Widening Participation/Contextual Admissions

[SometimesRavenSometimesParrot]

Hi all. I’ve seen quite a lot of posts lately where people seem a bit confused about different widening participation initiatives and contextual admissions, either how they work, why they work or why they’re even done... and some people asking questions about them and not getting anything resembling an accurate response.

I’ve worked in a WP team for seven years now (with a couple of short stints in admissions), so since I have often had excellent advice from Mumsnet and my questions answered, I thought I’d offer myself up to answer anything in this area someone might want to know.

I be name changed so I can be a bit more honest and I know there are several other posters who work or research in this area who might want to chip in!

Standard disclaimer of every uni works slightly different, so answers will be broad ranging - feel free to PM me if you’ve got a specific q!

@SmaugMum: I'm assuming that foster parents and adoptive parents can offer support, good food, study spaces, extra curricular activities, high levels of punctual school attendance that these children have not had, as well of course, as advocating for their children.

Surely the longer this goes on and the earlier this intervention, the greater the cumulative effect on the child's physical and mental health? I did also say that I assumed any prevailing issues be this physical/mental/emotional would also be taken into account.

I do not feel that anyone thinks fostering and adoption is a "magic wand". It's very clear that you and your daughter have achieved a great deal against high odds. When I read your post a few days ago, I was full of admiration and felt inspired. Everyone would wish her every success at university.

No one has many any adverse comments. It is right that you should advocate fiercely for your child, but no one here would seek to brush away or deny her access to a great university place, so I do think your comment to Xenia was mean

@Jenthefredo yes, that’s definitely more of a (quite naughty) recruitment technique than a widening access initiative!

@mids2019

I think one thing of interest is how to focus wider participation and ask ultimately will society change due to it.

Did Tony Blairs aspiration that 50% of children attend university lead to marked decreases in inequality in this country? I think that is a matter of debate.

So if WP is to improve social mobility does it have to be done on a wider scale?

Is it better to improve life chances more generally for the disadvantaged rather than give a small proportion opportunities to study at elite universities? I guess it depends on what your ultimate hope for such schemes are.

I feel that given that there are finite numbers of graduate jobs and places at elite universities one of the consequences of WP is that some of the more advantaged will lose out (possibly marginally in reality). Now this very well may be fair but I think it is prudent to acknowledge its factual.

I think honesty about the situation allows healthy debate.

@mids2019 we absolutely need a wider societal change to improve the lives of disadvantaged communities, but that’s out of the remit of universities. We need early years increased funding, sure start centres, better integration support for asylum and refugee seeking children and their families.

I think the work of the previous Labour governments had been derailed by austerity to some degree.

I don’t agree that WP work means advantaged students will miss out, the student numbers cap is lifted and there are increasing opportunities for degree apprenticeships. Ditto for graduate jobs - if anything with brexit we need MORE graduate jobs. Plus as @DelBocaVista pointed out earlier in the thread, the whole concept of how graduate job info is collected isn’t great, and getting a graduate job isn’t the only reason to go to university. I was very privileged last year to support a brilliant student into a degree course - he has quite severe ASD, chronic fatigue syndrome, some learning difficulties and extreme anxiety. With student support services and DSA he is coping well at university and I have every faith he’ll get his degree, but the reality is a graduate job is probably not something that he will want to pursue. It doesn’t mean university isn’t worthwhile for him.

Some of the utterly selfish and entitled attitudes on this thread are frankly appalling - I’m sure that the OP must be hitting her head off the desk at some of them.

I don’t know whether to be angry or sad about those of you who grudge the tiniest bit of extra help for some of the most disadvantaged children in the country.

@I0NA

I just wanted to thank *@SometimesRavenSometimesParrot* for her patience on this thread. Some of the posts here are fine examples of the maxim that when you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

I also wanted to mention that care experienced students resident in Scotland are eligible for a generous bursary from SAAS for each year of their uni studies. Foster children can also get funding for accommodation for the summer vacation, which can be useful if they still live with their former foster carers.

