Unfortunately I don't think there's going to be any fairness in University admissions until the universities get rid of some of their prejudices and fickleness - which is probably never going to happen.

My own personal experience of the admissions process was a pretty poor one. I applied to do Law at Durham, Oxford, Leeds, Newcastle and Aberwristwith (i know thats not how you say it but as they werea fodder choice to use up space anyway i didn't see teh point in learning how to )

I got an interview at Oxford, but Durham rejected me outright (my personal theory - which has been backed up by others is Durham doesn't accept many people who apply to Oxford or Cambridge because it doesn't like the fact they've applied to both) Leeds also rejected me - Unsure why as Oxford granted me an interview and they have higher entry standards. I got a conditional offer from Newcastle of AAB which i was predicted to get comfortably.

Went to the interview at Oxford -There were 30 of us competeing for 7 places. Of the 30, seven were men and the rest were girls. I did really well on the assesment exam we were required to sit achieving a very high grade, then we had the face to face interview which wasn't what we expected. It was basically a series of questions like "If we lived in a society of angels would we still need double yellow lines?" and some odd stuff about chefs and eggs and cooking?!? Anyway i pretty much held my own and teh assistant interviewer was very impressed with me. The main lecturer guy - who was making the decision didn't seem to like the fact that i was very confident tho. From discussion afterwards it seemed that I'd fared much better than most of the candidates.

Anyway - rejection letter came through (3 days before christmas i might ad - ruined it for me that year coz i was pretty gutted) No explaination or feedback recieved even when requested. Later found ou that the places went to 6 blokes and 1 girl (all from private schools) which does imply that academic merit and proficiancy at interview had sod all to do with the decision (and in my opinion that the lecturer in charge was pretty darn sexist too)

When the results came through i only got BBCCC which was much lower than expected but i was trying to hold down two jobs while doing five a levels (thats my excuse and i'm sticking to it - nothing to do with the copious amounts of alcohol consumed during my studies) But i thought that seeing as i had a good report and storming GCSE results i'd give Newcastle a call and see if they'd still accept me. The answer was a flat NO

So i completely changed tack and decided to try and get onto the Media and Cultural Studies course at Sunderland (Third best in the country at the time and my media a-level lecturere recommended it - i wasn't being completely mad)
They couldn't say yes fast enough. So i was reasonably happy that i'd got a place. The day after my confirmation documentation arrived from Sunderland i got a phone call from Newcastle saying that they'd "changed their mind" and i could go on their law course after all!?!

Pride and indignation prevented me from saying yes and i went to Sunderland. I was lucky because i got on a good course that i enjoyed but i could really easily have made the wrong decision and mucked up my entire life.

I really think more should be done to simplify and standardise the admissions process and more feedback should be availiable to students to enable them to find out where they went wrong if they get a rejection.

Tricky one this. Most of the good MBA schools will consider the candidate's probable overall contribution to a course when making decisions but only after the necessary academic level has been achieved.

I would have thought that there has to be a cut off level based firstly on the ability to cope with the demands of the course. To that end, UCAS points make a useful shorthand but other factors may be assessable (again, MBA schools use a standardised test called the GMAT to test academic ability). That said, I am struggling to think of a reason why a Duke of Edinburgh award would demonstrate the capacity to successfully complete a degree course.

Once the required educational standard has been met for acceptance on the course, it seems to me legitimate to consider the likely contribution of an individual to campus life (or the Community of the University if you like).

NB - Mature students generally have an advantage in this area due to greater life experience.

To summarise that ... it is legitimate to set a minimum level of academic ability (whether that be measured by A levels, aptitude tests or some other means). Of the students who meet that level, it is to the advantage of the University and/or individual course to select from the pool based on all round contribution rather than simply choosing those with the highest academic qualifications.

So no, I don't think that universities should lower A level entrance grades for anyone unless they can demonstrate the appropriate academic ability by alternative means.

I don't think that the A'level entry grades should be lowered at all, we are seeing far too many individuals come through the university system who are just not up to doing a degree..they lack the academic ability as well as the mental attitude to do a degree. If anything I think that entry levels should be raised, or at least made consistent; i.e. if a university has places 'spare' at clearing I have known them (even the top 5) to drop their grade requirements to way below standard just to fill their courses.

