecordssystems,andisusedformultiplepurposes.Inadditiontoadmissionsdecision-making,datamaybeusedtocontactstudentstoofferservicesandsupport,determinefeestatus,ortoverifyqualificationsandotherinformation.Theseprocessesoftenruninparallelwithadmissionsdecision-makingtospeedthetimefromreceiptofapplicationtoaninitialdecision.

OursurveyofHEPsfoundthatalmostallareveryawareoftherisksofbiasinadmissionsdecision-making,andemployawidevarietyofgoodpractice,includinghavingandapplyingclearadmissionscriteria,ensuringthatmorethanonepersonisinvolvedindecision-making,andrequiringequalityanddiversitytraining.Therearealsoanumberofsafeguardsbuiltintotheadmissionsprocessitself,asUCASdoesnotshareinformationaboutapplicants’ethnicity,religion,sexualorientation,genderidentity,parentaleducationandparentaloccupationwithHEPs,untilafteradmissionsdecisionshavebeenmadeorwhenthecyclehasclosed.

Withafallingnumberof18yearoldsinthepopulationandpressuresoninternationalstudentrecruitment,HEPsareinamarketwhichencouragesstudentrecruitment,andactstocounterrisksofbias.Thisisreflectedinincreasinglevelsofoffer-makingtoallstudentgroups.Forexample,in2015,93percentofstudentswhoappliedbefore30June,andmadefiveapplicationchoices,receivedatleastoneoffer.

2

Additionally,UCAS’analysisonoffer-makingandofferratesbyethnicgroupfindsnoevidenceofsystemicbiasintheadmissionssystem,althoughwedididentifyanumberofinstanceswhereofferratestocertaingroupswereoutsideofwhatmightbeexpected,ifoffersweremadesolelyonthebasisofpredictedgradesandthecourseappliedto.Inexaminingthepotentialforintroducingname-blindapplicationsUCAShasexploredtwooptionswithHEPsandHEtechnologyvendors:amodelwhereUCASwithholdsinformationsuchasapplicants’namescentrally,andamodelwhereHEPscanmaskinformationlocallyfromthoseindividualsinvolveddirectlyinadmissionsmakingdecisions.IntheirfeedbackHEPswereconcernedthatifUCASwastomasknamescentrally,thiscouldaffecttheirabilitytodevelopandmaintainrelationshipswithprospectivestudents,hamperverificationactivities,andundermineeffortstowidenparticipation.Equally,technologyvendorsindicatedthatsuchanapproachwouldrequireredevelopmentoftheirsoftwareproducts,ontopoflocalimplementationrequirementsatHEPs.AmoreattractivesolutionisforHEPstoemployaname-blindapproachatlocallevel.Thiscouldenableapplicantcommunications,verificationandwideningparticipationsupportactivitiestooperateeffectively,whilstwithholdingnamesfromthoseindividualsinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making.However,thistoowouldrequireredevelopmentbyanumberofthemajorHEtechnologyvendorsaswellaslocalprocessre-engineeringandimplementation.AllHEPsrecognisetheimportanceofdemonstratingthattheiradmissionspracticesarefairandtransparent.Ourevidencegatheringexercisegeneratedagroundswellofcommitmenttoimproveandextendunconsciousbiastrainingtoallindividualsinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making,andtoidentifyandpromotegoodpracticeinminimisingtherisksofbias.Toinvestigatetheextenttowhichaname-blindapproachcouldcomplementtheseactivitiesweareencouragingHEPstorunname-blindprojectstoevaluatedifferentapproaches,andidentifythechallengesandcostsofwiderimplementation.Inaddition,UCASwilldevelopaninformation-maskingcapabilityforthoseproviderswhouseitsweb-linkservicetosupporttheiradmissionsmanagement.Wealsorecommendfurtherresearchintounderstandingifthereisbiasinadmissions,andencourageHEPstoregularlyscrutinisetheirownoffer-makingandadmissionsdata,andaddressanyunexplaineddifferencesbetweenexpectedandobservedoutcomes.WeareextremelygratefultoalloftheHEPs,technologysuppliers,andstakeholdersintheUKandoverseaswhohavesharedtheirviewsandinsightwithus.InparticularwewouldliketothankSupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA)forundertakingaliteraturereviewontheevidencebaseforname-blindapplications.UCASAugust2016

3

Contents1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42. UCAS’evidencegatheringexercise……………………………………………………………………………………43. Findingsfromtheevidencegatheringexercise………………………………………………………………….53.1 Theundergraduateadmissionsmarket……………………………………………………………………………..53.2 Theevidenceofbiasinhighereducationadmissions…………………………………………………………73.3 HowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbias……………………………………………………………………10 3.4 HowHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbias…………………………………………………………103.5 Comparisonswithemployeerecruitment…………………………………………………………………………113.6 Evidencegatheringonthepotentialfeasibilityofname-blindapplications………………………114. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………145. Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 6.AppendixA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18

4

UNCONSCIOUSBIASINADMISSIONSTOHIGHEREDUCATION:EVIDENCEGATHERINGONTHEUSEOFNAME-BLINDAPPLICATIONS1. Introduction

Joiningadiversestudentbodyisanessentialpartofthehighereducation(HE)experienceintheUK.Beingpartofastudentcommunitydrawnfromabroadrangeofbackgroundsencouragesstudentstoexploreandunderstandwhyothersholddifferentopinionsandperspectives,andtolearnhowtoexamineandsolveproblemsindifferentways–essentialskillsforemploymentandcitizenship.Giventherangeofcareersandemploymentopportunitiesadegreeopensup,andthefinancial,social,andwellbeingbenefitsofhavingstudiedatahigherlevel,itisimportantthatopportunitiesareopentoallwiththepotentialtosucceed.Assuch,universitiesandcollegesmakesignificanteffortstoensuretheiradmissionspoliciesarefairandtransparent,andgiveallapplicantswhocandemonstratetheyhavethepotentialanequalopportunitytosecureaplace,regardlessoftheirbackground,sex,orethnicity.However,thereareconcernsingovernmentthatwell-qualifiedpeoplearenotgettingoffersfromuniversitiesandcollegesbecauseofbiasinhighereducationadmissions.TheRtHonDavidCameronMP,whenPrimeMinister,raisedconcernsinaGuardianarticleinOctober2015aboutthedisparityinofferratestoblackandwhiteapplicants.Henoted:‘Thereasonsarecomplex,butunconsciousbiasisclearlyarisk’.Thegovernmentnotedthatresearch,primarilyfromtheUnitedStates,showedthatwherethereappearedtobeevidenceofbiasinemployeerecruitment,usinganame-blindstrategycouldhelpemployersbuildamorediverseworkforce.Asaresult,thegovernmentannouncedthatacohortofmajoremployers–includingtheBBC,NHS,Deloitte,andKPMG–wouldbeimplementingname-blindrecruitmentsystems.ThegovernmentthereforeaskedUCAStoconsultwiththeHEsectoraboutthefeasibilityofintroducingname-blindapplicationstoHE.Thiswouldinvolvemaskinganapplicant’snameduringtheinitialstageoftheadmissionsprocess,priortomakingadecisionaboutwhetherornottoinvitesomeonetoaninterviewortomakethemanoffer,asapotentialmeansforreducingtheriskofbias.Thisreportpresentsthefindingsfromthisevidencegatheringexercise,andmakesanumberofrecommendationsfortakingthisworkforwardandaddressingtherisksofbiasinadmissionstoHE.2. UCAS’evidencegatheringexerciseThroughacomprehensiveliteraturereview1undertakenbySupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA),anationalsurveyofuniversitiesandcolleges,onlinefocusgroups,stakeholderdiscussions,andworkshopswithhighereducationproviders(HEPs),UCAShassoughtfeedbackfromuniversitiesand

1SupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA)istheindependentandobjectivevoiceonUKHEadmissions.SPApromotesprofessionalism,fairadmissions,andaccesstoHEbydevelopingandleadingonevidence-basedgoodpracticeintherecruitmentandselectionofstudents.SPA’sname-blindevidencereportcanbefoundatwww.spa.ac.uk/resources/name-blind-applications.

5

collegesandtheirtechnologysuppliersaboutintroducinganame-blindapproachtoadmissions.Alongsidethis,UCAShassoughtfeedbackonhowHEPsalreadyseektominimisetherisksofunconsciousbiasinadmissions,andexploredwaysofstrengtheningthis.120HEPstookpartinthesurveyandtheresultsfromthis,togetherwithfeedbackfromstakeholdersandtechnologysuppliers,aresetoutinthisreport.Itcovers:• theundergraduateadmissionsmarket• theevidenceforbiasinadmissions• howUKHEPsminimiserisksofbias• howHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbias• comparisonswithemployeerecruitment• thefindingsoftheevidencegatheringfromHEPsandHEtechnologyvendors• conclusions• recommendations

3. Findingsfromtheevidencegatheringexercise3.1 TheundergraduateadmissionsmarketSincetheremovalofstudentnumbercontrolsinEngland,HEPshavehadtheabilitytorecruitasmanyundergraduatestudentsastheywant,asidefromtocourseswherenumbersremainregulated(suchNHSprofession-basedcoursesandveterinaryscience),andsubjecttopracticalconstraintsonteaching,laboratoryandperformancespace,studentfacilities,andaccommodation.Many,althoughnotall,HEPshavesoughttotakeadvantageofthisfreedomtogrowtheirstudentnumbers,increasingthecompetitionforwell-qualifiedstudents.CoupledwithfallingAlevelattainmentanddemographicchanges,thishascreatedanenvironmentwhereamajorityofHEPsareactivelyrecruitingstudentstoamajorityoftheircourses.Typically,thismeansthatstudentsapplyingtothesecourses,whomeettheirminimumentrycriteriaintermsofpredictedgrades,willgetanoffer.Italsomeansthatprovidersaremoreabletoacceptmore‘nearmiss’students,contextualiseoffers,andofferstudentsaplaceonanalternativecourseorfoundationprogrammeifthecoursethestudenthasappliedtoisoversubscribed,orthestudentdoesnotsecureanofferofaplace.Whileallcoursesatasmallnumberofhighertariffuniversitiesarecompetitive,selectivityisnotthepreserveofthehighertariffproviders.Acrossallkindsofuniversitiesandcolleges,selectionoperateswhere:• numbersremaincappedinspecificsubjects(NHSprofession-basedprogrammesandveterinary

science)• professionalbodiesrequirethedemonstrationofspecifictraitsorcompetenciesforadmission(NHS

profession-basedcourses,psychology,physiotherapy,andsocialwork,forexample)• therearespecificdegreeprogrammeswhicharehighlyspecialistand/orhighlyvaluedbygraduate

employersEvidenceforthiscomesfromUCAS’offer-makinganalysis.In2015,thetotalnumberofoffersmadetomainschemeapplicants(thoseapplyingonorbefore30June)increasedby81,000(+4.5percent)to1.9

6

million,thehighestnumberrecorded.Thiscontinuesthetrendseensince2013ofanincreasingnumberofoffersmadeeachyear.Thenumberofoffersmadetoapplicantswhoreceivedoffersforallfiveoftheirchoicesincreasedby41,200(+6percent),andthetotalnumberofoffersmadetoapplicantswithfourorfiveoffersreachedarecordhighat1.3million2.Thismeantthatin2015,93percentofmainschemeapplicantswhomadefivechoicesreceivedatleastoneoffer,and56percentoftheseapplicantsreceivedfourorfiveoffers3.Overall,in2015,offerratestoUK18yearoldapplicantsfromEnglishprovidersincreasedto78percent(+0.9percentagepoints),thehighestlevelrecorded4.Theseincreasesinoffer-makingareasaresultofHEPsmakingmoreofferstoensuretheyrecruitsufficientnumbersofstudents.ThiscanbeseeninthehighofferratelevelsseeninthetransparencydatapublishedbyUCASinJune2016,withtheofferrateatmostproviderstypicallyinthe70to80percentrangefor18yearoldUKapplicants5.Table1:2015OfferratestoUKdomiciledmainschemeapplicantsbytariffgroup

For18yearoldapplicantswhoapplywithAlevelresultspending,itispossibletolookatofferratesbytheprofileoftheirpredictedgrades.ThedataforthemostableEnglishdomiciledapplicants,whowilllargelybeapplyingtohighertariffproviders,showsthatofferratevariesconsiderablybypredictedgradeprofile.Forexamplein2015,applicantspredictedAABhadanofferrateof88.1percent,higherthanthosepredictedABB(86.3percent),orBBB(84percent).However,applicantswithhigherpredictedgradeshadalowerofferrate,withthosepredictedthreeA*shavinganofferrateof79percent,andthosepredictedA*A*A,anofferrateof77.7percent,reflectingcompetitionforthemosthighlyselectivecourses6.Despitecompetitionforplacesamongthemostable,almostallwillreceiveatleastoneoffer.In2015,99.7%ofEnglish18yearoldAlevelstudentspredictedtoachievethreeA*sreceivedatleastoneoffer,with98.5%ofstudentspredictedBBBreceivingatleastoneoffer7.

2Figure24UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.3Figure26UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.4Figure28UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleRepot2015.5Source:www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/ucas-undergraduate-reports-sex-area.6Figure32UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.7Figure33UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.

