Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1020
- 1039)
WEDNESDAY 19 JULY 2000
PROFESSOR SIR
KENNETH CALMAN,
DR GEOFFREY
COPLAND PROFESSOR
DIANA GREEN
AND MR
WILLIAM LOCKE
1020. Yes.
(Dr Copland) Two or three weeks is not sufficient.
We are dealing with a large number of people taking very important
decisions about their lives and where they wish to study, and
institutions making decisions about whether they would accept
them or not, whether to help them match their aspirations. Two
or three weeks' additional time is not sufficient.
1021. How much time would you be looking for?
(Dr Copland) I would say two months. It is difficult.
It is a concentrated period of time. A lot of work has been done
on this. It was not rejected by CVCP alone. It was not rejected
capriciously. It was not that we thought the existing system was
very effective because we know that it is very cost ineffective.
It is very expensive in terms of the time of all concerned, the
individuals that are applying and the institutions that are making
their selections. Many of the decisions that are taken are offers
that are made and are not accepted because others are making offers
and so on. We want to find a more effective way of matching individuals'
aspirations against what we can offer them. I cannot give you
a simple answer and say that a few more weeks would make a difference.
If we can find a way of opening up that window, whether that is
at the university or higher education end or at the schools end,
and some work is being done on restructuring the school academic
year which might well make this easier for us, we would welcome
this.
1022. Why was it that some members of the CVCP,
particularly the Russell Group, did not support moves to post
qualification applications?
(Dr Copland) I really cannot comment on that.
Chairman
1023. Why not, Geoffrey? Because basically you
are a trade association and you have not got an agreement among
the traders?
(Dr Copland) We all have different pressures on us.
You are asking me to comment on something where I was not actually
party to the discussions and that is difficult.
Mr Foster
1024. Perhaps we could ask your Policy Adviser.
(Mr Locke) One of the reasons was the nature of the
admissions process and the techniques used to select students
take longer in some of those universities than in others, particularly
where there is the use of interviews.
1025. Do you think the advantage of knowing
what was achieved by the students would outweigh the disadvantages
of time so that students knew which universities they could apply
for, given what grades were likely, and also universities knew
what the student had achieved? Would that not help the process
and certainly enable people from backgrounds in state schools
and lower socio-economic groups who perhaps did not have the confidence
about what grades they were going to get to then start to apply
to some of the better universities?
(Mr Locke) That is a principle that is accepted by
all of the parties involved in the review, that it would be better
if students had the confidence of having their qualifications
already. We may well be moving a little bit towards that with
a slightly later deadline for applications in the UCAS system
in January, and also, with the new qualifications, with having
AS results at the end of the first year of post 16 study. There
are improvements to the system. Obviously this is not a post qualification
application system.
1026. But you do not think there is any ulterior
motive for why it was that particularly the Russell group of universities
seemed to be more opposed to PQA than the other bodies involved
in the working party?
(Mr Locke) I do not see a particular motive.
Chairman
1027. Is it not a problem in terms of the way
Michael is concerned about this? It is not just that. Our Committee
has heard that the new UCAS tariff is not supported by some of
your members and they will not be implementing it. As I understand
it, extension tests will be coming in. Would it not give the students
out there applying to university more confidence if there was
a CVCP view on this that was more positive than the fragmented
view that they are getting? These are important. The UCAS tariff,
for example. Oxford came before us and said they are not going
to use it; they are not going to accept it. We have had this post
qualification dissent in your Committee. I know you cannot comment
on it but is it not a worry when the CVCP cannot actually have
an agreed view on these things?
(Dr Copland) Can I just make one other comment? The
other thing you have to remember is that the universities have
to plan very carefully to achieve the targets that they are set.
The existing system we understand. We can work with it. Changes
we would need to be confident that we know that we would have
the same degree of strength to our planning in order to achieve
the very tight restrictions that are placed on us by our funding.
I come back to the broader issue. The CVCP has made clear statements
about how it views qualifications and how they should be used.
As regards the UCAS tariff, let us just remember that that is
optional. Some institutions use the old UCAS tariff in pitching
offers; others do not. Some will use the new tariff; others will
not. The CVCP is a collection of individual institutions who at
the end of the day make their own decisions and work within their
own charters and their own memoranda and articles. What the CVCP
do is to provide strong advice, give a steer, and I believe that
we have made some very clear statements about the acceptability
of new qualifications. The UCAS tariff is actually slightly different.
(Mr Locke) We have also encouraged very strongly all
institutions to be very clear about their general admissions criteria.
Of course, it is not just between institutions but within institutions
as well. Some courses which will have very high demand may wish
to keep to specifying particular subjects with particular grades
because that is what is required by those particular courses which
might be very subject specific and require an in-depth previous
knowledge.