Extra 'qualifications' such as the Duke of Edinburgh award are taken into account as they show that the candidate has an aptitude for a)working with others b)dedication to a project that they will see through to the end c)the initiative to work on their own merit, after all they applied to do the course-noone forced them. This is why such extra merits are taken into account-but they aren't always considered of course.

---

by Incandenza
Once the required educational standard has been met for acceptance on the course, it seems to me legitimate to consider the likely contribution of an individual to campus life (or the Community of the University if you like).

NB - Mature students generally have an advantage in this area due to greater life experience.

---

Ok, I will probably get shouted at by alot of people for this...but I have a *real* problem with alot of mature students. Mature students are drawn to psychology, as are alot of students, as they think it's an easy degree...quite frankly its not, but I am not going into that now! The mature students I have come across in 3 psychology departments I have been in fall into two categories: ones that have done the other things in life we all do i.e had children, made a home for themselves-and now they want to do something more with their lives, they are very dedicated to the degree..and the majority of the time go into the applied side of psychology i.e. counselling or ed psych. The other half see it as a way to 'burn' three years, they don't really want a degree, they aren't particularly interested in the subject & they don't really want to be studying..but hey its something to do, and being mature students they get money for doing it!
These mature student problems are further enhanced by the fact that they don't have to do A'levels to gain entry..oh no, an access course will do. I have two collegues that teach on access courses-we have such a laugh reading their work! lol. I think access courses should be banned full stop-they are just an easy way for someone over 25 to gain access to uni, and its not fair on the people who have slogged their guts out doing A'levels.

Ok, stopping now

(Edited by BettyBoop 19/04/2002 10:32)

erm frankly i dont think they realy care at all, i mean i got into uni on 1 a-level soi they probably dont realy care what you get or who you are, well that my opinion anyways

---

by BettyBoop


Ok, I will probably get shouted at by alot of people for this...but I have a *real* problem with alot of mature students. Mature students are drawn to psychology, as are alot of students, as they think it's an easy degree...quite frankly its not, but I am not going into that now! The mature students I have come across in 3 psychology departments I have been in fall into two categories: ones that have done the other things in life we all do i.e had children, made a home for themselves-and now they want to do something more with their lives, they are very dedicated to the degree..and the majority of the time go into the applied side of psychology i.e. counselling or ed psych. The other half see it as a way to 'burn' three years, they don't really want a degree, they aren't particularly interested in the subject & they don't really want to be studying..but hey its something to do, and being mature students they get money for doing it!
These mature student problems are further enhanced by the fact that they don't have to do A'levels to gain entry..oh no, an access course will do. I have two collegues that teach on access courses-we have such a laugh reading their work! lol. I think access courses should be banned full stop-they are just an easy way for someone over 25 to gain access to uni, and its not fair on the people who have slogged their guts out doing A'levels.

Ok, stopping now

---

Ok one question and I'm not shouting (honest)

From reading what your saying it strikes me that you believe "all" mature students have never taken A'levels ?

When I was at school (all those millions of years ago) we did O'levels and A'levels, if I decided to go to university at my "old" age, I would have "slogged my guts out" but it would have been a longer time ago... what's the difference in wether I did it last year or 18 years ago ?

---

by Incandenza
So no, I don't think that universities should lower A level entrance grades for anyone unless they can demonstrate the appropriate academic ability by alternative means.

---

I agree there should be a minimum academic ability, I don't think A-Levels are a very good way of demonstrating it.

I know a lot of people who didn't achieve their A-Level grades and were let onto the course anyway. I know other people who got their grades, but only just on generous offers. I wouldn't say they were underqualified for their courses, but for various reasons they did not perform their best at A-Level.

Equally, I've got two A-grade maths A-Levels: I would not be up to a mathematics degree. A-Levels do not demonstrate ability at a subject well. You can get very good grades on hard work without necessarily the ability to take the subject at degree level. You can be very talented at a subject and not have learnt, or been properly taught, the factual information which A-Level demands.

I'm in favour of the interview system as an assesment of potential (but I would be, I only got one uni offer and it was the one I interviewed for). Yes, it's subjective, but any assesment of potential is. There are a great many problems with it: you need experienced and unbiased interviewers; interviewing is time-consuming, to the point of being impossible for many universities.

So given that is not an option, I think entrance exams would be better than the current system. Some universities already use them in choosing the last offers to be made. Again, it is expensive and time consuming, but a good entrance exam can test reasoning and potential in a subject distinct from educational advantage or disadvantage. The US has this in the form of SATs, though I would not necessarily propose the same tests in mathematical and verbal reasoning.