2015offerrate AllUKmainschemeapplicants

18yearoldUKmainschemeapplicants

Highertariff 63.0% 73.3%Mediumtariff 66.5% 77.5%Lowertariff 67.6% 79.6%

7

3.2 TheevidenceofbiasinhighereducationadmissionsChangesintheundergraduateadmissionsmarkethavecreatedanenvironmentwheremanyprovidersareincentivisedtomakemoreoffers,andaredoingso.Thisreducesthelikelihoodofbiassincetheimperativeistofillplaceswithstudentswhohavetheabilitytocompletethecourse.Asaconsequence,thenumberofUKstudentsadmittedtoHEhasincreasedsince2012.Againstthisbackground,entryrateshaveincreasedforallethnicgroups,reachingtheirhighestrecordedlevelsin2015.However,therearelargedifferencesinentryratestoHEbyethnicityfor18yearoldEnglishschoolstudents.Since2006,theBlackethnicgrouphasrecordedthelargestincreaseinentryrates,risingfrom20.9percentin2006to36.7percentin2015,aproportionalincreaseof75percent.Bycomparison,entryratesforyoungpeoplefromtheWhiteandBlackethnicgroupswereequivalentin2007,at22.2percentand22.5percentrespectively.However,by2015,theentryratefortheWhitegrouphadincreasedto27.8%,aproportionalincreaseof25percent.Today,theWhitegrouphasthelowestentryrateofallethnicgroups8.Thereisadifferentpatternathighertariffproviders.Whileentryratesarehighlydifferentiatedbyethnicity,andtheentryratesfromtheChineseethnicgrouparethehighest(26.5percent),thelowestentryratestohighertariffprovidersaretheBlackethnicgroupat5.6percentin2015.TheentryratefortheWhiteethnicgroupis8.1percent,thesecondlowest.YoungpeoplerecordedintheBlackethnicgrouphavehadthelargestproportionalincreaseinentryratestohighertariffprovidersovertheperiod,increasingfrom2.9percentin2006to5.6percentin2015,aproportionalincreaseof95percent.Despitethis,theentryratefortheBlackethnicgroupremains2.5percentagepointslowerthantheWhiteethnicgroupathighertariffproviders9.FurtheranalysisshowsthatthisdifferencereflectsAlevelattainment,sincethepatternofentrytohighertariffprovidersforEnglish18yearoldstateschoolstudentsbyethnicity,mirrorsthepatternofentryforthesamegroupbyAlevelattainmentatABBorabove.Forexamplein2015,theentryratefortheWhiteethnicgroupholdingABB+was7.8percent,andtheBlackethnicgroupwas4.5percent10.Otherfactorssuchascombinationofsubjectsandgrades,admissionstests,interviews,andcontextualfactors,mayalsoplayapartinentrytoHE.UCAShaslookedindetailatoffer-makingto18yearoldAlevelapplicantsbyethnicgroupathighertariffprovidersforboththe15Octoberand15Januarydeadlines(overtheperiod2010to2015).CourseswithanOctoberdeadlinearebytheirnaturehighlycompetitive,coveringallprogrammesattheuniversitiesofOxfordandCambridge,andapplicationstostudymedicine,dentistry,andveterinaryscience.Whiletherearemanyfactorswhichmayinfluencethedecisionofwhetherornottoofferanapplicantaplace,suchasrelevancyofsubjectstoentryrequirements,thetwodominantfactorsaretheirpredictedgradesandthecoursetheyhaveappliedto.DifferentgroupsofapplicantswiththesamepredictedAlevelgradesmaymakedifferentpatternsofcoursechoices.Thiscanresultingroupsreceivingverydifferent

8Figure88UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.9Figure92UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.10Figure93UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.

8

levelsofactualofferrates,mostlyreflectingtheirparticularcombinationsofcourses,andstrengthofpredictedgrades.RecentUCASanalysisenablesacomparisonbetweentheactualofferratestodifferentethnicgroupstotheofferratewhichmightbeexpectedgivenapplicants’predictedgradesandthecourse(s)appliedto.Observeddifferencesbetweentheactualofferrateforagroupandtheaverageofferraterepresentadifferenceinoffer-making,specifictothatgroup,whichcannotbeaccountedforbythechoicesmadebythatgroupandthestrengthoftheirpredictedgrades.Table2:SummaryanalysisofofferratestoOctoberdeadlineapplicantsfromtheUCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(highpredictedgradeAlevelapplicantsonly)

Octoberdeadline(2010–2015)

Asian Black Mixed White

Offerrate 47.6% 45.2% 63.6% 66.7%Averageofferrate 49.4% 47.6% 63.0% 66.1%%pointdifferenceinofferrate

-1.8 -2.4 +0.6 +0.6

Asmightbeexpected,offerratesfortheOctoberdeadlinearehighlydifferentiatedbypredictedgradeprofile11.Overall,offerstotheWhitegroupwereclosetoexpected.FortheBlackgroup,theoverallofferratewas2.4percentagepointslowerthanexpected,andfortheAsiangroup,1.8percentagepointslower.Table3:SummaryofanalysisofofferratestoJanuarydeadlineapplicantsfromtheUCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(highpredictedgradeAlevelapplicantsonly)

Januarydeadline(2010–2015)

Asian Black Mixed White

Offerrate 75.2% 75.4% 80.7% 84.0%Averageofferrate 75.2% 75.9% 80.6% 84.0%%pointdifferenceinofferrate

0 -0.5 +0.1 0

ThesefindingsshowthatofferratesfromhighertariffproviderstodifferentethnicgroupsattheJanuarydeadlineareclosetoaverageofferrates12.UCAShasalsorecentlypublishedafirsttrancheofdataexaminingapplications,offers,andofferratesbynamedindividualHEP.Thishasbeenaccompaniedbyafurtherpublicationoftimeseriesdatabytariffgrouping.ThetablebelowshowsthedataforUK18yearolds,whosubmittedtheirapplicationsbeforethe30Junedeadline13.

11Figures41&43UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(NB:figuresfortheAsianandMixedgroupsarenotintheReport).12Figures36&38-40UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.