1028. But what this Committee is finding is
that what people out there, parents, students and people applying
to university, want is a system that is open, transparent and
seen to be fair. What you have just said, Geoffrey, in terms of
individual universities accepting a bit of this and a bit of that
and disagreement, I can see that, but does it not end up that
students are concerned, especially disadvantaged students, about
whether the system is open, transparent and fair? One of the witnesses
we had yesterday said that part of the admissions process in his
university was a black art. Surely that is not good for the people
we are trying to encourage to go to university?
(Dr Copland) I absolutely agree with you that is not
good. In fact, I suspect that any Vice-Chancellor who found that
there was a bit of black art in their admissions system would
be very concerned about it. There is much more transparency now
in the admissions process. The UCAS work on transparency where
information was being put on the Web which is accessible to all
is helping considerably. There has been a significant shift in
the last few years on this.
(Professor Green) There is a difference between being
transparent or covert in terms of what goes on and the general
point that you were implying, I think, which was that there should
be consistency across the board, where Geoffrey was arguing that
if you have a differentiated higher education system with very
different institutions, that is one of the consequences, that
you get differentiated approaches in terms of the assumptions
they make about what is required to enter. Transparency is a separate
issue and we do need somehow to ensure that we make those conditions
available and that students are not disadvantaged by them. There
are two separate issues. Yes, you might be able to resolve the
issue of transparency by saying that every institution had to
behave in the same kind of way but you will cut across the whole
nature of the higher education system in this country, which I
do not think is actually what you are suggesting is what should
happen.
Valerie Davey
1029. The impression I am getting very much
from the universities, not just this morning but on previous evidence,
is, "We know best and if the students fit into our institutions
that is fine, but we are not going to adjust to meet the needs
of the students". I say that in very broad brush terms and
I want then to go to the very positive comment you have made,
two of you at least, this morning on the new AS, the new advanced
subsidiary exams. You are welcoming that. Can I ask the three
of you who represent universities whether that is now available
within your information to schools as to how you will consider
that in the process of application?
(Dr Copland) All universities have been asked to make
that information available and we believe they have done so.
1030. We were told 20 and certainly I had an
individual constituent come to see me, about to start her sixth
form course this coming September, which is the first group, who
is dismayed that none of the university application forms she
had seen gave them any recognition at all. Can I ask you very
specifically have your three universities for those people applying
made reference in the application form?
(Dr Copland) It is not in the application form. It
is in the supporting material. One of the problems of course is
that many of the prospectuses that people will have been reading
will have been published before the hard information abut the
new post 16 qualifications came out. There is a two-year lead
time on these. If somebody has got a prospectus which is dated
for 2000/2001 it will almost certainly have been written in advance
of us having the details about how the new qualification system
will work. therefore, we have to supplement that information.
That information is being supplemented.
1031. How are you going to encourage these youngsters
who are about to start a new course to have confidence in that
course, that it will be recognised by universities? Two of you
have welcomed—and I understand from the nodding of heads
that others do—this broadening of the curriculum, the better
understanding (I think) of the ability of young people which it
will show to universities is being recognised. But you have not
got your act together to give that welcome to those students and
that encouragement to those students. That is the feeling I have
got. Certainly my individual constituent was quite dismayed.
(Dr Copland) Can I just respond to that? The group
that I chair in the CVCP has met with the representatives of the
Secondary Heads Association, the Association of Colleges, the
Headmasters' Conference, the Girls' Schools Association—there
are five of them—precisely to have this discussion. They
were satisfied that we were working with them and that we were
providing the information that they on behalf of their members
were seeking.
1032. Again, it is two sides of the same coin.
All I can say to you is that we had a representative here from
the Secondary Heads Association and it was they who told us that
only 20 universities had responded to requests to advise schools
of the use of the new AS level in the future admissions process.
You are saying one thing; they are saying another. Young people,
who are the most important group and who are reaching to make
the decisions for this September, have not got the information
they need. That is all I can say. How are we going to change things
very quickly?
(Dr Copland) I can only repeat that we have done what
we have been able to do as a representative body, the CVCP, to
work with the representative bodies in order to map out with them
how we are responding to the new qualifications. We have run workshops,
we have run seminars. Without going into individual cases it is
difficult to respond. I hear what you say and I think we will
need to take that back and look at it.
(Mr Locke) The comment which John Dunford made on
behalf of the SHA was based on information a few months ago about
the 20 and that was simply what was copied to CVCP offices. There
are more, I am sure. I have seen some that are particularly interesting
because they say not only will they encourage a fourth AS level
but maybe in contrasting subjects to the three full `A' levels,
which I think is an interesting development. Universities are
hoping to find out more about what schools and colleges are able
to resource and put on in terms of the number of `A' and AS levels
available to students before setting very hard and fast admissions
criteria that might exclude them, which requires a bit of give
and take in terms of information.