Sadly some English universities don’t give contextual offers to all Uk applicants, only English and Welsh.

Thank you! You’re very right as well, there is a lack of parity across the four nations which is an issue. Sadly I have no suggestions for how we might resolve this...

No problem for me. The thread was set up, in a sense, as an "ask me anything" in a sense which is always very useful on Mumsnet and we got into some interesting discussions about the wider issue which is probably not what the thread was for, We are equal opportunities failures in this family , laughing as I type, some of my children's difficulties in getting graduates jobs and my own 139 applications to law firms in 1982 despite being white and private school educated never mind top of the year perhaps just shows some jobs are hard to get and I am sure even harder for the children of my mother's 18 first cousins - the white working class boys of Sunderland with few role models around them. My own mother who did pass the 11 plus to grammar school was choosing between hair dressing and teaching and it was that choice to be a teacher which led to more money etc

I have no problems with given credit to those who come through from difficulties and I agree it needs a broad brush approach to some extent which means some unfairness for some.

I agree on the point about its being a pity the 4 parts of the UK are not consistent and similarly across England - I think we should be 100% comprehensives in the state sector or else everywhere has grammars. Teenagers in Wales have more university fees help than England. Scotland has its different system with no fees.

Is it better to improve life chances more generally for the disadvantaged rather than give a small proportion opportunities to study at elite universities? I guess it depends on what your ultimate hope for such schemes are.

Widening participation/contextual admissions are just a small part of the solution. Disadvantages should start to be tackled early. Nobody is suggesting that these programmes are a magic bullet but they are important and can make a difference.

I feel that given that there are finite numbers of graduate jobs and places at elite universities one of the consequences of WP is that some of the more advantaged will lose out (possibly marginally in reality). Now this very well may be fair but I think it is prudent to acknowledge its factual.

I always find comments like this quote odd and frustrating. Giving talented, capable young people who come from a disadvantaged background isn't taking anything away from talented, capable people who have had advantages.
There is no student number cap anymore so universities can recruit as many students as they like and (pre covid) the graduate labour market was buoyant (sector dependent obviously). What we want to see is people succeeding on merit and ability not just because of their parents' job, school attended or where they live.

Let's apply your sentiment to a different issue - do you think striving for women's equality in the labour market means men are now missing out? Should those of us who work on this issue be constantly reminded to think about the impact on men? Should we be worried about the lowering of standards by allowing more women in certain sectors?
Or do we acknowledge the impact of societal inequality, stereotypes and expectations on women's career decisions and development?

It's the same thing 🤷🏼‍♀️

Since the thread has gone into the wider topic, I wonder: will these university places translate into commensurate jobs? I do know Oxbridge grads doing nothing particularly lucrative or exciting. In the jostle for highly paid jobs employers will be looking for grades, achievement and polish. It’s the polish part that may be most difficult to crack.

Since the thread has gone into the wider topic, I wonder: will these university places translate into commensurate jobs? I do know Oxbridge grads doing nothing particularly lucrative or exciting. In the jostle for highly paid jobs employers will be looking for grades, achievement and polish. It’s the polish part that may be most difficult to crack.

The employability agenda is HUGE at universities. They employ Careers Consultants to work with students and academics and in many cases there are entire teams that deal with employer engagement. Many universities also employ a careers professional to work specifically with WP students and there are often specific projects that students can get involved in to develop their employability. There is a lot of work that goes on in this area.

However, not all employers look for 'polish' they look for potential

"What we want to see is people succeeding on merit and ability not just because of their parents' job, school attended or where they live. "

I agree and that ultimately may be the problem with contextualisation - that your single parent mother might have put every last penny into topping up your full bursary at your fee paying school and you worked like a dog and someone else's mother who never did a day's work in her life sent you to the local sink school where you did little work either and yet you get let into university with lower grades. The parent makes the choice of grammar school or state boarding school or private school so the child should not suffer for that through needing different exam grades to access the same course.