9

Table4:Summaryanalysisofapplication,offer,andentryratesbyethnicgroupfromUCASUndergraduatereportsbysex,areabackground,andethnicgroup(allUK18yearolds)

Highertariff(2015)

Asian Black Mixed White

Applicantsper10kofpopulation

2,599 2,081 2,162 2,029

Acceptsper10kofpopulation

911 530 994 955

Offerrate 62.2% 60.9% 73.0% 75.5%Averageofferrate 63.7% 63.8% 73.0% 75.1%%pointdifferenceinofferrate*

-1.5 -2.9 0 +0.4

*Takingonlypredictedgradesheldandthecourseappliedtointoaccountreducesdifferencesinofferratesbetweenethnicgroupstomuchsmallervalues,indicatingthattheoffer-makingprocessoperatedbyuniversitiesisbroadlyfair.SmalldifferencesremainfortheBlackandAsianethnicgroups.UCASconcludesthat,acrosstheUCASadmissionsscheme,thereisnoevidenceofsystemicbiasintheadmissionssystem.However,thereareproviders–fromthehigher,medium,andlowertariffgroups–whoseofferratestocertaingroupsareoutsideofwhatmightbeexpectedifoffersweremadesolelyonthebasisofapplicants’predictedgradesandthecourse(s)theyappliedto.Althoughvariationinofferratesisseenamongallgroupsofapplicants,offerrateslowerthanwhatmightbeexpectedaremoreoftenthannotseenintheoffersmadetotheBlackandAsiangroups.Itisimportanttoemphasisethatvariationinofferratesoutsideofwhatmightbeexpectedisnotinitselfevidenceofbias.Thereareotherfactorswhichmaybetakenintoaccountwhendecidingwhetherornottomakeanoffertoanapplicant,forexample,thesubjectsandsubjectcombinationoftheirAlevelsorotherqualifications(especiallyforSTEMsubjects),interviewsandadmissionstests(foranumberofmedical,nursing,andsocialworkcourses),andpriorexperienceorcontextualfactors.ThesefactorsarenotcontrolledforinUCAS’analysis.Also,universitiescannotmakeoffersifstudentsdonotapply,andUCAS’equalitiesdatashowsthatcertainethnicgroupsaremorelikelytoapplytosomeHEPsthanothers,andthatgeographicalproximityappearstobeamajorfactor.Finally,itisworthnotingthatifallHEPsmadeofferstoallgroupsexactlyattherateexpectedbasedontheirpredictedgradesandcourseappliedto(therebycorrectingforconcernsaboutunconsciousbias),modellingshowsthatwouldnotmakeamaterialdifferencetotheentryratesofunderrepresentedgroupsinHE.

13Source:www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/ucas-undergraduate-reports-sex-area.

10

3.3 HowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbiasUCASaskedHEPswhatstepstheytaketominimisetherisksofbiasinadmissions.ItisevidentthatthevastmajorityofHEPsthatrespondedtothesurveywerewellawareoftherisksthatunconsciousbiascouldposetofairadmissions,andwereemployingarangeofmeasurestominimisethese.Commonexamplesreportedfromthesurveyincluded:• theconsistentapplicationoftheHEP’sadmissionspolicy,theuseofpredefinedselectioncriteria,and

cross-checkingofdecisions• havingteamsofwell-trained,professionaladmissionspractitioners–thisprovidesconsistency,

promotesgoodpractice,andenablesdecisionstobemadeorreviewedbymorethanoneperson• havingasecondpersonreviewapplicationsthatdonotreceiveanoffer• providingequalityanddiversity,interview,andunconsciousbiastraining–71percentofrespondents

saidthatsomeformoftrainingwasmandatory,althoughmostHEPsreportedtheyoffergenericequalityanddiversitytrainingratherthantrainingaboutdealingwithunconsciousbias

• usingcontextualdata• usingEqualityImpactAssessments,internalauditsofprocessesandprocedures,andrandomsampling

ofadmissionsdecisionsAdditionally,asmallnumberofHEPsoperateinternalprocesseswhichmaskinformation(suchassex,nationality,homeaddress,dateofbirth,andcriminalconvictions,butnotname)fromthosemakinginitialadmissionsdecisions.However,responsesfromaverysmallnumberofHEPsindicatedalackofawarenessoftherisks,mistakingegalitarianviewsandadiversestudentintakeassufficientmeansforaddressingrisks.WhilesuchprovidersmaybeadmittinglargenumbersofdisadvantagedorBAMEstudents,theymightstillnotbemakingasmanyoffersasmightbeexpected,orbecontributingasmuchastheycouldbetowideningparticipation(WP).3.4 HowHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbiasThereissignificantliteratureabouthowothercountriesseektowidenaccesstoHEforunderrepresentedgroups,particularlythosedefinedbyethnicityandsocio-economicbackground.Forexample,universitiesinboththeUnitedStatesandAustraliausecontextualdataandinformationtoplaceacademicachievementinthecontextoftheeducationalenvironmentinwhichstudentshavestudied,andadditionaltestsandinterviewsareusedforhighlycompetitivecoursessuchasmedicineanddentistry.However,thereislimitedinformationaboutpracticesusedtominimiserisksofunconsciousbias.WenotedgoodpracticeintheUniversityofCalifornia’ssystemwherethereismandatoryannualtrainingforallstaffandreviewersinvolvedinadmissions,includingonunconsciousbias,andallapplicationsareconsideredbyatleasttwopeople.Wedidnotfindanyexamplesofuniversitiesusinganame-blindapproachtoadmissions.

11

3.5 ComparisonswithemployeerecruitmentThereisgrowingevidencethataname-blindorCV-blindapproachtograduateandemployeerecruitmentcandeliverpositiveresults.WhileparallelscanbedrawnbetweenselectionforadmissionstoHEandrecruitmentforemployment,theseareinherentlydifferentactivitiesforanumberofreasons.• Employeerecruitmentisusuallyfocusedonasingle,orasmallnumber,ofvacancies.Itisahighly

competitiveprocessbetweenindividuals.Asoutlinedat3.2above,admissionstoHEisnowprimarilyacompetitiveprocessbetweenprovidersseekingtoattractandrecruitstudents.Wherethereiscompetitionamongapplicants,thisistypicallyforoneofalargenumberofplaces.

• Employeerecruitmentgenerallyinvolvesaninterviewasthefinalstageoftheassessmentprocess.SelectioninterviewsareonlyusedforaminorityofHEcourses,andwhentheyareused,willformpartoftheoverallassessment,ratherthanbeingusedtomakethefinaldecision.

• Employeerecruitmentandstudentrecruitmentaresubjecttodifferentlegalconsiderations.Forexample,studentsareviewedasconsumersbytheCompetitionandMarketsAuthority,andthevastmajorityofstudentrecruitmentisnotsubjecttoemploymentlaw,althoughbotharesubjecttotheEqualityAct.

• Studentsaregenerallyrecruitedontheirpotentialtosucceedonacourseoveraprolongedperiod,takingintoaccountthecontextoftheircurrentachievements.Employeerecruitmentismorelikelytofocusoncurrentability,withlessemphasisoncontext.