1033. I can remember the day of sending youngsters
to interviews from a school to Oxford and Cambridge who asked
those students what a comprehensive school was. I do not want
young people going out to university and being asked by the admission
tutors what an AS is.
(Dr Copland) Neither do I.
Chairman
1034. We want you to get the whip out and crack
it a bit.
(Dr Copland) I am receiving the message, Chairman.
Chairman: We are used to whipping in this place.
Charlotte Atkins
1035. Can I ask the CVCP for any up to date
information they may have of which universities actually do use
this? We want to get our facts right and if you think that what
Valerie has quoted is incorrect perhaps you could give us the
correct information for our report.
(Mr Locke) Yes, I will do that, and I will also send
the Committee copies of a recent publication in June of this year
by UCAS with our support briefing higher education on the new
qualifications and the implications for admissions based on the
regional seminars.
Helen Jones
1036. What we are hearing this morning will
give some of us a great deal of cause for concern because while
you make the case for the difference between transparency and
differentiation, there are those people out there, and it has
come over very strongly in some of the evidence we have heard,
who find it very difficult often to find their way through the
university admissions process. There has been some concern stated
to us about what I may call the unstated criteria that are often
operated in universities between different departments, for instance,
some of which may be over-subscribed in admissions, or between
different colleges in universities. Can you give the Committee
your thoughts on how to reduce the mysticism of this whole application
process for a family out there which maybe has no tradition of
going to university at all and wants to help their youngster find
their way through this process and get the best educational opportunities
available?
(Dr Copland) I could speak for a long time on this.
This is something that has been very close to my heart for very
many years because I used to be an admissions tutor and it was
a matter of concern to me that we could not get good information,
hard information, directly to the people that needed it, which
were not only young people but also their advisers. The very important
link in this is this relationship between the universities and
the advisers both in the schools and what I used to know as the
careers service, which is now undergoing considerable change.
There was an enormous amount of effort, I have to say, goes on
by higher education to try to de-mystify this process. It is complex.
There are tens of thousands of degree courses available. Within
any institution you will find hundreds. There will be different
admissions requirements depending on the nature of the demand
for research. Something like medicine, for example, and I have
an expert sitting beside me, will have a different set of requirements
than for a general social sciences degree, I would suspect. The
UCAS transparency work that they have been developing recently
in collaboration with the report of the CVCP and its members is
helping to get more of that information out. It is always a problem
to us how we get that information to the people who actually need
it. We publish a large amount of material, we put a lot on the
Web and the Web is becoming much more of an information resource
for this matter and it is actually much easier to update that
quickly because prospectuses, as I say, have a lead time of about
two years and things can be out of date quickly. There is a huge
amount of information being put into the system by individual
institutions and departments within them. If we are not getting
our message across that we are approachable and we want to help,
there is no point in us having a system which does not select
the best students or select students who are ignorant of what
it is that they are going to come in for and therefore are not
going to be successful or be less successful than they could be.
I do not believe that there is any university in the country that
is resistant to trying to do that. We are having difficulty in
getting the message across.
(Professor Sir Kenneth Calman) Colleges do not teach
in Durham and therefore there are no differences in admission.
Secondly, there is an assumption, perhaps part of the previous
question, that there are schools and universities. There is a
dialogue between the two and if the schools change or universities
change, that dialogue needs to occur. If you take medicine, for
example, if we change the criteria for admission to medicine in
a university like Durham, every school knows how to get into medicine.
You need X `A' levels at a certain grade. If we change that we
will confuse heads. We need to help heads in schools think through
what the different criteria will be. I think the prospectus, certainly
our prospectus, makes it pretty clear what you should have if
you want to get in. I am not sure whether you are asking for a
single entry qualifications for all subjects in all universities.
Is that what you are asking for?
1037. No. I am asking how you make that process
more understandable to those who are trying to find their way
through it.
(Professor Sir Kenneth Calman) The prospectus will
give that information and that is available. The complaints that
we get about admissions do not come from the state school system,
maybe because they do not want to complain, but they come from
the independent system because their child has not got into the
university that they wanted to get into.
1038. What is your view then on the evidence
that was given to the Committee about these unstated criteria,
for example, that some universities will not look at applicants
who perhaps put Oxford or Cambridge first on their form?
(Sir Kenneth Calman) I thought that was an extraordinary
statement to make. There is no evidence for that at all, and I
am slightly offended that that was associated with the University
of Durham.
Chairman
1039. My children were told not to apply for
Durham if they were applying for Oxford or Cambridge.
(Sir Kenneth Calman) And they were told by whom, sir?
|