This is one idea, and not a very good one at that. However, I do think the current system can be greatly improved upon.

---

by BettyBoop
These mature student problems are further enhanced by the fact that they don't have to do A'levels to gain entry..oh no, an access course will do. I have two collegues that teach on access courses-we have such a laugh reading their work! lol. I think access courses should be banned full stop-they are just an easy way for someone over 25 to gain access to uni, and its not fair on the people who have slogged their guts out doing A'levels.

---

My mother did A-Levels when she was 18. She was one of 6, 4 boys and 2 girls, and it was expected that the boys would go to uni and not the girls. She got married a few months after doing her A-levels and was a housewife for the next few years.

About 15 years after that, when my youngest brother was at school, she decided that she wanted to do something else with her life. She went to uni, where she got a First, followed by an MA, followed by a PhD. I don't think that counts as 'burning' three years? However, she had to do an access course to get onto her degree course, despite having done A-levels, because she had been out of education for 15 years. Perhaps you should think about what quality of work you would produce if you hadn't written an essay for 15 years before criticising people who are trying to take an opportunity that was denied them when they were 18.

Actually, I'm not convinced that 18-year-olds get the best out of university education. I know I didn't, I lived a typical student lifestyle, I may have done enough work to get a good degree but it wasn't a real reflection of what I could do. Although I know most people are the same, and the social skills I developed were equally valuable, I was extremely interested in my subject (English Literature) and I do regret that I never devoted much attention to it.

---

by Demona
I think entrance exams would be better than the current system. Some universities already use them in choosing the last offers to be made.

---

I'm not convinced about this, although a system of standardised tests like American SATs might work. I have serious doubts about anything more individual.

When I applied to uni, I applied to Oxford. At the time there were two routes to apply on, you could either take an entrance exam or apply for a conditional offer based on A-Levels. For someone like me, in her second year of A-Levels at a state sixth form college, there wasn't really a lot of choice: the exam syallabus included a large number of set texts that were not on my A-Level syllabus and there was no free time for coaching. For science subjects it may have been different as the body of knowledge is the same, but English syllabuses vary so widely that I would have had no chance at the exam. I do feel that this prejudices the system towards those applicants who can receive targetted coaching for the exam.

I thought most universities interviewed? Certainly when I applied I had two straight rejections, two rejections after interview and one interview that led to an offer (fortunately at the place I'd already decided I wanted to go to, after Oxford). My friends were in similar situations. Perhaps things have changed, but I don't know a lot of people who received offers without an interview.

---

by BettyBoop

(quotes)

..but hey its something to do, and being mature students they get money for doing it!
These mature student problems are further enhanced by the fact that they don't have to do A'levels to gain entry..oh no, an access course will do.
(Edited by BettyBoop 19/04/2002 10:32)

---

I went to uni as a mature student 5 years ago, and I had done O and A levels at school (though I know some haven't). As for getting money for doing it... I wish! I used my life savings and took out a full student loan every year to pay my tuition fees and live on (still owe over £5K). In the first year it worked out as me having £17 a week to live on and pay for everything - applied to the hardship fund and was turned down!!! Yes, I have fond memories of being a mature student...

---

by White Hart
(quotes)

I'm not convinced about this, although a system of standardised tests like American SATs might work. I have serious doubts about anything more individual.

When I applied to uni, I applied to Oxford. At the time there were two routes to apply on, you could either take an entrance exam or apply for a conditional offer based on A-Levels. For someone like me, in her second year of A-Levels at a state sixth form college, there wasn't really a lot of choice: the exam syallabus included a large number of set texts that were not on my A-Level syllabus and there was no free time for coaching. For science subjects it may have been different as the body of knowledge is the same, but English syllabuses vary so widely that I would have had no chance at the exam. I do feel that this prejudices the system towards those applicants who can receive targetted coaching for the exam.

---

English lit is an easy one to give an exam for - you give a piece of practical criticism/unseen whatever you want to call it. A fairly obscure text should be used to minimise the advantage to anyone, though knowledge of the source is not that great an advantage to prac crit.

History you do something similar in the way of source-based questions. It's not very hard to set an exam that doesn't require previous knowledge, though that inevitably helps.

My reservations about SAT-type exams is they are not subject specific. No doubt similar ability in verbal reasoning is required in english lit as history, for example, but I can tell you that my english lit essays would be far better than my history ones. There are differences between subjects despite common skills.