3.6 Evidencegatheringonthepotentialfeasibilityofname-blindapplicationsTounderstandthefeasibilityandpracticalityofintroducingname-blindapplications,UCAShasengagedwithHEPsandthesector’smaintechnologyproviderstoexploretwomodels:onewheredataismaskedcentrallybyUCAS,andonewheredataismaskedlocallybyHEPs.Toputthefeedbackintocontext,itisnecessarytounderstandhowadmissionsworksinpractice.Thereareanumberofsafeguardstominimisebiasbuiltintotheadmissionsprocess.UCASdoesnotshareinformationaboutapplicants’ethnicity,religion,sexualorientation,genderidentity,parentaleducation,andparentaloccupationwithHEPsuntilafteradmissionsdecisionshavebeenmade,orthecyclehasclosed.Whilethisinformationisusedtomonitordiversity,itcannotbeusedtoinfluenceoutcomesforindividuals.Itshould,however,benotedthatUCASdoesprovideinformationaboutanapplicant’snationality,asthisisnecessaryhelpdeterminefeestatus.WhenUCASprovidesdataandinformationfromstudents’applicationstoHEPs,thedataandinformationfromUCASapplicationforms,references,andcontextualdataistransferredintouniversities’ownITadmissionsorstudentrecordssystems.Thesesystemsaretypicallyprovidedbyoneoffivemaintechnologyvendors(Capita,Ellucian,Oracle,SAP,andTribal),oraretheHEP’sownin-housesystems.ManysmallerHEPsandcollegesuseUCAS’web-linkservice.ThedataisdistributedacrossHEPsandusedformultiplepurposes.Inadditiontoadmissionsdecision-making,thismayincludecontactingstudentstoofferservicesandsupport,determiningfeestatus,theverificationofqualificationsandotherinformation,counterfraud,DBSchecks,etc.Theseprocessesoftenruninparallelwithadmissionsdecision-makingtospeedthetimefromreceiptofapplication,tomakinganofferorotherdecision.

12

Theadmissionsmanagementanddecision-makingprocessisdifferentateachHEP.Admissionspoliciesandprocessesaredeterminedbytheinstitutionalmission,strategicobjectives,andcourseportfolio,andarealsoinfluencedbyorganisationalstructureandtheirunderpinningtechnologicalcapabilities.Forexample,applicationprocessingandadmissionsdecision-makingmaybeundertakencentrallybyadministrators,orinadistributedmodelbyacademicsinschools,departments,orfaculties.MixedmodelsoperateinmanyHEPs,andadmissionsfordomesticandinternationalstudentsareoftenhandledseparatelyandsubjecttodifferentpoliciesandprocesses.Fordegreeprogrammeswhichareaccreditedbyprofessional,statutory,andregulatorybodies(PSRBs),admissionspoliciesanddecision-makingcriteriaareinpartdeterminedbytheseorganisations.PoliciesandprocessesarelikelytodifferasmuchbetweendifferentprogrammesofstudyatoneproviderasbetweendifferentHEPs.AppendixAhighlightsthemultiplestagesinadmissionsmanagement.3.6.1 Optionone:UCASmasksnamescentrallyandwithholdsthisinformationfromHEPsuntil

aninitialadmissionsdecisionismadeUCASisabletodevelopandimplementthecapabilitytowithholdnamesfromtheinitialdatasupplytoHEPs.ThiscouldbedevelopedforinclusioninthenewUCASUndergraduateapplicationserviceanditsassociateddatatransferservice.However,HEPrespondentstothesurveyhadreservationsaboutthisapproach.Theprimaryconcernexpressedbyproviderswasthepotentialdetrimentalimpactonthepersonalrelationshipstheyhave,andwanttobuild,withapplicants.ItwasfeltthatifUCASwastowithholdanapplicant’sname,evenforashorttime,thiscouldhaveasignificantnegativeimpactonthestudentexperienceandconversion,asitwouldpreventHEPscommunicatingdirectlywithapplicantsonapersonalbasis.HEPswereespeciallyconcernedaboutthepotentialimpactonWPapplicants,aswithoutaname,theycannotidentifyapplicantswhohavebeenpartofoutreachactivitiesandwhotheywanttowelcomeandofferadditionalsupportto.Itwasfeltthatwithholdinganapplicant’snamecouldhampermakingcontextualisedoffers,offeringalternativecourses,orofferingsupporttoapplicantsatriskofdroppingoutoftheprocess.

‘Webelieveanyremovalofnameswithintheapplicationprocessislikelytohaveadetrimentalimpactontheseactivities[aimedatsupportingthetransitiontodegreestudiesforapplicantsfromdisadvantagedgroups].Statistically,thisgroupofstudentsislesslikelytoconvert,sopositiverelationshipbuilding,wherestudentsareseenasanindividual,ratherthananumber,iskeyforthisgroup.‘It[name-blind]mayhaveunintendedconsequenceswhichwouldimpactdetrimentallyonpreciselythegroupswhichitisperceivedwouldbeassisted.Forexample,contextualfactorscouldnoteasilybetakenintoaccountandcorrespondingpositiveactionimplemented.’

Otherconcernscitedwiththisapproachwere:• riskofinabilitytofulfilconsumerprotectionresponsibilities• inabilitytocarryoutidentitychecks,orverifyqualifications,fee,andimmigrationstatus• increasedlikelihoodoferrors

13

• thatmaskingthenameoftheapplicantwouldn’tinitselfbesufficienttoachievethestatedaimbecauseoftheotherplaceswhereanapplicant’snameappearsintheinformationprovidedbyUCAS(e.g.someone’semailaddress,personalstatement,and/orreference),andbecauseethnicitycanbeinferredfromotherinformationprovided(e.g.nationality,thequalificationssomeonehastaken,suchasaGCSEorAlevelinanativelanguage).Otherinformation,suchassexandage,couldalsogiverisetounconsciousbias

Inaddition,conversationswiththemaintechnologyvendorsidentifiedthatitwouldbetechnologicallycomplex,expensive,andtimeconsumingforthemtoredeveloptheirsoftwaretoaccommodateUCASwithholdingdatacentrally.ItwouldalsothenrequireHEPstoinstallnew,upgradedversionsofvendorsoftware.OnesaidthatitwouldtakeuptotwoyearstoupdatetheirsoftwaretoaccommodateadatasupplyfromUCASwhichexcludesanapplicant’sname.TwoothersindicatedthatifUCAScouldnotprovideaname,itwouldnecessitatemajorre-engineeringoftheirsoftware,asnameisusedasakeyfeatureforindexingandduplicatehandling.Anotherprovider’ssoftwareisdesignedsothatitiscustomisablebyHEPs,andtheyindicatedthatHEPswouldneedtoundertakeconsiderableworktorealisethissolution.Giventhelikelycostsinvolvedandotherbusinesspriorities,softwarecompanieshavesaidtheywouldbereluctanttoembarkonthisredevelopmentunlessmandatedtodosobygovernmentoraregulatorybody.3.6.2 Optiontwo:UCASsuppliesnamestoHEPsandHEPslocallymaskthenamefrom