On numbers in the field of the law I was advised by my school in NE England not to apply as we had too many lawyers in the 1970s. I ignored not that read law. We have a lot more now. We used to ration plaes at law school based on number of jobs an changed that a long while back so that just about anyone can do the post grad courses if they have a 2/2 but the bottleneck is after that by which time people have more student loans. I think it is better having ath later bottleneck.

I do not think in a profession like law or medicine for that matter it is safe for the public to let anyone quality however. We need it to be difficult and only those up to standard passed. Other than that I could not care less whether they are white, black, blue, posh, rich or not well off as long as they are good at the job.

I am not against some contextualisation - we just have to keep track of it to make sure it is not being unfair the other way round too. Eg one law firm has a scheme you can only apply for if you are black and in London. That is fine as long as they do not breach the equality act race discrimination laws www.legalcheek.com/2019/09/leigh-day-advertises-specifically-for-black-aspiring-lawyers/ I am not sure if a firm advertised for white only Sunderland born lawyers or say only for men or only for women, they would get quite the same good press over it though so we do need to be fair to everyone if we can.

Just from personal experience, most careers teachers should be put in the stocks and a liberal supply of rotten fruit and vegetables handed to those who have been on the receiving end of their advice.

When I was at school - a so-called superselective grammar - I said I would like to go into publishing. “No, that’s too competitive,” I still remember the Maths teacher (“Careers with Miss McKenzie”) saying. At university, everyone was fobbed off with an M&S graduate training scheme form, no matter what they said they wanted to do, and now my dcs have had dubious advice.

Sil got hauled over the coals at her school for advising a clever pupil aspiring to be a doctor not to take Health & Social care as an option. Sil was told that she was to toe the line that all qualifications are equal.

Schools never seem to employ anyone clued up to dispense advice. It’s always a “oh, you can do this as an extra” type of role. Then add into that those with a chip on their shoulder. Dd was called a snob by her tutor because of her university choices and particularly why wasn’t she considering the local (duff) place. (One suspects the tutor may have been an alumnus....)

As so few grads get a 2:2 these days, the entry to law tends to limit itself. Around 6000 training positions (probably less now) and 450 barrister pupillages limits aspiration. 18,000 students study law every year. Plus grad level training is open to all-comers with any suitable degree. So do we really need all these law courses?

Of course 50% to university was going to make the divide more obvious. The 50% might feel a bit lowly. The demise of the colleges of HE has led to this. It has also led to many professions requiring degrees. Some, to their credit, have realised that degrees at 21 should not be the only route. Degree apprenticeships are often taken by the very best candidates: not ones who cannot get into university by the standard route. They can be hugely competitive. So who is successful getting these apprenticeships? They might be a better proposition for poor DC as the earnings roll in earlier, but do these DC get them?

I heartily agree that there should be targeted support for some children pre school. Sure Start was flooded with DC who did not need the interventions. The hard to reach parents were still that: hard to reach. There are still lots of DC who never get near a nursery, let alone have interventions before the age of 3. We are so "nice" that we never target limited resources. We go for scattergun and hope the DC that need the help get swept up.

We have been banging on about this for generations. All my working and volunteering life in education. It seems we cannot solve it but early intervention is better, in my view, (disclaimer - not a researcher so obviously I am wrong) but when DC are homeless, parent in prison, DC prone to running away, parents taking drugs/alcoholic or DC in care or abused, or there is parental violence, FGM, or a lone child with parents abroad, the outcomes are dire due to instability. As you might expect. Often refugeee children do better IF they are with their supportive intelligent parents. The supported child will do better but the very worst situations facing DC are often ignored because "nice" poorer children are seen as more deserving of support. Lots of the children I have referenced need family mentors and school mentors. The money we need to spend is vast but it needs to be targeted and not spent on families who do not need it but engineer themselves into a position to get it.