---

I thought most universities interviewed? Certainly when I applied I had two straight rejections, two rejections after interview and one interview that led to an offer (fortunately at the place I'd already decided I wanted to go to, after Oxford). My friends were in similar situations. Perhaps things have changed, but I don't know a lot of people who received offers without an interview.

---

I went through university application a year and a half ago now. As far as I'm aware only Oxbridge and medicine applicants had proper interviews.

---

by Demona
English lit is an easy one to give an exam for - you give a piece of practical criticism/unseen whatever you want to call it. A fairly obscure text should be used to minimise the advantage to anyone, though knowledge of the source is not that great an advantage to prac crit.

---

My argument against this is a total disaster of a seminar in my first year at university. One of our courses was 'Introduction to Literary Studies', which was basically prac crit, and the piece under discussion was Yeats's 'Easter 1916'. Of a group of about 8 of us I was the only person who hadn't looked at the date and immediately assumed that the poem was about the First World War, which led to a real failure to have any meaningful discussion whatsoever. Practical criticism is all very well but there will always be an advantage in being familiar with a period or genre, although I do accept that that's better than the Oxbridge-style exams I thought of at first.

Additionally, are you proposing a single 'University Entrance Exam' or individual exams set by individual universities? Given that sixth formers already have to do AS-Levels and A-Levels, wouldn't entrance exams be overloading them a bit?

---

by Demona
I went through university application a year and a half ago now. As far as I'm aware only Oxbridge and medicine applicants had proper interviews.

---

I'm surprised, things have obviously changed a great deal in the last 10 years.

(Edited by White Hart 21/04/2002 10:35)

---

by Sweet-Sange
(quotes)

Ok one question and I'm not shouting (honest)

From reading what your saying it strikes me that you believe "all" mature students have never taken A'levels ?

When I was at school (all those millions of years ago) we did O'levels and A'levels, if I decided to go to university at my "old" age, I would have "slogged my guts out" but it would have been a longer time ago... what's the difference in wether I did it last year or 18 years ago ?

---

If you read my post I do only refer to psychology students at 3 departments I have studied & worked in. The fact that you did your A'levels 18 years ago would have a huge bearing on your degree...research, theories & practical issues change on a monthly basis, so your work & knowledge would be completely out of date.

All I was saying is I believe that access courses should be harder, at least equivelant to A'levels-which at the moment for psychology (which is the only subject I refer to) they are not. All the people who I did my first degree with who came from access courses got a 3rd or below-and from an ex poly that is pretty hard to acheive. Statistically you are more likely to get a 2:1 than a 3rd-just to put it in perspective.

And I did say that they fall into 2 camps-those who are dedicate & those who aren't. So whitehart & halojones I think that you read my post wrong & misquoted me

---

by White Hart
(quotes)

My argument against this is a total disaster of a seminar in my first year at university. One of our courses was 'Introduction to Literary Studies', which was basically prac crit, and the piece under discussion was Yeats's 'Easter 1916'. Of a group of about 8 of us I was the only person who hadn't looked at the date and immediately assumed that the poem was about the First World War, which led to a real failure to have any meaningful discussion whatsoever. Practical criticism is all very well but there will always be an advantage in being familiar with a period or genre, although I do accept that that's better than the Oxbridge-style exams I thought of at first.

---

There is no way a good education will not be an advantage in any exam in any subject. I merely point out the best way to set an exam that does not require factual knowledge, beyond general knowledge.

Incidentally, my interview involved a prat crit exam. It was substantially different to the type of question I was used to answering for A-Level.

---

Additionally, are you proposing a single 'University Entrance Exam' or individual exams set by individual universities? Given that sixth formers already have to do AS-Levels and A-Levels, wouldn't entrance exams be overloading them a bit?

---

No idea, hadn't thought that far.
One exam is less of a burden on the students, many exams less of an organisational hassel for the universities. Getting all universities to agree on one format of exam would be no mean feat.

When my parents were applying for university I believe there was one Oxbridge entrance exam, but then when I was applying you couldn't apply to both Oxford and Cambridge anyway.

There are already STEP papers available to all universities, which are subject specific, requiring understanding rather than facts. I am only familiar by reputation with the mathematics and medicine papers: these are the sort of papers the teachers take a lot of thought over. Mostly they are used by Oxbridge, some for medecine and for the top mathematics courses.