decision-makersuntilaninitialadmissionsdecisionismadeThesecondoptionistoencouragetechnologyvendorstoprovidesoftwaresolutionswhichgiveHEPsthefunctionalitytomaskinformation,suchasname,onalocalbasis.ThiswouldgiveHEPscontrolofwhatinformationwassharedwithwhomandwhen.Forexample,namescouldbeprovidedtothosestaffresponsibleforapplicantcommunications,WPsupport,verification,feestatus,andcounter-fraudactivities,whilethenameiswithheldfromthosedecidingwhetherornottomakeanofferorinvitationtointerview.Thisismoreattractivefromanadmissionsmanagementperspective,giventhedifferentpoliciesandproceduresemployedbyHEPs,andthiscapabilityalreadyexistsinsomeversionsofsomeexistinguniversityadmissionssystems.Forexample,thelatestversionsofsoftwareofferedbytwoprovidersalreadyprovideHEPswiththecapabilitytomaskinformationlocally,includingname.However,thelargestsectortechnologyvendordoesnotoffermaskingcapability.Toofferthisfunctionality,theybelievetheywouldneedtomakechangestotheircoresoftwareapplication,whichHEPswouldthenneedtoapplyviatheirbiennialupdates.Itmaytakeanumberofyearsforallproviderstomovetothisnewversion.Providersthatalsousetheirwebinterfacemayalsoneedtoredevelopthisthemselves.Althoughthisapproachwouldaddresssomeoftheconcernsraisedaboutcommunicationswithapplicants,consumerprotectioncompliance,andfraudandverificationactivities,atmostprovidersitwouldlikelyrequiresubstantialprocessre-engineeringandITredevelopment,designandimplementationofnewversionsofstudentrecordsandmanagementinformationsoftware.Thecostofthiscouldbesignificant.

14

Thisislikelytobeparticularlyproblematicforsmallerproviders,whereadmissions-relatedtasksmaybeundertakenbyoneortwopeople.Concernswerealsoraisedaboutthefairnessofsuchasystem,giventhatsomeinternationalstudentsarerecruiteddirectly,andthatatClearing,theuseofaname-blindapproachwouldnotbepracticalgiventhespeedatwhichthesystemoperates.Itisalsoworthflaggingthatneithersolutionaddressestheriskthatanapplicant’snamealsooftenappearselsewhereintheirapplication–forexample,intheiremailaddress,personalstatement,andreference–andthateliminatingthisislikelytobenearimpossible,especiallywithregardstoemailaddresses.Anapplicant’sethnicitymayalsobeinferredfromtheirnationalityorqualificationstheyhavetakenoraretaking;informationwhichisessentialtotheirapplicationandassessmentoffeestatus.4. ConclusionsAlthoughthereisevidencefromresearch,particularlyfromtheUS,ofunconsciousbiasoperatinginemployeerecruitmentandthevalueofusinganame-blindapproach,itcannotbeassumedthateithertheproblemorpotentialsolutionaredirectlyapplicabletoadmissionstoHE,givendifferencesinpurposeandlevelsofcompetition.ThemarketinundergraduateadmissionsmeansthatmanyHEPsareseekingtorecruitratherthantoselectstudentsforadmissiontotheirmostoftheirprogrammes.Thisisvisibleinsignificantlyincreasedlevelsofoffersmadetoallgroupsofapplicants.In2015,93percentofstudentswhoappliedbefore30Juneandmadefivechoicesreceivedatleastoneoffer.Thisenvironmentdrivesabusinessimperativetofillplaces.UCAS’analysisonentrytoHEbyethnicity,offer-making,offerrates,andaverageofferratesallpointtowardsadmissionstoHEbeingfairatanationallevel.Whiletherearelargedifferencesinofferratesbyethnicgroup,inmostcasesthiscanbeattributedtheapplicant’spredictedgradesandhowcompetitivethecourseisthattheyappliedfor.ThisisbackedupbyUCAS’mostrecentdataonapplications,offers,andofferratesbynamedproviders.Whilethisreinforcestheevidencethatoveralladmissionsarefair,italsosuggeststhatasmallnumberofprovidersneedtoexaminewhytherearesignificantdifferencesbetweenobservedandaverageofferratesforsomegroups.Thereareover380HEPsusingtheUCASUndergraduateadmissionsserviceforrecruitmenttofull-timeundergraduate-levelprogrammes.Havinglookedatthefeasibilityofintroducinganame-blindapproach,itisevidentthatHEPsandtechnologyvendorshavesignificantconcernsaboutamodelinwhichUCAScentrallywithholdsnames.Asoutlinedabove,HEPsareconcernedthattheywillnotbeabletomaintainpersonalcontactswithapplicantsandsupportWPstudents,aswellaswiderriskstoverification,compliance,andoperationalefficiency.Technologyvendorshavesignalledthatmajorre-engineeringoftheirsoftwareproductswouldberequired.Althoughahighereducationprovider-levelimplementationaddressessomeoftheseissues,itwouldstillrequiresoftwareredevelopmentbysometechnologyproviders,requireproviderstoimplementsoftware,andnecessitatebusinessprocessre-engineeringandtechnologyinvestment.

15

Thereisasensethatthereisinsufficientevidenceofaproblemtowarrantthescaleofinvestmentandbusinesschangethatwouldbeneededtoadoptname-blindapplications.ThisisparticularlythecaseforHEPsthatarerecruitingtoall,ormost,oftheircourses,andforsmallerandspecialistcourseproviders.MakingthecaseforinvestmentislikelytobeequallyproblematicforHEPswhoseequalitydatashowsthattherearenosignificantdifferencesintheirofferratesagainstexpectedofferratesfordifferentethnicornationallyunderrepresentedgroups.AtypicalHEPcommentfromtheevidencegatheringsurveysaid:‘Theuniversityrecognisesthatunconsciousbiasmayexistincertainsituations,althoughthereappearstobeverylittleevidencethatthistakesplaceinthecontextofuniversityadmissions,particularlyforrecruitingproviders’.DrVikkiBolivercommented:‘Ifadmissionsdecisionsareinfluencedbyconsciousorunconsciousbias,thenthesolutionisnottoremoveinformationthattriggersthosebiases,buttodevelopprocessesandfosterculturesinwhichsuchbiasesarerecognisedandredressed’.5. RecommendationsBasedontheevidencegatheringworkandconversationswithHEPs,technologyproviders,andstakeholders,UCASproposessevenrecommendationstodeveloptheevidencebaseonunconsciousbiasinadmissions,promotegoodpractice,andencourageHEPstoundertakename-blindapplicationprojectstobetterunderstanditsapplicabilityandpotentialuseinadmissions.Recommendationone:HEPsshouldrunname-blindadmissionsdecision-makingprojectsatalocallevelThereissupportfromtheHEsectorforconductingprojectsusinganame-blindapproachatalocallevelinthe2017admissionscycle,totestitsapplicabilitytoHEadmissions,itsefficacyinaddressingconcernsaboutunconsciousbias,andtobetterunderstandthelikelycostsofawidespreadimplementation.HEPsareencouragedtoexploreusinganame-blindapproachfordifferentsubjects,typesofcourses,andforthoseusingdifferentrecruitmentandselectionmethodologies.Tosupportproviders,UCASwillcoordinateprojectactivities,assistwiththedesignofdatacollectionandanalysis(whererequested),andcollate,analyse,andpublishthefindings.SPAwillalsooffersupportandadvicetoHEPspilotingthisapproach.Recommendationtwo:SPAshouldtaketheleadonthedevelopmentofgoodpracticeandenhancementofunconsciousbiastrainingforthoseinvolvedinadmissionsThereiswidespreadsupportacrosstheHEsectorforthedevelopmentandpromotionofgoodpracticetominimisetherisksofbiasinadmissionsanddevelopment,andpromotetrainingspecificallyinrecognisingandaddressingunconsciousbiasinadmissions.AtypicalquotefromtheUCASsurveysaid:‘[x]wouldwelcomeasector-widecommitmenttoprovidetrainingonunconsciousbiasandculturalawarenessforallstaffinvolvedintherecruitmentandselectionofstudents.SPAcouldleadonthedevelopmentofthistrainingtoensurethereisconsistentaccesstogoodqualitymaterialsandresourcesacrossthesector’.