I agree and that ultimately may be the problem with contextualisation - that your single parent mother might have put every last penny into topping up your full bursary at your fee paying school and you worked like a dog and someone else's mother who never did a day's work in her life sent you to the local sink school where you did little work either and yet you get let into university with lower grades. The parent makes the choice of grammar school or state boarding school or private school so the child should not suffer for that through needing different exam grades to access the same course.

I think you are missing the point somewhat. We have an enormous amount of data that shows us patterns of disadvantage. This type of work is very data driven.
These examples actually make the case for contextual admissions in my opinion!!

On numbers in the field of the law I was advised by my school in NE England not to apply as we had too many lawyers in the 1970s. I ignored not that read law. We have a lot more now. We used to ration plaes at law school based on number of jobs an changed that a long while back so that just about anyone can do the post grad courses if they have a 2/2 but the bottleneck is after that by which time people have more student loans. I think it is better having ath later bottleneck.

The nature of higher education has changed which has impacted tings like this.

I do not think in a profession like law or medicine for that matter it is safe for the public to let anyone quality however. We need it to be difficult and only those up to standard passed. Other than that I could not care less whether they are white, black, blue, posh, rich or not well off as long as they are good at the job.

Again, we are not compromising on standards. Once at university a student who gained a place through a contextual admissions process will still have to complete the same work and same exams as all the other students.

I am not against some contextualisation - we just have to keep track of it to make sure it is not being unfair the other way round too. Eg one law firm has a scheme you can only apply for if you are black and in London. That is fine as long as they do not breach the equality act race discrimination laws www.legalcheek.com/2019/09/leigh-day-advertises-specifically-for-black-aspiring-lawyers/ I am not sure if a firm advertised for white only Sunderland born lawyers or say only for men or only for women, they would get quite the same good press over it though so we do need to be fair to everyone if we can.

Again, please don't assume these things aren't monitored!! Schemes like the one you've shared are data driven. They are perfectly legal.
there are lots of other similar projects for underrepresented groups across many sectors. I've been involved in many projects which were aimed at white working class boys for example.

Just from personal experience, most careers teachers should be put in the stocks and a liberal supply of rotten fruit and vegetables handed to those who have been on the receiving end of their advice.

As a qualified careers adviser I'll try not to take too much offense ......

When I was at school - a so-called superselective grammar - I said I would like to go into publishing. “No, that’s too competitive,” I still remember the Maths teacher (“Careers with Miss McKenzie”) saying. At university, everyone was fobbed off with an M&S graduate training scheme form, no matter what they said they wanted to do, and now my dcs have had dubious advice.

It sounds like that person wasn't a qualified careers adviser.
Define dubious advice.......

Sil got hauled over the coals at her school for advising a clever pupil aspiring to be a doctor not to take Health & Social care as an option. Sil was told that she was to toe the line that all qualifications are equal.

I find that very hard to believe. Was that person a qualified careers adviser?

Schools never seem to employ anyone clued up to dispense advice. It’s always a “oh, you can do this as an extra” type of role.

This is a huge issue and you can blame Michael Gove for this. However, it is now a statutory requirement that anyone giving personal guidance is qualified to at least a level 6.

Then add into that those with a chip on their shoulder. Dd was called a snob by her tutor because of her university choices and particularly why wasn’t she considering the local (duff) place. (One suspects the tutor may have been an alumnus....)

Don't blame careers for that. That is a teacher problem!

White working class boys as lawyers? How many? Or are these schemes for menial jobs?

Leigh Day like their publicity though.

Sorry for the offence! I didn’t mean all careers teachers - and I’m glad to hear of knowledgeable ones - but there do seem to be a fair few that are not fit for purpose.

On another issue, some with I’m sure decent intentions offer out-of-date advice, not health-checking some hitherto mainstream careers which have now all but disappeared.

We have been banging on about this for generations. All my working and volunteering life in education. It seems we cannot solve it but early intervention is better, in my view, (disclaimer - not a researcher so obviously I am wrong)
I agree. I'm working on a project that is pushing for statutory careers education in primary school.

Lots of the children I have referenced need family mentors and school mentors. The money we need to spend is vast but it needs to be targeted and not spent on families who do not need it but engineer themselves into a position to get it.