16

WewouldalsoencourageHEPstoworktowardsECU’sraceequalitychartermark.Recommendationthree:HEPsshouldregularlymonitorandreviewtheiradmissionsdataandaddressanyunexplaineddifferencesinoffer-makingoradmissionsoutcomesItisgoodpracticeforproviderstomonitorandregularlyreviewtheiradmissionsdatatoevaluatetheefficacyoftheiradmissionspoliciesandprocedures.Thisenablesswiftactiontobetakenatanystageoftheadmissionsprocessifevidenceofbiasisfound.SPAhasrecentlypublishednewgoodpracticeonmonitoringandusingadmissionsdatatoevaluatethefairnessofadmissionspoliciesandcriteriainthecontextofprogression,retention,andoutcomestrategies.HEPsareencouragedtoengagewithandusethisgoodpractice.Tosupportproviders,UCASwillcontinuetopublishandexpandequalitiesdata,whichincludesdataonapplication,offer,andacceptanceratesbysex,ethnicity,andareabackground.Recommendationfour:HEPscouldconsiderintroducingareviewofapplicationsmarkedforrejectionAtitssimplest,initialadmissionsdecision-makingresolvesapplicationsintooneofthreegroups:thosetowhomtheuniversitywishestomakeanoffer,thosewhoseapplicationsarerejected,andthoseapplicationswhichrequirefurtherconsideration.Eventually,allapplicationsresultineitheranofferorarejection.ManyHEPsalreadyhaveprocessesinplacetoenableareviewofrejectedapplicationsagainsttheiradmissionscriteria,coveringeitherallorasampleofthesedecisions.Theuseofareviewstage,oftenconductedbydifferentindividuals,enablesadmissionsteamstoprovideasecondcheckagainstentrycriteria,includingmakingsurecontextualinformationanddatahavebeenappliedinlinewiththeHEP’spolicy.Ifnotalreadyundertaken,considerationcanbegivenforachangedcourseoffer.Involvementofdifferentadmissionsstaff,wherethishasnotalreadyhappened,mayalsohelpreducetheriskofbias.HEPsthatdonotalreadyusesomeformofreviewareencouragedtoconsiderdoingso.Inaddition,HEPscouldbeencouragedtoreviewtheirdecision-makingprocessannuallytoensurefairandequitabletreatment.Suchareviewshouldinformadmissionspoliciesforthefollowingyear.Recommendationfive:ThereshouldbefurtherresearchintounderstandingifthereisbiasinHEadmissionsThereissupportfromHEPsandstakeholdersforfurtherresearchtounderstandifthereisbiasinadmissions.UCASwillsupportthisrecommendationthroughthepublicationofequalitiesdata(recommendationthree),andbymakingarichersetofindividual-leveldataavailabletoauthorisedresearchersviatheAdministrativeDataResearchNetwork(ADRN).

17

Recommendationsix:UCASshouldimprovesupportforHEPsusingcontextualisedadmissions

Theuseofcontextualdata,whichseekstoputanapplicant’sacademicandotherachievementsintowidereducational,socio-economic,orgeo-demographiccontexts,isawell-establishedmeansforaddressingfairadmissions,andmayaidHEPs’wideningparticipationobjectives.

Contextualdataandinformationmaybeusedinnumerouswaysandplacesduringtheadmissionsprocess.Forexample,thismayincludetoflaganapplicationforfurtherconsiderationratherthanrejection,toguaranteeanintervieworaudition,ortoinformthedecisionwhetherornottoacceptsomeonewhohasnotmetthetermsoftheirconditionaloffer.Inaddition,asmallnumberofHEPsusecontextualdatatomakelowerofferstoapplicantswithcertaincontextualcriteria.Theuseofcontextualdatamaytakeaccountofeducational,geo-demographic,and/orsocio-economiccontext,aswellasotherindividualaspectsofeducationaldisadvantage.

UniversitiesandcollegesemployingcontextualdatauseinformationprovidedbyUCASfromtheapplicationform,abasketofcontextualdataofferedthroughUCAS’contextualdataservice,theirowndata,suchasiftheapplicanthassuccessfullytakenpartinawideningparticipationactivity,andinformationtoprovidesupporttoapplicants(suchascareleavers)throughtheadmissionsprocessandbeyond.Thirdpartydataservicesmayalsobeused.AnumberofHEPsrespondingtotheevidencegatheringsurveyaskedUCAStostrengthentheservicesitprovidestosupportcontextualisedadmissions.

UCASwillreviewwithHEPswhatdataandservicestheyneedtoundertakecontextualadmissionsmoreeffectively,andwilldeliveranychangesaspartoftheredevelopmentoftheUCASUndergraduateapplicationservice.

Recommendationseven:Thoseresponsibleforfairaccessandwideningparticipationshouldconsiderwhatfurtheractionscouldbetaken

UCASinvitesOFFA,HEFCW,theScottishFundingCouncil,andtheDepartmentfortheEconomyinNorthernIrelandtoconsidertheevidenceandfindingsinthisreportinrelationtoguidancetheymayissuetoHEPs,inrelationtoaccessandoutcomeagreements.

UCASinvitesthoseresponsiblefortheregulationofHEtoconsiderwhethertherewouldbevalueinestablishingarequirementforregulartrainingonunconsciousbiasforthoseinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making.

PRE-

APPL

ICAT

ION

A

PPLI

CATI

ON

POST

-APP

LICA

TIO

NTR

ANSI

TIO

N

Early

eng

agem

ent w

ith H

E Ra

ising

HE

awar

enes

s an

d as

pira

tions

Prep

arat

ory

enga

gem

ent w

ith H

E Co

nsid

erin

g H

E st

udy

Pre-

HE

acad

emic

/ vo

catio

nal /

exp

erie

ntia

l lea

rnin

g

Appl

ican

t eng

agem

ent w

ith H

E En

terin

g H

E st

udy

Info

rmat

ion,

adv

ice

& g

uida

nce

from

sc

hool

/col

lege

, car

eers

ad

viso

rs, f

riend

s, fa

mily

Gai

n ba

ckgr

ound

un

ders

tand

ing

of H

E an

d w

hat i

t offe

rs

Expe

rienc

e H

E en

viro

nmen

t (v

isit a

n H

EI; H

E ‘ta

ster

’ mod

ules

; su

mm

er sc

hool

s on

HE

cam

pus)

Visit

pot

entia

l cho

ices

at

open

day

s, re

view

thei

r w

ebsit

es, a

sk a

ny q

uest

ions

UCA

S se

nds

ackn

owle

dgem

ent f

or

appl

ican

t to

chec

k

Rese

arch

pot

entia

l ch

oice

s

Com

plet

e ap

plic

atio

n to

UCA

S w

ith u

p to

5 c

hoic

es

UCA

S se

nds c

opy

of

appl

icat

ion

to e

ach

choi

ce

Inst

itutio

ns c

onsid

er

appl

icat

ions

aga

inst

thei

r in

tern

al a

dmiss

ions

crit

eria

Inst

itutio

ns n

otify

U

CAS

of d

ecisi

on, w

ho

info

rm a

pplic

ant

Inst

itutio

n fe

edba

ck

to a

ny u

nsuc

cess

ful

appl

ican

ts

All c

hoic

es

unsu

cces

sful

Cond

ition

al

and/

or

Unc

ondi

tiona

l off

ers

Post

-app

licat

ion

visit

s

Addi

tiona

l cho

ice

via

Extr

a

Seek

alte

rnat

ive

Firm

pl

ace

via

Clea

ring Uns

ucce

ssfu

l at

new

Firm

pla

ce

Uns

ucce

ssfu

l at F

irm

plac

e; In

sura

nce

plac

e be

com

es n

ew F

irm

Acad

emic

supp

ort

(e.g

. fina

lised

mod

ule

stru

ctur

e;

timet

able

s; pe

rson

al/s

ubje

ct

tuto

r inf

orm

atio

n, p

re-s

essio

nal

and

in-s

essio

nal m

edia

tory

ed

ucat

ion)

Past

oral

supp

ort (

e.g.

fina

lised

ac

com

mod

atio

n; e

nrol

men

t in

form

atio

n; st

uden

t ser

vice

s aw

aren

ess;

fees

supp

ort;

orie

ntat

ion

and

indu

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es; d

edic

ated

men

tors

; N

US;

inde

pend

ent

on-li

ne fo

rum

s)

New

Firm

pla

ce

reco

nsid

ers

appl

icat

ion

Dec

line

all

choi

ces

Cond

ition

s no

t mee

t

Cond

ition

s m

eet o

r ex

ceed

ed

Firm

pla

ce

reco

nsid

ers

appl

icat

ion

Cond

ition

s no

t met

Unc

ondi

tiona

l Firm

Cond

ition

s m

et

Cond

ition

s ex

ceed

ed

No

new

acc

epta

nce;

ap

plic

ant s

tays

with

or

igin

al F

irm p

lace

New

inst

itutio

n ac

cept

s app

lican

t

Appl

ican

t ch

oose

s to

ente

r ad

just

men

t

Acce

pt 1

firm

and

1

insu

ranc

e pl

ace,

de

clin

ing

all o

ther

s

Cond

ition

al F

irm w

ait

for e

xam

resu

lts o

r ot

her c

ondi

tions

Poss

ible

requ

ests

fo

r add

ition

al

info

rmat

ion Po

ssib

le in

terv

iew

s, in

tern

al a

dmiss

ions

test

s, po

rtfo

lio su

bmiss

ions

Chec

k co

urse

and

in

stitu

tion

data

av

aila

ble

via

UCA

S Com

pact

/Pro

gres

sion

sche

mes

Read

UCA

S on

-line

in

form

atio

n on

the

adm

issio

ns p

roce

ss a

nd

dead

lines

car

eful

lyRe

fere

nce

adde

d (u

sual

ly b

y sc

hool

/co

llege

)

Poss

ible

ext

erna

l ad

miss

ions

test

s re

quire

d

HE

stud

ent

The

Appl

ican

t Exp

erie

nce (

via

UCA

S)

This

char

t rep

rese

nts t

he p

roce

ss fl

ow fo

r the

app

lican

t exp

erie

nce:

all t

he st

ages

an

indi

vidu

al m

ight

go

thro

ugh

to b

ecom

e a

full-

time

unde

rgra

duat

e st

uden

t at a

UK

high

er e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

n.

The

gree

n ar

eas d

enot

e th

e se

quen

tial s

tage

s of t

he a

pplic

ant e

xper

ienc

e, w

hilst

pur

ple

area

s den

ote

the

proc

ess s

teps

oc

curri

ng w

ithin

, and

ove

rlapp

ing,

thos

e st

ages

. Eac

h st

ep in

the

proc

ess i

s an

oppo

rtuni

ty fo

r app

lican

t and

inst

itutio

n to

in

tera

ct: t

he q

ualit

y of

that

inte

ract

ion

will

dict

ate

whe

ther

or n

ot th

e m

ost s

uita

ble

stud

ents

for i

nstit

utio

ns p

rogr

ess o

nto

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

cou

rses

for t

hose

app

lican

ts. C

o-or

dina

ted

activ

ity a

cros

s all s

teps

is th

eref

ore

vita

l in

man

agin

g th

e flo

w o

f pot

entia

l int

o hi

gher

edu

catio

n. P

ale

purp

le a

reas

do

not c

onst

itute

ess

entia

l ste

ps w

ithin

the

appl

icat

ion

proc

ess,

but a

re e

lem

ents

that

may

enh

ance

inte

ract

ion

with

in a

step

and

enr

ich

the

appl

ican

t exp

erie

nce.

Indi

vidu

al in

stitu

tions

may

wish

to m

ap th

eir o

wn

proc

esse

s aga

inst

this

flow

cha

rt to

revi

ew w

here

staff

with

diff

eren

t re

spon

sibili

ties c

an b

est c

o-or

dina

te e

fforts

to m

axim

ise th

e po

tent

ial o

f att

ract

ing,

nur

turin

g an

d re

crui

ting

the

mos

t ap

prop

riate

stud

ents

to su

ccee

d at

thei

r ins

titut

ion.

Supp

ortin

g Pr

ofes

sion

alis

min

Adm

issi

ons

18

Appendix A

RosehillNew Barn LaneCheltenhamGL52 3LZ

t: +44 (0) 1242 222 444www.ucas.com