The problem is the lack of joined up thinking and funding. Connexions tried to address this but only the careers service really ran with it when we needed all services to be fully on board.
WP is only one part of a very big jigsaw.

White working class boys as lawyers? How many? Or are these schemes for menial jobs?

What makes you think they are for menial jobs?
I have worked on a number of projects which were devised on the basis of data showing us that there was a specific group that were underrepresented in specific subject areas or just in HE in general. I just used white working class boys as an example - there are numerous different projects which are reviewed regularly.

Sorry for the offence! I didn’t mean all careers teachers - and I’m glad to hear of knowledgeable ones - but there do seem to be a fair few that are not fit for purpose.

We have a huge skills shortage in the sector at the moment. The coalition government decimated the careers sector and it's taking us time to recover. There simply aren't enough qualified advisers out there at the moment and most choose to work in HE because it pays better.

On another issue, some with I’m sure decent intentions offer out-of-date advice, not health-checking some hitherto mainstream careers which have now all but disappeared

This can be an issue with teachers offering careers advice. I don't mean all teachers but research does show us that they are more likely to give out of date careers advice. So do parents!

A qualified careers adviser will be taught about the importance of up to date labour market information.

I think we can all come together on this thread and actually all agree on the same things - we want children to have equal opportunities. Working towards that common goal is what we are all after.

If we ever were to reach a tipping point where we let people into university who should not be there and there are so many of those no a course - eg no one has done all the reading around the subject in upper sixth for english lit at university that the general standard reduces then market forces should sort that out in due course.

I think we can all come together on this thread and actually all agree on the same things - we want children to have equal opportunities. Working towards that common goal is what we are all after.

Absolutely. I know first hand how transformational university can be and I'm very passionate about ensuring fair access to all.
My parents were 16 when they had me and grew up in one of the most deprived areas of the UK. University changed my life - I was very lucky.

@DelBocaVista
It was a question about what schemes working class boys go on. Not a statement. You can answer the question if you wish.

@Xenia
Market forces have been sorting it out. That is why so many grads do not get the jobs they want. Apprenticeships have halved in number from the hghest point.

However, MN posters believe university is not just about jobs. I think that is a luxury and tends to mean DC in areas of high housing costs do better - they see the need to. It is all around them. Money buys a property, nice things, more fun. Hence the home counties and London do very well at getting jobs. Just going to university because someone says you should and it is a nice thing to do, but a job does matter, seems a luxurious view and not productive.

It was a question about what schemes working class boys go on. Not a statement. You can answer the question if you wish

I can tell you specifically about projects i have been involved in. Those that have targeted white working class boys have been about HE access in general but other universities do more targeted projects.

• projects aimed at raising aspirations in relation to HE which targeted specific schools, postcodes and POLAR areas and one that worked with white working class boys

-Projects aimed at first generation students

• Projects on access to the professions ( my university covered Law and Pharmacy but it was a collaborative project between a number of universities so they covered other professions)

• Projects to encourage more girls into STEM subjects

-Projects to encourage more men into teaching and childcare.

There are loads out there!

However, MN posters believe university is not just about jobs. I think that is a luxury and tends to mean DC in areas of high housing costs do better - they see the need to. It is all around them. Money buys a property, nice things, more fun. Hence the home counties and London do very well at getting jobs. Just going to university because someone says you should and it is a nice thing to do, but a job does matter, seems a luxurious view and not productive.

Well, traditionally university wasn't about getting a job but the commodification of HE has changed that.
Actually all the research shows us that working class students are more occupationally focussed when it comes to HE choices. They are more likely to chose vocational courses and are more likely to state career progression as the reason for going to university.

Middle class students are more likely to chose a more traditional subject and go to university because it's what's expected of them.

The UK graduate labour market is multi-disciplinary meaning many graduate jobs don't specify a specific subject. This should allow people to choose a course they enjoy and focus on developing a wide range of transferable skills.